Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-09-22 Agenda Packet Historic Preservation Commission and Planning Commission Agenda September 22, 2021 COUNCIL CHAMBERS 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 7:00 p.m. A. Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance B. Public Communications This is the time and place for the general public to address the Commission on any item listed or not listed on the agenda. The Commission may not discuss any issue not included on the Agenda but set the matter for a subsequent meeting. C. Consent Calendar C1. Consideration to adopt Regular Meeting Minutes of September 8, 2021. D. Public Hearings D1. LOCATED AT 12322 and 12434 4th Street – BRIDGE POINT RANCHO CUCAMONGA, LLC – Recommendation to the City Council for a General Plan Amendment (DRC2020- 00213), Zoning Map Amendment (DRC2020-00267), Tentative Parcel Map (SUBTPM20271), Design Review (DRC2020-00202), Tree Removal Permit (DRC2020- 00266), Minor Use Permit (DRC2021-00315) and Development Agreement (DRC2021- 00180) to allow for the development of two industrial warehouse buildings on certain property located approximately 1,000 feet east of Santa Anita Avenue and 2,300 feet west of Etiwanda Avenue, north of 4th Street and south of 6th Street; APNS: 0229-283-50 and 51. An Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2020100056) was prepared for the project. Primary Case File No. DRC2020-00202. E. General Business E1. Findings of General Plan Conformity for Real Property Acquisition of Approximately 1.10 Acres Located at the Southwest Corner of San Bernardino Road and Klusman Avenue; APN: 0208-151-24. F. Director Announcements G. Commission Announcements H. Adjournment HPC/PC Agenda – September 22, 2021 Page 2 of 2 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. TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION The Planning Commission encourages free expression of all points of view. To allow all persons to speak, given the length of the agenda, please keep your remarks brief. If others have already expressed your position, you may simply indicate that you agree with a previous speaker. If appropriate, a spokesperson may present the views of your entire group. To encourage all views and promote courtesy to others, the audience should refrain from clapping, booing or shouts of approval or disagreement from the audience. The public may address the Planning Commission on any agenda item. To address the Planning Commission, please come forward to the podium. State your name for the record and speak into the microphone. After speaking, please complete a speaker card located next to the speaker’s podium. It is important to list your name, address (optional) 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 Communications.” As an alternative to participating in the meeting you may submit comments in writing to Elizabeth.Thornhill@cityofrc.us by 12:00 PM on the date of the meeting. Written comments will be distributed to the Commissioners and included in the record. AVAILABILITY OF STAFF REPORTS Copies of the staff reports or other documentation to each agenda item are available at www.CityofRC.us. APPEALS Any interested party who disagrees with the City Planning Commission decision may appeal the Commission’s decision to the City Council within 10 calendar days. Any appeal filed must be directed to the City Clerk’s Office and must be accompanied by a fee of $3,279 for all decisions of the Commission. (Fees are established and governed by the City Council). Please turn off all cell phones while the meeting is in session. I, Elizabeth Thornhill, Executive Assistant of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, or my designee, hereby certify that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on Thursday, September 16, 2021, seventy-two (72) hours prior to the meeting per Government Code 54954.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION AND AGENDA RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA September 8, 2021 @ 7:00 p.m. MEETING MINUTES The Regular meeting of the Historic Presentation Commission and Planning Commission was held on September 8, 2021. The meeting was called to order by the Chair Oaxaca at 7:00 p.m. A. Roll Cal Planning Commission present: Chair Oaxaca, Vice Chair Dopp, Commissioner Guglielmo, Commissioner Morales and Commissioner Williams. Staff Present: Nicholas Ghirelli, City Attorney; David Eoff IV, Acting Planning Director; Mike Smith, Principal Planner; Elizabeth Thornhill, Executive Assistant; Vincent Acuna, Associate Planner. B. Public Communications Chair Oaxaca opened the public communications and hearing no comment, closed public communications. C. Consent Calendar C1. Consideration to adopt Regular Meeting Minutes of August 25, 2021. Motion by Commissioner Guglielmo, second by Commissioner Williams to approve Consent Calendar. Motion carried unanimously 5-0 vote. D. Public Hearings D1. LOCATED AT 12774 BANYAN STREET - EGL ASSOCIATES, INC. - A request to subdivide a vacant 6.96-acre parcel into 9 residential lots for future single-family development, a Specific Plan Amendment to amend the site’s Specific Plan designation from Estate Residential (ER) to Very Low (VL) Residential within the Etiwanda Specific Plan, Equestrian Overlay, and a Tree Removal Permit to remove 157 Heritage Trees from the project site. Staff has prepared an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. Tentative Tract Map, Specific Plan Amendment, and Tree Removal Permit. APN: 0225-111-07. A Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts has been prepared for consideration. (SUBTT18012-1, DRC2016-00730, DRC2018-00898.) HPC/PC Regular Minutes – September 8, 2021 Page 2 of 2 Draft Vincent Acuna, Associate Planner, presented Commissioners with a Staff Report and presentation (copy on file). Chair Oaxaca asked the Commission if there were any comments for staff on this public hearing item. With no further discussion from Commissioners, Chair Oaxaca opened public hearing. With no comments from the Public, Chair Oaxaca closed public hearing. Commissioners expressed general support of the project. Motion by Commissioner Williams, second by Commissioner Morales, to adopt the proposed Resolutions 21-47, 21-48, 21-49 to approve Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18012-1, Tree Removal Permit DRC2018-00898 and Specific Plan Amendment DRC2016-00730. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0 vote. E. Director Announcements David Eoff, Acting Planning Director, announced the General Plan EIR is moving along and will be released this Friday, 9/9/2021 on the City website. He mentioned a pre-recorded video is being prepared that discusses the EIR that will be available at a later date. He also provided an update on the Regina Winery RFP project that included details on the entire process, what has occurred to date, what is coming next, and details on the City Council Special Workshop that occurred earlier in the afternoon. Elizabeth Thornhill, Executive Assistant, asked Commissioners to select an alternate meeting date to replace November 24th (day before Thanksgiving Holiday). Commissioners agreed to meet on Monday, November 22nd and start the meeting at 6:00 p.m. She also mentioned December 22nd meeting will not be cancelled. We plan to have the meeting unless no items are submitted. F. Commission Announcements - None G. Adjournment Motion by Commissioner Morales, second by Chair Oaxaca to adjourn the meeting, motion carried unanimously, 5-0 vote. Meeting was adjourned at 7:28 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ________________________ Elizabeth Thornhill Executive Assistant, Planning Department Approved: DATE: September 22, 2021 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Anne McIntosh, AICP, Planning Director INITIATED BY: Sean McPherson, AICP SUBJECT: LOCATED AT 12322 and 12434 4th Street – BRIDGE POINT RANCHO CUCAMONGA, LLC – Recommendation to the City Council for a General Plan Amendment (DRC2020-00213), Zoning Map Amendment (DRC2020-00267), Tentative Parcel Map (SUBTPM20271), Design Review (DRC2020-00202), Tree Removal Permit (DRC2020-00266), Minor Use Permit (DRC2021-00315) and Development Agreement (DRC2021-00180) to allow for the development of two industrial warehouse buildings on certain property located approximately 1,000 feet east of Santa Anita Avenue and 2,300 feet west of Etiwanda Avenue, north of 4th Street and south of 6th Street; APNS: 0229-283-50 and 51. An Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2020100056) was prepared for the project. Primary Case File No. DRC2020-00202. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council certify the Environmental Impact Report, make findings pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, adopt a mitigation monitoring and reporting program, and approve General Plan Amendment (DRC2020-00213), Zoning Map Amendment (DRC2020-00267), Tentative Parcel Map (SUBTPM20271), Design Review (DRC2020-00202), Tree Removal Permit (DRC2020-00266), Minor Use Permit (DRC2021-00315) and Development Agreement (DRC2021- 00180) through the adoption of the attached Resolutions. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The applicant, Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga, LLC, proposes the construction of two new industrial warehouse buildings totaling approximately 2,175,000 square feet combined on property currently addressed as 12322 and 12434 4th Street. The project requires the demolition of existing structures located on the site totaling approximately 1,454,240 square feet combined, which includes one existing industrial warehouse building totaling approximately 1,431,000 square feet and one retail building totaling approximately 23,240 square feet. The proposed project includes the construction of one new north-south street which will connect 4th Street and 6th Street. The applicant and City have negotiated a development agreement which includes a variety of provisions intended to off-set any adverse impacts the project may cause that are not otherwise mitigated through CEQA. Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 17.14.060.B, “when a proposed project requires more than one permit with more than one approving authority, all project permits shall be processed concurrently, and final action shall be taken by the highest-level designated approving authority for all such requested permits.” The City Council is the highest-level approving authority because it must approve the General Plan and Zoning amendments and development agreement. Staff has opted to process the package of entitlements concurrently such that the Planning Commission is the recommending body for all of the entitlements. Page 2 of 10 BACKGROUND: The project site totals approximately 91.39 acres and is comprised of two adjacent parcels (APN: 0229-283-50 and 0229-283-51), generally located between Santa Anita Avenue to the west, Etiwanda Avenue to the east, 4th Street to the south and 6th Street to the north. A rail spur running east and west borders the property to the north parallel to 6th Street which serves the subject site and the site to the east, north of the West Valley Detention Center. This rail spur also turns south into the property, running north and south parallel to the easterly property line. Staff notes that there is an approximate 40-foot elevation difference between 4th and 6th Streets which spans the site from north to south, approximately 3,200 feet. The site is currently improved with two buildings: a large industrial warehouse building addressed 12434 4th Street, totaling approximately 1,431,000 square feet in size and a smaller concrete tilt-up building addressed 12322 4th Street, totaling approximately 23,240 square feet. Both existing buildings were built in 1984, with the larger building serving as a distribution center for Big Lots, and the smaller building serving as a retail store for Big Lots, until this tenant vacated the site in February 2020. Most recently, the large warehouse building was occupied by Geodis Logistics as a temporary distribution facility. This tenant only recently vacated the site in May 2021, but the facility currently remains viable for warehouse uses. The smaller concrete tilt-up building formerly housing the Big Lots retail store is currently vacant. The remainder of the project site comprises landscaped areas, drive aisles, parking areas and trailer parking and loading areas. A portion of the project site along 6th Street comprises approximately 11 acres of vacant land which was previously a vineyard. All existing improvements with the exception of the existing rail spur will be demolished as part of the proposed project. After the applicant submitted their application, but before it was deemed complete, the City Council enacted a moratorium on November 4, 2020 to prohibit certain industrial uses while the City updated its code standards in response to rising interest and significant demand for the development of new industrial uses and the redevelopment of legacy uses largely located within the Southeast Industrial Quadrant (SEIQ), an area of the City bounded by Arrow Route to the north, 4th Street to the south, I-15 Freeway to the west, and the City’s jurisdictional limit line to the east. Following the expiration of the moratorium on June 30, 2021, the City Council adopted Ordinance 982 on July 7 which established new development standards for industrial projects throughout the City in response to this demand in industrial development. Notably, the subject project is deemed exempt from Ordinance 982 as the subject development application had been deemed complete on March 11, 2021, which is prior to the adoption of Ordinance 982. Pursuant to Development Code Section 17.02.020F.1, “all land use permit applications that are active and that have been determined by the planning director to be complete before the effective date of this title, or any amendments thereto, will be processed according to the regulations in effect when the application was deemed complete.” Thus, as the subject application was deemed complete prior to the adoption of Ordinance 982, it has been analyzed against standards in effect prior to the adoption of Ordinance 982. PROJECT ANALYSIS: The project site is currently divided between both the General Industrial (GI) and Heavy Industrial (HI) General Plan land use designations. Similarly, the project site is also split between the Neo-Industrial (NI) and Industrial Employment (IE) zoning districts. The development application also includes a request for a General Plan Amendment and Zoning Map Amendment to convert the entire project site to the General Industrial (GI) land use designation and Neo-Industrial (GI) zoning district. The existing General Plan and Zoning designations for the project site and adjacent properties are as follows: Land Use General Plan Zoning* Site Industrial Warehouse, Commercial Retail and former vineyard Heavy Industrial (HI) and General Industrial (GI) Industrial Employment (IE) and General Industrial (GI) District Page 3 of 10 *Prior to the adoption of Ordinance 982, the Neo-Industrial District was referred to as the General Industrial District and the Industrial Employment District was referred to as the Heavy Industrial District. The applicant proposes to subdivide the project site into two new parcels, Parcel 1 and Parcel 2, in order to accommodate the construction of two new industrial warehouse buildings totaling a cumulative 2,175,000 square feet in size. Parcel 1 proposes an area of approximately 55 acres with street frontage along 4th Street and will be improved with Building 1 totaling 1,422,500 square feet. Parcel 2 proposes an area of approximately 30 acres with street frontage along 6th Street and will be improved with Building 2 totaling 752,500 square feet. As a result of this project, a new public road (labeled as “Street A” in the attached plan set), is proposed to be constructed. The City has determined that this new street shall be named ”Catherine Bridge Place,” in honor of First Lieutenant Catherine Vail Bridge, a long time resident who served in World War II as a Women Airforce Service Pilot (WASP) and who was a critical proponent of the City’s incorporation. Catherine Bridge Place will run parallel to the easterly property line of the project site running north and south and will connect 4th Street and 6th Street providing street frontage to both new parcels. Building 1 will have office and mezzanine areas not to exceed 25,000 square feet and a maximum height of 54 feet. Building 2 will have office and mezzanine areas not to exceed 16,000 square feet and a maximum height of 50 feet. Access will be provided to Building 1 from 4th Street and Catherine Bridge Place. Access to Building 2 will be provided from 6th Street and Catherine Bridge Place. The applicant is proposing this project as speculative development and no tenants have been identified for either building at his time. However, the applicant has agreed to preclude so-called “sort” use tenants that serve as distribution centers for smaller items that require extensive, manual sorting and generate greater traffic demands. The applicant has applied for a minor use permit for a large distribution center/warehouse that does not incorporate a sort use. Architecture: The proposed industrial warehouse buildings meet the City’s 360-degree architectural standards. Each building provides well-defined articulation and a varied use of architectural features creating an attractive aesthetic. For example, the long span of each façade facing both 4th and 6th Streets provides a well-articulated wall plane. Further, the street facing corner of each building provides office tower elements which exhibit a vertical concrete accent feature. These corner elements also provide an aluminum storefront system framed by an aluminum panel cornice. Throughout each elevation, the typical concrete tilt-up façade is punctuated by panel joints, reveals and windows. The project also provides an attractive and varied color pallet to break up the expanse of the façade which includes “Pure White Field Color” (Sherwin Williams SW 7005), “Network Gray” (SW 7073), “Cyberspace” (SW 7076), and “Dignity Blue” (SW 6804). The proposed project exceeds all applicable development standards according to the development code prior to the adoption of Ordinance 982 for the Neo-Industrial (NI) district (formerly General Industrial), as shown in the table below: North Industrial Heavy Industrial (HI) Industrial Employment (IE) District South Industrial (City of Ontario) Industrial Industrial (Crossroads Business Park Specific Plan) West Industrial General Industrial (GI) Industrial Employment (IE) and Neo-Industrial (NI) District East Industrial and Public Facility Heavy Industrial (HI) and Civic/Regional Industrial Employment (IE) and Neo-Industrial (NI) District Development Standard Required Proposed Complies? Building Height Maximum 35 feet (at front setback) and Building 1: 54 feet; Building 2: 50 feet YES Page 4 of 10 Parking: Pursuant to Development Code Section 17.64.050, 17.64.090 and Table 17.64.050-1, auto parking for warehouse/storage uses is based on a tiered ratio as illustrated in the table below. In addition, office areas require parking at 1 stall per 250 square feet. Further, the development code requires 1 trailer loading stall for each dock door proposed. As such, the proposed project is required to provide 469 auto parking stalls and 184 trailer loading stalls for Building 1, and 268 auto parking stalls and 91 trailer loading stalls for Building 2. The table below demonstrates the project’s compliance with all parking standards: Parking Ratio Required Parking Provided Parking Complies? Warehouse/storage and office 1 per 1,000 sf for the first 20,000 sf; 1 per 2,000 sf for the next 20,000 sf, and 1 per 4,000 sf for remaining sf Office requires 1 per 250 sf Building 1: 469 stalls; Building 2: 268 stalls Building 1: 478; Building 2: 268 YES Trailer Loading Stalls 1 per loading dock Building 1: 184; Building 2: 91 Building 1: 221; Building 2: 91 YES Alternative Rail Serve Plan: As the project site is bounded to the north and east by an existing rail spur, the project is required to demonstrate that rail service is possible pursuant to Development Code Section 17.36.040.D.6 which was in effect prior to the adoption of Ordinance 982. The applicant is not required to 75 feet (1-foot increment from the front setback line) Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 50-60% Building 1: 59.2%; Building 2: 57.8% YES Front Building Setback 45 feet (4th Street); 35 feet (6th Street) Building 1: ~118 feet (4th Street); Building 2: ~215 feet (6th Street) YES Street Side Setback 25 Feet (Catherine bridge Place) Building 1: ~185 feet; Building 2: ~93 feet YES Average Depth of Landscape 45 feet (4th Street); 35 feet (6th Street); 25 feet (Catherine Bridge Place) 45 feet (4th Street); ~72 feet (6th Street); 25 feet (Catherine Bridge Place) YES Parking Setback 25 feet (4th Street); 20 feet (6th Street); 15 feet (Catherine Bridge Place) 46 feet (4th Street); ~72 feet (6th Street); 25 feet (Catherine Bridge Place) YES Interior Side Yard Setback Min. 5 feet Building 1: 136 feet Building 2: 45 feet YES Rear Yard Setback Min. 0 feet Building 1: 77 feet Building 2: ~90 feet YES Open Space/Landscape Standards 10% 10% YES Page 5 of 10 construct rail-related improvements on the property; however, the plans must demonstrate that the site could have a functional/practical rail service if any future owner/tenant decides that rail service is required/desired. Accordingly, the applicant has provided an Alternative Rail Serve Plan (Sheet A1-5P of the attached plan set). The applicant’s Alternative Rail Serve Plan demonstrates that both buildings can accommodate rail pursuant to Development Code standards in effect at the time the application was deemed complete. Traffic Improvements: As a result of the proposed project, certain improvements are required to improve traffic circulation adjacent to the site, as well as in the vicinity of the SEIQ. In addition to the new north-south street proposed along the easterly property line of the site which will connect 4th Street and 6th Street, additional traffic related public improvements have been included in the development agreement consisting of minor traffic signal modifications, signal timing, and pavement restriping improvements at the I-15 and 4th Street Interchange and signal timing updates along Foothill Boulevard from East Avenue to I-15 to improve operations at the intersection of Etiwanda Avenue and Foothill Boulevard. Entitlements for Proposed Development: The project requires a General Plan Amendment, a Zoning Map Amendment, a Tentative Parcel Map, a Design Review and a Tree Removal Permit. Further, the applicant proposes to enter into a Development Agreement with the City, which requires the review and approval of an ordinance by the City Council. Lastly, the applicant is also requesting the approval of a Minor Use Permit in anticipation of the building being utilized as a Large Distribution/Fulfillment Center. General Plan Amendment (DRC2020-00213): Currently, the general plan land use designation across the project site is split between General Industrial (GI) and Heavy Industrial (HI). The applicant has applied for a General Plan Amendment to redesignate the general plan land use of the entire project site as General Industrial (GI), thereby eliminating the HI land use designation from the project area. Staff notes that the City is currently processing a comprehensive general plan update, known as “PlanRC.” It is presently anticipated that this general plan update will redesignate this site as “Industrial Employment,” a land use designation which is intended to facilitate the heaviest industrial uses permitted within the City, including but not limited to, large distribution and logistics facilities, certain types of e-commerce uses and other uses which are similar to those currently permitted within the Heavy Industrial (HI) land use designation. However, the proposed GI designation currently allows for the potential warehouse uses proposed for the Project site, including large distribution/fulfillment centers. Therefore, the Project would be consistent with the General Plan, as amended by the proposed application. Zoning Map Amendment (DRC2020-00267): Similar to the split land use designation, the site is also split between the Neo-Industrial and Industrial Employment (IE) zoning districts. As noted previously, prior to the adoption of Ordinance 982, the Neo-Industrial and Industrial Employment districts were referred to as the General Industrial and Heavy Industrial districts, respectively. The applicant has requested that the project area be re-zoned to the NI District, which is similar to the GI zoning district in place prior to the adoption of Ordinance 982. Given that the NI zoning district is consistent with the prior GI zoning district and allows a similar range of uses, the proposed new NI zoning would be consistent with the General Plan, as amended to reflect a GI land use designation throughout the site. Tentative Parcel Map (SUBTPM20271): As mentioned, the project includes a request to approve a Tentative Parcel Map to consolidate the two existing parcels within the project area and subdivide them into two new lots, Parcel 1 and Parcel 2. Parcel 1 proposes an area of approximately 55 acres with street frontage along 4th Street and Catherine Bridge Place and Parcel 2 proposes an area of approximately 30 acres with street frontage along 6th Street and Catherine Bridge Place. Staff has reviewed the Tentative Parcel Map and has determined that it complies with the relevant development standards, subject to certain conditions of approval. Tree Removal Permit (DRC2020-00266): Pursuant to Development Code Section 17.16.080 as written prior to the adoption of Ordinance 982, a tree removal permit is required to permit the removal of a heritage tree which meets at least one of the following criteria: 1. All eucalyptus windrows; or Page 6 of 10 2. Any tree in excess of 30 feet in height and having a single trunk diameter at breast height (DBH) of 20 inches or more as measured 4 ½ feet from ground level; or 3. Multi-trunk trees having a total diameter at breast height (DBH) of 30 inches or more as measured 4 ½ feet from ground level; or 4. A stand of trees the nature of which makes each dependent upon the others for survival; or 5. Any other tree as may be deemed historically or culturally significant by the planning director because of age, size, condition, location or aesthetic qualities. 589 trees exist onsite which include 125 heritage trees. The project will result in the removal of 464 non-heritage trees and 101 heritage trees. Thus, a tree removal permit is required. 24 existing heritage trees will remain in place. In addition to these heritage trees remaining in place, and pursuant to tree replacement requirements established in the Development Code, the project will also result in 712 onsite trees, including 229 new street trees and 107 replacement heritage trees. Minor Use Permit (DRC2021-00315): While the General Plan Amendment, Zoning Map Amendment, Tentative Parcel Map, Design Review and Tree Removal Permit are exempt from Ordinance 982, these applications did not address the potential uses/tenants for the project because the project is being building on a speculative basis. Therefore, no pending use permit application was deemed complete prior to the effective date of Ordinance 982, and future uses by tenants who occupy the building will be subject to new standards under Ordinance 982. Thus, the applicant is requesting the review and approval of a Minor Use Permit subject to Development Code Section Table 17.30.030-1 as amended by Ordinance 982, in order to attract a new tenant under the use classification of a “Large Distribution/Fulfillment Center.” Development Code Section 17.32.020.G.3 (modified as part of Ordinance 982) classifies Large Distribution Fulfillment Centers as “E- Commerce Distribution” and provides the following definition(s) for this use: E-Commerce Distribution. Activities that involve the buying, selling, and distribution of products and associated services over the internet or through mobile applications. Products are transported using freight trucks and stored in warehouses or fulfillment centers to then be distributed to designated shipping locations using delivery trucks. Includes the following categories of e-commerce distribution. a. Distribution/Fulfillment Center. A fulfilment center or similar use’s primary purpose is storage and distribution (non-sort) of e-commerce products to consumers or end-users, either directly or through a parcel hub. These facilities shall have a minimum ceiling height of 24 feet. 1. Distribution/Fulfillment Center, Large. A distribution/fulfillment center with a minimum gross floor area over 50,000 square feet. Pursuant to Table 17.30.030-1 as amended by Ordinance 982 requires a Minor Use Permit for Large Distribution Fulfillment Centers. Development Agreement (DRC2021-00180): The developer has proposed to enter into a Development Agreement with the city. Pursuant to Development Code Section 17.22.060.A.1, development agreements: 1. Increase the certainty in the approval of development projects, thereby preventing the waste of resources, reducing the cost of development to the consumer, and encouraging investment in and commitment to comprehensive planning, all leading to the maximum efficient utilization of resources at the least economic cost to the public; 2. Provide assurance to the applicant for a development project that upon approval of the project, the applicant may proceed with the project in accordance with existing policies, rules and regulations, and subject to conditions of approval thereby strengthening the public planning process, encouraging private participation in comprehensive planning, and reducing the economic costs of development; Page 7 of 10 3. Enable the city to plan for and finance public facilities, including but not limited to, streets, sewerage, transportation, drinking water, school and utility facilities, thereby removing a serious impediment to the development of new housing. The proposed Development Agreement (hereafter referred to as the “Agreement”), includes, but is not limited to, the following major terms which are summarized below: • The term of the development agreement would initially be six years, with an option for the applicant to extend the term by nine years upon payment of $2 million. • A requirement for future tenants to designate Rancho Cucamonga as the point of sale for the material handling equipment used in Project’s operations; • A requirement that the developer shall pay a “Community Benefit Fee,” in order to address the Project’s expected impacts on affordable housing demand, future greenhouse gas emissions, fire protection services, environmental justice and related impacts typically associated with large warehouse development. The amount of the Community Benefit Fee to be paid by the developer totals $9 million dollars paid to the city in four installments up to the fifth year of operations of Buildings 1 and 2, with the first installment of $3 million to be paid when grading permits are pulled. The applicant may receive a refund of up to $3 million if a project tenant generates a certain amount of sales tax to the City; • A requirement that the developer complete certain traffic improvements involving improvements to signal timing and restriping and pay a “Fair Share” contribution to the City’s Industrial Area Traffic Improvement fund in the amount of $37,089; • A requirement that the developer will pay for, and construct to city standards, a new public street (”Catherine Bridge Place”) along the east side of the project site, which will run north-south and connect 4th Street and 6th Street; • A requirement that the developer will contribute $1 million as an in-lieu fee, and work in good faith to assist the city in obtaining approval from the California Public Utilities Commission to permit and construct an At-Grade crossing at 6th Street; Design Review Committee: The Design Review Committee (Williams, Oaxaca, and Smith) reviewed the project on April 20, 2021. No members of the public attended the meeting to speak on the item, and the Design Review Committee recommended that the item be forwarded to the Planning Commission as presented. Public Art: The project is subject to the public art requirement provided in Chapter 17.124 of the Development Code. As an industrial development, this project would typically include artwork that has a minimum value that meets or exceeds one dollar per square foot. While the valuation to satisfy the public art requirement would be approximately $2,175,000 (as it is based on square footage of the project), staff notes that pursuant to the proposed development agreement, all but $200,000 of this amount will be transferred to the proposed community benefit fee. As a condition of approval for the project, the applicant shall be required to install art on-site at a minimum value of $200,000, pursuant to Chapter 17.124 of the Development Code. Fiscal Impact Analysis: The applicant has provided a Fiscal Impact Analysis (Kosmont, 2020, rev. 2021), which estimates that the subject project would produce approximately 1,678 jobs. Further, this analysis anticipates that the project would result in estimated annual General Fund revenues of $599,500. Accounting for anticipated general fund expenditures related to the project of $196,800, the estimated net fiscal impact to the City is anticipated to be approximately $402,700 annually. To offset any impacts on the project’s impacts to affordable housing demand, the developer and the City have negotiated the development agreement discussed above which provides revenue intended to offset any adverse fiscal impacts of the project. CEQA DETERMINATION: Pursuant to the California Environmental Act (CEQA), an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH No. 2020100056), has been prepared for this project. Under CEQA, the purpose of an EIR is to inform the public Page 8 of 10 about any significant impacts to the physical environment resulting from a project, identify ways to avoid or lessen the impacts, identify alternatives, and promote public participation. The contents of the EIR become a planning tool for the Planning Commission and City Council to use in determining the appropriate and best land use for the project site. The intent of this EIR is to address and evaluate potentially significant impacts of the proposed project and identify feasible mitigation measures and alternatives that may be adopted to reduce or eliminate these impacts. A summary of all of the project-related impacts and the recommended mitigation measures is provided in the Final EIR. The following summarizes key points in the environmental review process: Notice of Preparation and Public Scoping Meeting: The Notice of Preparation (NOP) serves as public notification that an EIR is being prepared and requests comment and input from responsible agencies and other interested parties regarding environmental issues to be addressed in the document. In addition to the NOP, CEQA recommends conducting a scoping meeting for the purpose of identifying the range of potential significant impacts that should be analyzed within the scope of the Draft EIR. The public scoping meeting is to receive public testimony on those issues that the public would like to have addressed in the EIR as it relates to the project and environment. Accordingly, a notice advertising both the NOP and Public Scoping Meeting was prepared for the project and circulated on October 2, 2020 to the State Clearinghouse (SCH No. 2020100056), public agencies, Native American tribes, those interested parties who had previously requested notification and all property owners within 660 feet of the subject site. The notice advertising the NOP and the public scoping meeting was also published in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin on October 2, 2020 and made publicly available on the city’s website. the Public Scoping Meeting was held virtually over Zoom on October 15, 2020. No members of the public or any interested party provided comments at the Public Scoping Meeting. The public comment period to respond to the NOP closed on November 2, 2020 and comment letters were received from California Department of Fish and Wildlife, California Department of Transportation, Native American Heritage Commission, Southcoast Air Quality Management District, and Inland Empire Biking Alliance. Written responses to all significant environmental issues raised were prepared and made available in the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR). AB 52 and SB 18 Compliance: Notification in accordance with AB 52 was sent on July 20, 2021, to tribal communities from a list of six tribes that have required notification by the city. Notification in accordance with SB 18 was sent out to twelve tribal communities on August 24, 2020. One tribe (Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation) requested consultation. In response to this request, staff held a conference call with the tribe on November 4, 2020, at which point representatives of this tribe requested that mitigation measures be included in the CEQA document requiring an onsite tribal monitor during earthmoving activities. Additional comments were provided by Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation in writing which have been included as mitigations. In addition to the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation, the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians (SMBMI) also responded with comments though they did not request consultation. Rather the SMBMI provided language which they requested “be made a part of the project/permit/plan conditions.” Accordingly, language from SMBMI has been incorporated into the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP). Thus, the CEQA document prepared for the project reflects the requested language/mitigation measures. Draft EIR Preparation and Circulation: Following the NOP and Public Scoping Meeting, a DEIR was prepared and was distributed to all Responsible and Trustee agencies, and individuals who had requested to review the DEIR. The DEIR was distributed for a 45-day public review period on May 7, 2021 with the comment period concluding on June 21, 2021. A Notice of Availability including electronic links to the DEIR and all technical appendices was posted at the County, published in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin, mailed to all property owners within 660 feet, interested parties requesting such notification and posted on the city’s website on May 7, 2021. Further, and also on May 7, 2021, the DEIR and all technical appendices were provided to the Office of Planning Page 9 of 10 and Research via the online “CEQAnet” portal for distribution to Responsible and Trustee agencies and hard copies of the DEIR and all technical appendices were provided for public review at the following locations: • Archibald Library – 7368 Archibald Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730; • Paul A Biane Library – 12505 Cultural Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91739; • Planning Department Public Counter at City Hall – 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730. Comments were received from Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo, Attorneys at Law, on behalf of California’s Allied for a Responsible Economy (“CARECA),” the California Air Resources Board (CARB), and from an individual resident, Mark Rush. Written responses to all significant environmental issues raised were prepared and made available in the Final EIR (FEIR). Staff notes that two additional comment letters were received from Blum Collins, Attorneys at Law, on behalf of Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance and Mitchell Tsai, Attorney at Law, on behalf of Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters. Both of these letters were withdrawn by the commenters, with each noting that the Project developer had sufficiently addressed their concerns. These comment letters, responses to comments and the commenter’s withdrawal letters are included with this staff report as Exhibits 7 and 8. The administrative DEIR and FEIR are included with this staff report as Exhibits 3 and 4. Technical appendices and supporting documentation can be referenced on the City‘s website under the tab ”CEQA Documents Available for Review“ under the Current Projects & Planning Initiatives which can be accessed here: https://www.cityofrc.us/community-development/planning Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program (MMRP): In compliance with CEQA, a monitoring program has been prepared. The MMRP is a reporting program that identifies each adopted mitigation measure or project design feature that reduces the significance level of a particular impact. The MMRP indicates responsibility and timing milestones for each mitigation measure. Findings of Fact in Support of Determinations Related to Significant Environmental Impacts: The EIR concludes that upon implementation of the project and all recommended mitigation measures, impacts associated with the project would remain less than significant. No significant and unavoidable impact was identified; thus, it is determined that no Statement of Overriding Consideration is required to be adopted. CORRESPONDENCE: A notice of public hearing was mailed to all property owners within 1,500 feet of the subject property, the site was posted, and a notice of public hearing was published in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin on September 8, 2021. In addition to the comments received as part of the CEQA process, staff also received one phone call from an individual who owns property near the project site who expressed clarification on the location and scope of the project, and expressed general concerns about traffic. No other comments or correspondence have been received in response to these notices as of the writing of this report. COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / GOAL(S) ADDRESSED: The development of the project achieves the City Council’s Core Value of “Intentionally embracing and anticipating the future,” and “continuous improvement.” In addition to providing the city with new industrial warehouse facilities which will attract quality tenants, the project also results in the construction of a new public street which will improve circulation in the SEIQ by providing an additional north-south connection between 4th and 6th Streets. The development of the project will also aide in facilitating the completion of an east-west at- grade crossing at 6th Street, thereby also improving east-west access throughout the SEIQ. Page 10 of 10 EXHIBITS: Exhibit A - Vicinity Map and Aerial Photograph Exhibit B - Project Plans Exhibit C - Draft EIR Exhibit D - Final EIR Exhibit E - EIR Findings Exhibit F - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Exhibit G - Blum Collins Comments, Responses, and Withdrawal Letter Exhibit H - Mitchell Tsai Letter Comments, Responses and Withdrawal Letter Exhibit I - Design Review Committee Comments Exhibit J - Planning Commission Resolution General Plan Amendment DRC2020-00213 Exhibit K - Planning Commission Resolution Zoning Map Amendment DRC2020-00267 Exhibit L - Planning Commission Resolution Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM20271 Exhibit M - Planning Commission Resolution Design Review DRC2020-00202 Exhibit N - Planning Commission Resolution Tree Removal Permit DRC2020-00266 Exhibit O - Planning Commission Resolution Minor Use Permit DRC2021-00315 Exhibit P - Planning Commission Resolution Development Agreement DRC2021-00180 and Draft Development Agreement Vicinity Map and Aerial Photograph Project Site 4th Street APN: 0229-283-50 Etiwanda Avenue APN: 0229-283-51 Exhibit A EX. 33" STORM DRAINXXXXXXXXXXXXXXZONING: HIHEAVY INDUSTRIAL35' BUILDINGSETBACK LINEZONING: GIGENERAL INDUSTRIAL45' BUILDINGSETBACK LINE5' BUILDING SETBACK LINE 5' BUILDING SETBACK LINE BOUNDARY LINECITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGABOUNDARY LINECITY OF ONTARION 89Ā49'26" E 1201.09'1797.03' 5' BUILDING SETBACK LINE 849.87'2408.72' N 0Ā14'33" E 3258.59'CONSTRUCTION ℄3' SOUTH OF PLN 0Ā14'37" E 1857.03' 60.00' STREET DEDICATION (ULTIMATE R/W: 44')N 89Ā56'54" E 970.98'N 89Ā56'54" E 970.98'N 0Ā14'37" E 1464.19'N 89Ā56'36" E 275.03'45' BUILDINGSETBACK LINE45' BUILDINGSETBACK LINE45' BUILDINGSETBACK LINE45' BUILDINGSETBACK LINE5' BUILDING SETBACK LINE 5' BUILDING SETBACK LINE 5' BUILDING SETBACK LINE 5' BUILDING SETBACK LINE 5' BUILDING SETBACK LINE 5' BUILDING SETBACK LINE 5' BUILDING SETBACK LINE 5' BUILDING SETBACK LINE 5' BUILDING SETBACK LINE 5' BUILDING SETBACK LINE 35' BUILDINGSETBACK LINE35' BUILDINGSETBACK LINE35' BUILDINGSETBACK LINE35' BUILDINGSETBACK LINE35' BUILDINGSETBACK LINECONSTRUCTION ℄3' SOUTH OF PLCONSTRUCTION ℄3' SOUTH OF PLCONSTRUCTION ℄3' SOUTH OF PLCONSTRUCTION ℄3' SOUTH OF PLN 0Ā14'37" E 1464.19'N 89Ā54'00" E 44.99'1797.03' N 0Ā14'37" E 1857.03'BOUNDARY LINECITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGABOUNDARY LINECITY OF ONTARIOBOUNDARY LINECITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGABOUNDARY LINECITY OF ONTARIOBOUNDARY LINECITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGABOUNDARY LINECITY OF ONTARIOBOUNDARY LINECITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGABOUNDARY LINECITY OF ONTARIOSTREET DEDICATION (ULTIMATE R/W: 44') STREET DEDICATION (ULTIMATE R/W: 44') STREET DEDICATION (ULTIMATE R/W: 44') STREET DEDICATION (ULTIMATE R/W: 44') 5' BUILDING SETBACK LINE 5' BUILDING SETBACK LINE 5' BUILDING SETBACK LINE 5' BUILDING SETBACK LINE 5' BUILDING SETBACK LINE 5' BUILDING SETBACK LINE TREESDENSEHC TRAILER CLCL(PUBLIC STREET)CLCLONE STORY CONCRETE BUILDING WITH TWO STORY OFFICE AREA FOOTPRINT AREA =1,377,219 S.F. BUILDING HEIGHT =52.8' ONE STORY CONCRETE BUILDING FOOTPRINT AREA =23,146 S.F. BUILDING HEIGHT =22.0' EV EV EVEV57 STALLS 226 STALLS35 STALLS35 STALLS123 STALLS 19 STALLS56 STALLS33 STALLS33 STALLS 70 STALLS59 STALLS SHEET: SHEET TITLE RGA, OFFICE OF ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN COPYRIGHT CHK'D BY: DRAWN BY: CAD FILE NAME: OWNER PROJECT NO: RGA PROJECT NO: MARK DESCRIPTIONDATE SD CONSULTANT PROFESSIONAL SEALS RGA Office of Architectural Design 15231 Alton Parkway, Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92618 T 949-341-0920 FX 949-341-0922 SITE PLAN CS DR 00000.00 A1-0P BRIDGE POINT RANCHO CUCAMONGA 12434 4TH STREET CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA 19134-01-A1-0P 19134.01 11/1/19 SCHEMATIC DESIGN BRIDGE POINT RANCHO CUCAMONGA, LLC 11100 SANTA MONICA BLVD., SUITE 700 LOS ANGELES, CA 90025 TEL: 213-805-6667 CONTACT: BRENDAN KOLTER bkotler@bridgedev.com OWNER: APPLICANT: BRIDGE POINT RANCHO CUCAMONGA, LLC 11100 SANTA MONICA BLVD., SUITE 700 LOS ANGELES, CA 90025 TEL: 213-805-6667 CONTACT: BRENDAN KOLTER bkotler@bridgedev.com SD 1/8/20 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL DRC 2020-00202 SD 4/10/20 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL SD 8/25/20 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL SD 10/22/20 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL SD 12/10/20 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL SD 12/18/20 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL SD 1/15/21 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL 106'GATEGATE40'4 TH S T R E E T6 TH S T R E E T35'BUILDING 1 SINGLE TENANT WAREHOUSE BUILDING FOOTPRINT: 1,403,500 SF MEZZANINE: 19,000 SF G.F.A.: 1,422,500 SF OCCUPANCY: B/S-1 CONSTRUCTION TYPE: III-B NUMBER OF STORIES: 1 MAX. HEIGHT: 50 FT. PROPERTY LINE 3214.24' PROPERTY LINE 1797.03' PROPERTY LINE 1419.72'PL 45.0'PROPERTY LINE 1246.89'PROPERTY LINE 1201.91'8'-0"H WALL 303'1,430' 8'-0"H TUBE STEEL FENCE 8'-0"H TUBE STEEL FENCE45'8'-0"H TUBE STEEL FENCE LEGAL DESCRIPTION: 1,057' EXISTING INDUSTRIAL BUILDING EXISTING INDUSTRIAL BUILDING EXISTING PRISION FACILITY EXISTING INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGEXISTING INDUSTRIAL BUILDING WITH OPEN TRAILER DROP LOTEXISTING ELECTRICAL SUB-STATION1 4 6 6 8 8 8 8 8 11 11 15CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGACITY OF ONTARIOSITE PLAN SCALE: 1" = 100'-0" 0'20'100'50'200'EXISTING RAIL SPURASSESSOR'S NUMBERS: APN: 0229-283-50, 0229-283-51 KEYNOTES:00VICINITY MAP SITE PLAN GENERAL NOTES: 1. TYPICAL 90 DEG. PARKING STALLS SIZES ARE 9'W X 18' LONG INCLUDING A 1' LANDSCAPE OVERHANG TYPICAL EXCEPT AT ACCESSIBLE STALLS. 2. PARALLEL STALLS ARE 9' X 24'. 3. SETBACK REQUIREMENTS: BUILDING SETBACK:45 FEET FROM CURBFACE PARKING SETBACK:45 FEET FROM CURBFACE AVE. LANDSCAPE SETBACK:45 FEET FROM CURBFACE FIRE DEPT. GENERAL NOTES: 1. FIRE ACCESS LANES SHALL COMPLY WITH THE FOLLOWING: MIN. WIDTH:26 FEET MIN. CLEARANCE:14'-6" INSIDE RADIUS:20 FT. OUTSIDE RADIUS:46 FT. WEIGHT CAPACITY:80,000 LBS. 2. ALL GATES SHALL BE INSTALLED PER THE FIRE DISTRICT REQUIREMENTS. 3. SIGNAGE STANDARDS PER RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT DECEMBER 2016. SHEET INDEX A1-0P SITE PLAN & PROJECT DATA A1-1P EXISTING REFERENCE SITE PLAN A1-2P WALL AND FENCE PLAN A1-3P BUILDING 1 ENLARGED SITE PLAN A1-4P BUILDING 2 ENLARGED SITE PLAN A1-5 ALTERNATE RAIL-SERVE SITE PLAN 1A2-1P BUILDING 1 FLOOR PLAN 1A2-2P BUILDING 1 FLOOR PLAN ENLARGEMENTS 1A2-3P BUILDING 1 ROOF PLAN 1A3-1P BUILDING 1 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS 1A3-2P BUILDING 1 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS 1A3-3P BUILDING 1 EXTERIOR RENDERINGS 2A2-1P BUILDING 2 FLOOR PLAN 2A2-2P BUILDING 2 FLOOR PLAN ENLARGEMENTS 2A2-3P BUILDING 2 ROOF PLAN 2A3-1P BUILDING 2 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS 2A3-2P BUILDING 2 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS 2A3-3P BUILDING 2 EXTERIOR RENDERINGS 1 CONCEPT GRADING TITLE SHEET 2 - 7 CONCEPT GRADING PLAN 8 - 13 CONCEPT SITE UTILITY PLAN 14 - 17 CONCEPT STORM DRAIN PLAN 18 - 19 PRELIMINARY SITE AND DRAINAGE MAP 20-21 RETAINING WALL PROFILES 1-2 CONCEPTUAL RAIL PLANS 1-3 CONCEPTUAL STREET IMPROVEMENT PLANS 1-6 DEMOLITION PLAN SHEETS 7 EROSION CONTROL PLAN 8 EROSION CONTROL DETAILS L-0 LANDSCAPE PLANTING OVERALL L-1 LANDSCAPE PLANTING PLAN L-2 LANDSCAPE PLANTING PLAN L-3 LANDSCAPE PLANTING PLAN L-4 LANDSCAPE PLANTING PLAN L-5 LANDSCAPE PLANTING PLAN L-6 LANDSCAPE PLANTING PLAN SL1 SITE LIGHTING OVERALL PLAN SL2 BLDG 1 NORTHEAST PHOTOMETRIC SL3 BLDG 1 SOUTHEAST PHOTOMETRIC SL4 BLDG 1 NORTHWEST PHOTOMETRIC SL5 BLDG 1 SOUTHWEST PHOTOMETRIC SL6 BLDG 2 EAST PHOTOMETRIC SL7 BLDG 2 WEST PHOTOMETRIC SL8 LUMINAIRE SPECIFICATION SHEETS SUBJECT SITE AREA 1. PROPOSED PAINTED CONCRETE TILT-UP 40' CLEAR INDUSTRIAL BUILDING. 2. TYPICAL PARKING STALL - 9' X 18'. MAY BE REDUCED TO 9' X 17' W/ 1'-0" OVERHANG. STRIPING PER CITY STANDARDS. 3. TYPICAL LOW EMITTING / FUEL EFFICIENT / CARPOOL / VANPOOL PARKING STALL - 9' X 18'. MAY BE REDUCED TO 9' X 17' W/ 1'-0" OVERHANG. STRIPING PER CITY STANDARDS. MINIMUM 8% OF ALL PARKING SPACES PROVIDED PER BUILDING. A MINIMUM OF 6% OF ALL PARKING SPACES PROVIDED PER BUILDING SHALL BE EQUIPPED FOR FUTURE EV CHARGING CAPACITY. 4. 7" THICK CONCRETE YARD W/ GRADE LEVEL TRUCK DOORS AND AUTO PARKING AREAS. 5. FULLY IRRIGATED LANDSCAPE AREA BOUNDED BY 6" CONCRETE CURB - SEE CONCEPT LANDSCAPE PLAN. 6. PRIMARY BUILDING ENTRANCE W/ DECORATIVE CONCRETE ENTRY WALK. 7. LOCATION OF 8'-0" HIGH TRASH AND RECYCLABLE BINS. SEE SHEET A2-1 FOR ELEVATION AND SECTIONS. 8. NEW 8'-0" HIGH BLACK TUBE STEEL FENCE. 9. PROPERTY LINES. 10. PROPOSED TRANSFORMER LOCATION. 11. 14' X 50' TRUCK TRAILER PARKING AREA. 12. ACCESSIBLE PARKING STALLS 9' X 18'-0" MIN. 13. DASHED LINE INDICATES : NEW 5'-0" WIDE SURFACE WALK ACCESSIBLE PATH OF TRAVEL FROM PUBLIC SIDEWALK & PARKING STALLS TO PRIMARY BUILDING ENTRANCE - CONSTRUCT NEW CONCRETE SIDEWALK. MAX SLOPE OF SURFACE WALK IN THE DIRECTION OF TRAVEL 4.9%. MAX CROSS SLOPE 2%. 14. PROVIDE BREAK AREA / LUNCH PATIO WITH SEATING. SEE PROJECT DATA ON A1-0 FOR MIN SF AREA AND NUMBER OF SEATS. 15. PROPOSED LOCATION FOR FIRE WATER METER AND 2" SUPPLY LINE INTO BUILDING. ABOVE GROUND BACKFLOWS AND DETECTOR CHECK ASSEMBLIES SHALL BE SCREENED BY A 3' MIN. / 4' MAX. CMU WALL ON 3 SIDES, 3' CLEAR TO THE ASSEMBLY. SEE PLAN VIEW. 16. PROPOSED SEWER LATERAL FROM PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY SERVING BOTH BUILDINGS 1 & 2. 17. EXISTING DRIVE WAY APRON TO BE REMOVED. 18. NEW CURB AND GUTTER PER CITY STANDARD. 19. PROPOSED ONSITE FIRE HYDRANT LOCATIONS. 20. ALL UTILITY STRUCTURES SUCH AS TRANSFORMERS AND BACK FLOW DEVICES SHALL BE SCREENED BY LANDSCAPE, SEE LANDSCAPE PLAN. 21. CONCRETE LANDING AND BICYCLE RACK FOR BIKES. SEE PROJECT DATA FOR SPACES REQUIRED. 22. LONG TERM MOUNTED BICYCLE RACK. (NOTE LONG TERM RACK TO BE INSTALL ADJACENT TO ELECTRICAL ROOM TO COMPLY WITH CALGREEN). SEE PROJECT DATA FOR SPACES REQUIRED. 23. TYP. 8' HIGH PAINTED CONCRETE SCREEN WALL ELEVATION W/ ACCENT REVEALS AND PAINTED ACCENTS TO MATCH BUILDING ARCHITECTURE. 24. CONCRETE TILT-UP FIRE PUMP STRUCTURE - 15' HEIGHT, PAINTED TO COORDINATE W/ BUILDING ARCHITECTURE. 6 TH S T R E E T 4TH S T R E E T EXISTING INDUSTRIAL BUILDING PROJECT DATA GENERAL PLAN: EXISTING ZONE: PROPOSED ZONE: SITE AREA: LEGAL DESCRIPTION FEE: EXISTING 6TH STREET AREA: PROPOSED STREET "A": LOT A REMNANT LOT (SEE PARCEL MAP) NET SITE AREA FOR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT: GENERAL INDUSTRIAL & HEAVY INDUSTRIAL GENERAL INDUSTRIAL (GI) AND HEAVY INDUSTRIAL (HI) GENERAL INDUSTRIAL (GI) 3,981,084 SF / 91.39 AC 58,562 SF / 1.34 AC 212,968 SF / 4.89 AC 5,031 SF / 0.11 AC 3,704,522 SF / 85.04 AC GROSS SITE AREA NET SITE AREA BUILDING AREA FOOTPRINT AREA: MEZZANINE (WHSE OR OFFICE): GROSS FLOOR AREA: BUILDING AREA BY USE: OFFICE AREA WAREHOUSE AREA GROSS COVERAGE: GROSS F.A.R.: LANDSCAPE: PROVIDED: COVERAGE: AREA: AUTO PARKING: REQUIRED PARKING: OFFICE @ 1/250 WAREHOUSE 1-20K SF @ 1/1000 20K - 40K SF @ 1/2000 > 40K SF @ 1/4000 TOTAL PROVIDED PARKING: DOCK LOADING POSITIONS: TRAILER PARKING PROVIDED: BICYCLE PARKING: SHORT TERM LONG TERM EMPLOYEE OUTDOOR AREAS SF REQUIRED SF PROVIDED SEATING REQUIRED SEATING PROVIDED TOTAL 3,981,084 SF 3,704,522 SF 2,141,770 SF 33,230 SF 2,175,000 SF 41,000 SF 2,134,000 SF 53.80% 0.546 10.00% 370,600 SF (INCLUDES PARKWAYS) 737 STALLS 746 STALLS 275 DOCKS 312 TRAILERS 38 REQ. / 38 PROV. 38 REQ. / 38 PROV. 1,500 SF 1,540 SF 71 SEATS 80 SEATS BLDG 2 1,484,596 SF 1,302,112 SF 738,270 SF 14,230 SF 752,500 SF 16,000 SF 736,500 SF 49.73% .496 10.3% 134,400 SF 64 STALLS 20 STALLS 10 STALLS 174 STALLS 268 STALLS 268 STALLS 91 DOCKS 91 TRAILERS 14 REQ. / 14 PROV. 14 REQ. / 14 PROV. 500 SF 540 SF 28 SEATS 32 SEATS BLDG 1 2,484,027 SF 2,402,411 SF 1,403,500 SF 19,000 SF 1,422,500 SF 25,000 SF 1,397,500 SF 56.50% .573 9.8% 236,200 SF 100 STALLS 20 STALLS 10 STALLS 339 STALLS 469 STALLS 478 STALLS 184 DOCKS 221 TRAILERS 24 REQ. / 24 PROV. 24 REQ. / 24 PROV. 1,000 SF 1,000 SF 43 SEATS 48 SEATS BUILDING 2 SINGLE TENANT WAREHOUSE BUILDING FOOTPRINT: 738,270 SF MEZZANINE: 14,230 SF G.F.A.: 752,500 SF OCCUPANCY: B/S-1 CONSTRUCTION TYPE: III-B NUMBER OF STORIES: 1 MAX. HEIGHT: 50 FT. 136'8'-0"H TUBE STEEL FENCE GATE59.8' +/- POTENTIAL OFFICE AREA W/ MEZZANINE POTENTIAL OFFICE AREA 1 4 5 6 7 7 T 1111 23 23 N E W S T R E E T " A " 1,912'-0"185'-0"220'-0"710'-0"25' 185'-0"680'-0"185'-0"1,046'-0"66'82'52'40'66'25'77' 19'20'44'44'40' 92 DOCK DOORS (34) 50' TRAILER POSITIONS (97) TRAILER POSITIONS 92 DOCK DOORS 51 DOCK DOORS40 DOCK DOORS49 TRAILER POSITIONS42 TRAILER POSITIONSGATEGATEGATE GATE POTENTIAL OFFICE AREA POTENTIAL OFFICE AREA 4 4 11 (90) 50' TRAILER POSITIONS POTENTIAL OFFICE AREA LOT "A" (SEE PARCEL MAP) POTENTIAL OFFICE AREA W/ MEZZANINE 8'-0"H WALL 14 14 14 GATE GATE 3-HR WALL Exhibit B EX. 33" STORM DRAINXXXXXXXXXXXXXXZONING: HIHEAVY INDUSTRIAL35' BUILDINGSETBACK LINEZONING: GIGENERAL INDUSTRIAL45' BUILDINGSETBACK LINE5' BUILDING SETBACK LINE 5' BUILDING SETBACK LINE BOUNDARY LINECITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGABOUNDARY LINECITY OF ONTARION 89Ā49'26" E 1201.09'1797.03' 5' BUILDING SETBACK LINE 849.87'2408.72' N 0Ā14'33" E 3258.59'CONSTRUCTION ℄3' SOUTH OF PLN 0Ā14'37" E 1857.03' 60.00' STREET DEDICATION (ULTIMATE R/W: 44')N 89Ā56'54" E 970.98'N 89Ā56'54" E 970.98'N 0Ā14'37" E 1464.19'N 89Ā56'36" E 275.03'45' BUILDINGSETBACK LINE45' BUILDINGSETBACK LINE45' BUILDINGSETBACK LINE45' BUILDINGSETBACK LINE5' BUILDING SETBACK LINE 5' BUILDING SETBACK LINE 5' BUILDING SETBACK LINE 5' BUILDING SETBACK LINE 5' BUILDING SETBACK LINE 5' BUILDING SETBACK LINE 5' BUILDING SETBACK LINE 5' BUILDING SETBACK LINE 5' BUILDING SETBACK LINE 5' BUILDING SETBACK LINE 35' BUILDINGSETBACK LINE35' BUILDINGSETBACK LINE35' BUILDINGSETBACK LINE35' BUILDINGSETBACK LINE35' BUILDINGSETBACK LINECONSTRUCTION ℄3' SOUTH OF PLCONSTRUCTION ℄3' SOUTH OF PLCONSTRUCTION ℄3' SOUTH OF PLCONSTRUCTION ℄3' SOUTH OF PLN 0Ā14'37" E 1464.19'N 89Ā54'00" E 44.99'1797.03' N 0Ā14'37" E 1857.03'BOUNDARY LINECITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGABOUNDARY LINECITY OF ONTARIOBOUNDARY LINECITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGABOUNDARY LINECITY OF ONTARIOBOUNDARY LINECITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGABOUNDARY LINECITY OF ONTARIOBOUNDARY LINECITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGABOUNDARY LINECITY OF ONTARIOSTREET DEDICATION (ULTIMATE R/W: 44') STREET DEDICATION (ULTIMATE R/W: 44') STREET DEDICATION (ULTIMATE R/W: 44') STREET DEDICATION (ULTIMATE R/W: 44') 5' BUILDING SETBACK LINE 5' BUILDING SETBACK LINE 5' BUILDING SETBACK LINE 5' BUILDING SETBACK LINE 5' BUILDING SETBACK LINE 5' BUILDING SETBACK LINE TREESDENSEHC TRAILER CLCL(PUBLIC STREET)CLCLONE STORY CONCRETE BUILDING WITH TWO STORY OFFICE AREA FOOTPRINT AREA =1,377,219 S.F. BUILDING HEIGHT =52.8' ONE STORY CONCRETE BUILDING FOOTPRINT AREA =23,146 S.F. BUILDING HEIGHT =22.0' SHEET: SHEET TITLE RGA, OFFICE OF ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN COPYRIGHT CHK'D BY: DRAWN BY: CAD FILE NAME: OWNER PROJECT NO: RGA PROJECT NO: MARK DESCRIPTIONDATE SD CONSULTANT PROFESSIONAL SEALS RGA Office of Architectural Design 15231 Alton Parkway, Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92618 T 949-341-0920 FX 949-341-0922 EXISTING SITE PLAN CS DR 00000.00 A1-1P BRIDGE POINT RANCHO CUCAMONGA 12434 4TH STREET CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA 19134-01-A1-1P 19134.01 11/1/19 SCHEMATIC DESIGN BRIDGE POINT RANCHO CUCAMONGA, LLC 11100 SANTA MONICA BLVD., SUITE 700 LOS ANGELES, CA 90025 TEL: 213-805-6667 CONTACT: BRENDAN KOLTER bkotler@bridgedev.com OWNER: APPLICANT: BRIDGE POINT RANCHO CUCAMONGA, LLC 11100 SANTA MONICA BLVD., SUITE 700 LOS ANGELES, CA 90025 TEL: 213-805-6667 CONTACT: BRENDAN KOLTER bkotler@bridgedev.com SD 1/8/20 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL DRC 2020-00202 SD 4/10/20 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL EXISTING SITE PLAN SCALE: 1" = 100'-0" 0'20'100'50'200'4 TH S T R E E T6 TH S T R E E TEXISTING INDUSTRIAL BUILDING EXISTING INDUSTRIAL BUILDING EXISTING PRISON FACILITY EXISTING INDUSTRIAL BUILDING WITH OPEN TRAILER DROP LOT EXISTING INDUSTRIAL BUILDING 40' WIDE EXISTING ACCESS ROAD EXISTING TRAILER PARKING TO BE DEMOLISHED EXISTING VACANT LAND EXISTING RAIL SPUREXISTING ONE STORY CONCRETE TILT-UP BUILDING WITH TWO-STORY OFFICE TO BE DEMOLISHED FOOTPRINT AREA: 1,373,000 SF MEZZANINE AREA: 58,000 SF TOTAL EXISTING FLOOR AREA: 1,431,000 SFZONE: GI - GENERAL INDUSTRIALZONE: HI - HEAVY INDUSTRIALEXISTING ONE STORY CONCRETE TILT-UP BUILDING TO BE DEMOLISHED FOOTPRINT AREA: 23,240 SF 215 AUTO STALLS 202 AUTO STALLS 116 AUTO STALLS EXISTING RAIL SPUR EXISTING PROJECT DATA GENERAL PLAN: ZONE: SITE AREA: LEGAL DESCRIPTION FEE: EXISTING STREET AREA: EASEMENT AREA STREET AREA: NET SITE AREA: EXISTING BUILDING AREA: MAIN BUILDING FOOTPRINT: MAIN BUILDING MEZZANINE: ACCESSORY BUILDING: GROSS FLOOR AREA: LOT COVERAGE (NET): F.A.R. (NET): EXISTING AUTO PARKING PROVIDED: EXISTING LOADING DOCK DOORS: EXISTING TRAILER PARKING EXISTING LANDSCAPE PROVIDED: GENERAL INDUSTRIAL & HEAVY INDUSTRIAL GENERAL INDUSTRIAL (GI) AND HEAVY INDUSTRIAL (HI) 3,981,084 SF / 91.39 AC 54,824 SF / 1.259 AC 52,339 SF / 1.202 AC 3,738 SF / 0.086 AC 3,870,183 SF / 88.846 AC 1,373,000 SF 58,000 SF 23,240 SF 1,454,240 SF 36.08 % 37.58 % 558 STALLS 76 DOCK HIGH DOORS 4 RAIL SERVE DOORS 373 STALLS 434,631 SF (PER ALTA SURVEY) EX. 33" STORM DRAINXXXXXXXXXXXXZONING: HIHEAVY INDUSTRIAL35' BUILDINGSETBACK LINEZONING: GIGENERAL INDUSTRIAL45' BUILDINGSETBACK LINE5' BUILDING SETBACK LINE 5' BUILDING SETBACK LINE BOUNDARY LINECITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGABOUNDARY LINECITY OF ONTARION 89Ā49'26" E 1201.09'1797.03' 5' BUILDING SETBACK LINE 849.87'2408.72' N 0Ā14'33" E 3258.59'CONSTRUCTION ℄3' SOUTH OF PLN 0Ā14'37" E 1857.03' 60.00' STREET DEDICATION (ULTIMATE R/W: 44')N 89Ā56'54" E 970.98'N 89Ā56'54" E 970.98'N 0Ā14'37" E 1464.19'N 89Ā56'36" E 275.03'45' BUILDINGSETBACK LINE45' BUILDINGSETBACK LINE45' BUILDINGSETBACK LINE45' BUILDINGSETBACK LINE5' BUILDING SETBACK LINE 5' BUILDING SETBACK LINE 5' BUILDING SETBACK LINE 5' BUILDING SETBACK LINE 5' BUILDING SETBACK LINE 5' BUILDING SETBACK LINE 5' BUILDING SETBACK LINE 5' BUILDING SETBACK LINE 5' BUILDING SETBACK LINE 5' BUILDING SETBACK LINE 35' BUILDINGSETBACK LINE35' BUILDINGSETBACK LINE35' BUILDINGSETBACK LINE35' BUILDINGSETBACK LINE35' BUILDINGSETBACK LINECONSTRUCTION ℄3' SOUTH OF PLCONSTRUCTION ℄3' SOUTH OF PLCONSTRUCTION ℄3' SOUTH OF PLCONSTRUCTION ℄3' SOUTH OF PLN 0Ā14'37" E 1464.19'N 89Ā54'00" E 44.99'1797.03' N 0Ā14'37" E 1857.03'BOUNDARY LINECITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGABOUNDARY LINECITY OF ONTARIOBOUNDARY LINECITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGABOUNDARY LINECITY OF ONTARIOBOUNDARY LINECITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGABOUNDARY LINECITY OF ONTARIOBOUNDARY LINECITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGABOUNDARY LINECITY OF ONTARIOSTREET DEDICATION (ULTIMATE R/W: 44') STREET DEDICATION (ULTIMATE R/W: 44') STREET DEDICATION (ULTIMATE R/W: 44') STREET DEDICATION (ULTIMATE R/W: 44') 5' BUILDING SETBACK LINE 5' BUILDING SETBACK LINE 5' BUILDING SETBACK LINE 5' BUILDING SETBACK LINE 5' BUILDING SETBACK LINE 5' BUILDING SETBACK LINE TREESDENSEHC TRAILER CLCL(PUBLIC STREET)CLCLONE STORY CONCRETE BUILDING WITH TWO STORY OFFICE AREA FOOTPRINT AREA =1,377,219 S.F. BUILDING HEIGHT =52.8' ONE STORY CONCRETE BUILDING FOOTPRINT AREA =23,146 S.F. BUILDING HEIGHT =22.0' EV EV EVEVSHEET: SHEET TITLE RGA, OFFICE OF ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN COPYRIGHT CHK'D BY: DRAWN BY: CAD FILE NAME: OWNER PROJECT NO: RGA PROJECT NO: MARK DESCRIPTIONDATE SD CONSULTANT PROFESSIONAL SEALS RGA Office of Architectural Design 15231 Alton Parkway, Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92618 T 949-341-0920 FX 949-341-0922 SITE FENCE PLAN CS DR 00000.00 A1-2P BRIDGE POINT RANCHO CUCAMONGA 12434 4TH STREET CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA 19134-01-A1-2P 19134.01 11/1/19 SCHEMATIC DESIGN BRIDGE POINT RANCHO CUCAMONGA, LLC 11100 SANTA MONICA BLVD., SUITE 700 LOS ANGELES, CA 90025 TEL: 213-805-6667 CONTACT: BRENDAN KOLTER bkotler@bridgedev.com OWNER: APPLICANT: BRIDGE POINT RANCHO CUCAMONGA, LLC 11100 SANTA MONICA BLVD., SUITE 700 LOS ANGELES, CA 90025 TEL: 213-805-6667 CONTACT: BRENDAN KOLTER bkotler@bridgedev.com SD 1/8/20 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL DRC 2020-00202 SD 4/10/20 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL SD 8/25/20 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL SD 12/18/20 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL SD 1/15/21 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL SD 10/22/20 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL SD 12/10/20 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL SITE FENCE PLAN SCALE: 1" = 100'-0" 0'20'100'50'200'4 TH S T R E E T6 TH S T R E E T641' 8'-0"H CONC. TILT UP SCREENWALL 303'1,430' 8'-0"H TUBE STEEL FENCE 8'-0"H TUBE STEEL FENCE45'8'-0"H TUBE STEEL FENCE 1,055' 8'-0"H TUBE STEEL SWING GATE 8'-0"H SLIDING STEEL GATE W/ PERF. MESH TO OBSCURE VIEW OF TRUCK COURT 8'-0"H CONC. TILT-UP SCREENWALL 8'-0"H SLIDING STEEL GATE W/ PERF. MESH TO OBSCURE VIEW OF TRUCK COURT 19'40'77'24'56'61'BUILDING 1BUILDING 2 8'-0"H CONC. TILT-UP SCREENWALL 8'-0"H CONC. TILT-UP SCREENWALL 8'-0"H SLIDING STEEL GATE N E W S T R E E T " A " 8'-0"H CONC. TILT-UP SCREENWALL 43'30' 8'-0"H TUBE STEEL FENCE 694' VARIABLE HT. RETAINING WALL - SEE CIVIL592'48'102'37'43'32'45'108'VARIABLE HT. RETAINING WALL - SEE CIVIL153'VARIABLE HT. RETAINING WALL - SEE CIVIL 8'-0"H SLIDING STEEL GATE 346' VARIABLE HT. RETAINING WALL - SEE CIVILCONCRETE TILT-UP WALL - 8'H ABOVE GRADE FACING 6TH / VARIABLE RETAINING HEIGHT70'40'35' 80'40'48'18' 30'40'67'953' VARIABLE HT. RETAINING WALL - SEE CIVIL + 8'-0"H TUBE STEEL FENCE AT TOP OF WALL62'40'8'H CONC. WALL8'-0"H SLIDING STEEL GATE 8'-0"H CONC. TILT-UP SCREENWALL 8'-0"H SLIDING STEEL GATE 8'-0"H SLIDING STEEL GATE TRASH ENC. 8'H CONC. WALL 8'H GATE TRASH ENC.3'-4'H CMU @ DDCA 3'-4'H CMU @ DDCA 3'-4'H CMU @ DDCA 3'-4'H CMU @ DDCA 8'-0"H CONC. TILT UP SCREENWALL 25'712'45'30'8'H STEEL FENCE 8'H STEEL FENCE930' - 8'-0"H TUBE STEEL FENCE860' (E) RET. WALL TO REMAIN EX. 33" STORM DRAINXXXXXXZONING: HIHEAVY INDUSTRIALZONING: GIGENERAL INDUSTRIAL45' BUILDINGSETBACK LINE5' BUILDING SETBACK LINE 5' BUILDING SETBACK LINE BOUNDARY LINECITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGABOUNDARY LINECITY OF ONTARION 89Ā49'26" E 1201.09'1797.03' 5' BUILDING SETBACK LINE 2408.72' N 0Ā14'33" E 3258.59' N 0Ā14'37" E 1857.03' 60.00'45' BUILDINGSETBACK LINE45' BUILDINGSETBACK LINE45' BUILDINGSETBACK LINE45' BUILDINGSETBACK LINE5' BUILDING SETBACK LINE 5' BUILDING SETBACK LINE 5' BUILDING SETBACK LINE 5' BUILDING SETBACK LINE 5' BUILDING SETBACK LINE 5' BUILDING SETBACK LINE N 0Ā14'37" E 1464.19'N 89Ā54'00" E 44.99'1797.03' N 0Ā14'37" E 1857.03'BOUNDARY LINECITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGABOUNDARY LINECITY OF ONTARIOBOUNDARY LINECITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGABOUNDARY LINECITY OF ONTARIOBOUNDARY LINECITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGABOUNDARY LINECITY OF ONTARIOBOUNDARY LINECITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGABOUNDARY LINECITY OF ONTARIO5' BUILDING SETBACK LINE 5' BUILDING SETBACK LINE 5' BUILDING SETBACK LINE 5' BUILDING SETBACK LINE TREESDENSEHC TRAILER CLCLONE STORY CONCRETE BUILDING WITH TWO STORY OFFICE AREA FOOTPRINT AREA =1,377,219 S.F. BUILDING HEIGHT =52.8' ONE STORY CONCRETE BUILDING FOOTPRINT AREA =23,146 S.F. BUILDING HEIGHT =22.0'R=46'R= 2 0 ' R = 4 6 'EVEV57 STALLS 226 STALLS35 STALLS56 STALLS33 STALLS33 STALLS 70 STALLS59 STALLS SHEET: SHEET TITLE RGA, OFFICE OF ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN COPYRIGHT CHK'D BY: DRAWN BY: CAD FILE NAME: OWNER PROJECT NO: RGA PROJECT NO: MARK DESCRIPTIONDATE SD CONSULTANT PROFESSIONAL SEALS RGA Office of Architectural Design 15231 Alton Parkway, Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92618 T 949-341-0920 FX 949-341-0922 ENLARGED BUILDING 1 SITE PLAN CS DR 00000.00 A1-3P BRIDGE POINT RANCHO CUCAMONGA 12434 4TH STREET CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA 19134-01-A1-3P 19134.01 11/1/19 SCHEMATIC DESIGN BRIDGE POINT RANCHO CUCAMONGA, LLC 11100 SANTA MONICA BLVD., SUITE 700 LOS ANGELES, CA 90025 TEL: 213-805-6667 CONTACT: BRENDAN KOLTER bkotler@bridgedev.com OWNER: APPLICANT: BRIDGE POINT RANCHO CUCAMONGA, LLC 11100 SANTA MONICA BLVD., SUITE 700 LOS ANGELES, CA 90025 TEL: 213-805-6667 CONTACT: BRENDAN KOLTER bkotler@bridgedev.com SD 1/8/20 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL DRC 2020-00202 SD 4/10/20 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL SD 8/25/20 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL SD 12/18/20 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL SD 1/15/21 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL 106'GATEGATE136'4 TH S T R E E T46' BUILDING 1 SINGLE TENANT FOOTPRINT: 1,403,500 SF MEZZANINE: 19,000 SF G.F.A.: 1,422,500 SF OCCUPANCY: B/S-1 CONSTRUCTION TYPE: III-B NUMBER OF STORIES: 1 MAX. HEIGHT: 50 FT. PROPERTY LINE 3214.24' PROPERTY LINE 1797.03'PL 45.0'PROPERTY LINE 1201.91'308'1,430' 8'-0"H TUBE STEEL FENCE 8'-0"H TUBE STEEL FENCE45'8'-0"H TUBE STEEL FENCE EXISTING INDUSTRIAL BUILDING EXISTING PRISION FACILITY 1 4 6 6 8 8 8 8 ENLARGED BUILDING 1 SITE PLAN SCALE: 1" = 60'-0" EXISTING INDUSTRIAL BUILDING 7 7 23 23 N E W S T R E E T " A " 1,912'-0"185'-0"220'-0"710'-0"66'25'44'92 DOCK DOORS 92 DOCK DOORS GATEGATEPOTENTIAL OFFICE AREA POTENTIAL OFFICE AREA 4 0'20'100'50'200' 11 (34) 50' TRAILER POSITIONS11(90) 50' TRAILER POSITIONS 7'7' 11 (97) 55' TRAILER POSITIONS14'4 24 21 21 14 1426'-0"W FIRELANE26'-0"W FIRELANE 26'-0"W FIRELANE26'-0"W FIRELANE 26'-0"W FIRELA N E T 1022 8 18'26'18'10'18'26'18'51'32'45'15'18'26'18'32'120'50'50'130'55'19'40'18'26'18'6'34'5'18'26'17'17'26'18'18.1'26'27'35'35'27' 26'26'9'EXISTING CURB CUT 40'43'40'15 15 17 17 20 5 5 12 12 1818 POTENTIAL OFFICE AREA W/ MEZZANINE 232323 26'-0"W FIRELANE26'-0"W FIRELANE26'-0"W FIRELANE77' 12'40'18'195'-0"66'140'55'39'18' 34'12' XXXXXXXXZONING: HIHEAVY INDUSTRIAL35' BUILDINGSETBACK LINEZONING: GIGENERAL INDUSTRIAL5' BUILDING SETBACK LINE 849.87' N 0Ā14'33" E 3258.59'CONSTRUCTION ℄3' SOUTH OF PLSTREET DEDICATION (ULTIMATE R/W: 44')N 89Ā56'54" E 970.98'N 89Ā56'54" E 970.98'N 0Ā14'37" E 1464.19'N 89Ā56'36" E 275.03'5' BUILDING SETBACK LINE 5' BUILDING SETBACK LINE 5' BUILDING SETBACK LINE 5' BUILDING SETBACK LINE 5' BUILDING SETBACK LINE 5' BUILDING SETBACK LINE 5' BUILDING SETBACK LINE 35' BUILDINGSETBACK LINE35' BUILDINGSETBACK LINE35' BUILDINGSETBACK LINE35' BUILDINGSETBACK LINE35' BUILDINGSETBACK LINECONSTRUCTION ℄3' SOUTH OF PLCONSTRUCTION ℄3' SOUTH OF PLCONSTRUCTION ℄3' SOUTH OF PLCONSTRUCTION ℄3' SOUTH OF PLN 0Ā14'37" E 1464.19'N 89Ā54'00" E 44.99'1797.03' N 0Ā14'37" E 1857.03' STREET DEDICATION (ULTIMATE R/W: 44') STREET DEDICATION (ULTIMATE R/W: 44') STREET DEDICATION (ULTIMATE R/W: 44') STREET DEDICATION (ULTIMATE R/W: 44') 5' BUILDING SETBACK LINE 5' BUILDING SETBACK LINE 5' BUILDING SETBACK LINE 5' BUILDING SETBACK LINECL(PUBLIC STREET)CLR=20'R=46'R=20'R = 2 0 ' R= 2 0 ' R = 4 6 ' EV EV 35 STALLS35 STALLS123 STALLS 19 STALLS56 STALLS33 STALLS 70 STALLS59 STALLS SHEET: SHEET TITLE RGA, OFFICE OF ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN COPYRIGHT CHK'D BY: DRAWN BY: CAD FILE NAME: OWNER PROJECT NO: RGA PROJECT NO: MARK DESCRIPTIONDATE SD CONSULTANT PROFESSIONAL SEALS RGA Office of Architectural Design 15231 Alton Parkway, Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92618 T 949-341-0920 FX 949-341-0922 ENLARGED BUILDING 2 SITE PLAN CS DR 00000.00 A1-4P BRIDGE POINT RANCHO CUCAMONGA 12434 4TH STREET CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA 19134-01-A1-4P 19134.01 11/1/19 SCHEMATIC DESIGN BRIDGE POINT RANCHO CUCAMONGA, LLC 11100 SANTA MONICA BLVD., SUITE 700 LOS ANGELES, CA 90025 TEL: 213-805-6667 CONTACT: BRENDAN KOLTER bkotler@bridgedev.com OWNER: APPLICANT: BRIDGE POINT RANCHO CUCAMONGA, LLC 11100 SANTA MONICA BLVD., SUITE 700 LOS ANGELES, CA 90025 TEL: 213-805-6667 CONTACT: BRENDAN KOLTER bkotler@bridgedev.com SD 1/8/20 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL DRC 2020-00202 SD 4/10/20 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL SD 8/25/20 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL SD 12/18/20 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL SD 1/15/21 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL ENLARGED BUILDING 2 SITE PLAN SCALE: 1" = 60'-0" 0'20'100'50'200'6 TH S T R E E TPROPERTY LINE 1419.72'PROPERTY LINE 1246.89'1,052' EXISTING INDUSTRIAL BUILDING EXISTING INDUSTRIAL BUILDING WITH OPEN TRAILER DROP LOTEXISTING ELECTRICAL SUB-STATIONEXISTING RAIL SPURBUILDING 2 SINGLE TENANT FOOTPRINT: 738,270 SF MEZZANINE: 14,230 SF G.F.A.: 752,500 SF OCCUPANCY: B/S-1 CONSTRUCTION TYPE: III-B NUMBER OF STORIES: 1 MAX. HEIGHT: 50 FT. 8'-0"H TUBE STEEL FENCE GATE72.7' +/- POTENTIAL OFFICE AREA W/ MEZZANINE POTENTIAL OFFICE AREA 1 4 T 185'-0"680'-0"185'-0"1,046'-0"66'82'53'40'11'44'51 DOCK DOORS40 DOCK DOORSGATE 11 42 TRAILER POSITIONS11 49 TRAILER POSITIONS4 GATE GATE N E W S T R E E T " A "26'-0"W FIRELANE26'-0"W FIRELANE26'-0"W FIRELANE26'-0"W FIRELANE 26'-0"W FIRELANE 26'-0"W FIRELANE6 14 21 14'18'26'18'6'11'24 7 10 22 40'30'40'35'40'7'18'25'18'6'6'10'18'40'18' 12'7' 12'-10"18'40'18'49'26'EXISTING CURB CUT EXISTING CURB CUT EXISTING CURB CUT EXISTING CURB CUT 15 15 20 125 5 8 23.6' 23 23 65' 22.1'26'-0"W FIRELANE18'23 23 18 22.5'30'20' EX. 33" STORM DRAINXXXXXXXXXXXXXXZONING: HIHEAVY INDUSTRIAL35' BUILDINGSETBACK LINEZONING: GIGENERAL INDUSTRIAL45' BUILDINGSETBACK LINE5' BUILDING SETBACK LINE 5' BUILDING SETBACK LINE BOUNDARY LINECITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGABOUNDARY LINECITY OF ONTARION 89Ā49'26" E 1201.09'1797.03' 5' BUILDING SETBACK LINE 849.87'2408.72' N 0Ā14'33" E 3258.59'CONSTRUCTION ℄3' SOUTH OF PLN 0Ā14'37" E 1857.03' 60.00' STREET DEDICATION (ULTIMATE R/W: 44')N 89Ā56'54" E 970.98'N 89Ā56'54" E 970.98'N 0Ā14'37" E 1464.19'N 89Ā56'36" E 275.03'45' BUILDINGSETBACK LINE45' BUILDINGSETBACK LINE45' BUILDINGSETBACK LINE45' BUILDINGSETBACK LINE5' BUILDING SETBACK LINE 5' BUILDING SETBACK LINE 5' BUILDING SETBACK LINE 5' BUILDING SETBACK LINE 5' BUILDING SETBACK LINE 5' BUILDING SETBACK LINE 5' BUILDING SETBACK LINE 5' BUILDING SETBACK LINE 5' BUILDING SETBACK LINE 5' BUILDING SETBACK LINE 35' BUILDINGSETBACK LINE35' BUILDINGSETBACK LINE35' BUILDINGSETBACK LINE35' BUILDINGSETBACK LINE35' BUILDINGSETBACK LINECONSTRUCTION ℄3' SOUTH OF PLCONSTRUCTION ℄3' SOUTH OF PLCONSTRUCTION ℄3' SOUTH OF PLCONSTRUCTION ℄3' SOUTH OF PLN 0Ā14'37" E 1464.19'N 89Ā54'00" E 44.99'1797.03' N 0Ā14'37" E 1857.03'BOUNDARY LINECITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGABOUNDARY LINECITY OF ONTARIOBOUNDARY LINECITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGABOUNDARY LINECITY OF ONTARIOBOUNDARY LINECITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGABOUNDARY LINECITY OF ONTARIOBOUNDARY LINECITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGABOUNDARY LINECITY OF ONTARIOSTREET DEDICATION (ULTIMATE R/W: 44') STREET DEDICATION (ULTIMATE R/W: 44') STREET DEDICATION (ULTIMATE R/W: 44') STREET DEDICATION (ULTIMATE R/W: 44') 5' BUILDING SETBACK LINE 5' BUILDING SETBACK LINE 5' BUILDING SETBACK LINE 5' BUILDING SETBACK LINE 5' BUILDING SETBACK LINE 5' BUILDING SETBACK LINE TREESDENSEHC TRAILER CLCL(PUBLIC STREET)CLCLONE STORY CONCRETE BUILDING WITH TWO STORY OFFICE AREA FOOTPRINT AREA =1,377,219 S.F. BUILDING HEIGHT =52.8' ONE STORY CONCRETE BUILDING FOOTPRINT AREA =23,146 S.F. BUILDING HEIGHT =22.0' EV EV EVEV57 STALLS 226 STALLS35 STALLS35 STALLS123 STALLS 75 STALLS33 STALLS 70 STALLS92 STALLS SHEET: SHEET TITLE RGA, OFFICE OF ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN COPYRIGHT CHK'D BY: DRAWN BY: CAD FILE NAME: OWNER PROJECT NO: RGA PROJECT NO: MARK DESCRIPTIONDATE SD CONSULTANT PROFESSIONAL SEALS RGA Office of Architectural Design 15231 Alton Parkway, Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92618 T 949-341-0920 FX 949-341-0922 ALTERNATE RAIL-SERVE SITE PLAN CS DR 00000.00 A1-5P BRIDGE POINT RANCHO CUCAMONGA 12434 4TH STREET CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA 19134-01-A1-0P 19134.01 11/1/19 SCHEMATIC DESIGN BRIDGE POINT RANCHO CUCAMONGA, LLC 11100 SANTA MONICA BLVD., SUITE 700 LOS ANGELES, CA 90025 TEL: 213-805-6667 CONTACT: BRENDAN KOLTER bkotler@bridgedev.com OWNER: APPLICANT: BRIDGE POINT RANCHO CUCAMONGA, LLC 11100 SANTA MONICA BLVD., SUITE 700 LOS ANGELES, CA 90025 TEL: 213-805-6667 CONTACT: BRENDAN KOLTER bkotler@bridgedev.com SD 1/8/20 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL DRC 2020-00202 SD 4/10/20 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL SD 8/25/20 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL SD 10/22/20 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL SD 12/10/20 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL SD 12/18/20 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL SD 1/15/21 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL ALTERNATE RAIL-SERVE SITE PLAN 106'GATEGATE40'4 TH S T R E E T6 TH S T R E E T35'BUILDING 1 SINGLE TENANT WAREHOUSE BUILDING FOOTPRINT: 1,403,500 SF MEZZANINE: 19,000 SF G.F.A.: 1,422,500 SF OCCUPANCY: B/S-1 CONSTRUCTION TYPE: III-B NUMBER OF STORIES: 1 MAX. HEIGHT: 50 FT. PROPERTY LINE 3214.24' PROPERTY LINE 1797.03' PROPERTY LINE 1419.72'PL 45.0'PROPERTY LINE 1246.89'PROPERTY LINE 1201.91'303'1,430' 8'-0"H TUBE STEEL FENCE 8'-0"H TUBE STEEL FENCE45'8'-0"H TUBE STEEL FENCE 1,057' EXISTING INDUSTRIAL BUILDING EXISTING INDUSTRIAL BUILDING EXISTING PRISION FACILITY EXISTING INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGEXISTING INDUSTRIAL BUILDING WITH OPEN TRAILER DROP LOTEXISTING ELECTRICAL SUB-STATION1 4 6 6 8 8 8 8 8 11 15CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGACITY OF ONTARIOSCALE: 1" = 100'-0" 0'20'100'50'200'EXISTING RAIL SPUREXISTING INDUSTRIAL BUILDING PROJECT DATA GENERAL PLAN: EXISTING ZONE: PROPOSED ZONE: SITE AREA: LEGAL DESCRIPTION FEE: EXISTING 6TH STREET AREA: PROPOSED STREET "A": LOT A REMNANT LOT (SEE PARCEL MAP) NET SITE AREA FOR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT: GENERAL INDUSTRIAL & HEAVY INDUSTRIAL GENERAL INDUSTRIAL (GI) AND HEAVY INDUSTRIAL (HI) GENERAL INDUSTRIAL (GI) 3,981,084 SF / 91.39 AC 58,562 SF / 1.34 AC 212,968 SF / 4.89 AC 5,031 SF / 0.11 AC 3,704,522 SF / 85.04 AC GROSS SITE AREA NET SITE AREA BUILDING AREA FOOTPRINT AREA: MEZZANINE (WHSE OR OFFICE): GROSS FLOOR AREA: BUILDING AREA BY USE: OFFICE AREA WAREHOUSE AREA GROSS COVERAGE: GROSS F.A.R.: AUTO PARKING: REQUIRED PARKING: OFFICE @ 1/250 WAREHOUSE 1-20K SF @ 1/1000 20K - 40K SF @ 1/2000 > 40K SF @ 1/4000 TOTAL PROVIDED PARKING: DOCK LOADING POSITIONS: TRAILER PARKING PROVIDED: TOTAL 3,981,084 SF 3,704,522 SF 2,141,770 SF 33,230 SF 2,175,000 SF 41,000 SF 2,134,000 SF 53.80% 0.546 746 STALLS 746 STALLS 252 DOCKS 252 TRAILERS BLDG 2 1,484,596 SF 1,302,112 SF 738,270 SF 14,230 SF 752,500 SF 16,000 SF 736,500 SF 49.73% .496 64 STALLS 20 STALLS 10 STALLS 174 STALLS 268 STALLS 268 STALLS 88 DOCKS 88 TRAILERS BLDG 1 2,484,027 SF 2,402,411 SF 1,403,500 SF 19,000 SF 1,422,500 SF 25,000 SF 1,397,500 SF 56.50% .573 100 STALLS 20 STALLS 10 STALLS 348 STALLS 478 STALLS 478 STALLS 164 DOCKS 164 TRAILERS BUILDING 2 SINGLE TENANT WAREHOUSE BUILDING FOOTPRINT: 738,270 SF MEZZANINE: 14,230 SF G.F.A.: 752,500 SF OCCUPANCY: B/S-1 CONSTRUCTION TYPE: III-B NUMBER OF STORIES: 1 MAX. HEIGHT: 50 FT. 136'8'-0"H TUBE STEEL FENCE GATEPOTENTIAL OFFICE AREA W/ MEZZANINE 1 4 5 6 7 7 T 11 23 23 N E W S T R E E T " A " 1,912'-0"185'-0"195'-0"710'-0"25' 185'-0"680'-0"163'-0"1,046'-0"66'82'52'40'66'25'77' 19'20'44'44'40' 92 DOCK DOORS (97) TRAILER POSITIONS 72 DOCK DOORS 48 DOCK DOORS40 DOCK DOORS43 TRAILER POSITIONS42 TRAILER POSITIONSGATEGATE GATE POTENTIAL OFFICE AREA POTENTIAL OFFICE AREA 4 4 11 (51) 50' TRAILER POSITIONS POTENTIAL OFFICE AREA LOT "A" (SEE PARCEL MAP) POTENTIAL OFFICE AREA W/ MEZZANINE 14 14 14 GATE 3-HR WALL 3 TRAILERS 11 RAIL DOCK 625'RAIL DOCK SHEET: SHEET TITLE RGA, OFFICE OF ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN COPYRIGHT CHK'D BY: DRAWN BY: CAD FILE NAME: OWNER PROJECT NO: RGA PROJECT NO: MARK DESCRIPTIONDATE SD CONSULTANT PROFESSIONAL SEALS RGA Office of Architectural Design 15231 Alton Parkway, Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92618 T 949-341-0920 FX 949-341-0922 FLOOR PLAN BUILDING 1 CS DR 00000.00 1A2-1P 19134-01-1A2-1P 19134.01 11/1/19 SCHEMATIC DESIGN BRIDGE POINT RANCHO CUCAMONGA 12434 4TH STREET CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA DRC 2020-00202 BRIDGE POINT RANCHO CUCAMONGA, LLC 11100 SANTA MONICA BLVD., SUITE 700 LOS ANGELES, CA 90025 TEL: 213-805-6667 CONTACT: BRENDAN KOLTER bkotler@bridgedev.com OWNER: APPLICANT: BRIDGE POINT RANCHO CUCAMONGA, LLC 11100 SANTA MONICA BLVD., SUITE 700 LOS ANGELES, CA 90025 TEL: 213-805-6667 CONTACT: BRENDAN KOLTER bkotler@bridgedev.com SD 1/8/20 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL SD 4/10/20 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL SD 8/25/20 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL SD 12/18/20 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL SD 1/15/21 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL FLOOR PLAN - BUILDING 1 SCALE: 1" = 60'-0" A B C D E F G H J K L M N O P B C D E F G H J K L M N O 1,912'-0" 64'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0" 1,912'-0" 64'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"806'-0"60'-0"60'-0"60'-0"60'-0"60'-0"60'-0"50'-0"60'-0"60'-0"60'-0"60'-0"60'-0"820'-0"55'-0"60'-0"60'-0"60'-0"60'-0"60'-0"60'-0"50'-0"60'-0"60'-0"60'-0"60'-0"60'-0"55'-0"1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 1. PAINTED CONCRETE TILT-UP WAREHOUSE / OFFICE / MANUFACTURING FACILITY. 2. PRIMARY ENTRANCE. 3. PAINTED 9' X 10' DOCK HIGH METAL TRUCK DOORS. 4. PAINTED 12' X 14' GRADE LEVEL METAL TRUCK DOORS. 5. PAINTED 3' X 7' METAL ACCESS MAN DOORS. 6. STRUCTURAL BUILDING COLUMN. 7. STOREFRONT: GLAZING SET IN CLEAR ANODIZED ALUMINUM 2" X 4 1/4" MIN. OFF-SET GLAZING SYSTEM. KEYNOTES 000 CONSTRUCTION NOTES: 1. BUILDING WALLS ARE PAINTED TILT-UP CONCRETE. TYPICAL PARAPET HEIGHT IS 42'-0" TO 50'-0". 2. BUILDING IS PROPOSED AS WAREHOUSE AND OFFICE ELECTRICAL ROOM POTENTIAL OFFICE AREA PROPOSED BUILDING TYPE III-B FULLY SPRINKLERED B / S1 / F1 OCCUPANCY 1 92 DOCK POSITIONS 92 DOCK POSITIONS 2 2 3 43 3 43 5 5 5 5 6 7 7 7 7RP UPRP UPA 1A2-2 B 1A2-2 0'20'100'50'200' A.1 O.9 48'-0"48'-0"4 4RP UPRP UP7 C 1A2-2 POTENTIAL OFFICE AREA POTENTIAL OFFICE AREA SHEET: SHEET TITLE RGA, OFFICE OF ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN COPYRIGHT CHK'D BY: DRAWN BY: CAD FILE NAME: OWNER PROJECT NO: RGA PROJECT NO: MARK DESCRIPTIONDATE SD CONSULTANT PROFESSIONAL SEALS RGA Office of Architectural Design 15231 Alton Parkway, Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92618 T 949-341-0920 FX 949-341-0922 SD SD CS DR 00000.00 19134-01-1A2-2P 19134.01 11/1/19 SCHEMATIC DESIGN BRIDGE POINT RANCHO CUCAMONGA 12434 4TH STREET CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA BRIDGE POINT RANCHO CUCAMONGA, LLC 11100 SANTA MONICA BLVD., SUITE 700 LOS ANGELES, CA 90025 TEL: 213-805-6667 CONTACT: BRENDAN KOLTER bkotler@bridgedev.com OWNER: APPLICANT: BRIDGE POINT RANCHO CUCAMONGA, LLC 11100 SANTA MONICA BLVD., SUITE 700 LOS ANGELES, CA 90025 TEL: 213-805-6667 CONTACT: BRENDAN KOLTER bkotler@bridgedev.com 1/8/20 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL 4/10/20 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL PARTIAL ENLARGED FLOOR PLANS BUILDING 1 1A2-2P DRC 2020-00202 SD 8/25/20 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL SD 1/15/21 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL ENLARGED SOUTHWEST FLOOR PLAN - BUILDING 1 SCALE: 1" = 20'-0" ELECTRICAL ROOM RAMP UPWAREHOUSE AREA ENLARGED SOUTHEAST FLOOR PLAN - BUILDING 1 SCALE: 1" = 20'-0" WAREHOUSE AREA A B 3 4 6"X6" CURB6"X6" CURB6"X6" CURB7'-4" CLR.7'-4" CLR.5'-0" CLR. 28'-6" 3'-0"2'-8"7'-8"7'-8"8'-0" TRASH ENCLOSURE WALLSTRASH ENCLOSURE PLAN VIEW SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 18"6"X6" CURB5'-0" CLR.8'-0" TRASH ENCLOSURE WALLS3'-0"2'-8"14'-0"TRASH ENCLOSURE FRONT ELEVATION SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" PAINTED METAL GATE - 3" X 3" X 3/8" ANGLE FRAME WITH 16 GA. CORRUGATED PANEL - PROVIDE CROSS BRACE AS SHOWN CONCRETE TILT-UP WALL - SEE STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS 8'-0"4"2"6"3'-0"3'-0"6"5"1"40" A.F.F.2 7 7 RAMP UP3 4 ENLARGED NORTHEAST FLOOR PLAN - BUILDING 1 SCALE: 1" = 20'-0"C WAREHOUSE AREA NOTE: TOTAL OFFICE AREA NOT TO EXCEED 25,000 SF C POTENTIAL OFFICE AREA POTENTIAL OFFICE AREA POTENTIAL OFFICE AREA W/ MEZZANINE SHEET: SHEET TITLE RGA, OFFICE OF ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN COPYRIGHT CHK'D BY: DRAWN BY: CAD FILE NAME: OWNER PROJECT NO: RGA PROJECT NO: MARK DESCRIPTIONDATE SD CONSULTANT PROFESSIONAL SEALS RGA Office of Architectural Design 15231 Alton Parkway, Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92618 T 949-341-0920 FX 949-341-0922 ROOF PLANS BUILDING 1 CS DR 00000.00 1A2-3P 19134-01-1A2-3P 19134.01 11/1/19 SCHEMATIC DESIGN BRIDGE POINT RANCHO CUCAMONGA 12434 4TH STREET CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA BRIDGE POINT RANCHO CUCAMONGA, LLC 11100 SANTA MONICA BLVD., SUITE 700 LOS ANGELES, CA 90025 TEL: 213-805-6667 CONTACT: BRENDAN KOLTER bkotler@bridgedev.com OWNER: APPLICANT: BRIDGE POINT RANCHO CUCAMONGA, LLC 11100 SANTA MONICA BLVD., SUITE 700 LOS ANGELES, CA 90025 TEL: 213-805-6667 CONTACT: BRENDAN KOLTER bkotler@bridgedev.com SD 1/8/20 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL SD 4/10/20 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL DRC 2020-00202 SD 8/25/20 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL SD 1/15/21 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL RIDGELINE RIDGELINE RIDGELINE APPROX. LAYOUT FOR REQUIRED LOW-PROFILE WAREHOUSE EXHAUST FANS APPROX. 4 FT. HEIGHT - ALL UNITS SHALL BE SCREENED BY LINE OF SIGHT FROM BUILDING PARAPETS APPROX. LAYOUT FOR REQUIRED LOW-PROFILE WAREHOUSE EXHAUST FANS APPROX. 4 FT. HEIGHT - ALL UNITS SHALL BE SCREENED BY LINE OF SIGHT FROM BUILDING PARAPETS MECHANICAL ZONE (UNITS SHALL BE SCREENED FROM VIEW BY HEIGHTENED PARAPET WALLS) MECHANICAL ZONE (UNITS SHALL BE SCREENED FROM VIEW BY HEIGHTENED PARAPET WALLS) ROOF PLAN - BUILDING 1 SCALE: 1" = 60'-0" 0'20'100'50'200' PARTIAL ENLARGED ROOF PLAN SCALE: 1" = 30'-0" 0'10'20'100'50' MECHANICAL ZONE (UNITS SHALL BE SCREENED FROM VIEW BY HEIGHTENED PARAPET WALLS) SEE ENLARGED PLAN ABOVE A B C D E F G H J K L M N O P B C D E F G H J K L M N O 1,912'-0" 64'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0" 1,912'-0" 64'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"806'-0"60'-0"60'-0"60'-0"60'-0"60'-0"60'-0"50'-0"60'-0"60'-0"60'-0"60'-0"60'-0"820'-0"55'-0"60'-0"60'-0"60'-0"60'-0"60'-0"60'-0"50'-0"60'-0"60'-0"60'-0"60'-0"60'-0"55'-0"1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 A.1 O.9 48'-0"48'-0"MECHANICAL ZONE (UNITS SHALL BE SCREENED FROM VIEW BY HEIGHTENED PARAPET WALLS) 8'-0"13"6'-3"8"TYPICAL TUBE STEEL FENCE ELEVATION SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" TUBE STEL FENCE PER DETAIL, BLACK IN COLOR SIMILAR SITE LIGHTING STYLE SCALE: N.T.S.1MAX TOP OF LIGHT AT 25'-0" TYPICAL EQUIPMENT SCREEN LINE OF SIGHTPROPERTY LINE LINE OF SI G H T SCALE 1" = 30'-0" NOTE: LINE OF SIGHT TAKEN FROM 6'-0" ABOVE FINISH GRADE 2 FINISH FLOOR PROPOSED PACKAGE UNIT BUILDING PARAPET HEIGHT TILT-UP BUILDING CL. OF 4TH STREET42'T.O.P. 60'34'17'26'17'11' P-1. FIELD COLOR SW 7005 - PURE WHITE P-2. LIGHT ACCENT COLOR SW 7073 - NETWORK GRAY P-3. DARK ACCENT COLOR SW 7076 - CYBERSPACE P-4. ACCENT COLOR SW 6804 - DIGNITY BLUE GL-5. GLASS - PRIMARY WINDOW PPG SOLARCOOL PACIFICA FINISH SCHEDULE:RGA Office of Architectural Design 15231 Alton Parkway, Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92618 T 949-341-0920 FX 949-341-0922 SHEET: SHEET TITLE RGA, OFFICE OF ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN COPYRIGHT CHK'D BY: DRAWN BY: CAD FILE NAME: OWNER PROJECT NO: RGA PROJECT NO: MARK DESCRIPTIONDATE SD CONSULTANT PROFESSIONAL SEALS EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS BUILDING 1 CS DR 00000.00 1A3-1P 19134-01-1A3-1P 19134.01 11/1/19 SCHEMATIC DESIGN BRIDGE POINT RANCHO CUCAMONGA, LLC 11100 SANTA MONICA BLVD., SUITE 700 LOS ANGELES, CA 90025 TEL: 213-805-6667 CONTACT: BRENDAN KOLTER bkotler@bridgedev.com OWNER: APPLICANT: BRIDGE POINT RANCHO CUCAMONGA, LLC 11100 SANTA MONICA BLVD., SUITE 700 LOS ANGELES, CA 90025 TEL: 213-805-6667 CONTACT: BRENDAN KOLTER bkotler@bridgedev.com BRIDGE POINT RANCHO CUCAMONGA 12434 4TH STREET CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA SD 1/8/20 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL DRC 2020-00202 4/10/20 PLANNING RESUBMITTALSD SD 8/25/20 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL SD 1/15/21 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL OVERALL SOUTH ELEVATION SCALE: 1" = 30'-0" KEYNOTES 1. PRIMARY STOREFRONT ENTRANCE. 2. PAINTED 12' WIDE X 15' HIGH LEVEL VERTICAL LIFT TRUCK DOOR. 3. PAINTED 9' WIDE X 10' HIGH VERTICAL LIFT TRUCK DOOR. 4. 3' X 7' PAINTED METAL MAN DOOR. 5. 2" WIDE X 3/4" DEEP HORIZONTAL / VERTICAL REVEAL. 6. BLUE GLASS IN CLEAR ALUMINUM STOREFRONT FRAME SYSTEM. 7. PAINTED CONCRETE TILT-UP EXTERIOR WALL CONSTRUCTION. 8. PROPOSED FUTURE TENANT SIGNAGE LOCATION UNDER SEPARATE SIGN PACKAGE. NOT INCLUDED IN THIS SUBMITTAL PACKAGE. 9. 8' HIGH BLACK TUBULAR STEEL ROLLING GATE W/ VIEW OBSCURING PERFORATED MESH - TYP. AT YARD ENTRANCES. 10. TYP. 8' HIGH PAINTED CONCRETE SCREEN WALL ELEVATION W/ ACCENT REVEALS AND PAINTED ACCENTS TO MATCH BUILDING ARCHITECTURE. 11. ALUMINUM METAL PANEL ENTRY CANOPY. 12. ACCENT PAINTED CONCRETE PANEL. 13. INTERIOR ROOF DRAIN. 14. ALUMINUM PANEL CORNICE ASSEMBLY. 15. NOT USED. 16. PAINTED CONCRETE AND STEEL TRELLIS LUNCH CANOPY STRUCTURE. 17. CLEAR ANODIZED ALUMINUM SUNSHADE DEVICE OVER WINDOWS FOR SOLAR CONTROL. OFFICE CORNER - PARTIAL SOUTH ELEVATION - WEST END SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0" PARTIAL SOUTH ELEVATION - CENTER SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0" SEE BLOWUP BELOW RIGHTSEE BLOWUP AT BOTTOM OF SHEET 46'-0"50'-0"41'-0"46'-0"41'-0"46'-0"50'-0"00 S I G N A G E S I G N A G E S I G N A G E SEE BLOWUP BELOW LEFT S I G N A G E OFFICE CORNER - PARTIAL SOUTH ELEVATION - EAST END SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0" 11 9 109 88 11111111 1111 44 666 6 55 4 6 54 66 2'-0"41'-0"46'-0"2'-0"8'-0"8'-0"12141214 16 12 1717 41'-0"46'-0"10 16 RGA Office of Architectural Design 15231 Alton Parkway, Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92618 T 949-341-0920 FX 949-341-0922 SHEET: SHEET TITLE RGA, OFFICE OF ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN COPYRIGHT CHK'D BY: DRAWN BY: CAD FILE NAME: OWNER PROJECT NO: RGA PROJECT NO: MARK DESCRIPTIONDATE SD CONSULTANT PROFESSIONAL SEALS EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS BUILDING 1 CS DR 00000.00 1A3-2P 19134-01-1A3-2P 19134.01 11/1/19 SCHEMATIC DESIGN DRC 2020-00202 BRIDGE POINT RANCHO CUCAMONGA, LLC 11100 SANTA MONICA BLVD., SUITE 700 LOS ANGELES, CA 90025 TEL: 213-805-6667 CONTACT: BRENDAN KOLTER bkotler@bridgedev.com OWNER: APPLICANT: BRIDGE POINT RANCHO CUCAMONGA, LLC 11100 SANTA MONICA BLVD., SUITE 700 LOS ANGELES, CA 90025 TEL: 213-805-6667 CONTACT: BRENDAN KOLTER bkotler@bridgedev.com BRIDGE POINT RANCHO CUCAMONGA 12434 4TH STREET CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA SD 1/8/20 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL 4/10/20 PLANNING RESUBMITTALSD SD 8/25/20 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL SD 1/15/21 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL OVERALL WEST ELEVATION (EAST ELEVATION IS SIMILAR / REVERSED) SCALE: 1" = 60'-0" PARTIAL ENLARGED WEST ELEVATION - NORTH END SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0" PARTIAL ENLARGED WEST ELEVATION - SOUTH END SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0" OVERALL NORTH ELEVATION SCALE: 1" = 30'-0" SEE BLOWUP BOTTOM SHEETSEE BLOWUP BELOW 42'-0"2'-0"40'-0"40'-0"41'-0"46'-0"42'46'42'-0"50'-0"4 13 1366 6 3 3 3 2 13 5 5 64 44 66 6 11 11 SEE BLOWUP BELOW PARTIAL ENLARGED NORTH ELEVATION 6 4 4'-0"4'4'50'-0"SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0" 121417 2 5 6 6 14 46'-0"6 RGA Office of Architectural Design 15231 Alton Parkway, Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92618 T 949-341-0920 FX 949-341-0922 SHEET: SHEET TITLE RGA, OFFICE OF ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN COPYRIGHT CHK'D BY: DRAWN BY: CAD FILE NAME: OWNER PROJECT NO: RGA PROJECT NO: MARK DESCRIPTIONDATE SD CONSULTANT PROFESSIONAL SEALS EXTERIOR MODEL IMAGES BUILDING 1 CS DR 00000.00 1A3-3P 19134-01-1A3-3P 19134.01 11/1/19 SCHEMATIC DESIGN BRIDGE POINT RANCHO CUCAMONGA 12434 4TH STREET CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA DRC 2019-00880 SD 1/8/20 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL BRIDGE POINT RANCHO CUCAMONGA, LLC 1600 E. FRANKLIN AVENUE, SUITE D EL SEGUNDO, CA 90024 TEL: 818-674-6770 CONTACT: BRENDAN KOLTER bkotler@bridgedev.com OWNER: APPLICANT: BRIDGE DEVELOPMENT PARTNERS, LLC 1600 E. FRANKLIN AVENUE, SUITE D EL SEGUNDO, CA 90024 TEL: 818-674-6770 CONTACT: BRENDAN KOLTER bkotler@bridgedev.com 4/10/20 PLANNING RESUBMITTALSD SD 8/25/20 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL BUILDING 1 - STREET VIEW FROM SOUTHWEST CORNER AT 4TH STREET BUILDING 1 - BUILDING CORNER VIEW FROM SOUTHEAST CORNER AT MAIN ENTRANCE SHEET: SHEET TITLE RGA, OFFICE OF ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN COPYRIGHT CHK'D BY: DRAWN BY: CAD FILE NAME: OWNER PROJECT NO: RGA PROJECT NO: MARK DESCRIPTIONDATE SD CONSULTANT PROFESSIONAL SEALS RGA Office of Architectural Design 15231 Alton Parkway, Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92618 T 949-341-0920 FX 949-341-0922 FLOOR PLAN BUILDING 2 CS DR 00000.00 2A2-1P 19134-01-2A2-1P 19134.01 11/1/19 SCHEMATIC DESIGN BRIDGE POINT RANCHO CUCAMONGA XXXX 6TH STREET CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA BRIDGE POINT RANCHO CUCAMONGA, LLC 11100 SANTA MONICA BLVD., SUITE 700 LOS ANGELES, CA 90025 TEL: 213-805-6667 CONTACT: BRENDAN KOLTER bkotler@bridgedev.com OWNER: APPLICANT: BRIDGE POINT RANCHO CUCAMONGA, LLC 11100 SANTA MONICA BLVD., SUITE 700 LOS ANGELES, CA 90025 TEL: 213-805-6667 CONTACT: BRENDAN KOLTER bkotler@bridgedev.com SD 1/8/20 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL SD 4/10/20 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL DRC 2020-00202 SD 8/25/20 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL SD 1/15/21 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL FLOOR PLAN - BUILDING 2 SCALE: 1" = 40'-0" 1. PAINTED CONCRETE TILT-UP WAREHOUSE / OFFICE / MANUFACTURING FACILITY. 2. PRIMARY ENTRANCE. 3. PAINTED 9' X 10' DOCK HIGH METAL TRUCK DOORS. 4. PAINTED 12' X 14' GRADE LEVEL METAL TRUCK DOORS. 5. PAINTED 3' X 7' METAL ACCESS MAN DOORS. 6. STRUCTURAL BUILDING COLUMN. 7. STOREFRONT: GLAZING SET IN CLEAR ANODIZED ALUMINUM 2" X 4 1/4" MIN. OFF-SET GLAZING SYSTEM. KEYNOTES 000 CONSTRUCTION NOTES: 1. BUILDING WALLS ARE PAINTED TILT-UP CONCRETE. TYPICAL PARAPET HEIGHT IS 42'-0" TO 50'-0". 2. BUILDING IS PROPOSED AS WAREHOUSE AND OFFICE 1,046'-0" 56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"38'-0" 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 P784'-0"52'-0"1,046'-0" 56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"38'-0" 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 A.1 772'-0"60'-0"50'-0"50'-0"50'-0"60'-0"40'-0"O B N C M D L E K F J G H 50'-0"60'-0"60'-0"60'-0"60'-0"60'-0"60'-0"A 60'-0"50'-0"50'-0"50'-0"60'-0"52'-0"O B N C M D L E K F J G H 50'-0"60'-0"60'-0"60'-0"60'-0"60'-0"60'-0"0'10'20'100'50' 2 7 7 51 DOCK DOORS 40 DOCK DOORS 4RP UPRP UP4 53 4 RP UP53 5 5 7 A 2A2-2 B 2A2-2 C 2A2-2 POTENTIAL OFFICE AREA POTENTIAL OFFICE AREA POTENTIAL OFFICE AREA W/ MEZZANINE P 52'-0"ELECTRICAL ROOM SHEET: SHEET TITLE RGA, OFFICE OF ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN COPYRIGHT CHK'D BY: DRAWN BY: CAD FILE NAME: OWNER PROJECT NO: RGA PROJECT NO: MARK DESCRIPTIONDATE SD CONSULTANT PROFESSIONAL SEALS RGA Office of Architectural Design 15231 Alton Parkway, Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92618 T 949-341-0920 FX 949-341-0922 SD SD CS DR 00000.00 19134-01-2A2-2P 19134.01 11/1/19 SCHEMATIC DESIGN BRIDGE POINT RANCHO CUCAMONGA XXXXX 6TH STREET CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA BRIDGE POINT RANCHO CUCAMONGA, LLC 11100 SANTA MONICA BLVD., SUITE 700 LOS ANGELES, CA 90025 TEL: 213-805-6667 CONTACT: BRENDAN KOLTER bkotler@bridgedev.com OWNER: APPLICANT: BRIDGE POINT RANCHO CUCAMONGA, LLC 11100 SANTA MONICA BLVD., SUITE 700 LOS ANGELES, CA 90025 TEL: 213-805-6667 CONTACT: BRENDAN KOLTER bkotler@bridgedev.com 1/8/20 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL 4/10/20 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL PARTIAL ENLARGED FLOOR PLANS BUILDING 2 2A2-2P DRC 2019-00880 SD 8/25/20 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL SD 1/15/21 PLANNING RESUBMITTALELECTRICAL ROOMRAMP UPWAREHOUSE AREA 2 3 4 7 ENLARGED SOUTHEAST FLOOR PLAN - BUILDING 2 SCALE: 1" = 20'-0" ENLARGED NORTHEAST FLOOR PLAN - BUILDING 2 SCALE: 1" = 20'-0"A B6"X6" CURB6"X6" CURB6"X6" CURB7'-4" CLR.7'-4" CLR.5'-0" CLR. 28'-6" 3'-0"2'-8"7'-8"7'-8"8'-0" TRASH ENCLOSURE WALLSTRASH ENCLOSURE PLAN VIEW SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 18"6"X6" CURB5'-0" CLR.8'-0" TRASH ENCLOSURE WALLS3'-0"2'-8"14'-0"TRASH ENCLOSURE FRONT ELEVATION SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" PAINTED METAL GATE - 3" X 3" X 3/8" ANGLE FRAME WITH 16 GA. CORRUGATED PANEL - PROVIDE CROSS BRACE AS SHOWN CONCRETE TILT-UP WALL - SEE STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS 8'-0"4"2"6"3'-0"3'-0"6"5"1"40" A.F.F.RAMP UP3 4 7 7 7 WAREHOUSE AREA NOTE: TOTAL OFFICE AREA NOT TO EXCEED 16,000 SF ENLARGED NORTHWEST FLOOR PLAN - BUILDING 2 SCALE: 1" = 20'-0"C WAREHOUSE AREA RAMP UP34 7 7 5 5 POTENTIAL OFFICE AREA POTENTIAL OFFICE AREA POTENTIAL OFFICE AREA W/ MEZZANINE SHEET: SHEET TITLE RGA, OFFICE OF ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN COPYRIGHT CHK'D BY: DRAWN BY: CAD FILE NAME: OWNER PROJECT NO: RGA PROJECT NO: MARK DESCRIPTIONDATE SD CONSULTANT PROFESSIONAL SEALS RGA Office of Architectural Design 15231 Alton Parkway, Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92618 T 949-341-0920 FX 949-341-0922 ROOF PLAN BUILDING 2 CS DR 00000.00 2A2-3P 19134-01-2A2-3P 19134.01 11/1/19 SCHEMATIC DESIGN BRIDGE POINT RANCHO CUCAMONGA XXXX 6TH STREET CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA BRIDGE POINT RANCHO CUCAMONGA, LLC 11100 SANTA MONICA BLVD., SUITE 700 LOS ANGELES, CA 90025 TEL: 213-805-6667 CONTACT: BRENDAN KOLTER bkotler@bridgedev.com OWNER: APPLICANT: BRIDGE POINT RANCHO CUCAMONGA, LLC 11100 SANTA MONICA BLVD., SUITE 700 LOS ANGELES, CA 90025 TEL: 213-805-6667 CONTACT: BRENDAN KOLTER bkotler@bridgedev.com SD 1/8/20 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL SD 4/10/20 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL DRC 2020-00202 SD 8/25/20 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL SD 1/15/21 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL RIDGELINE APPROX. LAYOUT FOR REQUIRED LOW-PROFILE WAREHOUSE EXHAUST FANS APPROX. 4 FT. HEIGHT - ALL UNITS SHALL BE SCREENED BY LINE OF SIGHT FROM BUILDING PARAPETS MECHANICAL ZONE (UNITS SHALL BE SCREENED FROM VIEW BY HEIGHTENED PARAPET WALLS) RIDGELINE 1,046'-0" 56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"38'-0" 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 P784'-0"52'-0"1,046'-0" 56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"38'-0" 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 A.1 772'-0"60'-0"50'-0"50'-0"50'-0"60'-0"40'-0"O B N C M D L E K F J G H 50'-0"60'-0"60'-0"60'-0"60'-0"60'-0"60'-0"A 60'-0"50'-0"50'-0"50'-0"60'-0"52'-0"O B N C M D L E K F J G H 50'-0"60'-0"60'-0"60'-0"60'-0"60'-0"60'-0"ROOF PLAN - BUILDING 2 SCALE: 1" = 40'-0" 0'10'20'100'50' MECHANICAL ZONE (UNITS SHALL BE SCREENED FROM VIEW BY HEIGHTENED PARAPET WALLS) RIDGELINE MECHANICAL ZONE (UNITS SHALL BE SCREENED FROM VIEW BY HEIGHTENED PARAPET WALLS) P 52'-0" 8'-0"13"6'-3"8"TYPICAL TUBE STEEL FENCE ELEVATION SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" TUBE STEL FENCE PER DETAIL, BLACK IN COLOR SIMILAR SITE LIGHTING STYLE SCALE: N.T.S.1MAX TOP OF LIGHT AT 25'-0" TYPICAL EQUIPMENT SCREEN LINE OF SIGHTPROPERTY LINE LINE OF SI G H T SCALE 1" = 30'-0" NOTE: LINE OF SIGHT TAKEN FROM 6'-0" ABOVE FINISH GRADE 2 FINISH FLOOR PROPOSED PACKAGE UNIT BUILDING PARAPET HEIGHT TILT-UP BUILDING CL. OF 4TH STREET42'T.O.P. 60'34'17'26'17'11' P-1. FIELD COLOR SW 7005 - PURE WHITE P-2. LIGHT ACCENT COLOR SW 7073 - NETWORK GRAY P-3. DARK ACCENT COLOR SW 7076 - CYBERSPACE P-4. ACCENT COLOR SW 6804 - DIGNITY BLUE GL-5. GLASS - PRIMARY WINDOW PPG SOLARCOOL PACIFICA FINISH SCHEDULE:RGA Office of Architectural Design 15231 Alton Parkway, Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92618 T 949-341-0920 FX 949-341-0922 SHEET: SHEET TITLE RGA, OFFICE OF ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN COPYRIGHT CHK'D BY: DRAWN BY: CAD FILE NAME: OWNER PROJECT NO: RGA PROJECT NO: MARK DESCRIPTIONDATE SD CONSULTANT PROFESSIONAL SEALS EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS BUILDING 2 CS DR 00000.00 2A3-1P 19134-01-2A3-1P 19134.01 11/1/19 SCHEMATIC DESIGN BRIDGE POINT RANCHO CUCAMONGA, LLC 11100 SANTA MONICA BLVD., SUITE 700 LOS ANGELES, CA 90025 TEL: 213-805-6667 CONTACT: BRENDAN KOLTER bkotler@bridgedev.com OWNER: APPLICANT: BRIDGE POINT RANCHO CUCAMONGA, LLC 11100 SANTA MONICA BLVD., SUITE 700 LOS ANGELES, CA 90025 TEL: 213-805-6667 CONTACT: BRENDAN KOLTER bkotler@bridgedev.com BRIDGE POINT RANCHO CUCAMONGA XXXXX 6TH STREET CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA SD 1/8/20 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL DRC 2020-00202 4/10/20 PLANNING RESUBMITTALSD SD 8/25/20 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL SD 1/15/21 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL OVERALL SOUTH ELEVATION SCALE: 1" = 40'-0" KEYNOTES PARTIAL SOUTH ELEVATION - WEST END SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0" SEE BLOWUP BELOW RIGHT 41'-0"46'-0"40'-0"00 S I G N A G E S I G N A G E SEE BLOWUP BELOW LEFT OFFICE CORNER - PARTIAL SOUTH ELEVATION - EAST END SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0" 8 11435542'-0"OVERALL EAST ELEVATION SCALE: 1" = 30'-0"46'-0"44'-0"SEE BLOWUP ON SHEET 2A3-2SEE BLOWUP ON SHEET 2A3-2 13 1. PRIMARY STOREFRONT ENTRANCE. 2. PAINTED 12' WIDE X 15' HIGH LEVEL VERTICAL LIFT TRUCK DOOR. 3. PAINTED 9' WIDE X 10' HIGH VERTICAL LIFT TRUCK DOOR. 4. 3' X 7' PAINTED METAL MAN DOOR. 5. 2" WIDE X 3/4" DEEP HORIZONTAL / VERTICAL REVEAL. 6. BLUE GLASS IN CLEAR ALUMINUM STOREFRONT FRAME SYSTEM. 7. PAINTED CONCRETE TILT-UP EXTERIOR WALL CONSTRUCTION. 8. PROPOSED FUTURE TENANT SIGNAGE LOCATION UNDER SEPARATE SIGN PACKAGE. NOT INCLUDED IN THIS SUBMITTAL PACKAGE. 9. 8' HIGH BLACK TUBULAR STEEL ROLLING GATE W/ VIEW OBSCURING PERFORATED MESH - TYP. AT YARD ENTRANCES. 10. TYP. 8' HIGH PAINTED CONCRETE SCREEN WALL ELEVATION W/ ACCENT REVEALS AND PAINTED ACCENTS TO MATCH BUILDING ARCHITECTURE. 11. ALUMINUM METAL PANEL ENTRY CANOPY. 12. ACCENT PAINTED CONCRETE PANEL. 13. INTERIOR ROOF DRAIN. 14. ALUMINUM PANEL CORNICE ASSEMBLY. 15. CLEAR ANODIZED ALUMINUM SUNSHADE DEVICE OVER WINDOWS FOR SOLAR CONTROL. 141215 4 13 2'-0" RGA Office of Architectural Design 15231 Alton Parkway, Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92618 T 949-341-0920 FX 949-341-0922 SHEET: SHEET TITLE RGA, OFFICE OF ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN COPYRIGHT CHK'D BY: DRAWN BY: CAD FILE NAME: OWNER PROJECT NO: RGA PROJECT NO: MARK DESCRIPTIONDATE SD CONSULTANT PROFESSIONAL SEALS EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS BUILDING 2 CS DR 00000.00 2A3-2P 19134-01-2A3-2P 19134.01 11/1/19 SCHEMATIC DESIGN BRIDGE POINT RANCHO CUCAMONGA, LLC 11100 SANTA MONICA BLVD., SUITE 700 LOS ANGELES, CA 90025 TEL: 213-805-6667 CONTACT: BRENDAN KOLTER bkotler@bridgedev.com OWNER: APPLICANT: BRIDGE POINT RANCHO CUCAMONGA, LLC 11100 SANTA MONICA BLVD., SUITE 700 LOS ANGELES, CA 90025 TEL: 213-805-6667 CONTACT: BRENDAN KOLTER bkotler@bridgedev.com BRIDGE POINT RANCHO CUCAMONGA XXXXX 6TH STREET CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA SD 1/8/20 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL DRC 2020-00202 4/10/20 PLANNING RESUBMITTALSD SD 8/25/20 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL SD 1/15/21 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL OVERALL NORTH ELEVATION SCALE: 1" = 40'-0" OFFICE CORNER - PARTIAL EAST ELEVATION - SOUTH END SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0"44'-0"46'-0"S I G N A G E SEE BLOWUP BELOW S I G N A G E OFFICE CORNER - PARTIAL EAST ELEVATION - NORTH END SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0" 11 910910 88 1171174 666 6 55 2'-0"44'-0"2'-0"OVERALL WEST ELEVATION SCALE: 1" = 30'-0"8'-0"41'-0"OFFICE CORNER - PARTIAL NORTH ELEVATION - WEST END SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0" 11 4 66 541'-0"46'-0"4'-0"40'-0"2'-0"4 2 37 13 14 14 14 15 15 1541'-0"12 2'-0"41'-0"44'-0"42'-0"44'-0"41'-0"S I G N A G E 8 13 50'-0"44'-0" RGA Office of Architectural Design 15231 Alton Parkway, Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92618 T 949-341-0920 FX 949-341-0922 SHEET: SHEET TITLE RGA, OFFICE OF ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN COPYRIGHT CHK'D BY: DRAWN BY: CAD FILE NAME: OWNER PROJECT NO: RGA PROJECT NO: MARK DESCRIPTIONDATE SD CONSULTANT PROFESSIONAL SEALS EXTERIOR MODEL IMAGES BUILDING 2 CS DR 00000.00 2A3-3P 19134-01-2A3-3P 19134.01 11/1/19 SCHEMATIC DESIGN BRIDGE POINT RANCHO CUCAMONGA 12434 4TH STREET CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA DRC 2020-00202 SD 1/8/20 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL BRIDGE POINT RANCHO CUCAMONGA, LLC 11100 SANTA MONICA BLVD., SUITE 700 LOS ANGELES, CA 90025 TEL: 213-805-6667 CONTACT: BRENDAN KOLTER bkotler@bridgedev.com OWNER: APPLICANT: BRIDGE POINT RANCHO CUCAMONGA, LLC 11100 SANTA MONICA BLVD., SUITE 700 LOS ANGELES, CA 90025 TEL: 213-805-6667 CONTACT: BRENDAN KOLTER bkotler@bridgedev.com 4/10/20 PLANNING RESUBMITTALSD SD 8/25/20 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL BUILDING 2 - STREET VIEW FROM NORTHEAST CORNER AT 6TH STREET BUILDING 2 - BUILDING CORNER VIEW FROM NORTHEAST CORNER AT MAIN ENTRANCE 12434 4TH STREETCITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA,CALIFORNIASHEET:SHEET TITLERGA, OFFICE OF ARCHITECTURAL DESIGNCOPYRIGHTCHK'D BY:DRAWN BY:CAD FILE NAME:K2M PROJECT NO:OWNER PROJECT NO:MARKDESCRIPTIONDATECONSULTANTPROFESSIONAL SEALS20001RGA PROJECT NO:19134.01BRIDGE POINTRANCHO CUCAMONGA00000.00KMKM10 HUGHES, SUITE A203, IRVINE, CA 92618O: 949-419-9908 F: 949-419-9870PROJECT NAMEBRIDGE POINT RANCHO CUCAMONGA, LLC11100 SANTA MONICA BLVD., SUITE 700LOS ANGELES, CA 90025TEL: 213-805-6667CONTACT: BRENDAN KOLTERbkotler@bridgedev.comOWNER:APPLICANT:BRIDGE POINT RANCHO CUCAMONGA, LLC11100 SANTA MONICA BLVD., SUITE 700LOS ANGELES, CA 90025TEL: 213-805-6667CONTACT: BRENDAN KOLTERbkotler@bridgedev.comNOT FOR CONSTRUCTION1/8/20REVISED PLANNING SET4/12/20REVISED PLANNING SET8/7/20REVISED PLANNING SET12/11/20REVISED PLANNING SET01/05/21REVISED PLANNING SETSL120001SL1SITE LIGHTING OVERALL PLANASL2ASL3ASL4ASL5SITE LIGHTING OVERALL PLANSCALE: 1"=100'A30"24" MIN.A.C. SURFACEBASESLOPE TO DRAIN 22.5 FT SQUARESTRAIGHT STEEL25 FTPOLE BASE24"GENERAL NOTES:1.PROVIDE 30" CLEAR POLE BASE ABOVEFINISHED GRADE OR AS DIRECTED BYARCHITECT.2.PROVIDE 24" DIAMETER SANDBLASTEDSMOOTH CONCRETE POLE BASE WITH 1"CHAMFER FULL CIRCUMFERENCE.3.POLE BASE SHALL BE DESIGNED BY ASTRUCTURAL PROFESSIONAL LICENSEDENGINEER IN THE STATE OF THE PROJECT.4.POLE ANCHORED TO BASE WITH FACTORYANCHOR BOLTS.5.ALL POLES SHALL BE LOCATED INSIDE THEPROPERTY LINE AND AT LEAST 3' FROMCURBS. AVOID ALL OBSTRUCTIONS,EXCEPT AT PROPERTY LINES WITH OTHERBUILDINGS.CAR LOT POLE BASE DETAILPB30N.T.S.SCALEPROVIDE HAND HOLEWITH GROUND LUGANCHOR BOLTS NUMBERAND PATTERN PERMANUFACTURE DATA1"x45 DEGREECHAMFER ATTOP EDGEREBAR PER STRUCTURALENGINEER DRAWINGSBRANCHCIRCUITCONDUITS54"24" MIN.A.C. SURFACEBASESLOPE TO DRAIN 25 FTPOLE BASE24"GENERAL NOTES:1.PROVIDE 54" CLEAR POLE BASE ABOVEFINISHED GRADE OR AS DIRECTED BYARCHITECT2.PROVIDE 24" DIAMETER SANDBLASTEDSMOOTH CONCRETE POLE BASE WITH 1"CHAMFER FULL CIRCUMFERENCE.3.POLE BASE SHALL BE DESIGNED BY ASTRUCTURAL PROFESSIONAL LICENSEDENGINEER IN THE STATE OF THE PROJECT.4.POLE ANCHORED TO BASE WITH FACTORYANCHOR BOLTS.5.ALL POLES SHALL BE LOCATED INSIDE THEPROPERTY LINE AND AT LEAST 3' FROMCURBS. AVOID ALL OBSTRUCTIONS,EXCEPT AT PROPERTY LINES WITH OTHERBUILDINGS.TRUCK LOT POLE BASE DETAILPB54N.T.S.SCALEPROVIDE HAND HOLEWITH GROUND LUGANCHOR BOLTS NUMBERAND PATTERN PERMANUFACTURE DATA1"x45 DEGREECHAMFER ATTOP EDGEREBAR PER STRUCTURALENGINEER DRAWINGSBRANCHCIRCUITCONDUITS20.5 FT SQUARESTRAIGHT STEELASL6ASL7StatisticsDescriptionSymbolAvgMaxMinMax/MinAvg/MinBldg 1 East Truck Area1.6 fc3.7 fc0.1 fc37.0:116.0:1Bldg 1 North Auto Parking2.1 fc3.2 fc0.5 fc6.4:14.2:1Bldg 1 North East Auto Parking2.2 fc3.6 fc1.2 fc3.0:11.8:1Bldg 1 North East Drive2.3 fc3.3 fc0.9 fc3.7:12.6:1Bldg 1 North West Auto Parking2.3 fc3.4 fc1.3 fc2.6:11.8:1Bldg 1 SE WALK2.1 fc3.1 fc1.1 fc2.8:11.9:1Bldg 1 South East Entrance2.0 fc3.8 fc0.8 fc4.8:12.5:1Bldg 1 South East Parking2.0 fc3.8 fc0.4 fc9.5:15.0:1Bldg 1 South Parking2.3 fc3.8 fc0.3 fc12.7:17.7:1Bldg 1 South West Auto Parking2.0 fc3.6 fc0.6 fc6.0:13.3:1Bldg 1 SW WALK1.9 fc2.9 fc1.0 fc2.9:11.9:1Bldg 1 West Truck Area1.8 fc3.5 fc0.6 fc5.8:13.0:1Bldg 2 East Auto Parking2.2 fc3.1 fc1.1 fc2.8:12.0:1Bldg 2 North East Auto Parking2.2 fc3.5 fc1.0 fc3.5:12.2:1Bldg 2 North East Drive2.4 fc3.0 fc1.6 fc1.9:11.5:1Bldg 2 North East Entrance2.2 fc3.4 fc1.5 fc2.3:11.5:1Bldg 2 North West Auto Parking2.1 fc3.7 fc1.1 fc3.4:11.9:1Bldg 2 South East Auto Parking2.0 fc3.2 fc0.7 fc4.6:12.9:1Bldg 2 South East Drive1.7 fc2.7 fc0.7 fc3.9:12.4:1Bldg 2 South West Auto Parking2.4 fc3.7 fc1.0 fc3.7:12.4:1Bldg 2 Truck Area1.9 fc3.9 fc0.1 fc39.0:119.0:1ScheduleSymbolLabelQTYManufacturerCatalog NumberDescriptionFilenameLLFWattageIII-W3U.S. ARCHITECTURAL LIGHTINGVLL-PLED-III-W-80LED-1050mA-NW MM511 WALL MT AT 25 FT AFGCAST BLACK PAINTED FINNED METAL HOUSING, CAST BLACK PAINTED METAL DRIVER COVER, 4 CIRCUIT BOARDS EACH WITH 20 LEDS, 1 CLEAR PLASTIC OPTIC BELOW EACH LED, 1 FORMED SEMI-SPECULAR METAL OPTIC MOUNTING PLATE BELOW EACH CIRCUIT BOARD.VLL-PLED-III-W-80LED-1050mA-NW.ies0.9256.4IVFT-HS64U.S. ARCHITECTURAL LIGHTINGVLL-PLED-IV-FT-80LED-1050mA-NW-HS -MM511 POLE MT AT 25 FT AFG B1-U0-G4CAST BLACK PAINTED FINNED METAL HOUSING, CAST BLACK PAINTED METAL DRIVER COVER, 4 CIRCUIT BOARDS EACH WITH 20 LEDS, 1 CLEAR PLASTIC OPTIC BELOW EACH LED, 1 MOLDED BLACK PLASTIC HOUSE SIDE SHIELD BELOW EACH OPTIC, 1 FORMED SEMI-SPECULAR METAL OPTIC MOUNTING PLATE BELOW EACH CIRCUIT BOARD.VLL-PLED-IV-FT-80LED-1050mA-NW-HS.ies0.9256.4IVFT-HS-Wall55U.S. ARCHITECTURAL LIGHTINGVLL-PLED-IV-FT-80LED-1050mA-NW-HS -MM511 WALL MT AT 25 FT AFG B1-U0-G4CAST BLACK PAINTED FINNED METAL HOUSING, CAST BLACK PAINTED METAL DRIVER COVER, 4 CIRCUIT BOARDS EACH WITH 20 LEDS, 1 CLEAR PLASTIC OPTIC BELOW EACH LED, 1 MOLDED BLACK PLASTIC HOUSE SIDE SHIELD BELOW EACH OPTIC, 1 FORMED SEMI-SPECULAR METAL OPTIC MOUNTING PLATE BELOW EACH CIRCUIT BOARD.VLL-PLED-IV-FT-80LED-1050mA-NW-HS.ies0.9256.4IVFT-HS-25U.S. ARCHITECTURAL LIGHTINGVLL-PLED-IV-FT-80LED-1050mA-NW-HS -MM511 POLE MT AT 25 FT AFG 22.5 FT POLE 30 IN BASECAST BLACK PAINTED FINNED METAL HOUSING, CAST BLACK PAINTED METAL DRIVER COVER, 4 CIRCUIT BOARDS EACH WITH 20 LEDS, 1 CLEAR PLASTIC OPTIC BELOW EACH LED, 1 MOLDED BLACK PLASTIC HOUSE SIDE SHIELD BELOW EACH OPTIC, 1 FORMED SEMI-SPECULAR METAL OPTIC MOUNTING PLATE BELOW EACH CIRCUIT BOARD.VLL-PLED-IV-FT-80LED-1050mA-NW-HS.ies0.9512.8VSQW8U.S. ARCHITECTURAL LIGHTINGVLL-PLED-VSQ-W-80LED-1050mA-NW-MM511 POLE MT AT 25 FT AFG 22.5 FT POLE 30 IN BASE B5-U0-G4CAST BLACK PAINTED FINNED METAL HOUSING, CAST BLACK PAINTED METAL DRIVER COVER, 4 CIRCUIT BOARDS EACH WITH 20 LEDS, 1 CLEAR PLASTIC OPTIC BELOW EACH LED, 1 FORMED SEMI-SPECULAR METAL OPTIC MOUNTING PLATE BELOW EACH CIRCUIT BOARD.VLL-PLED-VSQ-W-80LED-1050mA-NW.ies0.9256.4III-HS-700mA1U.S. ARCHITECTURAL LIGHTINGVLL-PLED-III-W-80LED-700mA-NW-HS -MM511 POLE MT AT 25FT AFT B1--U0-G4CAST BLACK PAINTED FINNED METAL HOUSING, CAST BLACK PAINTED METAL DRIVER COVER, 4 CIRCUIT BOARDS EACH WITH 20 LEDS, 1 CLEAR PLASTIC OPTIC BELOW EACH LED, 1 MOLDED BLACK PLASTIC HOUSE SIDE SHIELD BELOW EACH OPTIC, 1 FORMED SEMI-SPECULAR METAL OPTIC MOUNTING PLATE BELOW EACH CIRCUIT BOARD.VLL-PLED-III-W-80LED-700mA-NW-HS.ies0.9173.6WST71Lithonia LightingWST LED P1 40K VF MVOLTWST LED, Performance package 1, 4000 K, visual comfort forward throw, MVOLTWST_LED_P1_40K_VF_MVOLT.ies012WST-PC1Lithonia LightingWST LED P1 40K VF MVOLTWST LED, Performance package 1, 4000 K, visual comfort forward throw, MVOLT, Photocell controlWST_LED_P1_40K_VF_MVOLT.ies0.912WST-W14Lithonia LightingWST LED P1 40K VW MVOLTWST LED, Performance package 1, 4000 K, visual comfort wide, MVOLTWST_LED_P1_40K_VW_MVOLT.ies012UOL34LIGMANUOL-80541-W-W40 30 WattsOle recessed downlight round dia 9.65" HP LEDUOL-80541-W-W40.IES0.6830III-W-HS-700mA-W6U.S. ARCHITECTURAL LIGHTINGVLL-PLED-III-W-80LED-700mA-NW-HS -MM511 Wall MT AT 25FT AFT B1-U0-G4CAST BLACK PAINTED FINNED METAL HOUSING, CAST BLACK PAINTED METAL DRIVER COVER, 4 CIRCUIT BOARDS EACH WITH 20 LEDS, 1 CLEAR PLASTIC OPTIC BELOW EACH LED, 1 MOLDED BLACK PLASTIC HOUSE SIDE SHIELD BELOW EACH OPTIC, 1 FORMED SEMI-SPECULAR METAL OPTIC MOUNTING PLATE BELOW EACH CIRCUIT BOARD.VLL-PLED-III-W-80LED-700mA-NW-HS.ies0.9173.6 12434 4TH STREETCITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA,CALIFORNIASHEET:SHEET TITLERGA, OFFICE OF ARCHITECTURAL DESIGNCOPYRIGHTCHK'D BY:DRAWN BY:CAD FILE NAME:K2M PROJECT NO:OWNER PROJECT NO:MARKDESCRIPTIONDATECONSULTANTPROFESSIONAL SEALS20001RGA PROJECT NO:19134.01BRIDGE POINTRANCHO CUCAMONGA00000.00KMKM10 HUGHES, SUITE A203, IRVINE, CA 92618O: 949-419-9908 F: 949-419-9870PROJECT NAMEBRIDGE POINT RANCHO CUCAMONGA, LLC11100 SANTA MONICA BLVD., SUITE 700LOS ANGELES, CA 90025TEL: 213-805-6667CONTACT: BRENDAN KOLTERbkotler@bridgedev.comOWNER:APPLICANT:BRIDGE POINT RANCHO CUCAMONGA, LLC11100 SANTA MONICA BLVD., SUITE 700LOS ANGELES, CA 90025TEL: 213-805-6667CONTACT: BRENDAN KOLTERbkotler@bridgedev.comNOT FOR CONSTRUCTION1/8/20REVISED PLANNING SET4/12/20REVISED PLANNING SET8/7/20REVISED PLANNING SET12/11/20REVISED PLANNING SET01/05/21REVISED PLANNING SETSL220001SL2BUILDING 1NORTH EAST PHOTOMETRICPHOTOMETRIC DISCLAIMER:THIS PHOTOMETRIC STUDY HAS BEEN PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH IESNASTANDARDS AND INDUSTRY LIGHTING PRACTICES. INPUT DATA FILES ARE PROVIDEDBY THE MANUFACTURER OF SPECIFIED LIGHT FIXTURES. DIFFERENCES MAY OCCURBETWEEN CALCULATIONS AND ACTUAL INSTALLED CONDITIONS DUE TO TESTPROCEDURES, EQUIPMENT PERFORMANCE, MEASUREMENT TECHNIQUES AND FIELDCONDITIONS SUCH AS TEMPERATURE, VOLTAGE AND REFLECTANCE FROM CEILINGS,WALLS AND FLOORS. ARCHITECTURAL ELEMENTS, ROOM SIZES AND MOUNTINGHEIGHTS SIGNIFICANTLY AFFECT THE LIGHTING CALCULATIONS. IF REAL CONDITIONSDIFFER FROM CALCULATED CONDITIONS, LIGHT LEVELS MAY VARY. K2M ENGINEERINGIS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ACCURACY OF THE MANUFACTURER'S INFORMATION.PB54SL1TYPBUILDING 1 NORTH EAST PHOTOMETRICSCALE: 1"=40'-0"APB30SL1PB30SL1 12434 4TH STREETCITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA,CALIFORNIASHEET:SHEET TITLERGA, OFFICE OF ARCHITECTURAL DESIGNCOPYRIGHTCHK'D BY:DRAWN BY:CAD FILE NAME:K2M PROJECT NO:OWNER PROJECT NO:MARKDESCRIPTIONDATECONSULTANTPROFESSIONAL SEALS20001RGA PROJECT NO:19134.01BRIDGE POINTRANCHO CUCAMONGA00000.00KMKM10 HUGHES, SUITE A203, IRVINE, CA 92618O: 949-419-9908 F: 949-419-9870PROJECT NAMEBRIDGE POINT RANCHO CUCAMONGA, LLC11100 SANTA MONICA BLVD., SUITE 700LOS ANGELES, CA 90025TEL: 213-805-6667CONTACT: BRENDAN KOLTERbkotler@bridgedev.comOWNER:APPLICANT:BRIDGE POINT RANCHO CUCAMONGA, LLC11100 SANTA MONICA BLVD., SUITE 700LOS ANGELES, CA 90025TEL: 213-805-6667CONTACT: BRENDAN KOLTERbkotler@bridgedev.comNOT FOR CONSTRUCTION1/8/20REVISED PLANNING SET4/12/20REVISED PLANNING SET8/7/20REVISED PLANNING SET12/11/20REVISED PLANNING SET01/05/21REVISED PLANNING SETSL320001SL3BUILDING 1SOUTH EAST PHOTOMETRICPHOTOMETRIC DISCLAIMER:THIS PHOTOMETRIC STUDY HAS BEEN PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH IESNASTANDARDS AND INDUSTRY LIGHTING PRACTICES. INPUT DATA FILES ARE PROVIDEDBY THE MANUFACTURER OF SPECIFIED LIGHT FIXTURES. DIFFERENCES MAY OCCURBETWEEN CALCULATIONS AND ACTUAL INSTALLED CONDITIONS DUE TO TESTPROCEDURES, EQUIPMENT PERFORMANCE, MEASUREMENT TECHNIQUES AND FIELDCONDITIONS SUCH AS TEMPERATURE, VOLTAGE AND REFLECTANCE FROM CEILINGS,WALLS AND FLOORS. ARCHITECTURAL ELEMENTS, ROOM SIZES AND MOUNTINGHEIGHTS SIGNIFICANTLY AFFECT THE LIGHTING CALCULATIONS. IF REAL CONDITIONSDIFFER FROM CALCULATED CONDITIONS, LIGHT LEVELS MAY VARY. K2M ENGINEERINGIS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ACCURACY OF THE MANUFACTURER'S INFORMATION.PB54SL1TYPPB30SL1PB30SL1BUILDING 1 SOUTH EAST PHOTOMETRICSCALE: 1"=40'-0"APB30SL1PB30SL1PB30SL1PB54SL1 12434 4TH STREETCITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA,CALIFORNIASHEET:SHEET TITLERGA, OFFICE OF ARCHITECTURAL DESIGNCOPYRIGHTCHK'D BY:DRAWN BY:CAD FILE NAME:K2M PROJECT NO:OWNER PROJECT NO:MARKDESCRIPTIONDATECONSULTANTPROFESSIONAL SEALS20001RGA PROJECT NO:19134.01BRIDGE POINTRANCHO CUCAMONGA00000.00KMKM10 HUGHES, SUITE A203, IRVINE, CA 92618O: 949-419-9908 F: 949-419-9870PROJECT NAMEBRIDGE POINT RANCHO CUCAMONGA, LLC11100 SANTA MONICA BLVD., SUITE 700LOS ANGELES, CA 90025TEL: 213-805-6667CONTACT: BRENDAN KOLTERbkotler@bridgedev.comOWNER:APPLICANT:BRIDGE POINT RANCHO CUCAMONGA, LLC11100 SANTA MONICA BLVD., SUITE 700LOS ANGELES, CA 90025TEL: 213-805-6667CONTACT: BRENDAN KOLTERbkotler@bridgedev.comNOT FOR CONSTRUCTION1/8/20REVISED PLANNING SET4/12/20REVISED PLANNING SET8/7/20REVISED PLANNING SET12/11/20REVISED PLANNING SET01/05/21REVISED PLANNING SETSL420001SL4BUILDING 1NORTH WEST PHOTOMETRICPHOTOMETRIC DISCLAIMER:THIS PHOTOMETRIC STUDY HAS BEEN PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH IESNASTANDARDS AND INDUSTRY LIGHTING PRACTICES. INPUT DATA FILES ARE PROVIDEDBY THE MANUFACTURER OF SPECIFIED LIGHT FIXTURES. DIFFERENCES MAY OCCURBETWEEN CALCULATIONS AND ACTUAL INSTALLED CONDITIONS DUE TO TESTPROCEDURES, EQUIPMENT PERFORMANCE, MEASUREMENT TECHNIQUES AND FIELDCONDITIONS SUCH AS TEMPERATURE, VOLTAGE AND REFLECTANCE FROM CEILINGS,WALLS AND FLOORS. ARCHITECTURAL ELEMENTS, ROOM SIZES AND MOUNTINGHEIGHTS SIGNIFICANTLY AFFECT THE LIGHTING CALCULATIONS. IF REAL CONDITIONSDIFFER FROM CALCULATED CONDITIONS, LIGHT LEVELS MAY VARY. K2M ENGINEERINGIS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ACCURACY OF THE MANUFACTURER'S INFORMATION.PB54SL1TYPBUILDING 1 NORTH WEST PHOTOMETRICSCALE: 1"=40'-0"APB30SL1TYP 12434 4TH STREETCITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA,CALIFORNIASHEET:SHEET TITLERGA, OFFICE OF ARCHITECTURAL DESIGNCOPYRIGHTCHK'D BY:DRAWN BY:CAD FILE NAME:K2M PROJECT NO:OWNER PROJECT NO:MARKDESCRIPTIONDATECONSULTANTPROFESSIONAL SEALS20001RGA PROJECT NO:19134.01BRIDGE POINTRANCHO CUCAMONGA00000.00KMKM10 HUGHES, SUITE A203, IRVINE, CA 92618O: 949-419-9908 F: 949-419-9870PROJECT NAMEBRIDGE POINT RANCHO CUCAMONGA, LLC11100 SANTA MONICA BLVD., SUITE 700LOS ANGELES, CA 90025TEL: 213-805-6667CONTACT: BRENDAN KOLTERbkotler@bridgedev.comOWNER:APPLICANT:BRIDGE POINT RANCHO CUCAMONGA, LLC11100 SANTA MONICA BLVD., SUITE 700LOS ANGELES, CA 90025TEL: 213-805-6667CONTACT: BRENDAN KOLTERbkotler@bridgedev.comNOT FOR CONSTRUCTION1/8/20REVISED PLANNING SET4/12/20REVISED PLANNING SET8/7/20REVISED PLANNING SET12/11/20REVISED PLANNING SET01/05/21REVISED PLANNING SETSL520001SL5BUILDING 1SOUTH WEST PHOTOMETRICPHOTOMETRIC DISCLAIMER:THIS PHOTOMETRIC STUDY HAS BEEN PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH IESNASTANDARDS AND INDUSTRY LIGHTING PRACTICES. INPUT DATA FILES ARE PROVIDEDBY THE MANUFACTURER OF SPECIFIED LIGHT FIXTURES. DIFFERENCES MAY OCCURBETWEEN CALCULATIONS AND ACTUAL INSTALLED CONDITIONS DUE TO TESTPROCEDURES, EQUIPMENT PERFORMANCE, MEASUREMENT TECHNIQUES AND FIELDCONDITIONS SUCH AS TEMPERATURE, VOLTAGE AND REFLECTANCE FROM CEILINGS,WALLS AND FLOORS. ARCHITECTURAL ELEMENTS, ROOM SIZES AND MOUNTINGHEIGHTS SIGNIFICANTLY AFFECT THE LIGHTING CALCULATIONS. IF REAL CONDITIONSDIFFER FROM CALCULATED CONDITIONS, LIGHT LEVELS MAY VARY. K2M ENGINEERINGIS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ACCURACY OF THE MANUFACTURER'S INFORMATION.BUILDING 1 SOUTH WEST PHOTOMETRICSCALE: 1"=40'-0"APB54SL1TYPPB30SL1PB30SL1PB30SL1PB30SL1PB54SL1 12434 4TH STREETCITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA,CALIFORNIASHEET:SHEET TITLERGA, OFFICE OF ARCHITECTURAL DESIGNCOPYRIGHTCHK'D BY:DRAWN BY:CAD FILE NAME:K2M PROJECT NO:OWNER PROJECT NO:MARKDESCRIPTIONDATECONSULTANTPROFESSIONAL SEALS20001RGA PROJECT NO:19134.01BRIDGE POINTRANCHO CUCAMONGA00000.00KMKM10 HUGHES, SUITE A203, IRVINE, CA 92618O: 949-419-9908 F: 949-419-9870PROJECT NAMEBRIDGE POINT RANCHO CUCAMONGA, LLC11100 SANTA MONICA BLVD., SUITE 700LOS ANGELES, CA 90025TEL: 213-805-6667CONTACT: BRENDAN KOLTERbkotler@bridgedev.comOWNER:APPLICANT:BRIDGE POINT RANCHO CUCAMONGA, LLC11100 SANTA MONICA BLVD., SUITE 700LOS ANGELES, CA 90025TEL: 213-805-6667CONTACT: BRENDAN KOLTERbkotler@bridgedev.comNOT FOR CONSTRUCTION1/8/20REVISED PLANNING SET4/12/20REVISED PLANNING SET8/7/20REVISED PLANNING SET12/11/20REVISED PLANNING SET01/05/21REVISED PLANNING SETSL620001SL6BUILDING 2EAST PHOTOMETRICPHOTOMETRIC DISCLAIMER:THIS PHOTOMETRIC STUDY HAS BEEN PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH IESNASTANDARDS AND INDUSTRY LIGHTING PRACTICES. INPUT DATA FILES ARE PROVIDEDBY THE MANUFACTURER OF SPECIFIED LIGHT FIXTURES. DIFFERENCES MAY OCCURBETWEEN CALCULATIONS AND ACTUAL INSTALLED CONDITIONS DUE TO TESTPROCEDURES, EQUIPMENT PERFORMANCE, MEASUREMENT TECHNIQUES AND FIELDCONDITIONS SUCH AS TEMPERATURE, VOLTAGE AND REFLECTANCE FROM CEILINGS,WALLS AND FLOORS. ARCHITECTURAL ELEMENTS, ROOM SIZES AND MOUNTINGHEIGHTS SIGNIFICANTLY AFFECT THE LIGHTING CALCULATIONS. IF REAL CONDITIONSDIFFER FROM CALCULATED CONDITIONS, LIGHT LEVELS MAY VARY. K2M ENGINEERINGIS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ACCURACY OF THE MANUFACTURER'S INFORMATION.PB54SL1TYPBUILDING 2 EAST PHOTOMETRICSCALE: 1"=40'-0"APB54SL1TYPPB30SL1 TYPPB30SL1PB30SL1TYP 12434 4TH STREETCITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA,CALIFORNIASHEET:SHEET TITLERGA, OFFICE OF ARCHITECTURAL DESIGNCOPYRIGHTCHK'D BY:DRAWN BY:CAD FILE NAME:K2M PROJECT NO:OWNER PROJECT NO:MARKDESCRIPTIONDATECONSULTANTPROFESSIONAL SEALS20001RGA PROJECT NO:19134.01BRIDGE POINTRANCHO CUCAMONGA00000.00KMKM10 HUGHES, SUITE A203, IRVINE, CA 92618O: 949-419-9908 F: 949-419-9870PROJECT NAMEBRIDGE POINT RANCHO CUCAMONGA, LLC11100 SANTA MONICA BLVD., SUITE 700LOS ANGELES, CA 90025TEL: 213-805-6667CONTACT: BRENDAN KOLTERbkotler@bridgedev.comOWNER:APPLICANT:BRIDGE POINT RANCHO CUCAMONGA, LLC11100 SANTA MONICA BLVD., SUITE 700LOS ANGELES, CA 90025TEL: 213-805-6667CONTACT: BRENDAN KOLTERbkotler@bridgedev.comNOT FOR CONSTRUCTION1/8/20REVISED PLANNING SET4/12/20REVISED PLANNING SET8/7/20REVISED PLANNING SET12/11/20REVISED PLANNING SET01/05/21REVISED PLANNING SETSL720001SL7BUILDING 2WEST PHOTOMETRICPHOTOMETRIC DISCLAIMER:THIS PHOTOMETRIC STUDY HAS BEEN PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH IESNASTANDARDS AND INDUSTRY LIGHTING PRACTICES. INPUT DATA FILES ARE PROVIDEDBY THE MANUFACTURER OF SPECIFIED LIGHT FIXTURES. DIFFERENCES MAY OCCURBETWEEN CALCULATIONS AND ACTUAL INSTALLED CONDITIONS DUE TO TESTPROCEDURES, EQUIPMENT PERFORMANCE, MEASUREMENT TECHNIQUES AND FIELDCONDITIONS SUCH AS TEMPERATURE, VOLTAGE AND REFLECTANCE FROM CEILINGS,WALLS AND FLOORS. ARCHITECTURAL ELEMENTS, ROOM SIZES AND MOUNTINGHEIGHTS SIGNIFICANTLY AFFECT THE LIGHTING CALCULATIONS. IF REAL CONDITIONSDIFFER FROM CALCULATED CONDITIONS, LIGHT LEVELS MAY VARY. K2M ENGINEERINGIS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ACCURACY OF THE MANUFACTURER'S INFORMATION.PB30SL1BUILDING 2 WEST PHOTOMETRICSCALE: 1"=40'-0"APB54SL1TYPPB54SL1TYPPB30SL1 12434 4TH STREETCITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA,CALIFORNIASHEET:SHEET TITLERGA, OFFICE OF ARCHITECTURAL DESIGNCOPYRIGHTCHK'D BY:DRAWN BY:CAD FILE NAME:K2M PROJECT NO:OWNER PROJECT NO:MARKDESCRIPTIONDATECONSULTANTPROFESSIONAL SEALS20001RGA PROJECT NO:19134.01BRIDGE POINTRANCHO CUCAMONGA00000.00KMKM10 HUGHES, SUITE A203, IRVINE, CA 92618O: 949-419-9908 F: 949-419-9870PROJECT NAMEBRIDGE POINT RANCHO CUCAMONGA, LLC11100 SANTA MONICA BLVD., SUITE 700LOS ANGELES, CA 90025TEL: 213-805-6667CONTACT: BRENDAN KOLTERbkotler@bridgedev.comOWNER:APPLICANT:BRIDGE POINT RANCHO CUCAMONGA, LLC11100 SANTA MONICA BLVD., SUITE 700LOS ANGELES, CA 90025TEL: 213-805-6667CONTACT: BRENDAN KOLTERbkotler@bridgedev.comNOT FOR CONSTRUCTION1/8/20REVISED PLANNING SET4/12/20REVISED PLANNING SET8/7/20REVISED PLANNING SET12/11/20REVISED PLANNING SET01/05/21REVISED PLANNING SETSL820001SL6LUMINAIRE SPECIFICATION SHEETS Know what'sR Form 5-1 BMP Inspection and MaintenanceBMPResponsibleParty(ies)Inspection/Maintenance ActivitiesRequiredMinimum Frequency ofActivitiesCONTECH CMPUndergroundInfiltration SystemOwnerContech recommends ongoingquarterly inspections of theaccumulated sediment. Allsystems shall be designed with anaccess/inspection manholesituated at or near the inlet andthe outlet orifice. Maintaining thesystem should be scheduledduring dry weather.Inspections shall be donequarterly.Maintenance shall bescheduled whenaccumulated sediment ortrash is clogging thedischarge orifice.Drain InsertsOwnerVisually inspect for defects and illegaldumping. Notify proper authorities if illegaldumping has occurred. Using an industrialvacuum, the collected materials shall beremoved from the filter basket anddisposed of properly. Inspect biosorbhydrocarbon boom and replace asnecessary.Four times per year or followingany rain event that wouldpotentially accumulate a largeamount of debris in the system.Replace boom twice per year, ata minimum.Storm Drain StenciledMessageOwnerVisually inspect for legibility and replace orrepaint as necessary.AnnuallyN1: Education ofProperty Owners,Tenants andOccupants onStormwater BMPsOwnerProperty owner will familiarizehim/herself with the educationalŵĂƚĞƌŝĂůƐŝŶƚƚĂĐŚŵĞŶƚ͟͞ĂŶĚthe contents of the WQMP.Annually (January) for allemployees and within 2months for new hires.N2: ActivityRestrictionsOwnerThe owner shall develop ongoingactivity restrictions that includethose that have the potential tocreate adverse impacts on waterquality. Activities include, but arenot limited to: handling anddisposal of contaminants,fertilizer and pesticide applicationrestrictions, litter control andpick-up, and vehicle or equipmentrepair as well as any otheractivities that may potentiallycontribute to water pollution.OngoingN3: LandscapeManagement BMPsOwnerIrrigation must be consistent withŝƚLJ͛ƐtĂƚĞƌŽŶƐĞƌǀĂƚŝŽŶOrdinance. Fertilizer and pesticideusage will be consistent withCounty Management Guidelinesfor Use of Fertilizers andPesticides.OngoingN4: BMPMaintenanceOwnerBMP maintenance,implementation schedules, andresponsible parties are includedwith each specific BMP narrative.As described in each BMPlisted within this form.N7: SpillContingency PlanOwnerOwner/tenant will have a spillcontingency plan, a separatedocument, based on specific siteneeds.OngoingForm 5-1 BMP Inspection and MaintenanceBMPResponsibleParty(ies)Inspection/Maintenance ActivitiesRequiredMinimum Frequency ofActivitiesN10: Uniform FireCodeImplementationOwnerIf applicable, owner will complywith Article 80 of the Uniform FireCode enforced by the fireprotection agency. The facilityoperators will be educatedannually regarding requirementsfor handling, storage and properdisposal of hazardous substances.OngoingN11: Litter/DebrisControl ProgramOwnerContract with their landscapemaintenance firm to provide thisservice during regularly schedulemaintenance. They are requiredto implement trash managementand litter control procedures inthe common areas aimed atreducing pollution of drainagewater.WeeklyN12: EmployeeTrainingOwnerThe owner will ensure thattenants are also familiar withonsite BMPs and necessarymaintenance required of thetenants. Owner will check withCity and County at least once ayear to obtain new or updatededucational materials and providethese materials to tenants.Employees shall be trained toclean up spills and participate inongoing maintenance. The WQMPrequires annual employeetraining and new hires within 2months.Annually (January) for allemployees and within 2months for new hires.N13: Housekeepingof Loading DocksOwnerKeep all fluids indoors. Clean upspills immediately and keep spillsfrom entering storm drain system.No direct discharges into thestorm drain system. Area shall beinspected weekly for propercontainment and practices withspills cleaned up immediately anddisposed of properly.OngoingN14: Catch BasinInspection ProgramOwnerMonthly inspection by propertyŽǁŶĞƌ͛ƐĚĞƐŝŐŶĞĞ͘/ŶƐƉĞĐƚŝŽŶconsists of immediate repair ofany deterioration of thestructures and maintenance ofdrain inserts before and aftermajor rain events. Drain insertmaintenance shall be perŵĂŶƵĨĂĐƚƵƌĞƌ͛ƐŐƵŝĚĞůŝŶĞƐ͘Monthly inspection andmaintain as necessary.Form 5-1 BMP Inspection and MaintenanceBMPResponsibleParty(ies)Inspection/Maintenance ActivitiesRequiredMinimum Frequency ofActivitiesN15: VacuumSweeping of PrivateStreets and ParkingLotsOwnerAll landscape maintenancecontractors will be required tosweep up all landscape cuttings,mowings and fertilizer materialsoff paved areas weekly anddispose of properly. Parking areasand drive ways will be sweptmonthly by sweeping contractor.MonthlyN17: Comply withall other applicableNPDES permitsOwnerWill comply with ConstructionGeneral Permit and IndustrialGeneral Permit (may apply for NoExposure Certification/NEC).OngoingS1: Provide stormdrain systemstenciling andsignage (CASQANew DevelopmentBMP HandbookSD-13)Owner͞EŽƵŵƉŝŶŐʹƌĂŝŶƐƚŽZŝǀĞƌ͟ƐƚĞŶĐŝůƐǁŝůůďĞĂƉƉůŝĞĚ͘Legibility of stencil will bemaintained on a yearly basis.Annually (January)S3: Design andconstruct trash andwaste storage areasto reduce pollutionintroduction(CASQA NewDevelopment BMPHandbook SD-32)OwnerPaved with an impervious surface,designed not to allow run-on fromadjoining areas, designed todivert drainage from adjoiningroofs and pavements divertedaround the area, screened orwalled to prevent off-sitetransport of trash. Detail to beprovided once available.OngoingS4: Use efficientirrigation systems &landscape design,water conservation,smart controllers,and source control(Statewide ModelLandscapeOrdinance; CASQANew DevelopmentBMP HandbookSD-12)OwnerIrrigation systems shall includereducers or shutoff valvestriggered by a pressure drop tocontrol water loss in the event ofbroken sprinkler heads or lines.Timers will be used to avoid overwatering and watering cycles andduration shall be adjustedseasonally by the landscapemaintenance contractor. Thelandscaping areas will be groupedwith plants that have similarwater requirements. Native ordrought tolerant species shall alsobe used where appropriate toreduce excess irrigation runoffand promote surface filtration.Adjust watering cycles andduration seasonally /quarterly (Oct, Jan, Apr,and Jul). City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Public Review Draft | May 2021 Dra� Environmental Impact Report SCH No. 2020100056 Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project City of Rancho Cucamonga, California Exhibit C Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report Table of Contents Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Name and Number Page 1.0 Executive Summary ............................................................................................ 1-1 1.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................ 1-1 1.2 Project Location and Setting ...................................................................................... 1-2 1.3 Project Description ..................................................................................................... 1-3 1.3.1 Project Alternatives ....................................................................................... 1-4 1.4 Issues to be Resolved ................................................................................................. 1-6 1.5 Areas of Controversy ................................................................................................. 1-7 1.6 Summary of Significant Environmental Impacts ....................................................... 1-7 2.0 Introduction ........................................................................................................ 2-1 2.1 Purpose of this Environmental Impact Report ........................................................... 2-1 2.2 Type of EIR ................................................................................................................ 2-2 2.3 Review of an EIR ....................................................................................................... 2-2 2.4 Scope of this Draft EIR .............................................................................................. 2-3 2.4.1 Scoping Process............................................................................................. 2-3 2.4.2 Effects Found Not to be Significant ............................................................... 2-6 2.4.3 Potentially Significant Adverse Impacts of the Project Addressed in this Draft EIR ................................................................................................................. 2-6 2.5 Incorporation by Reference ........................................................................................ 2-6 2.6 Public Review of the Draft EIR ............................................................................... 2-10 3.0 Project Description ............................................................................................. 3-1 3.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................ 3-1 3.2 Project Location ......................................................................................................... 3 - 1 3.3 Project Objectives ...................................................................................................... 3-1 3.4 Project Components ................................................................................................... 3-3 3.4.1 General Plan Amendment and Zoning Map Amendment .............................. 3-4 3.4.2 Tentative Parcel Map No. 20271 ................................................................... 3-4 3.4.3 Design Review ............................................................................................... 3-4 3.4.4 Development Agreement .............................................................................. 3-40 3.4.5 Tree Removal Permit ................................................................................... 3-40 3.5 Summary of Requested Actions ............................................................................... 3-40 4.0 Environmental Setting and Impact Evaluation Overview ..................................... 4-1 4.0.1 Environmental Setting Overview ............................................................................... 4-1 4.0.2 Introduction to the Environmental Analysis .............................................................. 4-8 4.0.3 Regulatory Requirements and Mitigation Measures ................................................ 4-10 4.0.4 Analysis of Cumulative Impacts .............................................................................. 4-10 Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report Table of Contents Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 2 4.0.5 References ................................................................................................................ 4-16 4.1 Aesthetics ........................................................................................................ 4.1-1 4.1.1 Relevant Policies and Regulations .......................................................................... 4.1-1 4.1.2 Existing Setting ....................................................................................................... 4.1-3 4.1.3 Thresholds of Significance ..................................................................................... 4.1-6 4.1.4 Environmental Impacts ........................................................................................... 4.1-6 4.1.5 Cumulative Impacts .............................................................................................. 4.1-15 4.1.6 Mitigation Measures ............................................................................................. 4.1-16 4.1.7 Level of Significance After Mitigation ................................................................. 4.1-16 4.1.8 References ............................................................................................................. 4.1-17 4.2 Air Quality ........................................................................................................ 4.2-1 4.2.1 Relevant Policies and Regulations .......................................................................... 4.2-1 4.2.2 Existing Setting ..................................................................................................... 4.2-12 4.2.3 Thresholds of Significance ................................................................................... 4.2-24 4.2.4 Environmental Impacts ......................................................................................... 4.2-26 4.2.5 Cumulative Impacts .............................................................................................. 4.2-52 4.2.6 Mitigation Measures ............................................................................................. 4.2-53 4.2.7 Level of Significance After Mitigation ................................................................. 4.2-55 4.2.8 References ............................................................................................................. 4.2-55 4.3 Biological Resources ....................................................................................... 4.3-1 4.3.1 Relevant Policies and Regulations .......................................................................... 4.3-2 4.3.2 Existing Setting ....................................................................................................... 4.3-6 4.3.3 Thresholds of Significance ................................................................................... 4.3-23 4.3.4 Environmental Impacts ......................................................................................... 4.3-24 4.3.5 Cumulative Impacts .............................................................................................. 4.3-31 4.3.6 Mitigation Measures ............................................................................................. 4.3-31 4.3.7 Level of Significance After Mitigation ................................................................. 4.3-31 4.3.8 References ............................................................................................................. 4.3-31 4.4 Cultural Resources........................................................................................... 4.4-1 4.4.1 Relevant Policies and Regulations .......................................................................... 4.4-1 4.4.2 Existing Setting ....................................................................................................... 4.4-4 4.4.3 Thresholds of Significance ................................................................................... 4.4-10 4.4.4 Environmental Impacts ......................................................................................... 4.4-11 4.4.5 Cumulative Impacts .............................................................................................. 4.4-13 4.4.6 Mitigation Measures ............................................................................................. 4.4-14 4.4.7 Level of Significance After Mitigation ................................................................. 4.4-15 4.4.8 References ............................................................................................................. 4.4-15 Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report Table of Contents Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 3 4.5 Energy ............................................................................................................. 4.5-1 4.5.1 Relevant Policies and Regulations .......................................................................... 4.5-1 4.5.2 Existing Setting ....................................................................................................... 4.5-4 4.5.3 Thresholds of Significance ................................................................................... 4.5-10 4.5.4 Environmental Impacts ......................................................................................... 4.5-10 4.5.5 Cumulative Impacts .............................................................................................. 4.5-28 4.5.6 Mitigation Measures ............................................................................................. 4.5-28 4.5.7 Level of Significance After Mitigation ................................................................. 4.5-28 4.5.8 References ............................................................................................................. 4.5-28 4.6 Geology and Soils ........................................................................................... 4.6-1 4.6.1 Relevant Policies and Regulations .......................................................................... 4.6-1 4.6.2 Existing Setting ....................................................................................................... 4.6-3 4.6.3 Thresholds of Significance ..................................................................................... 4.6-9 4.6.4 Environmental Impacts ........................................................................................... 4.6-9 4.6.5 Cumulative Impacts .............................................................................................. 4.6-16 4.6.6 Mitigation Measures ............................................................................................. 4.6-17 4.6.7 Level of Significance After Mitigation ................................................................. 4.6-18 4.6.8 References ............................................................................................................. 4.6-18 4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions .............................................................................. 4.7-1 4.7.1 Relevant Policies and Regulations .......................................................................... 4.7-1 4.7.2 Existing Setting ....................................................................................................... 4.7-8 4.7.3 Thresholds of Significance ................................................................................... 4.7-11 4.7.4 Environmental Impacts ......................................................................................... 4.7-12 4.7.5 Cumulative Impacts .............................................................................................. 4.7-22 4.7.6 Mitigation Measures ............................................................................................. 4.7-22 4.7.7 Level of Significance After Mitigation ................................................................. 4.7-22 4.7.8 References ............................................................................................................. 4.7-22 4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ................................................................... 4.8-1 4.8.1 Relevant Policies and Regulations .......................................................................... 4.8-2 4.8.2 Existing Setting ..................................................................................................... 4.8-11 4.8.3 Thresholds of Significance ................................................................................... 4.8-18 4.8.4 Environmental Impacts ......................................................................................... 4.8-19 4.8.5 Cumulative Impacts .............................................................................................. 4.8-27 4.8.6 Mitigation Measures ............................................................................................. 4.8-28 4.8.7 Level of Significance After Mitigation ................................................................. 4.8-28 4.8.8 References ............................................................................................................. 4.8-28 4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality .......................................................................... 4.9-1 4.9.1 Relevant Policies and Regulations .......................................................................... 4.9-1 Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report Table of Contents Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4 4.9.2 Existing Setting ....................................................................................................... 4.9-9 4.9.3 Thresholds of Significance ................................................................................... 4.9-13 4.9.4 Environmental Impacts ......................................................................................... 4.9-14 4.9.5 Cumulative Impacts .............................................................................................. 4.9-25 4.9.6 Mitigation Measures ............................................................................................. 4.9-28 4.9.7 Level of Significance After Mitigation ................................................................. 4.9-28 4.9.8 References ............................................................................................................. 4.9-28 4.10 Land Use and Planning ................................................................................. 4.10-1 4.10.1 Relevant Policies and Regulations ........................................................................ 4.10-1 4.10.2 Existing Setting ..................................................................................................... 4.10-8 4.10.3 Thresholds of Significance ................................................................................... 4.10-9 4.10.4 Environmental Impacts ....................................................................................... 4.10-10 4.10.5 Cumulative Impacts ............................................................................................ 4.10-28 4.10.6 Mitigation Measures ........................................................................................... 4.10-29 4.10.7 Level of Significance After Mitigation ............................................................... 4.10-29 4.10.8 References ........................................................................................................... 4.10-29 4.11 Noise ............................................................................................................. 4.11-1 4.11.1 Noise and Vibration Fundamentals and Terminology .......................................... 4.11-1 4.11.2 Relevant Policies and Regulations ........................................................................ 4.11-3 4.11.3 Existing Setting ..................................................................................................... 4.11-8 4.11.4 Thresholds of Significance ................................................................................. 4.11-13 4.11.5 Environmental Impacts ....................................................................................... 4.11-16 4.11.6 Cumulative Impacts ............................................................................................ 4.11-34 4.11.7 Mitigation Measures ........................................................................................... 4.11-35 4.11.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation ............................................................... 4.11-35 4.11.9 References ........................................................................................................... 4.11-36 4.12 Population and Housing ................................................................................ 4.12-1 4.12.1 Relevant Policies and Regulations ........................................................................ 4.12-1 4.12.2 Existing Setting ..................................................................................................... 4.12-3 4.12.3 Thresholds of Significance ................................................................................... 4.12-4 4.12.4 Environmental Impacts ......................................................................................... 4.12-5 4.12.5 Cumulative Impacts .............................................................................................. 4.12-7 4.12.6 Mitigation Measures ............................................................................................. 4.12-7 4.12.7 Level of Significance After Mitigation ................................................................. 4.12-7 4.12.8 References ............................................................................................................. 4.12-7 4.13 Transportation ............................................................................................... 4.13-1 4.13.1 Relevant Policies and Regulations ........................................................................ 4.13-2 4.13.2 Existing Setting ..................................................................................................... 4.13-7 4.13.3 Thresholds of Significance ................................................................................. 4.13-16 Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report Table of Contents Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 5 4.13.4 Environmental Impacts ....................................................................................... 4.13-16 4.13.5 Cumulative Impacts ............................................................................................ 4.13-39 4.13.6 Mitigation Measures ........................................................................................... 4.13-40 4.13.7 Level of Significance .......................................................................................... 4.13-40 4.13.8 References ........................................................................................................... 4.13-40 4.14 Tribal Cultural Resources ............................................................................... 4.14-1 4.14.1 Relevant Policies and Regulations ........................................................................ 4.14-1 4.14.2 Existing Setting ..................................................................................................... 4.14-4 4.14.3 Thresholds of Significance ................................................................................... 4.14-6 4.14.4 Environmental Impacts ......................................................................................... 4.14-6 4.14.5 Cumulative Impacts .............................................................................................. 4.14-9 4.14.6 Mitigation Measures ............................................................................................. 4.14-9 4.14.7 Level of Significance After Mitigation ............................................................... 4.14-11 4.14.8 References ........................................................................................................... 4.14-12 4.15 Utilities and Service Systems ........................................................................... 4.15-1 4.15.1 Relevant Policies and Regulations ........................................................................ 4.15-1 4.15.2 Existing Setting ..................................................................................................... 4.15-6 4.15.3 Thresholds of Significance ................................................................................. 4.15-13 4.15.4 Environmental Impacts ....................................................................................... 4.15-14 4.15.5 Cumulative Impacts ............................................................................................ 4.15-24 4.15.6 Mitigation Measures ........................................................................................... 4.15-25 4.15.7 Level of Significance After Mitigation ............................................................... 4.15-25 4.15.8 References ........................................................................................................... 4.15-25 5.0 Alternatives ......................................................................................................... 5-1 5.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................ 5-1 5.1.1 Summary of the Project ................................................................................. 5-2 5.1.2 Project Objectives ......................................................................................... 5-3 5.1.3 Summary of Significant Impacts .................................................................... 5-4 5.2 Alternatives Considered But Not Carried Forward For Detailed Analysis................ 5-4 5.2.1 Alternative Site .............................................................................................. 5-4 5.2.2 Alternative Redevelopment Project On-Site .................................................. 5-6 5.3 Alternatives Analysis ............................................................................................... 5-13 5.3.1 No Project/No Action Alternative ................................................................ 5-13 5.3.2 No Project/No Development Alternative– Reuse of Existing Buildings ...... 5-14 5.3.3 Existing Warehouse and Additional Parking Alternative............................ 5-22 5.3.4 Existing Warehouse and Additional Warehouse Alternative ...................... 5-33 5.4 Environmentally Superior Alternative ..................................................................... 5-44 6.0 Other CEQA Considerations ................................................................................ 6-1 6.1 Effects Determined Not to be Significant .................................................................. 6-1 Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report Table of Contents Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 6 6.1.1 Agriculture and Forestry Resources ............................................................. 6-1 6.1.2 Mineral Resources ......................................................................................... 6-1 6.1.3 Public Services .............................................................................................. 6-2 6.1.4 Recreation ..................................................................................................... 6-2 6.1.5 Wildfire .......................................................................................................... 6-3 6.2 Significant and Unavoidable Environmental Effects Which Cannot Be Avoided if the Project is Implemented .............................................................................................. 6-3 6.3 Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes Which Would be Caused by the Proposed Project Should it be Implemented .............................................................. 6-3 6.4 Growth Inducing Impacts .......................................................................................... 6-5 7.0 List of EIR Preparers and Contributors .................................................................. 7-1 7.1 EIR Preparers ............................................................................................................. 7-1 7.1.1 City of Rancho Cucamonga (Lead Agency) .................................................. 7-1 7.1.2 EIR Peer Review Consultant Team ............................................................... 7-1 7.1.3 T&B Planning, Inc. (EIR Preparation) ......................................................... 7-1 7.2 EIR Contributors ........................................................................................................ 7-1 7.2.1 Ardent Environmental Group, Inc. (Phase I Environmental Site Assessment) ....................................................................................................................... 7-1 7.2.2 Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. (Cultural Resources Assessment and Paleontological Resources Assessment) ........................................................ 7-2 7.2.3 Bruyea biological Consulting (Delhi Sands Flower-Loving Fly Habitat Suitability Assessment) .................................................................................. 7-2 7.2.4 Charles Marr Consulting (Water Supply Assessment) .................................. 7-2 7.2.5 ELMT Consulting (Habitat Assessment) ....................................................... 7-2 7.2.6 Psomas (Tree Inventory Report) ................................................................... 7-2 7.2.7 RGI Utility Consultants, Inc. (Dry Utilities) ................................................. 7-2 7.2.8 Southern California Geotechnical (Geotechnical Investigation and Infiltration Report) ........................................................................................................... 7-2 7.2.9 Thienes Engineering, Inc. (Civil Engineering, Preliminary Hydrology Calculations, Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan) ...................... 7-2 7.2.10 Urban Crossroads, Inc. (Air Quality Impact Analysis, Health Risk Assessment, Energy Analysis, Greenhouse Gas Emission Analysis, Noise Impact Analysis, Vehicles Miles Traveled Analysis) ................................................................. 7-3 7.3 Project Applicant ....................................................................................................... 7-3 7.3.1 Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga, LLC ........................................................ 7-3 7.4 Organizations and Persons Consulted ........................................................................ 7-3 7.4.1 State Agencies ................................................................................................ 7-3 7.4.2 Utility Providers ............................................................................................ 7-3 7.4.3 Native American Tribes ................................................................................. 7-3 Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report Table of Contents Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 7 LIST OF FIGURES Figure Number and Title Page Figure 3-1 Regional and Local Vicinity Map .............................................................................. 3-2 Figure 3-2 Proposed General Plan Amendment .......................................................................... 3-5 Figure 3-3 Proposed Zoning Map Amendment ........................................................................... 3-6 Figure 3-4 Proposed Tentative Parcel Map No. 20271 ............................................................... 3-7 Figure 3-5 Conceptual Site Plan .................................................................................................. 3-8 Figure 3-6a Conceptual Building Elevations – Building 1 .......................................................... 3-11 Figure 3-6b Conceptual Building Elevations – Building 1 .......................................................... 3-12 Figure 3-7 Conceptual Building Renderings ............................................................................. 3-13 Figure 3-8a Conceptual Building Elevations – Building 2 .......................................................... 3-15 Figure 3-8b Conceptual Building Elevations – Building 2 .......................................................... 3-16 Figure 3-9 Typical Cross Sections – Street A............................................................................ 3-17 Figure 3-10 Proposed Site Access ............................................................................................... 3-18 Figure 3-11 Proposed Fire Access Plan ....................................................................................... 3-20 Figure 3-12 6th Street At-Grade Crossing ................................................................................... 3-22 Figure 3-13 Conceptual Landscape Plan ..................................................................................... 3-24 Figure 3-14 Wall and Fence Plan ................................................................................................ 3-25 Figure 3-15 Exterior Lighting Plan .............................................................................................. 3-27 Figure 3-16 Conceptual Water and Sewer Plan ........................................................................... 3-28 Figure 3-17 Preliminary Drainage and BMP Map....................................................................... 3-30 Figure 3-18 Proposed Storm Drain System ................................................................................. 3-31 Figure 3-19a Conceptual Grading Plan ......................................................................................... 3 - 3 3 Figure 3-19b Conceptual Grading Plan ......................................................................................... 3 - 3 4 Figure 3-20 Cut and Fill Map ...................................................................................................... 3-35 Figure 4.0-1 Project Vicinity, Aerial Overview ............................................................................. 4-5 Figure 4.0-2 Topographic Map ....................................................................................................... 4-7 Figure 4.0-3 Cumulative Development Location Map ................................................................. 4-13 Figure 4.1-1a Site Photographs North of Project Site ................................................................... 4.1-4 Figure 4.1-1b Site Photographs South of Project Site ................................................................... 4.1-5 Figure 4.2-1 Sensitive Receptor Locations ................................................................................ 4.2-22 Figure 4.2-2 Modeled Emission Sources On-Road ................................................................... 4.2-44 Figure 4.2-3 Modeled Emission Sources On-Site (revised) ...................................................... 4.2-45 Figure 4.2-4 Modeled Receptors for the Mobile Source Health Risk Assessment ................... 4.2-47 Figure 4.3-1 Project Site Vegetation Map ................................................................................... 4.3-9 Figure 4.3-2 6th Street At-Grade Crossing Vegetation Map ..................................................... 4.3-10 Figure 4.3-3 Critical Habitat ...................................................................................................... 4.3-19 Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report Table of Contents Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 8 Figure 4.3-4 Project Site Tree Locations ................................................................................... 4.3-20 Figure 4.3-5 6th Street At-Grade Crossing Tree Locations ....................................................... 4.3-21 Figure 4.6-1 Subsurface Boring Locations .................................................................................. 4.6-5 Figure 4.6-2 Geologic Map .......................................................................................................... 4.6-8 Figure 4.8-1 Compatibility Policy Map: Airspace Protection Zones .......................................... 4.8-8 Figure 4.8-2 Compatibility Policy Map: Overflight Notification Zones ..................................... 4.8-9 Figure 4.8-3 Existing and Previous On-Site Uses ..................................................................... 4.8-14 Figure 4.9-1 Santa Ana River Watershed Map .......................................................................... 4.9-11 Figure 4.9-2 Existing Conditions Hydrology Map .................................................................... 4.9-12 Figure 4.9-3 Proposed Condition Hydrology Map .................................................................... 4.9-22 Figure 4.11-1 Noise Measurement Locations .............................................................................. 4.11-9 Figure 4.11-2 Sensitive Receiver Locations .............................................................................. 4.11-12 Figure 4.11-3 Typical Construction Noise Source Locations .................................................... 4.11-17 Figure 4.11-4 Construction Noise Barrier Location .................................................................. 4.11-19 Figure 4.11-5 Operational Noise Source Locations................................................................... 4.11-23 Figure 4.13-1 Existing Circulation System ................................................................................. 4.13-8 Figure 4.13-2 City of Rancho Cucamonga Truck Routes ........................................................... 4.13-9 Figure 4.13-3 Existing Transit Routes ....................................................................................... 4.13-10 Figure 4.13-4 Bicycle Facilities ................................................................................................. 4.13-12 Figure 4.13-5 Existing Pedestrian Facilities .............................................................................. 4.13-13 Figure 4.13-6 Project Truck Trip Distribution - Inbound .......................................................... 4.13-20 Figure 4.13-7 Project Truck Distribution – Outbound .............................................................. 4.13-21 Figure 4.13-8 Project Passenger Car Trip Distribution - Inbound ............................................. 4.13-22 Figure 4.13-9 Project Passenger Car Distribution – Outbound ................................................. 4.13-23 Figure 5-1 Existing Warehouse and Additional Parking Alternative ........................................ 5-23 Figure 5-2 Existing Warehouse and Additional Warehouse Alternative .................................. 5-34 Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report Table of Contents Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 9 LIST OF TABLES Table Number and Title Page Table 1-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts for the Project ................................................. 1-9 Table 2-1 Summary of NOP Comments Received..................................................................... 2-4 Table 3-1 Building 1 and Building 2 Summary ......................................................................... 3-9 Table 3-2 Estimated Construction Schedule ............................................................................ 3-36 Table 3-3 Estimated Construction Equipment Fleet ................................................................ 3-37 Table 3-4 Project Related Approvals/Permits .......................................................................... 3-41 Table 4.0-1 Cumulative Development Land Use Summary ....................................................... 4-14 Table 4.0-2 Summary of Land Uses Presented in Table 4.0-1 .................................................... 4-15 Table 4.1-1 Development Code Standards Consistency Analysis ............................................. 4.1-9 Table 4.1-2 General Plan Policy Consistency Analysis ........................................................... 4.1-13 Table 4.2-1 Ambient Air Quality Standards .............................................................................. 4.2-3 Table 4.2-2 Criteria Pollutants ................................................................................................. 4.2-12 Table 4.2-3 Project Air Quality Monitoring Summary (2017-2019) ....................................... 4.2-20 Table 4.2-4 Attainment Status of Criteria Pollutants in the SoCAB ........................................ 4.2-21 Table 4.2-5 Emissions from Existing Development................................................................. 4.2-23 Table 4.2-6 Maximum Daily Regional Emissions Thresholds1 .............................................. 4.2-24 Table 4.2-7 Maximum Daily Localized Construction Emissions Thresholds ......................... 4.2-25 Table 4.2-8 Maximum Daily Localized Operational Emissions Thresholds ........................... 4.2-25 Table 4.2-9 Project Construction Activities ............................................................................. 4.2-31 Table 4.2-10 Overlapping Construction Activities .................................................................... 4.2-31 Table 4.2-11 Overall Construction Emissions Summary (Without Mitigation) ........................ 4.2-32 Table 4.2-12 Overall Construction Emissions Summary (With Mitigation) ............................. 4.2-33 Table 4.2-13 Summary of Peak Operational Emissions ............................................................. 4.2-35 Table 4.2-14 Localized Significance Summary of Construction (Without Mitigation) ............. 4.2-38 Table 4.2-15 Localized Significance Summary of Operations (Without Mitigation) ................ 4.2-39 Table 4.2-16 DPM Emissions from Project Trucks (Warehouse) .............................................. 4.2-42 Table 4.2-17 DPM Emissions from Project Trucks (Cold Storage) ........................................... 4.2-43 Table 4.3-1 Tree Inventory Summary ...................................................................................... 4.3-22 Table 4.5-1 Total Electricity System Power (California 2019) .................................................. 4.5-5 Table 4.5-2 SCE 2019 Power Content Mix ................................................................................ 4.5-7 Table 4.5-3 RCMU 2019 Power Content Mix ........................................................................... 4.5-8 Table 4.5-4 Existing Annual Operational Energy Demand Summary ....................................... 4.5-9 Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report Table of Contents Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 10 Table 4.5-5 Existing Traffic Annual Fuel Consumption (All Vehicles) .................................. 4.5-10 Table 4.5-6 Construction Electricity Usage ............................................................................. 4.5-12 Table 4.5-7 Construction Equipment Fuel Consumption Estimates ........................................ 4.5-13 Table 4.5-8 Construction Trips and Vehicle Miles Traveled ................................................... 4.5-15 Table 4.5-9 Construction Worker Fuel Consumption Estimates (LDA) .................................. 4.5-16 Table 4.5-10 Construction Worker Fuel Consumption Estimates (LDT1) ................................ 4.5-17 Table 4.5-11 Construction Worker Fuel Consumption Estimates (LDT2) ................................ 4.5-17 Table 4.5-12 Construction Vendor Fuel Consumption Estimates (MHDT) .............................. 4.5-18 Table 4.5-13 Construction Vendor Fuel Consumption Estimates (HHDT) ............................... 4.5-19 Table 4.5-14 Construction Hauling Fuel Consumption Estimates (HHDT) .............................. 4.5-20 Table 4.5-15 Total Net Project-Generated Traffic Annual Fuel Consumption (All Vehicles) .. 4.5-23 Table 4.5-16 Project Net Annual Operational Energy Demand Summary ................................ 4.5-24 Table 4.7-1 GWP and Atmospheric Lifetime of Select GHGs .................................................. 4.7-9 Table 4.7-2 Top GHG Producing Countries and the European Union ..................................... 4.7-10 Table 4.7-3 Existing Site GHG Emissions ............................................................................... 4.7-11 Table 4.7-4 Construction Activities ......................................................................................... 4.7-13 Table 4.7-5 Amortized Annual Construction Emissions .......................................................... 4.7-13 Table 4.7-6 Project GHG Emissions ........................................................................................ 4.7-14 Table 4.7-7 2017 Scoping Plan Consistency Summary ........................................................... 4.7-16 Table 4.7-8 Project Consistency with the City of Rancho Cucamonga Sustainable Community Action Plan ............................................................................................................ 4.7-21 Table 4.9-1 Receiving Water for Urban Runoff from the Project Site ...................................... 4.9-7 Table 4.10-1 RTP/SCS Consistency Analysis ......................................................................... 4.10-11 Table 4.10-2 General Plan Consistency Analysis .................................................................... 4.10-16 Table 4.11-1 Operational Noise Standards ................................................................................. 4.11-6 Table 4.11-2 Construction Noise Standards ............................................................................... 4.11-7 Table 4.11-3 24-Hour Ambient Noise Level Measurements ................................................... 4.11-10 Table 4.11-4 Existing Traffic-Related Noise Contours Without Project Traffic ..................... 4.11-10 Table 4.11-5 Significance of Noise Impacts at Noise-Sensitive Receivers ............................. 4.11-14 Table 4.11-6 Unmitigated Typical Construction Equipment Noise Level Summary .............. 4.11-18 Table 4.11-7 Unmitigated Typical Construction Noise Level Compliance ............................. 4.11-18 Table 4.11-8 Mitigated Typical Construction Noise Levels .................................................... 4.11-20 Table 4.11-9 Mitigated Typical Construction Noise Level Compliance ................................. 4.11-20 Table 4.11-10 Unmitigated Concrete Crushing Noise Level Summary ..................................... 4.11-21 Table 4.11-11 Mitigated Concrete Crushing Noise Level Summary ......................................... 4.11-21 Table 4.11-12 Nighttime Concrete Pour Noise Level Compliance ............................................ 4.11-22 Table 4.11-13 Daytime Project Operational Noise Levels ......................................................... 4.11-24 Table 4.11-14 Nighttime Operational Noise Levels .................................................................. 4.11-25 Table 4.11-15 Operational Noise Level Compliance ................................................................. 4.11-25 Table 4.11-16 Daytime Project Operational Noise Level Increases .......................................... 4.11-26 Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report Table of Contents Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 11 Table 4.11-17 Nighttime Project Operational Noise Level Increases ........................................ 4.11-26 Table 4.11-18 Existing Plus Project Traffic Noise Level Increases ........................................... 4.11-28 Table 4.11-19 Opening Year Cumulative (2022) With Project Without 6th Street Connection Traffic Noise Increases ................................................................................................... 4.11-28 Table 4.11-20 Opening Year Cumulative (2022) With Project With 6th Street Connection Traffic Noise Increases ................................................................................................... 4.11-29 Table 4.11-21 Horizon Year (2040) With Project Traffic Noise Increases ............................... 4.11-30 Table 4.11-22 Typical Construction Equipment Vibration Levels ............................................ 4.11-32 Table 4.11-23 Concrete Crushing Vibration Levels ................................................................... 4.11-32 Table 4.12-1 SCAG Connect SoCal Growth Forecasts for Rancho Cucamonga and San Bernardino County ................................................................................................................... 4.12-2 Table 4.12-2 Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Buildout (2030) Projections ........................... 4.12-3 Table 4.13-1 Existing Use and Project Trip Generation Rates ................................................ 4.13-14 Table 4.13-2 Existing Use and Project Trip Generation Summary .......................................... 4.13-15 Table 4.13-3 Project Trip Generation Summary ...................................................................... 4.13-19 Table 4.13-4 High-Cube Sort Fulfillment Center/High-Cube Cold Storage Warehouse Trip Generation Summary .......................................................................................... 4.13-24 Table 4.13-5 Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Consistency Analysis ................................... 4.13-27 Table 4.13-6 Project VMT Per Service Population .................................................................. 4.13-35 Table 4.13-7 Project-Generated VMT Per Service Population Comparison ........................... 4.13-35 Table 4.15-1 Estimated Potable Water Demand ...................................................................... 4.15-19 Table 4.15-2 CVWD Future Potable Supply - Normal Years .................................................. 4.15-19 Table 5.3-1 Existing Warehouse and Additional Parking Alternative Trip Generation ............. 5-24 Table 5.3-2 Existing Warehouse and Additional Warehouse Alternative Trip Generation ........ 5-35 Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report Table of Contents Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 12 EIR TECHNICAL APPENDICES (BOUND SEPARATELY) Appendix No. Appendix Document Appendix A: NOP and NOP Comment Letters Appendix B1: Air Quality Impact Analysis Appendix B2: Health Risk Assessment Appendix B3: Construction Health Risk Assessment Appendix B4: Supplemental Assessment (Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Energy and Health Risk) Appendix C1: Habitat Assessment Appendix C2: Tree Survey Report Appendix C3: 6th Street At-Grade Crossing Habitat Assessment Appendix D: Cultural Resources Assessment Appendix E: Energy Analysis Appendix F: Geotechnical Investigation Appendix G: Paleontological Resources Assessment Appendix H: Greenhouse Gas Analysis Appendix I1: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Appendix I2: Subsurface Investigation and Clarification Letter Regarding Historical Agricultural Chemicals Appendix I3: Asbestos Sampling Report Appendix J1: Preliminary Water Quality Management Plant (WQMP) Appendix J2: Preliminary Hydrology Report Appendix K1: Noise Impact Analysis Appendix K2: Supplemental Noise Assessment Appendix L1: Vehicular Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis Appendix L2: Traffic Data Memorandum Appendix M: Water Supply Assessment (WSA) Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report Table of Contents Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 13 ACRONYMS, ABBREVIATIONS, AND UNITS OF MEASURE Acronym Definition § Section a.m. Ante Meridiem (between the hours of midnight and noon) AAQS Ambient Air Quality Standards AB Assembly Bill AB 52 Native Americans: California Environmental Quality Act AB 32 GHG Emission Reduction bill (2006) AB 197 Companion Bill to AB 32, reduce CA statewide GHG emissions AB 341 Mandatory Commercial Recycling Program AB 1493 Pavely Fuel Efficiency Standards AB 1327 California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Act AB 939 California Solid Waste Integrated Management Act AC Asphalt Concrete ACMs Asbestos Containing Materials ACWM Asbestos-Containing Waste Materials ADA Americans with Disabilities Act ADOE Archaeological Determinations of Eligibility ADT Average Daily Traffic AF Acre-feet AFY Acre Feet per Year AIA Airport Influence Area AIC Archeological Information Center ALUC Airport Land Use Commission ALUCP Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan AMSL Above Mean Sea Level AOU American Ornithologists’ Union A-P Act Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act AST Aboveground Storage Tank APN Assessor Parcel Number AQMP Air Quality Management Plan ASTM American Society of Testing and Materials BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District BACM Best Available Control Measure bgs Below Ground Surface BMPs Best Management Practices BNSF Burlington Northern Santa Fe BTU British Thermal Units CA California Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report Table of Contents Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 14 CAA Federal Clean Air Act CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards CalEEMod™ California Emissions Estimator Model CalEPA California Environmental Protection Agency CALGreen Code California Green Building Standards Code Cal Pub Res. Code §42911 California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Act of 1991 Caltrans California Department of Transportation CAPP Community Air Protection Program CAPCOA California Air Pollution Control Officers Association CARB California Air Resources Board CBC California Building Code CBSC California Building Standards Code CCR California Code of Regulations CCAA California Clear Air Act CCCC California Climate Change Center CDC California Department of Conservation CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife CEC California Energy Commission CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act CESA California Endangered Species Act CFCs Chlorofluorocarbons C2F6 Hexaflouroethane CF4 Tetraflouromethane CF3CH2F HFC-134a CFR Code of Federal Regulations CFS Cubic Feet per Second CFGC California Fish and Game Code C2H6 Ethane CH4 Methane CH3CHF2 HFC-152a CHF3 HFC-23 CIWMB California Integrated Waste Management Board CMP Congestion Management Program CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level CO Carbon Monoxide COG Council of Governments CO2 Carbon Dioxide CO2e Carbon Dioxide Equivalent COHb carboxyhemoglobin CPUC California Public Utilities Commission CREC Controlled Recognized Environmental Conditions CSU California State University CTR California Toxic Rule Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report Table of Contents Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 15 CUPA Certified Union Program Agency CWA Clean Water Act CWC California Water Code dB Decibel dBA A-weighted Decibels DIF Development Impact Fee DOC California Department of Conservation DOE Determination of Eligibility DOF California Department of Finance DOSH Division of Occupational Safety and Health DPM Diesel Particulate Matter DTSC Department of Toxic Substances Control DWR Department of Water Resources E+P Existing plus Project Conditions EIR Environmental Impact Report EO Executive Order EPA Environmental Protection Agency ESA Environmental Site Assessment ESA Endangered Species Act et seq. et sequentia, meaning "and the following” F Fahrenheit FAA Federal Aviation Administration FAR floor area ratio FEIR Final Environmental Impact Report FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FESA Federal Endangered Species Act FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Map FICON Federal Interagency Committee on Noise FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Map FMMP Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program GHG Greenhouse Gas GIS Geographic Information System GPA General Plan Amendment gpd Gallons per Day gpm Gallons per minute GWP Global Warming Potential H2O Water Vapor HCM Highway Capacity Manual HCP Habitat Conservation Plan Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report Table of Contents Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 16 HFCs Hydrofluorocarbons HMBEP Hazardous Materials Business Emergency Plan HMTA Hazardous Materials Transportation Act HREC Historic Recognized Environmental Conditions HSC Health and Safety Code HSWA Federal Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments HWCL Hazardous Waste Control Law I Interstate i.e. that is IEUA Inland Empire Utilities Authority IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change IRWMP Integrated Regional Water Management Plan ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers IWMA Integrated Waste Management Act JPA Joint Powers Authority kg kilogram kWh kilowatt-hour LBP Lead based paint LCFS low carbon fuel standard LED light-emitting diode Leq equivalent continuous sound level LOS Level of Service LRA Local Responsibility Areas LSTs Localized Significance Thresholds MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act MEISC maximally exposed individual school child MEIR maximally exposed individual receptor MEIW maximally exposed individual worker MGD million gallons per day MM Mitigation Measure MMRP Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program MMTs million metric tons MMTCO2e million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent Mph Miles per hour MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization MS4 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System MTCO2e Metric Tons of Carbon Dioxide Equivalent MUTCD Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices MWD Metropolitan Water District Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report Table of Contents Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 17 n.d. no date NAHC Native American Heritage Commission NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards NCCP Natural Community Conservation Planning NIOSH National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health NO2 Nitrogen Dioxide NOX Nitrogen Oxides N2 Nitrogen N2O Nitrous Oxide NOP Notice of Preparation NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service NRHP National Register of Historic Places NTR National Toxic Rule O2 Oxygen O3 Ozone OCP Organochlorine Pesticides OEHHA Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment ONT Ontario International Airport OPR Office of Planning and Research OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Assessment Ord. Ordinance Pb Lead PCBs Polychlorinated biphenyls PCEs Passenger Car Equivalents PFCs Perfluorocarbons p.m. Post Meridiem (between the hours of noon and midnight) PM Particulate Matter PM2.5 Fine Particulate Matter (2.5 microns or smaller) PM10 Fine Particulate Matter (10 microns or smaller) ppm parts per million PV photovoltaic RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Rd. Road REC Recognized environmental Concerns RivTAM Riverside Transportation Analysis Model RMS root mean square ROGs Reactive Organic Gasses RPS Renewable Portfolio Standards RSL Regional Screening Level RTP Regional Transportation Plan Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report Table of Contents Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 18 RTPA Regional Transportation Planning Agency RTP/SCS Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board sf square foot SB Senate Bill SB 32 Statewide for California to reduce GHG emissions SBCFPD San Bernardino County Fire Protection District SBCM San Bernardino County Museum SBCTA San Bernardino County Transportation Authority SCAG Sothern California Association of Governments SCAQMD Southern Coast Air Quality Management District SCCIC South Central Coastal Information Center SCE Southern California Edison SCGC Southern California Gas Company SCH California State Clearinghouse (Office of Planning and Research) SCS Sustainable Communities Strategy SDAB San Diego Air Basin SDG&E San Diego Gas & Electric SED Socio-Economic Data SGMA Sustainable Groundwater Management Act SIP State Implementation Plan SJVUAPCD San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District SLF Sacred Lands Files SMARTS Stormwater Multiple Application and Report Tracking Systems SNUR Significant New Use Rule SO2 Sulfur Dioxide SoCAB South Coast Air Basin SOI Sphere of Influence SR State Route SRA Source Receptor Area SSC Species of Special Concern St. Street STC Sound Transmission Class SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan SWIS Solid Waste Landfill Sites SWRCB State Water Regional Control Board TAC Toxic Air Contaminants TAZ Traffic Analysis Zones TDM Transportation Demand Management TERPS Terminal Instrument Procedures TGD Technical Guidance Document for Water Quality Management Plans T+M Transportation + Mobility Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report Table of Contents Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 19 TMDL Total Maximum Daily Loads TPA Transit Priority Area TRU Transportation Refrigeration Units TSCEA Toxic Substance Control Act USDA United States Department of Agriculture USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service USGS United States Geological Society U.S. United States USTs Underground storage tanks UWMP Urban Water Management Plan VdB Decibel Notation VEC Vapor Encroachment Condition VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled VOCs Volatile Organic Compounds vph Vehicles Per Hour WDR Water discharge report/ requirements WQMP Water Quality Management Plan WRRA Water Reuse and Recycle Act WSA Water Supply Assessment ZE/NZE Zero- and Near-Zero Emission Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 1.0 Executive Summary Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 1-1 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.1 INTRODUCTION The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (California Public Resources Code, Sections 21000 et seq.) requires that lead agencies consider the potential environmental consequences of projects over which they have discretionary approval authority prior to taking approval action on such projects. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is a public document designed to provide local and State government agency decision-makers, special districts, and the public with an analysis of potential environmental consequences to support informed decision making. The City of Rancho Cucamonga is the Lead Agency under CEQA and is responsible for preparing the EIR for the proposed Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project (herein referred to as the “Project”). The City, as the Lead Agency, will review and consider this Draft EIR in its decision whether to approve the Project. This Draft EIR was prepared pursuant to the requirements of CEQA and the Guidelines for the Implementation of CEQA (CEQA Guidelines) (Title 14, California Code of Regulations, Chapter 3, Section 15000 et seq.) and identifies, analyzes, and mitigates to the extent feasible, the potential environmental effects associated with the construction and implementation of the Project. The City, as the Lead Agency, will review and consider the Draft EIR and the Final EIR in its decision to approve, revise, or deny the Project. A summary of the Project is provided in Section 1.3, Project Description, below; a complete description of the Project is provided in Section 3.0, Project Description, of this Draft EIR. This document focuses on those environmental impacts identified as potentially significant in the Notice of Preparation (NOP) completed for this Project (refer to Section 2.3, EIR Scope, Format, and Content, and the NOP included in Appendix A of this Draft EIR). In addition to the analysis of the Project impacts and identification of potentially significant environmental impacts, this Draft EIR identifies appropriate, feasible Project- specific mitigation measures and discusses potential alternatives to the Project and the ability of alternatives to reduce or eliminate impacts. The City of Rancho Cucamonga has reviewed and revised, as necessary, all submitted drafts, technical studies, and reports for consistency with City policies and requirements and this Draft EIR reflect its own independent judgment. Preparation of this Draft EIR included reliance on appropriate City technical personnel and review of all technical subconsultant reports. This Executive Summary was prepared in accordance with Section 15123of the State CEQA Guidelines, which states that an EIR should contain a brief summary of the proposed actions and its consequences and should identify: 1) each significant effect with proposed mitigation measures and alternatives that would reduce or avoid that effect; 2) areas of controversy known to the Lead Agency including issues raised by agencies and the public; and 3) issues to be resolved, including the choice among alternatives and whether or how to mitigate significant effects. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 1.0 Executive Summary Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 1-2 1.2 PROJECT LOCATION AND SETTING The approximately 91.4-acre Project site1 is located at located at 12434 4th Street in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County, California. The Project site is bound by 4th Street to the south (which is also the jurisdictional boundary between the City of Rancho Cucamonga and the City of Ontario) and 6th Street to the north, and generally located between Etiwanda Avenue to the east and Santa Anita Avenue to the west. Access to the Project site is provided from existing driveways along 4th Street and 6th Street. The Project site is located approximately 0.5-mile east of Interstate (I)-15 and 0.7-mile north of I-10. The Project site’s location is shown on Figure 3-1 of this EIR. The southern portion of the Project site is currently developed with an approximately 23,240-square- foot (sf) retail building and an approximately1,431,000 sf warehouse building (includes a 58,000-sf mezzanine), which were occupied by Big Lots until February 2020. Truck trailer parking surrounds the existing warehouse building and loading docks are located on the east and south sides of the buildings. There is ornamental landscaping, including heritage trees, throughout the site, primarily along the Project site’s frontage with 4th Street. Additionally, there are existing surface parking lots (auto and truck trailer) and vacant land (previously a vineyard) in the northern portion of the Project site. The Project site is relatively flat and does not contain, nor is it adjacent to any steep natural or manufactured slopes. Although the Project site was previously occupied by a vineyard, there is no Farmland or any agricultural use remaining on the Project site. The Project site is classified as “Urban and Built-Up Land” by the California Department of Conservation. There are no native plant communities or natural communities of special concern observed on or adjacent to the Project site. The Project site does not have suitable habitat to support sensitive plant or wildlife species nor does the Project site support Delhi Sand soils needed for the Delhi Sands flower-loving fly. The entire Project site was disturbed by previous development and agricultural activities. There are no historic resources located on the Project site, and the Guasti Historic District is approximately 3.5 miles southwest of the Project site. Additionally, no archaeological, tribal cultural, or paleontological resources are known to be present on the Project site. With respect to local planning considerations, the Project site’s General Plan land use and zoning designations are Heavy Industrial in the northern portion of the site and General Industrial in the southern portion of the site. The Project site is surrounded by developed areas that are designated for Heavy Industrial and General Industrial land use designations and zone classifications. A Southern California Edison (SCE) facility is located to the north of the Project site (across 6th Street). The San Bernardino County West Valley Detention Center (a short-term County jail facility) is located to the east (west of Etiwanda Avenue). South of the Project site, across 4th Street, are light industrial/warehouse uses in the Crossroads Business Park Specific Plan area of the City of Ontario. There are no residential uses in the Project vicinity. 1 The Project site comprises tax Assessor Parcel Numbers (APNs) 0229-283-50 and -51. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 1.0 Executive Summary Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 1-3 1.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION As described in Section 3.0 of this Draft EIR, the Project involves removal of existing structures, landscaping, and associated improvements on the Project site, and redevelopment of the Project site with two new contemporary industrial warehouse buildings (Building 1 and Building 2). The new buildings would be high-cube warehouses primarily used for the storage and/or consolidation of manufactured goods, with a maximum height of 50 feet. The total building area would be approximately 2,175,000 sf. There would be approximately 2,136,200 sf of ground level floor space and approximately 33,230 sf of mezzanine, which could be used for ancillary office or warehouse space. Building 1 would include approximately 1,422,500 sf of floor area (approximately 25,000 sf of ancillary office space and 1,397,500 sf of warehouse space), and Building 2 would include approximately 752,500 sf of floor area (approximately 16,000 sf of ancillary office space and 736,500 sf of warehouse space). For purposes of analysis in this Draft EIR, and as further discussed in Section 3.0, based on the proposed building design/site plan and associated parking layout, it is assumed that 90% of the building square footage would be operated as a high-cube non-sort fulfillment center warehouse and the remaining 10% would be operated as a high-cube cold storage warehouse. A high-cube sort fulfillment center warehouse is not proposed as part of the Project, and the site plan as proposed does not support this on-site use. Nevertheless, to provide a conservative analysis, this Draft EIR also analyzes, where applicable, the operational impacts resulting from replacement of the non-sort fulfillment center use with a sort fulfillment center use. Access to the Project would be provided from access driveways along 4th Street, 6th Street, and a new public roadway (Street A), which would be constructed as part of the Project. Street A would be classified as an Industrial Collector (66-foot full-width right-of-way). The Project would also involve improvements to 4th Street and 6th Street along the Project site frontage (remove and replace the curb and gutter, and grind and overlay the asphalt concrete pavement). Additionally, the City’s General Plan anticipates completion of 6th Street between Santa Anita Avenue and Etiwanda Avenue. The Project does not require this connection for operations (i.e., implementation of this at-grade crossing is not required from a CEQA perspective to address any traffic deficiencies resulting from the Project). Nevertheless, for CEQA purposes implementation of the crossing by the Project Applicant has been analyzed in this Draft EIR. Portions of this crossing are outside the control of the City of Rancho Cucamonga and the Project Applicant, as the improvement would require Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Railway and California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) approval. The Project site is within a Transit Priority Area2 (TPA) and would include improvements to 4th Street and 6th Street along the Project site’s frontage to facilitate the use of transit and non-vehicular circulation (removal and replacement of the existing sidewalk and the installation of Class II bikeways adjacent to the Project site). A sidewalk would also be installed along the west side of proposed Street A. Exterior short-term and long-term bicycle parking would be provided at each building near the 2 A Transit Priority Area is defined as a half mile area around an existing major transit stop or an existing stop along a high-quality transit corridor, as further described in Section 4.13, Transportation, of this Draft EIR. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 1.0 Executive Summary Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 1-4 office areas. There are bus stops on the north and south side of 4th Street in the vicinity of the Project; the bus stops on the north side of 4th Street adjacent to the Project site would be retained. Walls and fences would be installed on-site for security and screening. The Project also requires the installation of retaining walls in certain locations. Additional improvements associated with the Project include, but are not limited to, surface parking areas (automobile and truck trailer spaces), vehicle drive aisles, landscaping, storm water quality/storage, utility infrastructure, exterior lighting, and signage. Upon Project approval, and for purposes of analysis in this Draft EIR, it is anticipated that the construction of the Project would be initiated in 2021 and be complete by 2022. Based on the conceptual grading plan, earthwork would balance on-site. The depth of excavation would vary for the Project components, but would likely extend to maximum depths of up to 26-feet below the ground service (bgs) for installation of the Project’s infrastructure (i.e., infiltration vaults). With respect to operations, it is anticipated the buildings would operate 24-hours per day, 7 days per week. The number of employees generated by the Project would be dependent on the future businesses that occupy the proposed buildings. However, based on employment generation factors presented in the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan, it is estimated the Project would generate approximately 1,479 employees. This is a net increase of 277 employees compared to the number of employees that would be generated with occupation of the existing buildings. Approval actions required from the City to implement the Project are listed in Table 3-4, Project Related Approvals/Permits, in Section 3.0, and include: (1) adoption of a General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation for the northern portion of the Project site from Heavy Industrial to General Industrial; (2) adoption of a Zoning Map Amendment to change the zoning designation for the northern portion of the Project site from Heavy Industrial to General Industrial; (3) approval of a Tentative Parcel Map to subdivide the Project site, which is currently a single legal parcel, into two parcels to accommodate the proposed buildings (Buildings 1 and 2); (4) approval of a Site Plan and Architectural review for site, architectural plans, and landscape plans; (5) a Tree Removal Permit for the removal of heritage trees on-site; and, (5) certification of the Final EIR. Additionally, the Project Applicant is requesting adoption of a Development Agreement. In addition, discretionary and/or administrative actions listed in Table 3-4 may be necessary from other government agencies to fully implement the Project, including: the CPUC, State Water Resources Control Board, South Coast Air Quality Management District, City of Ontario, BNSF, and utility service providers. 1.3.1 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES Section 15126.6(a) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, that could feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project. As demonstrated through the analysis presented in Section 4.1 through Section 4.15 of this Draft EIR, the Project would not result in any significant and unavoidable impacts. The Project’s potential impacts are less than significant with adherence to regulatory requirements and implementation of Project-level mitigation measures. However, Section 5.0, Alternatives, of this Draft Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 1.0 Executive Summary Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 1-5 EIR addresses alternatives to the Project focusing on reducing potentially significant impacts that are reduced to a level considered less than significant with mitigation. Section 5.0 provides descriptions of each alternative, a comparative analysis of the potential environmental effects of each alternative to those associated with the Project, and a discussion of each alternative’s ability to meet the Project objectives. Following is a summary description of the alternatives evaluated in this EIR. For a more detailed discussion of these alternatives and the relative impacts associated with each alternative compared to the Project, refer to Section 5.0, Alternatives.  No Project/No Action Alternative. Under this alternative, the existing warehouse building, retail building, and associated facilities on the Project site would be retained, but they would remain vacant with no associated operations.  No Project/No Development Alternative – Reuse of Existing Buildings. Under this alternative, it is anticipated that the existing warehouse building, retail building, and associated facilities on the Project site would be retained and reoccupied for use that is consistent with uses that are allowed by-right pursuant to Section 17.30, Allowed Land Use by Base Zoning District, of the City’s Development Code. Big Lots vacated the Project site in February 2020 and the buildings are currently vacant. It is expected that, depending on the type of use that would occupy the existing buildings, tenant improvements would be needed to accommodate reuse of the buildings; however, these improvements would not require approval of discretionary actions. With respect to roadway and utility infrastructure, existing circulation patterns would be maintained, and existing utility infrastructure would continue to serve the site. This alternative would not involve implementation of the roadway and infrastructure improvements proposed as part of the Project, including construction of a public roadway that would be implemented with the Project (Street A), and construction of an at-grade crossing of 6th Street at the railroad tracks.  Existing Warehouse and Additional Parking Alternative. Under this alternative, the existing 1,431,000 sf warehouse building would be retained and operated as a warehouse, and the underutilized northern portion of the Project site would be developed with 530 new trailer stalls. The existing retail building and landscaping would be removed and this area would be redeveloped with surface parking. Additionally, truck trailer parking would continue to be provided east of the warehouse building. This alternative assumes that the existing circulation patterns would be maintained and existing utility infrastructure would continue to serve the site. This alternative would include the replacement of existing sidewalks on 4th Street and 6th Street and implementation of on-street bikeways along these roadways. Additionally, this alternative would involve the construction of the northern portion of Street A, which would terminate with a cul-de-sac before extending into the southern portion of the site, and the retention of the existing rail spur. The Existing Warehouse and Additional Parking Alternative would be consistent with the existing land use and zoning designations for the Project site, and associated development standards. Therefore, a General Plan amendment, and Zoning Map amendment would not be Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 1.0 Executive Summary Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 1-6 required. Further, it is not anticipated that the Project Applicant would enter into a Development Agreement with the City. Other approvals required for the Project would also be required for this alternative.  Existing Warehouse and Additional Warehouse Alternative. Under this alternative, the existing 1,431,000 sf warehouse building on the Project site would be retained and would continue to operate as a warehouse, the existing retail building would be removed, and the underutilized northern portion of the Project site would be developed with a new 713,200 sf warehouse building and associated parking facilities. Collectively, with the existing warehouse building and additional warehouse, this alternative would have 2,144,200 sf of building space. This alternative assumes that existing circulation patterns would be maintained and existing utility infrastructure would continue to serve the stie. This alternative would include the replacement of existing sidewalks on 4th Street and 6th Street, and the implementation of on- street bikeways along these roadways. The existing on-site rail spur would be retained. Additionally, this alternative would involve the construction of the northern portion of Street A, which would terminate with a cul-de-sac before extending into the southern portion of the Project site. This Alternative would also include the construction of an at-grade crossing of 6th Street at the railroad tracks, as proposed with the Project. The Existing Warehouse and Additional Warehouse Alternative would involve uses allowed by the existing land use and zoning designations for the Project site. However, as with the Project, a General Plan amendment and Zoning Map amendment would be required for the northern portion of the Project site, changing the designation from Heavy Industrial to General Industrial. Other approvals required for the Project would also be required for this alternative. As required by CEQA, Section 5.0 also identifies alternatives considered but eliminated from detailed analysis, and the environmentally superior alternative. Alternatives considered and not carried forward for detailed analysis in this EIR include an alternative site and an alternative redevelopment project on-site. The Existing Warehouse and Additional Parking Alternative would be the environmentally superior alternative to the Project due to the reduction in construction activities, and reductions in overall building space. 1.4 ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED Section 15123(b)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR contain a discussion of issues to be resolved, including the choice among alternatives and whether or how to mitigate significant impacts. With respect to the Project, the key issues to be resolved include decisions by the City of Rancho Cucamonga as the Lead Agency, as to:  Whether this environmental document adequately describes the potential environmental impacts of the Project.  Whether the recommended mitigation measures should be modified and/or adopted. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 1.0 Executive Summary Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 1-7  Whether there are other mitigation measures that should be applied to the Project besides those identified in this EIR.  Whether there are any alternatives to the Project that would substantially lessen any of its significant impacts while achieving most of the basic Project objectives. 1.5 AREAS OF CONTROVERSY Section 15123(b)(2) of the State CEQA Guidelines indicates that an EIR summary should identify areas of controversy known to the Lead Agency, including issues raised by agencies and the public. This EIR has taken into consideration the comments received from the public and various agencies in response to the NOP and a public scoping meeting. Written comments received during the NOP and scoping period are contained in Appendix A of this Draft EIR. Environmental issues that have been raised during opportunities for public input on the project are summarized in Section 2.3, Scope of this Draft EIR, and are addressed in each relevant issue area analyzed in Section 4.1 through Section 4.15 of this Draft EIR. Based on input received from the public during the scoping process, there are no areas of controversy known to the City at this time. 1.6 SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Table 1-1, Summary of Environmental Impacts for the Project, presents a summary of the environmental impacts resulting from the Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project. Table 1-1 addresses those topical issues and associated thresholds for which it was determined in the NOP that impacts would be potentially significant and Project-level analysis is provided in this EIR. Topics for which it was determined that no further analysis is required in this EIR are discussed in Section 6.0, Other CEQA Considerations, and include: agriculture and forestry resources, mineral resources, public services, recreation, and wildfire. The environmental issues areas identified for study for this EIR include: aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, energy, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, noise, population and housing, transportation, tribal cultural resources, utilities and service systems. The potential Project and cumulative impacts for these topical issues are addressed in Section 4.0 of this EIR and were determined to be less than significant. Growth-inducing impacts and significant irreversible environmental changes are addressed in Section 6.0. For each environmental topic, Table 1-1 identifies mitigation measures for impacts determined to be potentially significant. Project-specific mitigation measures are required to reduce potentially significant impacts for the following topical issues: air quality (construction-related emissions), cultural resources, geology and soils (paleontological resources), noise (construction-related), and tribal cultural resources. The potential Project and cumulative impacts for these topical issues are addressed in Section 4.0 of this EIR and were determined to be less than significant with Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 1.0 Executive Summary Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 1-8 implementation of Project-specific mitigation measures and regulatory requirements applicable to the Project and cumulative development. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 1.0 Executive Summary Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 1-9 Table 1-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts for the Project Summary of Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures (MMs) and Regulatory Requirements (RRs) Level of Significance After Mitigation 4.1 Aesthetics Threshold 1.1: The Project site is not within the viewshed of a City-designated view corridor. The implementation of the Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista resulting in a less than significant impact. Regulatory Requirements RR 3-3 and RR 3-4 under Biological Resources shall apply. Less than significant. Threshold 1.2: The Project site is not within a State scenic highway and is not in proximity to a State scenic highway. The Project does not have the potential to degrade scenic resources within a State scenic highway and no impacts would occur. No mitigation is required. No impact. Threshold 1.3: The Project site is within an urbanized area of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. As such, the analysis for this threshold is based on the review of the potential for the Project to conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. Project would not conflict with the applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality, including Rancho Cucamonga Development Code standards and General Plan polices. No impact would occur. No mitigation is required. No impact. Threshold 1.4: The Project site is located in an urban area, which includes existing sources of light and glare. The Project involves redevelopment of the Project site and would not create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. Impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is required. Less than significant. 4.2 Air Quality Impact 2.1: The air quality plan applicable to the Project is the SCAQMD Final 2016 AQMP. The Project’s net operational emissions would not exceed the applicable SCAQMD regional thresholds or LST thresholds, and the Project’s construction and operational characteristics Mitigation Measure MM 2-1 Prior to grading permit and building permit issuance, the City of Rancho Cucamonga shall verify that the following applicable notes are included on the grading plans and building plans. Project Less than significant with mitigation. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 1.0 Executive Summary Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 1-10 Summary of Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures (MMs) and Regulatory Requirements (RRs) Level of Significance After Mitigation would not exceed the assumptions in the AQMP. However, prior to mitigation the Project’s construction-related emissions would exceed the SCAQMD regional thresholds for NOX. Thus, Project-related construction activities have the potential to result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or cause or contribute to new violations or delay the timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emissions reductions specified in the 2016 AQMP, resulting in a potentially significant impact. With the implementation of MM 2-1, the Project would not conflict with the 2016 AQMP, and this impact would be less than significant. contractors shall be required to ensure compliance with these notes and permit periodic inspection of the construction-site by City of Rancho Cucamonga staff or its designee to confirm compliance. These notes also shall be specified in bid documents issued to prospective construction contractors.  During construction activity, Project construction contractors shall ensure that off-road diesel construction equipment complies with applicable California Air Resources Board (CARB) emissions standards or equivalent and shall ensure that all construction equipment is tuned and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications.  The following off-road construction equipment shall be CARB Tier III certified or better, by construction phase as shown: o Demolition/Crushing:  Boom Lift  Concrete/Industrial Saws  Crusher  Skid Steer o Utilities/Infrastructure:  Trencher o Building Construction:  Forklifts  Generator Sets  Welders o Paving:  Pavers  Paving Equipment  Rollers o Architectural Coating  Air Compressors Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 1.0 Executive Summary Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 1-11 Summary of Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures (MMs) and Regulatory Requirements (RRs) Level of Significance After Mitigation  The following off-road construction equipment shall be CARB Tier IV Final certified or better, by construction phase as shown: o Demolition/Crushing:  Breakers  Excavators  Generator Sets  Rubber Tired Dozers o Grading:  Crawler Tractors  Excavators  Graders  Rubber Tired Dozers  Scrapers o Utilities/Infrastructure:  Excavators  Skip Loaders/Backhoes o Building Construction  Cranes  Crawler Tractors  Laser Screed  Scissor Loaders/Backhoes  Skip Loaders/Backhoes Impact 2.2: Prior to mitigation and with adherence to applicable regulatory requirements (R-1 and R-2), Project’s construction activities would result in a cumulatively-considerable net increase of NOX, which is an O3 precursor, for which the Project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard, resulting in a potentially significant impact. This impact would be mitigated to a less than significant level with implementation of MM 2-1. During operation, the Project would not result in a cumulatively-considerable net increase of any criteria Regulatory Requirements RR 2-1 During construction, the Contractor shall comply with South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rules 402 and 403, to minimize short term emissions of dust and particulates. SCAQMD Rule 402 requires that air pollutant emissions not be a nuisance off-site. SCAQMD Rule 403 requires that fugitive dust be controlled with the best available control measures so that the presence of such dust does not remain visible in the atmosphere beyond the property line of the emission source. The Contractor shall provide the City of Rancho Cucamonga with Less than significant with mitigation. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 1.0 Executive Summary Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 1-12 Summary of Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures (MMs) and Regulatory Requirements (RRs) Level of Significance After Mitigation pollutant for which the Project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard, and impacts would therefore be less than significant. a SCAQMD-approved Dust Control Plan or other sufficient proof of compliance with Rule 403, prior to grading permit issuance. RR 2-2 Architectural coatings shall be selected so that the volatile organic compound (VOC) content of the coatings is compliant with SCAQMD Rule 1113. This requirement shall be included as notes on the contractor specifications, which shall be reviewed by the City of Rancho Cucamonga Building and Safety Services Department prior to issuance of a building permit. RR 2-3 The Project Applicant and/or future tenants shall comply with SCAQMD Rule 201 and Regulation II (requiring a Permit to Construct prior to the installation of any equipment that may cause air contaminants) as well as Rule 203 (requiring a Permit to Operate prior to the use of any equipment that may cause air contaminants). These rules and regulation are required unless the Project’s equipment or aspects are exempt under Rule 219, which identifies those equipment, processes, or operations that do not require permits. The Project Applicant shall provide the City of Rancho Cucamonga with the SCAQMD-approved Permit to Construct and Permit to Operate or other sufficient proof of compliance with Rules 201 and 203, prior to occupancy permit issuance. RR 2-4 Building occupants shall comply with Rule 2202, which provides employers with a menu of options to reduce mobile source emissions generated from employee commutes, to comply with federal and State CAA requirements. This Rule applies to any employer who employs 250 or more employees on a full or part-time basis at a worksite for a consecutive six-month period calculated as a monthly average, unless otherwise exempt. An employer subject to this Rule is required to annually register with the SCAQMD to implement an emission reduction program, in Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 1.0 Executive Summary Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 1-13 Summary of Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures (MMs) and Regulatory Requirements (RRs) Level of Significance After Mitigation accordance with subdivisions (f) and (g), that will obtain emission reductions equivalent to a worksite specific emission reduction target (ERT) specified for the compliance year. RR 2-5 The Project shall be operated in compliance with established standards in Section 17.66.060, Odor, Particulate Matter, and Air Containment Standards, of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Code. These standards address compliance with the rules and regulations of the air pollution control district and the state Health and Safety Code related to odorous emissions, particulate matter, and air containment; noxious odor emissions; and restrictions on the emission of dust and particulate matter. Mitigation Measure MM 2-1 shall apply. Impact 2.3: The Project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, including localized construction emissions, localized construction emissions, diesel mobile health risks, or CO “Hot Spots”; therefore, impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is required. Less than significant. Impact 2.4 The Project would not result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people, and would adhere to applicable regulatory requirements addressing odor emissions (refer to RR 2-1 and RR 2-5). Impacts would be less than significant. Regulatory Requirements RR 2-1 and RR 2-5 shall apply. Less than significant. 4.3 Biological Resources Impact 3.1: The Project site, site-adjacent improvement areas, and 6th Street at-grade crossing study area consist of two land cover types that would be classified as disturbed and developed. These areas do not support No mitigation is required. No impact. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 1.0 Executive Summary Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 1-14 Summary of Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures (MMs) and Regulatory Requirements (RRs) Level of Significance After Mitigation native plant communities, nor do they provide suitable habitat for sensitive plant or wildlife species. Therefore, the Project would not impact Candidate, Sensitive, or Special Status species. No impact would occur. Impact 3.2 & 3.3: The Project site, site-adjacent improvement areas, and 6th Street at-grade crossing study area do not support riparian habitat; USACE, CDFW, or RWQCB jurisdictional areas; wetlands; or, sensitive natural communities. Therefore, no impact would occur. Potential indirect impacts to the ephemeral channel and water detention basin east of the Project site, which are not within the Project’s impact limits, would be less than significant with adherence to construction-related water quality protection requirements. Regulatory Requirements RR 9-1 under Hydrology and Water Quality shall apply. Less than significant. Impact 3.4: The Project site, site-adjacent improvement areas and 6th Street at-grade crossing study area do not contain known native wildlife nursery sites and are not within a Wildlife Corridor or linkage. Vegetation and trees on the Project site, site-adjacent improvement areas, 6th Street at-grade crossing study area, and in the vicinity have the potential to provide suitable nesting opportunities for avian and raptor species. Compliance with the MBTA and Sections 3503, 3503.5, 3511 and 3513 of the California Fish and Game Code, as outlined in RR 3-1 and RR 3-2 would ensure that potential impacts to nesting birds and raptors are less than significant. Regulatory Requirements RR 3-1 All construction activities shall comply with the MBTA and California Fish and Game Code Sections 3503, 3511 and 3513. The MBTA governs the taking and killing of migratory birds, their eggs, parts, and nests and prohibits the take of any migratory bird, their eggs, parts, and nests. Compliance with the MBTA and California Fish and Game Code shall be accomplished by completing the following:  Construction activities involving vegetation removal shall be conducted between September 1 and January 31. If construction occurs inside the peak nesting season (between February 1 and August 31), a pre-construction survey (or possibly multiple surveys) by a qualified Biologist shall be conducted within 72 hours prior to construction activities to identify any active nesting locations. If the Biologist does not find any active nests, the construction work shall be allowed to proceed. The biologist conducting the clearance survey shall document a negative Less than significant. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 1.0 Executive Summary Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 1-15 Summary of Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures (MMs) and Regulatory Requirements (RRs) Level of Significance After Mitigation survey with a report indicating that no impacts to active avian nests shall occur. If the biologist finds an active nest on within the pre-construction survey area and determines that the nest may be impacted, the Biologist shall delineate an appropriate buffer zone around the nest. The size of the buffer shall be determined by the Biologist, and shall be based on the nesting species, its sensitivity to disturbance, expected types of disturbance, and location in relation to the construction activities. These buffers are typically 300 feet from the nests of non-listed species and 500 feet from the nests of raptors and listed species. Any active nests observed during the survey shall be mapped on an aerial photograph. Only construction activities (if any) that have been approved by a Biological Monitor shall take place within the buffer zone until the nest is vacated. The Biologist shall serve as a Construction Monitor when construction activities take place near active nest areas to ensure that no inadvertent impacts on these nests occur. Results of the pre-construction survey and any subsequent monitoring shall be provided to the Property Owner/Developer and the City. The monitoring report shall summarize the results of the nest monitoring, describe construction restrictions currently in place, and confirm that construction activities can proceed within the buffer area without jeopardizing the survival of the young birds. RR 3-2 All construction activities shall comply with Sections 3503, 3503.5, 3511 and 3513 of the California Fish and Game Code, which protect active nests of any raptor species, including common raptor species. Compliance with these codes shall be accomplished by completing the following: Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 1.0 Executive Summary Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 1-16 Summary of Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures (MMs) and Regulatory Requirements (RRs) Level of Significance After Mitigation  If vegetation is to be cleared during the potential raptor nesting season (December 1 to August 31), all suitable habitat within 500 feet of the construction impact area shall be thoroughly surveyed for the presence of nesting raptors by a qualified Biologist within 72 hours prior to clearing. If the Biologist does not find any active nests, the construction work shall be allowed to proceed. The biologist conducting the clearance survey shall document a negative survey with a report indicating that no impacts to active avian nests shall occur. If any active nests are detected, the area shall be flagged and mapped on the construction plans with a buffer. The size of the buffer shall be determined by the Biologist and shall be based on the nesting species, its sensitivity to disturbance, expected types of disturbance, and location in relation to the construction activities. These buffers are typically 300 feet from the nest of non-listed species and 500 feet from the nests of raptors and listed species. The buffer area shall be avoided until the nesting cycle is complete or until it is determined that the nest has failed. Results of the pre-construction survey and any subsequent monitoring shall be provided to the Property Owner/Developer and the City. The monitoring report shall summarize the results of the nest monitoring, describe construction restrictions currently in place, and confirm that construction activities can proceed within the buffer area without jeopardizing the survival of the young birds.  Although presumed absent, prior to development of the Project site, a pre-construction burrowing owl clearance survey shall be conducted to ensure burrowing owls remain absent from the construction impact area. The clearance survey shall be conducted in accordance with the CDFW (2012) Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation which requires that two clearance surveys be conducted 14 – 30 days and 24 hours prior to any Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 1.0 Executive Summary Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 1-17 Summary of Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures (MMs) and Regulatory Requirements (RRs) Level of Significance After Mitigation grading or vegetation removal on the Project site. If burrowing owls are observed on the Project site during the pre-construction surveys, a burrowing owl relocation plan shall be prepared and submitted to CDFW for review and approval prior to commencement of vegetation clearing/grubbing, grading, and construction activities on the Project site. The burrowing owl relocation plan shall outline methods to relocate any burrowing owls occurring on the Project site and ensure compliance with the MBTA and California Fish and Game Code. If an active burrow is found during the breeding season (February 1 through August 31), occupied burrows will not be disturbed and will be provided with a protective buffer unless a qualified biologist verifies through noninvasive means that either: (1) the birds have not begun egg laying, or (2) juveniles from the occupied burrows are foraging independently and are capable of independent survival. The size of the buffer will depend on the time of year and level disturbance as outlined in the CDFW Staff Report. Impact 3.5: Removal of any heritage trees would be conducted in compliance with the City’s tree protection policies/requirements, as outlined in RR 3-3 and RR 3-4. No impact would occur related to conflict with tree protection policies or ordinances. Regulatory Requirements RR 3-3 All tree replacement, protection, and maintenance associated with implementation of the Project shall be conducted in accordance with the requirements set forth in Chapter 17.80 of the City’s Development Code. RR 3-4 In compliance with the City’s Tree Removal Permit process (Rancho Cucamonga Development Code, Chapter 17.16.080), the Property Owner/Developer shall obtain a Tree Removal Permit from the Planning Director prior to removal, relocation, or destruction of any heritage tree. Conditions imposed by the Planning Director for replacement of removed trees or tree relocation shall be completed by the Property Owner/Developer. No impact. Impact 3.6: The Project site is not within an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan; Natural Communities Conservation Plan; or other approved local, regional, or No mitigation is required. No impact. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 1.0 Executive Summary Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 1-18 Summary of Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures (MMs) and Regulatory Requirements (RRs) Level of Significance After Mitigation State habitat conservation plan area. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted plan and no impacts would occur. 4.4 Cultural Resources Impact 4.1: The Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines. No mitigation is required. No impact. Impact 4.2: The Project has a low potential to impact unknown archaeological resources; however, there is a potential to encounter subsurface archaeological resources during construction resulting in a potentially significant impact prior to mitigation. Implementation of MM 4-1 and MM 4-2 would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measures MM 4-1 Prior to site preparation or grading activities, construction personnel shall be instructed by a qualified Archaeologist of the potential for encountering unique archaeological resources and instructed on steps to take in the event such resources are encountered. This shall include the provision of written materials to familiarize personnel with the range of resources that might be expected, the type of activities that may result in impacts, and the legal framework of cultural resources protection. All construction personnel shall be instructed to stop work in the vicinity of a potential discovery until a qualified Archaeologist assesses the significance of the find and implements appropriate measures to protect or scientifically remove the find. Construction personnel shall also be informed that unauthorized collection of archaeological resources is prohibited. MM 4-2 In the event that cultural resources are inadvertently unearthed during excavation and grading activities, the Contractor shall immediately cease all earth-disturbing activities within a 100-foot radius of the area of discovery. The Property Owner/Developer shall retain a qualified Archaeologist (Project Archaeologist), subject to approval by the City of Rancho Cucamonga, to evaluate the significance of the find and to determine an appropriate course of action. All artifacts except for human remains and related grave goods or sacred objects belong to the Property Owner. Less than significant with mitigation. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 1.0 Executive Summary Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 1-19 Summary of Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures (MMs) and Regulatory Requirements (RRs) Level of Significance After Mitigation All artifacts discovered at the development site shall be inventoried and analyzed by the Project Archaeologist. Non-Native American artifacts shall be inventoried, assessed, and analyzed for cultural affiliation, personal affiliation (prior ownership), function, and temporal placement. Subsequent to analysis and reporting, these artifacts shall be subjected to curation or returned to the Property Owner, as deemed appropriate. If any artifacts of Native American origin are discovered, the Property Owner/Developer and Project Archaeologist shall notify the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department and the appropriate local Native American tribe identified by the Native American Heritage Commission. The significance of Native American resources shall be evaluated in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and shall consider the religious beliefs, customs, and practices of the tribe (refer to MM 14-1 though MM 14-6 in Section 4.14, Tribal Cultural Resources). All items found in association with Native American human remains shall be considered grave goods or sacred in origin and subject to special handling (see RR 4-1). Once ground-altering activities have ceased or the Project Archaeologist determines that monitoring activities are no longer necessary, monitoring activities may be discontinued following notification to the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department. A report of findings, including an itemized inventory of recovered artifacts, shall be prepared upon completion of the steps outlined above. The report shall include a discussion of the significance of all recovered artifacts. The report and inventory, when submitted to the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department, shall signify completion of the program to mitigate impacts to archaeological and/or cultural resources. A copy of the report Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 1.0 Executive Summary Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 1-20 Summary of Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures (MMs) and Regulatory Requirements (RRs) Level of Significance After Mitigation shall also be filed with the Archaeological Information Center (AIC) at the San Bernardino County Museum and the Native American tribe, as appropriate. Impact 4.3: Construction activities would not disturb known human remains. However, if human remains are encountered in subsurface soils, implementation of RR 4-1 would ensure potential impacts are less than significant. Regulatory Requirement RR 4-1 If human remains are encountered during the conduct of ground-disturbing activities, Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code states that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition of the materials pursuant to Section 5097.98 of the California Public Resources Code. The provisions of Section 15064.5 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines shall also be followed. The County Coroner must be notified of the find immediately. If the remains are determined to be prehistoric, the Coroner shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). The NAHC will determine and notify a Most Likely Descendent (MLD). With the permission of the landowner or his/her authorized representative, the MLD may inspect the site of the discovery. The descendent must complete the inspection within 24 hours of notification by the NAHC. The MLD may recommend scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American burials. These requirements shall be included as notes on the contractor specification and verified by the Community Development Department, prior to issuance of grading permits. Less than significant. 4.5 Energy Impact 5.1 The Project would adhere to the state-mandated provisions of Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards and the CalGreen Code, and the Rancho Cucamonga Development Code, and RR 5-1 (limits idling). The Project would not engage in wasteful or inefficient uses of energy and aims to achieve energy conservations goals within the State of California. As such, the Project would not result in wasteful, inefficient, Regulatory Requirement RR 5-1 Construction activities shall be conducted in compliance with Section 2449, General Requirements for In-Use Off-Road Diesel-Fueled Fleets, of the California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 13, Motor Vehicles. Section 2449(d)(2) limits idling times of construction vehicles to no more than five consecutive minutes. Less than significant. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 1.0 Executive Summary Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 1-21 Summary of Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures (MMs) and Regulatory Requirements (RRs) Level of Significance After Mitigation or unnecessary consumption of energy, or wasteful use of energy resources, during Project construction or operation. Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. Adherence to idling limitations shall be confirmed through periodic site inspections conducted by City building officials. Impact 5.2: The Project would not conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. No mitigation is required. Less than significant. 4.6 Geology and Soils Impact 6.1(i): The Project site is not in a fault hazard area; nor is the Project site within a mapped Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. The Project would not expose people or structure to substantial adverse effects related to ground rupture from a known earthquake fault. No impact would occur. No mitigation is required. No impact. Impact 6.1(ii): The Project site is within a seismically active region. As such, the Project’s proposed structures may be subject to moderate to large seismic events, resulting in strong seismic ground shaking. The Project would be required to comply with RR 6-1 and RR 6-2 and would be required to incorporate the recommendation from the Geotechnical Investigation, which would ensure that people and/or structures would not be exposed to potential substantial adverse effects from strong seismic ground shaking. Impacts would be less than significant. Regulatory Requirements RR 6-1 In accordance with the City’s Building Regulations, as contained in Title 15, Buildings and Construction, of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code, which includes adoption of the 2019 California Building Code (CBC), all construction on the Project site 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. RR 6-2 All grading operations and construction on the Project site shall be conducted in conformance with the applicable City of Rancho Cucamonga Grading Standards (Municipal Code Chapter 19.04). Grading operations shall also be consistent with the recommendations included in the Project-specific Geotechnical Investigation prepared by SCG for the Project. Less than significant. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 1.0 Executive Summary Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 1-22 Summary of Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures (MMs) and Regulatory Requirements (RRs) Level of Significance After Mitigation Impact 6.1(iii): The Project is not located within an area of liquefaction susceptibility. The Project would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction. No mitigation is required. No mitigation is required. No impact. Impact 6.1 (iv): The Project site is relatively flat, as is the surrounding area. Therefore, the Project would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving landslides. No impact would occur. No mitigation is required. No impact. Impact 6.2: The Project site is in a soil erosion hazard area, where soils have a moderate to high erosion hazard and soil blowing hazard. Construction activities and operations would be conducted in adherence to City, regional, and State regulations related to management of windblown dust and other sources of soil erosion (RR 6 3 and RR 6-4). Additionally, construction activities would be conducted in compliance regulations pertaining to protection of water quality (refer to Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, below). With adherence to existing regulations and requirements, there would be a less than significant impact related to erosion during construction and operation. Regulatory Requirements RR 6-3 Development on the Project site shall comply with Section 17.66.060 of the Rancho Cucamonga Development Code, with regard to dust control. Specifically, “no dust or particulate matter shall be emitted that is detectable by a reasonable person without instruments.” RR 6-4 In accordance with Chapter 17.56, Landscaping Standards, of the Rancho Cucamonga Development Code, which establishes minimum landscape requirements to control soil erosion, among other purposes, development on the Project site shall submit preliminary and final landscape and irrigation plans as part of the design review process (Section 17.20.040 of the Rancho Cucamonga Development Code). Less than significant. Impact 6.3: The near surface soils encountered at the on-site boring locations consist of artificial fill soils and native alluvium. Grading of the Project site would be performed in accordance with the City’s building and grading standards and recommendations outlined in the Geotechnical Investigation (RR 6-1 and RR 6-2), and impacts related to instability of the site’s geologic materials would be less than significant. Regulatory Requirements RR 6-1 and RR 6-2 shall apply. Less than significant Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 1.0 Executive Summary Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 1-23 Summary of Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures (MMs) and Regulatory Requirements (RRs) Level of Significance After Mitigation Impact 6.4: The Project site soils have low expansion potential and no soils would be imported to the Project site. No impact would occur related to expansive soils and no mitigation is required. No mitigation is required. No impact. Impact 6.5: The Project would connect to the City-owned municipal wastewater conveyance system and would not utilize septic tanks for an alternative wastewater disposal system. The Project would have no impact related to the use of septic tanks and/or alternative waste water systems. No mitigation is required. No impact. Impact 6.6: The Project site is underlain by native alluvial soils, which have a High paleontological sensitivity. The depth of proposed excavation for the Project is up to 26 feet. Therefore, there is a potential for significant paleontological resources to be unearthed during ground-disturbing activities, without mitigation. With the implementation of MM 6-1, potential impacts to paleontological resources would be less than significant. Mitigation Measure MM 6-1 Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the Project Applicant shall submit to and receive approval from the City, a Paleontological Resource Impact Mitigation Monitoring Program (PRIMMP). The PRIMMP shall include the provision of a qualified professional paleontologist (or his or her trained paleontological monitor representative) during on-site subsurface excavation of Quaternary (i.e., early Holocene and late Pleistocene) alluvial-fan deposits, as outlined below. Selection of the paleontologist shall be subject to approval of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Director, or designee, and no grading activities shall occur at the site until the paleontologist has been approved by the City. The PRIMMP shall include the requirements below.  Monitoring of mass grading and excavation activities in areas identified as likely to contain paleontological resources shall be performed by a qualified paleontologist or paleontological monitor. Monitoring shall be conducted full time in areas of grading or excavation activities that occur in undisturbed exposures of Quaternary (i.e., early Holocene and late Pleistocene) alluvial-fan deposits at a depth of 12 feet and below in order to mitigate any adverse impacts (loss or Less than significant with mitigation. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 1.0 Executive Summary Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 1-24 Summary of Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures (MMs) and Regulatory Requirements (RRs) Level of Significance After Mitigation destruction) to potential nonrenewable paleontological resources. For grading and other earth disturbance activities at depths between 5 and 12 feet below the surface, periodic spot checks for potential paleontological resources shall be conducted. Periodic monitoring shall consist of approximately 1 to 3 scheduled site visits per week by a paleontological monitor during construction ground disturbance. If significant fossils are discovered during a spot check, full-time monitoring should be initiated.  Paleontological monitors shall be equipped to salvage fossils as they are unearthed to avoid construction delays and to remove samples of sediment that are likely to contain the remains of small fossil invertebrates and vertebrates. The monitor shall be empowered to temporarily halt or divert equipment to allow for the removal of abundant or large specimens in a timely manner. Monitoring may be reduced if the potentially fossiliferous units are not present in the subsurface, or if they are present, are determined upon exposure and examination by qualified paleontological personnel to have low potential to contain fossil resources.  Recovered specimens shall be prepared to a point of identification and permanent preservation, including screen-washing sediments to recover small invertebrates and vertebrates, if indicated by the results of test sampling. Preparation of individual vertebrate fossils is often more time-consuming than for accumulations of invertebrate fossils.  All fossils shall be deposited in an accredited institution, such as the San Bernardino County Museum, that maintains collections of paleontological materials. All costs of the paleontological monitoring and mitigation program, Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 1.0 Executive Summary Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 1-25 Summary of Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures (MMs) and Regulatory Requirements (RRs) Level of Significance After Mitigation including any one-time charges by the receiving institution, are the responsibility of the Project Applicant.  The Project Paleontologist shall prepare of a final monitoring and mitigation report of findings and significance, including lists of all fossils recovered and necessary maps and graphics to accurately record their original location(s). A letter documenting receipt and acceptance of all fossil collections by the receiving institution must be included in the final report. The report, when submitted to (and accepted by) the City of Rancho Cucamonga, shall signify satisfactory completion of the project program to mitigate impacts to any nonrenewable paleontological resources. 4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impact 7.1: Construction and operation of the Project, which would replace existing buildings, would not exceed the screening threshold for GHG emissions and would not generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may significantly impact the environment and impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is required. Less than significant. Impact 7.2: The Project the Project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases, including Senate Bill (SB) 32 and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) 2017 Scoping Plan, Connect SoCal, and the City of Rancho Cucamonga Sustainable Community Action Plan. This impact is less than significant and no mitigation is required. No mitigation is required. Less than significant. 4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Impact 8.1 & 8.2: Due to the lack of contaminants that exceed established standards for commercial/industrial uses, construction of the Project would not result in the exposure of the public to hazardous materials associated with potential RECs. Further, no ACMs or LBP occurs Regulatory Requirements RR 8-1 The Project Applicant shall comply with the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, as administered by the U.S. Department of Transportation, which governs the transport of hazardous Less than significant. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 1.0 Executive Summary Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 1-26 Summary of Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures (MMs) and Regulatory Requirements (RRs) Level of Significance After Mitigation on-site. Construction and operation of the Project would involve handling of hazardous materials in limited quantities and typical to urban environments. Through compliance with existing regulations applicable to the Project (RR 8-1 through RR 8-3) the Project would not pose a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, storage, emission, or disposal of hazardous materials, nor would the Project increase the potential for accident conditions which could result in the release of hazardous materials into the environment. Impacts would be less than significant. materials and wastes. Vehicles transporting hazardous materials are required to comply with the regulations, as implemented by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). RR 8-2 The Project Applicant shall comply with the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), the California Hazardous Waste Control Act, and the California Accidental Release Prevention Program, where applicable, which collectively manage the transport, storage, use, and disposal of hazardous materials and wastes. RR 8-3 The Project Applicant shall comply with Section 17.66.040, Hazardous Materials, of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Code to ensure that required information is reported to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, as the regulatory authority. Businesses required by State law to prepare hazardous materials release response plans and Hazardous Materials Inventory Statements shall, upon request, submit copies of these plans, including any revisions, to the Fire Protection District. Underground storage of hazardous materials shall comply with all applicable requirements and shall comply with the procedures for notification outlined in this section. Impact 8.3: No existing or proposed schools are located within one-quarter mile of the Project site. The nearest school to the Project site (Sacred Heart Parish School) is located 1.5 miles to the north. Accordingly, the Project would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. Additionally, the Project would not cause a significant human health or cancer risk to school children at the nearest school to the Project site (Sacred Heart Parish School). Impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is required. Less than significant. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 1.0 Executive Summary Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 1-27 Summary of Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures (MMs) and Regulatory Requirements (RRs) Level of Significance After Mitigation Impact 8.4: The Project site is located on the State list of underground storage tanks (USTs) and leaking underground storage tanks (LUSTs) due to the previous presence of USTs on-site; the on-site USTs were removed in 1998. During the removal, no petroleum hydrocarbon staining or odors were noted beneath the USTs. The location of the Project on a site included on a list compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. No impact would occur and no mitigation is required. No mitigation is required. No impact. Impact 8.5: The Project site is located within the Airport Influence Area (AIA) for the Ontario International Airport (ONT). The Project site is located outside the safety zones for the ONT; however, it is within the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Height Notification Surface Zone and near the Airspace Obstruction Surface Zone. The proposed buildings would have a maximum height of 50-feet, would not require notification of the FAA, and would not cause an obstruction for aircraft operations. The Project site is also with the Overflight Notification Zone. Although no safety hazard would result, the Project would adhere to the requirements of the ONT Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan related to Real Estate Disclosure Policy (refer to RR 8-4). The Project would not result in airport-related safety hazards for people residing or working in the Project area. Impacts would be less than significant. Regulatory Requirements RR 8-4 The Project site is within the Airport Influence Area (AIA) established by the LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ONT ALUCP). Construction activities and future development shall be implemented in compliance with the following applicable requirement identified in the ONT ALUCP:  Real Estate Transaction Disclosure. In compliance with Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for LA/Ontario Airport’s (ONT ALUCP’s) Overflight Policy O2, a Real Estate Transaction Disclosure is required for all development within the Project site. State Law (Business and Professions Code Section 11010) provides the following disclosure language: NOTICE OF AIRPORT IN VICINITY: This property is presently located in the vicinity of an airport, within what is known as an airport influence area. For that reason, the property may be subject to some of the annoyances or inconveniences associated with proximity to airport operations (for example, noise, vibration, or odors). Less than significant. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 1.0 Executive Summary Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 1-28 Summary of Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures (MMs) and Regulatory Requirements (RRs) Level of Significance After Mitigation Individual sensitivities to those annoyances can vary from person to person. You may wish to consider what airport annoyances, if any, are associated with the property before you complete your purchase and determine whether they are acceptable to you. Impact 8.6: The Project site does not contain any emergency facilities nor does it serve as an emergency evacuation route. The Project would not impair implementation of, or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan. No impact would result and no mitigation is required. No mitigation is required. No impact. Impact 8.7: The Project site is not located within a designated fire hazard area or a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone within a Local Responsibility Area. The Project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk associated with wildland fires. No impact would occur. No mitigation is required. No impact. 4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality Impact 9.1: Short-term construction and long-term operation of development under the Project would generate pollutants that may enter stormwater. However, compliance with existing regulations, as identified in RR 9-1 through RR 9-3, would prevent the violation of water quality standards, ensure compliance with waste discharge requirements and prevent the degradation of stormwater quality and groundwater quality. Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. Regulatory Requirements RR 9-1 The Property Owner/Developer shall comply with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activity (Construction General Permit) applicable at the time a grading permit is issued. The Property Owner/Developer shall prepare and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), which must include erosion- and sediment-control Best Management Practices (BMPs) that will meet or exceed measures required by the determined risk level of the Construction General Permit, as well as BMPs that control the other potential construction related pollutants. A Construction Site Monitoring Program that identifies monitoring and sampling requirements Less than significant. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 1.0 Executive Summary Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 1-29 Summary of Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures (MMs) and Regulatory Requirements (RRs) Level of Significance After Mitigation during construction is a required component of the SWPPP. Evidence of compliance with the NPDES Construction General Permit shall be provided to the City’s Building and Safety Services Director prior to issuance of a grading permit. RR 9-2 The Property Owner/Developer shall comply with Section 19.20.260, Water Quality Management Plan, of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code, which requires that all qualifying land development/redevelopment projects submit and have approved a water quality management plan (WQMP) to the City Engineer on a form provided by the City. The WQMP shall identify all BMPs to be incorporated into the Project to control storm water and non-storm water pollutants during and after construction. RR 9-3 The Property Owner/Developer shall comply with Chapter 19.20 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code, which is the City’s Storm Water and Urban Runoff Management and Discharge Control Ordinance and which provides regulations to comply with the Clean Water Act (CWA), the California Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, and the NPDES permit for San Bernardino County. This ordinance prohibits the discharge of specific pollutants into the storm water; regulates connections to the storm drain system; and requires development projects to implement permanent BMPs on individual sites to reduce pollutants in the storm water. Impact 9.2: The Project would result in net increase in water demand as compared to existing conditions; however, the net increase would represent less than one percent of water demand for CVWD. Therefore, the Project would not deplete groundwater supplies. The Project site is not in an CVWD groundwater recharge area; therefore, implementation of the Project would not No mitigation is required. Less than significant. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 1.0 Executive Summary Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 1-30 Summary of Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures (MMs) and Regulatory Requirements (RRs) Level of Significance After Mitigation interfere with groundwater recharge. Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. Impact 9.3: The Project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site, substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site, create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff, or impede or redirect flood flows. Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. No mitigation is required. Less than significant. Impact 9.4: The Project site is not within a 100-year flood zone, is not within a tsunami zone, and is not within proximity to an enclosed or partially enclosed body of water that is capable of producing seiches. Therefore, there would be no impact related to risk of release of pollutants due to Project inundation from a flood, tsunami or seiche. The Project site is not located within a dam inundation area and impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation is not required. No mitigation is required. Less than significant. Impact 9.5: The Project site is within the Santa Ana River Basin and with adherence to RR 9-1 through RR 9-3, the Project would not conflict with the Santa Ana Basin Plan. The Chino and Cucamonga Groundwater Basins are “low priority” basins and not subject to the requirements of the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with an adopted Groundwater Sustainability Plan. No impacts would occur. Regulatory Requirements RR 9-1 through RR 9-3 shall apply. No impact. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 1.0 Executive Summary Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 1-31 Summary of Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures (MMs) and Regulatory Requirements (RRs) Level of Significance After Mitigation 4.10 Land Use and Planning Impact 10.1: The Project site is surrounding be existing non-residential development. Redevelopment of the Project site, including construction of new Street A, would not physically divide an established community. Not impact would occur. No mitigation is required. No impact. Impact 10.2: Implementation of the Project would not result in conflicts with any local or regional land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. No impacts would occur. No mitigation is required. No impact. 4.11 Noise Impact 11.1: During the Project’s construction phase, the Project would result in a temporary increase in noise levels along the eastern property boundary. The Project With implementation of MM 11-1 and MM 11-2, construction-related noise impacts would be less than significant levels. The Project would not result in a permanent increase in daytime or nighttime noise levels during operation in excess of established noise standards. This impact is less than significant, and no mitigation is required. Mitigation Measures MM 11-1 Prior to issuance of grading or building permits, the City of Rancho Cucamonga shall review the plans to ensure the plans require the installation of a minimum 6-foot-high temporary construction perimeter noise barrier along the Project site’s boundary with the San Bernardino County West Valley Detention Center. The location and following specifications for the noise control barrier shall also be included on the plans:  The noise control barriers must present a solid face from top to bottom.  The noise barrier shall be constructed using one of the following materials with no decorative cutouts or line-of-sight openings between shielded areas and the noise source: o An acoustical blanket (e.g., vinyl acoustic curtains, quilted blankets, or equivalent) attached to the construction-site perimeter fence or equivalent temporary fence posts. Less than significant with mitigation. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 1.0 Executive Summary Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 1-32 Summary of Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures (MMs) and Regulatory Requirements (RRs) Level of Significance After Mitigation o Any combination of construction materials satisfying a weight of at least 4 pounds per square foot of face area.  The noise barriers shall be maintained, and any damage promptly repaired. Gaps, holes, or weaknesses in the barrier or openings between the barrier and the ground shall be promptly repaired. The required barrier shall be installed prior to any construction activities commencing on-site and shall remain in place until construction activities have been completed. The construction contractor shall allow for periodic inspection by the City of Rancho Cucamonga to ensure that the required noise barrier remains in place until completion of construction activities on-site. MM 11-2 During all Project site construction, the construction contractors shall equip all construction equipment, fixed or mobile, with properly operating and maintained mufflers, consistent with manufacturers’ standards. The construction contractor shall place all stationary construction equipment so that emitted noise is directed away from the noise sensitive receptors nearest the Project site. The construction contractor shall allow for periodic inspection by the City of Rancho Cucamonga to ensure compliance with these requirements. Impact 11.2: The Project would not result in the generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels during construction or operation. This impact is less than significant and no mitigation is required. No mitigation is required. Less than significant. Impact 11.3: The Project site is located within the ONT ONT AIA but outside the 60 dBA CNEL airport noise impact zone. The Project would not expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise No mitigation is required. Less than significant. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 1.0 Executive Summary Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 1-33 Summary of Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures (MMs) and Regulatory Requirements (RRs) Level of Significance After Mitigation levels. This impact is less than significant and no mitigation is required. 4.12 Population and Housing Impact 12.1: The Project proposes to redevelop the Project site with two warehouse buildings and would not include the development of any residential uses. The Project would result in a net increase of approximately 277 employment opportunities. The Project would not directly or indirectly result in substantial unplanned population growth in the area. Impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is required. Less than significant. Impact 12.2: The Project site does not contain any residential structures under existing conditions. Therefore, the Project would not displace substantial numbers of existing housing or people and would not necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. No impact would occur. No mitigation is required. No impact. 4.13 Transportation Impact 13.1: The Project site is within a Transit Priority Area, and the Project would be implemented in accordance with applicable regulations related to Transportation (refer RR 13-2 and RR 13-3). The Project would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. No impact would result. RR 13-2 In accordance with Chapter 3.28, City-Wide System Fees for Transportation Development, of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code, prior to the issuance of each building permit, the Property Owner/Developer shall pay applicable city-wide transportation development impact fees to the satisfaction of the City Engineering Department. RR 13-3 The Property Owner/Developer shall comply with Chapter 17.78, Transportation Demand Management, of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Code, which requires the provision of amenities or programs to encourage the use of alternative modes of travel by employees; patrons; and visitors of commercial, industrial, office, and mixed use developments. These may include, but are limited to shower facilities, preferred parking, bicycle storage, video conference facilities, transit improvements, and other measures to reduce vehicle trips in the City. These No impact. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 1.0 Executive Summary Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 1-34 Summary of Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures (MMs) and Regulatory Requirements (RRs) Level of Significance After Mitigation facilities shall be shown in the site improvement and building plans submitted to the City during the permit process. Impact 13.2: The Project’s VMT impact would be considered less than significant based on the City’s Low VMT Area screening threshold. Further, the Project’s VMT impact would be considered less than significant based on the comparison of baseline Project-generated VMT per service population to the City’s baseline condition. Thus, the Project would not conflict with or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b). This impact is less than significant and no mitigation is required. No mitigation is required. Less than significant. Impact 13.3: Construction activities within the public right-of-way would be conducted in accordance with requirements established by the cities of Rancho Cucamonga and Ontario (refer to RR 13-1 and RR 13-5), and Project-generated truck traffic during construction and operation would travel on designated truck routes, and would adhere to applicable regulations associated with truck travel (refer to RR 13-4). The Project does not involve the introduction of any design features or incompatible uses that would substantially increase hazards for motorists, pedestrians, or bicyclists, on the roadways surrounding the Project site. This impact would be less than significant. RR 13-1 During construction activities, work within streets, sidewalks, and public places shall comply with: (1) Title 12.03, Public Improvement Construction, of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code, which requires an encroachment permit from the City and adherence to the current edition of The Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction (Green Book), and (2) the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). Application for the permit shall be made as part of the respective plan check process and prior to any work on public areas or rights-of-way. RR 13-4 In accordance with Chapter 10.56, Truck Routes and Restrictions, of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code, commercial vehicles and vehicle combinations described in Sections 35400 and 35401 of the California Vehicle Code, or their successor provisions, and vehicles which exceed a maximum gross weight of three tons shall use designated truck routes. Non-designated truck routes shall be used only as necessary for the purpose of making pickups or deliveries of goods, wares, and merchandise from or to any building or structure located on a city street or for the purpose of delivering materials to be used in the repair, alteration, Less than significant. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 1.0 Executive Summary Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 1-35 Summary of Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures (MMs) and Regulatory Requirements (RRs) Level of Significance After Mitigation remodeling, or construction of any building or structure upon a city street for which a building permit has previously been obtained. RR 13-5 Work in the public right-of-way along 4th Street in the City of Ontario shall comply with Title 7, Chapter 3, Public Rights-of-Way, of the City of Ontario Municipal Code, which requires an encroachment permit from the City. Application for the permit shall be made as part of the respective plan check process and prior to any work on public areas or rights-of-way. Impact 13.4: Proposed construction activities would be conducted in compliance with requirements of the cities of Rancho Cucamonga and Ontario (refer to RR 13-1 and RR 13-5), and the Project circulation system would meet Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District (RCFPD) standards for access, width, and turning radii. The Project would provide adequate emergency access and impacts would be less than significant. Regulatory Requirements RR 13-1 and RR 13-5 shall apply. Less than significant. 4.14 Tribal Cultural Resources Impact 14.1.a: The Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resources 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). No impact would occur. No mitigation is required. No impact. Impact 14.1.b: The Project has a low potential to impact unknown tribal cultural resources; however, there is a potential to encounter subsurface tribal cultural resources during construction resulting in a potentially significant impact prior to mitigation. Implementation of MM 14-1 through MM 14-6 would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. If human remains are encountered in subsurface soils, implementation of RR 4-1 would also ensure potential impacts are less than significant. Regulatory Requirement RR 4-1 shall apply. Mitigation Measures MM 14-1 Prior to the commencement of any ground disturbing activity at the Project Site, the project applicant shall retain a Native American Monitor approved by the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation – the tribe that consulted on this project Less than significant with mitigation. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 1.0 Executive Summary Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 1-36 Summary of Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures (MMs) and Regulatory Requirements (RRs) Level of Significance After Mitigation pursuant to Assembly Bill A52 - SB18 (the “Tribe” or the “Consulting Tribe”). A copy of the executed contract shall be submitted to the City of Rancho Cucamonga prior to the issuance of any permit necessary to commence a ground- disturbing activity. The Tribal monitor shall only be present on-site during the construction phases that involve ground-disturbing activities. Ground disturbing activities are defined by the Tribe 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 shall complete daily monitoring logs that shall provide descriptions of the day’s activities, including construction activities, locations, soil, and any cultural materials identified. The on-site monitoring shall end when all ground-disturbing activities on the Project Site are completed, or when the Tribal Representatives and Tribal Monitor have indicated that all upcoming ground-disturbing activities at the Project Site have little to no potential for impacting tribal cultural resources. Upon discovery of any tribal cultural resources, construction activities shall cease in the immediate vicinity of the find (not less than the surrounding 50 feet) until the find can be assessed. All tribal cultural resources unearthed by project activities shall be evaluated by the Tribal monitor approved by the Consulting Tribe and a qualified archaeologist if one is present. If the resources are Native American in origin, the Consulting Tribe shall retain it/them in the form and/or manner the Tribe deems appropriate, for educational, cultural and/or historic purposes. If human remains and/or grave goods are discovered or recognized at the Project Site, all ground disturbance shall immediately cease, and the county coroner shall be notified per Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, and Health & Safety Code Section 7050.5. Human remains and grave/burial goods shall be treated alike per California Public Resources Code section 5097.98(d)(1) and (2). Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 1.0 Executive Summary Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 1-37 Summary of Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures (MMs) and Regulatory Requirements (RRs) Level of Significance After Mitigation Work may continue in other parts of the Project site while evaluation and, if necessary, mitigation takes place (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5[f]). 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 (non-TCR) 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, it shall be offered to a local school or historical society in the area for educational purposes. MM 14-2 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 NAHC and PRC 5097.98 shall be followed. MM 14-3 Upon discovery of human remains, the tribal and/or archaeological monitor/consultant/consultant shall immediately divert work at minimum of 100 feet and place an exclusion zone around the discovery location. The monitor/consultant(s) shall then notify the Tribe, the qualified lead archaeologist, and the construction manager who shall call the coroner. Work shall Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 1.0 Executive Summary Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 1-38 Summary of Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures (MMs) and Regulatory Requirements (RRs) Level of Significance After Mitigation continue to be diverted while the coroner determines whether the remains are human and subsequently 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 shall notify the NAHC as mandated by state law who shall then appoint a Most Likely Descendent (MLD). MM 14-4 If the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation is designated MLD, the Koo-nas-gna Burial Policy 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 preparation of the soil for burial, the burial of funerary objects with the deceased, and the ceremonial burning of human remains. The prepared soil and cremation soils 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. MM 14-5 Prior to the continuation of ground disturbing activities, the landowner 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 shall 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 shall 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 Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 1.0 Executive Summary Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 1-39 Summary of Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures (MMs) and Regulatory Requirements (RRs) Level of Significance After Mitigation that burials shall be removed. The Tribe shall work closely with the qualified archaeologist to ensure that the excavation is treated carefully, ethically and respectfully. If data recovery is approved by the Tribe, documentation shall be taken which includes at a minimum detailed descriptive notes and sketches. Additional types of documentation shall be approved by the Tribe for data recovery purposes. Cremations shall 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 and/or destructive diagnostics on human remains. Each occurrence of human remains and associated funerary objects shall be stored using opaque cloth bags. All human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects and objects of cultural patrimony shall 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. MM 14-6 Native American and Archaeological monitoring during construction projects shall be consistent with current professional standards. All feasible care to avoid any unnecessary disturbance, physical modification, or separation of TCR’s shall be taken. The Native American monitor must be approved by the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation. Principal personnel for Archaeology 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. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 1.0 Executive Summary Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 1-40 Summary of Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures (MMs) and Regulatory Requirements (RRs) Level of Significance After Mitigation 4.15 Utilities and Service Systems Impact 15.1: The Project would increase the demand for utility services and in addition to complying with Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards and the CALGreen Code, the Project would adhere to regulations addressing water conservation (refer to RR 15-2 and RR 15-3). Utility infrastructure installation and associated improvements would occur within the identified physical impact area for the Project (on-site and within the public right-of-way along adjacent streets) as addressed throughout this Draft EIR, and in compliance with applicable requirements of the utility providers (RR 15-1). No additional impacts would result. This impact would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. Regulatory Requirements RR 15-1 Water and sewer plans shall be designed and constructed to meet the applicable requirements of the Cucamonga Valley Water District (CVWD) Municipal Code and City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Code. Approval of the plans by the CVWD is required prior to final map approval or issuance of permits, whichever occurs first. RR 15-2 Landscaping associated with the Project shall be implemented in compliance with Chapter 17.56 of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Code, which requires preparation and review of landscape and irrigation plans during the Design Review process. Pursuant to Section 17.56.030(B) of the Development Code, the final landscape planting and irrigation plans shall be prepared by a registered licensed Landscape Architect and shall be in substantial compliance with the preliminary landscape and irrigation plan approved by the designated approving authority. RR 15-3 Landscape plans prepared for the Project shall be in compliance with Chapter 17.82, Water Efficient Landscaping, of the City Rancho Cucamonga Development Code, which includes requirements for development of a water budget, landscape design guidelines, soil and grading requirements, and a requirement to use recycled water. Less than significant. Impact 15.2: Development allowed by the Project would require water supplies from the CVWD. The Project-specific Water Supply Assessment demonstrates that CVWD has available water supplies to meet the water demands of the Project for the next twenty years through 2040, including demands during normal, single dry and multiple dry years. The CVWD has concurred with the findings of the WSA that available water supplies would No mitigation is required. Less than significant Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 1.0 Executive Summary Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 1-41 Summary of Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures (MMs) and Regulatory Requirements (RRs) Level of Significance After Mitigation be adequate to serve the Project. Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. Impact 15.3: The Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA) wastewater treatment facilities have sufficient capacity to serve the Project and existing commitments. This impact would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. No mitigation is required. Less than significant. Impact 15.4: The Project’s construction and operational refuse would be disposed of at the Mid Valley Landfill. Construction and operational activities would comply with applicable regulations addressing solid waste management (refer to RR 15-4 and RR 15-5). The Project would not generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals. This impact would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. Regulatory Requirement RR 15-4 Demolition and construction activities on the Project site shall be conducted in compliance with requirements of Chapter 8.19, Construction and Demolition Waste Collection, of the City’s Municipal Code. Construction and demolition waste shall be made available for deconstruction, salvage, and recovery prior to demolition. Inclusive of the recovered and salvaged materials, all construction and demolition projects are required to divert a minimum of 65% of the tonnage generated as a result of the project from the landfill. Prior to issuance of each Demolition or Building Permit, a “Form CD-1 Waste Management and Recycling Plan” shall be submitted to the Engineering Services Department. RR 15-5 Development shall comply with Chapter 8.17, Refuse, Recyclables and Green Waste Collection, of the City’s Municipal Code. The collection and disposal of refuse, recyclables or green waste shall only be conducted by entities issued a permit to do so by the City, with certain exceptions, as identified in the Municipal Code. Less than significant. Impact 15.5: Construction and operation associated with implementation the Project would be conducted in compliance with applicable statues and regulations related to solid waste. No impact would occur and no mitigation is required. Regulatory Requirement RR 15-4 and RR 15-5 shall apply. No impact. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 2.0 Introduction Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 2-1 2.0 INTRODUCTION 2.1 PURPOSE OF THIS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT This Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been prepared to evaluate the potential environmental impacts associated with the construction and operation of the proposed Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project (Project). The Project involves redevelopment of the Project site with two high-cube warehouse buildings with a combined building area of approximately 2,175,000 square feet (sf), which includes the 1,422,500 sf Building 1 (1,403,500 sf of ground floor building area and 19,000 sf of mezzanine area) and 752,500 sf Building 2 (738,270 sf of ground floor building area and 14,230 sf of mezzanine area). The Project would also include associated on-site parking and landscaping, and on-site and site-adjacent roadway and infrastructure improvements. The City of Rancho Cucamonga is the Lead Agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and is responsible for preparing the Draft EIR. The determination that the City of Rancho Cucamonga is the “Lead Agency” is made in accordance with Sections 15051 and 15367 of the CEQA Guidelines, which define the Lead Agency as the public agency that has the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a project. This Draft EIR is an informational document prepared by the City of Rancho Cucamonga for the following purposes:  To satisfy the requirements of CEQA (California Public Resources Code, Sections 21000 et seq.) and the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 14, Sections 15000–15387).  To inform the general public, the local community, and responsible and interested public agencies of the scope of the Project and to describe the potential environmental effects, measures to mitigate those effects, and alternatives to the Project.  To enable the City to consider environmental consequences when deciding whether to approve the Project.  To serve as a source document for responsible agencies to issue permits and approvals, as required, for development of the Project. As described in CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, public agencies are charged with the duty of avoiding or substantially lessening significant environmental effects, where feasible. In satisfying this duty, a public agency has an obligation to balance the project’s significant effects on the environment with its benefits, including economic, social, technological, legal, and other benefits. The Lead Agency is required to consider the information in the Draft EIR, along with any other relevant information, in making its decisions on the Project. Although the Draft EIR does not determine the ultimate decision that will be made regarding approval of a project, CEQA requires the City to consider the information in the Draft EIR and make findings regarding each significant and unavoidable effect identified in the Draft EIR. The City will review and consider certification of the Final EIR prior to any decision on whether to approve the Project. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 2.0 Introduction Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 2-2 This Draft EIR has been prepared utilizing information from City planning and environmental documents, technical studies prepared for the Project, and other publicly available data. As permitted under the CEQA Guidelines (Section 15084[d–e]), this Draft EIR has been prepared by a consultant under the direction of professional City planning staff. However, prior to certification, the City must independently review the methods and conclusions reached in the Draft EIR. The City is undertaking an independent review of this Draft EIR by having City planning staff work with the consultant on the Draft EIR, and by employing a third-party consultant to independently review the Draft EIR. If certified by the City, the information included in and the conclusions reached in the Draft EIR will therefore represent the City’s independent judgment regarding the potential environmental impacts of the Project. 2.2 TYPE OF EIR Following preliminary review of the Project’s application materials, the City of Rancho Cucamonga concluded that the Project and its associated implementing actions have the potential to result in significant environmental effects; as such, the City proceeded with preparation of this Draft EIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15060(d). The City determined that a Project EIR, as described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15161, is required. Accordingly, this document serves as a Project EIR. As required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15161, this Project EIR shall “…focus primarily on the changes in the environment that would result from the development project,” and “…examine all phases of the project including planning, construction, and operation.” Additional information regarding issues to be evaluated in this Draft EIR is provided in Section 2.4, Scope of this Draft EIR. 2.3 REVIEW OF AN EIR The City of Rancho Cucamonga—as Lead Agency for the Project—and other public agencies (i.e., responsible and trustee agencies) that may use the Final EIR in their decision making or permitting processes will consider the information in this Draft EIR along with other information that may be presented during the CEQA process. Upon certification of the Final EIR, the City of Rancho Cucamonga will consider whether to approve the proposed Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project. Where feasible mitigation measures are not available to reduce significant environmental impacts to a less than significant level, impacts are considered significant and unavoidable. Written Findings of Fact will be prepared for each significant adverse environmental effect identified in the Final EIR, as required by Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines. If the City certifies a Final EIR for a project that has significant and unavoidable impacts, the City shall also state, in writing, the specific reasons for approving the project based on the Final EIR and any other information in the public record. This is called a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” and is used to explain the specific reasons that the benefits of a proposed project make its unavoidable environmental effects acceptable. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15093.) Based on the analysis presented in Sections 4.1 through 4.15 of this Draft EIR, the Project, which involves redevelopment of the Project site, would not result in any significant and unavoidable impacts; therefore, a Statement of Overriding Considerations is not required. Additionally, the City must adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) to ensure compliance with mitigation measures that have been Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 2.0 Introduction Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 2-3 incorporated into the Project to reduce or avoid significant effects on the environment during construction and/or implementation. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15097.) The California Public Resource Code (Section 21104) requires that EIRs be reviewed by responsible and trustee agencies (see also CEQA Guidelines Section 15082 and Section 15086[a]). This Draft EIR will also serve as a source document for responsible agencies to issue permits and approvals, as required, for construction and operation of the Project. Section 3.5, Summary of Requested Actions, of this Draft EIR, lists the government agencies that are expected to use the Project’s Draft EIR during their review of the Project, and provides a summary of the anticipated Project-related approvals and permits. 2.4 SCOPE OF THIS DRAFT EIR 2.4.1 SCOPING PROCESS In compliance with Section 15201 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City of Rancho Cucamonga has taken steps to provide opportunities for public participation in the environmental process. The City filed a Notice of Preparation (NOP) with the California Office of Planning and Research (State Clearinghouse) to indicate that an EIR would be prepared to evaluate the Project’s potential to impact the environment. The Project was described in the NOP and potential environmental effects associated with Project implementation were identified. The NOP was filed with the State Clearinghouse and distributed to potential Responsible Agencies, Trustee Agencies, and other interested parties on October 2, 2020, for a 30-day public review period. The NOP was distributed for public review to solicit responses to help the City identify the scope and range of potential environmental concerns associated with the Project so that these issues can be fully examined in this Draft EIR. The City received five responses to the NOP. A copy of the NOP and responses received are included in Appendix A of this Draft EIR. Table 2-1, Summary of NOP Comments Received, provides a brief summary of the NOP responses and issues raised and identifies which section of the Draft EIR the issues raised are addressed in, if applicable. Regardless of whether an environmental or CEQA-related comment is listed in the table, relevant comments received in response to the NOP are addressed in this Draft EIR. In accordance with San Bernardino County Department of Public Health requirements in effect at the time, a virtual Draft EIR public scoping meeting was held on October 15, 2020, at 6:00 PM. Notice of the scoping meeting was included in the Project’s NOP, which was distributed on October 2, 2020. A description of the Project and an explanation of the environmental review process for the Project was provided and then comments from the public were solicited. In addition to City staff and Project Applicant representatives, the meeting was attended by two members of the Laborers’ International Union of North America (LIUNA). The LIUNA members indicated support for the Project. No comments on the scope of the Draft EIR were raised at the public scoping meeting. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 2.0 Introduction Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 2-4 Table 2-1 Summary of NOP Comments Received Agency Date Comments Addressed in Section(s) State Agencies California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) Oct. 27, 2020  Identify and map various habitat types within the Project site.  Provide a general biological inventory of species present or that have the potential to be present within each habitat type.  Provide a complete and recent inventory of rare, threatened, endangered, and other sensitive species located within the Project footprint and within offsite areas with the potential to be affected.  The Project site has the potential to provide suitable foraging and/or nesting habitat for burrowing owl; a habitat assessment, survey and impact assessment should be completed, as appropriate.  Analyze potential direct, indirect and cumulative impacts to biological resources.  Address a reasonable range of alternatives, including a “no project” alternative.  Identify mitigation measures and alternatives that are appropriate and adequate to avoid or minimize potential impacts, to the extent feasible.  A California Endangered Species Act (CESA) Incidental Take Permit (ITP) must be obtained if the Project has the potential to result in the “take” of State-listed CESA species.  Incorporate water-wise concepts in project landscape design plans.  Report any special status species and natural communities detected during Project surveys to the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB).  Payment of CDFW Notice of Determination filing fees will be required. Section 4.3 Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 2.0 Introduction Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 2-5 Table 2-1 Summary of NOP Comments Received Agency Date Comments Addressed in Section(s) California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Oct. 14, 2020  A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) should be prepared to evaluate impacts on State facilities.  Local streets should be designed to serve vehicular and pedestrian circulation equally, and should consider design standards and requirements that address accessibility and multi-modal circulation.  Locate preferential parking for vanpools, carpools, bicycles, and low-emitting, fuel-efficient, alternative-fueled vehicles accessible to office locations.  Consider installation of electric-vehicle charging stations. Section 3 Section 4.13 California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) Oct. 5, 2020  Outlines requirements for Native American consultation pursuant to Assembly Bill (AB) 52 and Senate Bill (SB) 18.  Provides standard guidance on the scope of the analysis of potential impacts to tribal cultural resources.  Recommends Native American tribal consultation with tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the Project site.  In areas with archaeological sensitivity, monitoring of ground-disturbing activities should be required as part of the mitigation monitoring and reporting program, along with provisions for actions to take if cultural items or human remains are discovered. Section 4.14 Regional Agencies South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Oct. 27, 2020  Provides recommendations on the scope of the air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and health risk analysis for the Project, including modeling.  Identifies that Project-related air quality impacts should be identified and quantified against the SCAQMD regional and localized significance thresholds.  If a permit from SCAQMD is required, SCAQMD should be identified as a responsible agency.  Identifies the requirement for feasible mitigation measures be identified for significant impact, and identifies suggested mitigation measures and design considerations to reduce air quality and health risk impacts. Section 3.0 Section 4.2 Section 4.7 Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 2.0 Introduction Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 2-6 Table 2-1 Summary of NOP Comments Received Agency Date Comments Addressed in Section(s) Organizations Inland Empire Biking Alliance Oct. 4, 2020  The safety of bicyclists traveling along existing and proposed streets adjacent to the Project site should be addressed. Section 4.13 2.4.2 EFFECTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT As identified in the NOP included in Appendix A of this Draft EIR, the City of Rancho Cucamonga concluded that the Project would have no impact or a less than significant impact related to agriculture and forestry resources, mineral resources, public services, recreation, and wildfire. Refer to Section 6.1, Effects Determined Not to be Significant, of this Draft EIR for a discussion of these topical issues. 2.4.3 POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACTS OF THE PROJECT ADDRESSED IN THIS DRAFT EIR The NOP and NOP comments received were used to establish the scope of the issues addressed in this Draft EIR. The City of Rancho Cucamonga identified that additional Project-level analysis was required to evaluate potential impacts associated with the implementation of the Project for the following environmental issue areas. Section 4.0 of this Draft EIR provides the environmental analysis and outlines the mitigation program for each of the following topical issues.  Aesthetics (Section 4.1)  Air Quality (Section 4.2)  Biological Resources (Section 4.3)  Cultural Resources (Section 4.4)  Energy (Section 4.5)  Geology and Soils (Section 4.6)  Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Section 4.7)  Hazards/Hazardous Materials (Section 4.8)  Hydrology and Water Quality (Section 4.9)  Land Use and Planning (Section 4.10)  Noise (4.11)  Population and Housing (4.12)  Transportation (4.13)  Tribal Cultural Resources (Section 4.14)  Utilities and Service Systems (Section 4.15) 2.5 INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE CEQA Guidelines Section 15147 states that the “information contained in an EIR shall include summarized…information sufficient to permit full assessment of significant environmental impacts by reviewing agencies and members of the public,” and that the “[p]lacement of highly technical and specialized analysis and data in the body of an EIR shall be avoided through the inclusion of supporting information and analyses as appendices to the main body of the EIR.” CEQA Guidelines Section 15150 allows an EIR to “incorporate by reference all or portions of another document…” [and] provides that incorporation by reference is “most appropriate for including long, descriptive, or technical materials that provide general background but do not contribute directly to the analysis of a problem at hand.” The purpose of incorporation by reference is to assist the Lead Agency in limiting the length of a Draft EIR. Where this Draft EIR incorporates a document by reference, the document is identified in the Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 2.0 Introduction Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 2-9 body of the Draft EIR. The documents listed below were relied upon or consulted in the preparation of this Draft EIR and are hereby incorporated by reference.  Rancho Cucamonga 2010 General Plan Update Program Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2000061027) certified May 2010. The Project site is located within the geographical limits of the City of Rancho Cucamonga and is covered by the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan discussed below. Relevant citywide and regional environmental setting information and city-wide impacts from the General Plan EIR are discussed in this Draft EIR. The General Plan EIR contains information relevant to the Project site. Thus, the EIR for the City’s General Plan is herein incorporated by reference pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15150.  Rancho Cucamonga General Plan adopted May 19, 2010 (Housing Chapter adopted October 4, 2017). Relevant environmental setting information; goals, policies, programs; buildout projections; performance standards; and other information contained in the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan are summarized in this Draft EIR to discuss existing conditions and regulations in the City and to address the Project’s consistency with the General Plan. The Rancho Cucamonga General Plan is a long-range policy document that presents the City’s vision for the next 15 to 20 years. The General Plan regulates future development and community enhancement activities in the City and it addresses issues that are important to the community. The process of preparing the General Plan involved focusing on potential areas of change, both from a geographic standpoint and a strategic or policy standpoint. The Project site is located within the Southeast Focus Area, which supports the only remaining land in Rancho Cucamonga devoted to heavy industrial uses. The Project, which involves redevelopment of the Project site with contemporary industry buildings, is consistent with the land use and growth assumptions for the Southeast Focus Area, as anticipated in the General Plan. Additionally, this Draft EIR relies on following Project-specific technical studies, reports, and supporting documentation that comprise the Technical Appendices to this Draft EIR: A: NOP and NOP Comment Letters B1: Air Quality Impact Analysis B2: Health Risk Assessment B3: Construction Health Risk Assessment B4: Supplemental Assessment (Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Energy and Health Risk) C1: Habitat Assessment C2: Tree Survey Report C3: 6th Street At-Grade Crossing Habitat Assessment D: Cultural Resources Assessment E: Energy Analysis F: Geotechnical Investigation Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 2.0 Introduction Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 2-10 G: Paleontological Resources Assessment H: Greenhouse Gas Analysis I1: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment I2: Subsurface Investigation and Clarification Letter Regarding Historical Agricultural Chemicals I3: Asbestos Sampling Report J1: Preliminary Water Quality Management Plant (WQMP) J2: Preliminary Hydrology Report K1: Noise Impact Analysis K2: Supplemental Noise Assessment L1: Vehicular Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis L2: Traffic Data Memorandum M: Water Supply Assessment (WSA) These documents incorporated by reference are available for review at the address provided in Section 2.6, below. Additionally, the City’s General Plan is available on the City’s website at: https://www.cityofrc.us/community-development/planning 2.6 PUBLIC REVIEW OF THE DRAFT EIR This Draft EIR is being distributed to responsible and trustee agencies, other affected agencies, surrounding cities, interested parties, and all parties who requested a copy of the Draft EIR in accordance with CEQA. The comment period will begin on May 7, 2021 and end on June 21, 2021. During this period, the Draft EIR will be available for review by appointment at the following locations: • City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 (909) 477-2750 Hours: 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM Monday through Thursday • Archibald Library 7368 Archibald Avenue Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 (909) 477-2720 • Paul A. Biane Library 12505 Cultural Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91739 (909) 477-2720 Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 2.0 Introduction Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 2-11 The Draft EIR and Technical Appendices will also be available on the following websites: City of Rancho Cucamonga https://www.cityofrc.us/community-development/planning OPR CEQAnet Web Portal https://ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/ Note: enter the Project’s SCH No. 2020100056 Following the Draft EIR’s public review period, responses to written comments received will be prepared and published in a Final EIR. The Final EIR—which will consist of the Draft EIR (or a revision of the Draft EIR), a list of commenters, comments received on the Draft EIR, and written responses to comments that raise significant environmental issues—will be considered for certification by the City of Rancho Cucamonga, consistent with Section 15090 of the State CEQA Guidelines. All responses to agencies’ comments submitted for this Draft EIR will be provided to those agencies at least ten days prior to final action on the Project. The City of Rancho Cucamonga must certify the Final EIR as adequate prior to any decision to approve the Project. Public input is encouraged at all of the City’s public hearings. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.0 Project Description Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 3-1 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 3.1 INTRODUCTION This section provides the information required of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Project Description by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15124, including a description of the Project’s precise location and boundaries; a statement of the Project’s objectives; a description of the Project’s characteristics; and a description of the intended uses of this Draft EIR, including a list of agencies that are expected to use this Draft EIR in their decision-making processes, a list of the permits and approvals that are required to implement the Project, and a list of related environmental review and consultation requirements. In summary, the Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project (Project) would involve the demolition of the existing buildings on-site (a 23,240 square-foot [sf] retail building and a 1,431,000-sf warehouse building previously occupied by Big Lots) and associated improvements, and redevelopment of the site with two high-cube warehouse buildings, described below in Section 3.4.3.A, Proposed Warehouse Buildings. Approximately 2,175,000 sf of gross floor area (warehouse uses and ancillary office space) would be provided upon completion of the Project, which includes the 1,422,500 sf Building 1 (1,403,500 sf of ground floor building area and 19,000 sf of mezzanine area) and 752,500 sf Building 2 (738,270 sf of ground floor building area and 14,230 sf of mezzanine area). The Project would also include construction of a new public roadway, referred to as Street “A,” internal drive aisles, parking, on-site landscaping, lighting, and utility connections, as necessary to serve the Project. 3.2 PROJECT LOCATION The approximately 91.4-gross-acre1 Project site is located at located at 12434 4th Street in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County, California. The Project site is bound by 4th Street to the south (which is also the jurisdictional boundary between the City of Rancho Cucamonga and the City of Ontario) and 6th Street to the north, and generally located between Etiwanda Avenue to the east and Santa Anita Avenue to the west. The Project site is located approximately 0.5-mile east of Interstate (I)-15 and 0.7-mile north of I-10. The Project site comprises tax Assessor Parcel Numbers (APNs) 0229-283-50 and -51. Figure 3-1, Regional and Local Vicinity Map, depicts the regional location and local vicinity of the Project site. Refer to Section 4.0, Environmental Setting and Impact Evaluation Overview, of this Draft EIR, for general information related to the regional and local setting of the Project site. 3.3 PROJECT OBJECTIVES Section 15124 of the State CEQA Guidelines establishes the requirement to address project objectives in an EIR project description. In addition to addressing the underlying project purpose, the objectives are also relevant to the development of the alternatives that are considered in the EIR and in the 1 The Project site encompasses approximately 85.0 net acres, excluding existing and proposed public roadway right- of-way and other area to be granted to the City. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report Source(s): ESRI, Neormap Imagery (2020), SB County (2019) 0 1,000 2,000 4,000 ---Feet Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga 3.0 Project Description Figure 3-1 Regional and Local Vicinity Map SCH No. 2020 l 00056 Page 3-2 Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.0 Project Description Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 3-3 preparation of findings and, if necessary, a statement of overriding considerations in support of the decision-making action by the City. The fundamental purpose and goal of the Project is to accomplish the orderly redevelopment of the Project site located in the City’s Southeast Focus Area, as designated in the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan. This underlying purpose aligns with various aspects of the Southern California Association of Governments’ (SCAG’s) Connect SoCal (SCAG’s 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy [RTP/SCS]) and primarily aspects related to accommodating goods movement industries and balancing job and housing opportunities in local areas to reduce long commutes from home to work. SCAG identifies the Inland Empire as a housing rich area and coastal communities as job rich areas and is striving in their policies to achieve more equal balances locally. The Project would achieve its underlying purpose and goal through the following objectives: 1.Ensure that development of the Project site is accomplished consistent with applicable goals and policies of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as set forth in the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan. 2.Maximize redevelopment of the existing underutilized Project site and generate increased property tax revenue for the City of Rancho Cucamonga in order to support the City’s ongoing municipal operations. 3.Maximize development of Class A high-cube warehouse industrial buildings in the City of Rancho Cucamonga that are designed to meet contemporary industry standards for operational design criteria, can accommodate a wide variety of users, and are economically competitive with similar industrial buildings in the local area and region. 4.Create employment-generating businesses in the City of Rancho Cucamonga to reduce the need for members of the local workforce to commute outside the area for employment, and to improve the jobs to housing balance. 5.Develop a project with an architectural design and operational characteristics that complement other existing buildings in the immediate vicinity and minimize conflicts with other nearby land uses. 6.Maximize industrial warehouse buildings in close proximity to an already-established industrial area, designated truck routes, and the State highway system in order to avoid or shorten truck-trip lengths on other roadways, and avoid locating industrial warehouse buildings in close proximity to residential uses. 7.Develop properties that have access to available infrastructure, including roads and utilities to be used as part of the Southern California supply chain and goods movement network. 3.4 PROJECT COMPONENTS The Project involves discretionary legislative and site development actions by the City of Rancho Cucamonga, which are outlined at the end of this section in Table 3-4, Project Related Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.0 Project Description Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 3-4 Approvals/Permits. The legislative actions that will initially be considered by the City Council include the following: General Plan Amendment Zoning Map Amendment Tentative Parcel Map Design Review Development Agreement Additionally, tree removal permit would be considered by the Planning Commission. These individual components of the Project are described below. 3.4.1 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONING MAP AMENDMENT The Project includes proposed amendments to the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan and Zoning Map that would modify the land use designation and zoning for approximately 55.2 acres comprising the northern portion of the Project site. The land use and zoning designations for this area would change from Heavy Industrial to General Industrial, consistent with the remaining approximately 36.2 acres of the site. The proposed General Plan amendment is illustrated on Figure 3-2, Proposed General Plan Amendment, and the proposed Zone Change is illustrated on Figure 3-3, Proposed Zoning Map Amendment. 3.4.2 TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 20271 Under existing conditions, the Project site consists of one legal parcel, (two tax assessor parcels [APNs 0229-283-50 and -51]). The proposed Tentative Parcel Map No. 20271 presented on Figure 3-4, Proposed Tentative Parcel Map No. 20271, would subdivide the existing single legal parcel into two parcels that facilitate implementation of the proposed site plan described previously. 3.4.3 DESIGN REVIEW The following key Project components are described below, and the conceptual site plan is provided on Figure 3-5, Conceptual Site Plan. Proposed Warehouse Buildings Circulation and Parking Landscape, Fences/Walls, and Exterior Lighting Utilities and Infrastructure Demolition and Construction Activities Operational Characteristics A.Proposed Warehouse Buildings The Project involves the construction and operation of two high-cube warehouse buildings (Building 1 and Building 2). High-cube warehouses are primarily used for the storage and/or consolidation of Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Im pact Report Existing General Plan Land Use Classification: •General Industrial (0.50 -0.60 FAR) • Heavy Industrial (0.40 -0.50 FAR) LEGEND General Industrial (0.50 -0.60 FAR) 1111 Heavy Industrial (0.40 -0.50 FAR) Flood Control/Utility Corridor 1111 Civic/Regional (0.40 -1.0 FAR) Proposed General Plan Land Use Classification: •General Industrial (0.50 -0.60 FAR) 3.0 Project Description r-,;■1---------1 Source(s): City of Rancho Cucamonga, ESRI, Nearmap Imagery (2020), SB County (2019) Figure 3-2 • � � 0 450 900 1,800 �� tu� ---Feet �� Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga Proposed General Plan Amendment SCH No. 2020 l 00056 Page 3-5 Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report Existing Zoning Classification: •General Industrial (GI) •Heavy Industrial (HI) LEGEND 1111 General Industrial (GI)1111 Heavy Industrial (HI) Proposed Zoning Classification: •General Industrial (GI) Source(s): City of Rancho Cucamonga, ESRI, Nearmap Imagery (2020), SB County (2019) • � � 0 450 900 1,800 �� tu� ---Feet �� Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga 3.0 Project Description Figure 3-3 Proposed Zoning Map Amendment SCH No. 2020 l 00056 Page 3-6 Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report [ Source(s): Thienes Engineering, Inc. (01-20-2021) Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga PROPOSED EASEMENTS & OED/CA llONS: TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 20271 ([) t:.W�Et= r. k!})Ro,i';:%d�AP�WAr PURPOSCS 0£DK:AITT) TO TH£ aTY OF {TOTAL ltlO!H OF 6tH S7'fll:f IIILL 8£ 44.0Q �T HALF~llil{JrH) ® 66' ftfO£ EASCMENT FOR STREET ANO HIGHWAY PURPOSES lillJICATED TO THE ClrY OF IN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STA TE OF CALIFORNIA BEING A st/80/llfSION OF PARCEL 1 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 6658, IN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, COUNTY RANCHO CUCAAK.WGA ON PARCEL MAP. {STREET 0A0) OF SAN BERNARDINO, STA TE OF CAUFORNIA, AS PER MAP FILED IN BOOK 6<1, PAGES 51 ANO 52 OF PARCEL MAPS. IN THE OFFJCE OF THE COUNTY RECOROER OF SAID COUNTY. 0 ;J)':ZCaf."'f'!f/'k�<:1,J/WJ':l-"'trrro�!bJg t'tc�m,ON�� 8f:ff'' {NOT£.· $£PARATC S'fORM ()RAIN/$ ACC£Pl/N{J WA'fER FR0U STR££T "8/ ® �sw...�:ff roa1e1��:¼/o/t�5Jt:-:::;:g;, =�� �AP. @ f�%ff/��Jf/: !f':i �c:FtAN"&: ����-OF unurY PROVIDERS- TH£ FruOMNfJ £ASCM£NTS AS OISaOS£t) IN CHICAGO llrt.£ INSI./RANCE COMPANY PRflJAIINARY RE PORT ORD£!? NO.: (X)l/!J889-021-PS4-JC. OArCO OCrotJER 15, 2019. @ 1;fZ-11�j1;1',/),!/1'/:" P£R SCHaXll..£ ·s: EXCEPno,,,s ro co�AGE: or A BDVC <I)���= ��'.H?T�ir;:{t'fnE�A�jf {UM/ITT)VCHICUURRIGHTSPI.OT7UJHERCOl'J) (4th S1REFT A ccess RJGH1S ro 8£ VAC41!D ON PARCEL MAP 0� 1H£ THR£E (J} PROPOSED PRIVATE 0Rfl£WAl'S} © � 11:c,,� cJt.:=J. 'ffc=t'.::eAll�rr:1982"'-":?::A a:tNJf!_JZ/J: gr: (Pt..OnmHERCON) {CASDIENT TO RD,IAIN} ® ?o5:�1%���J'f�?f��CAllCW srsTCMS. (Pl.OT1C() H£RCON) {£ASDIEN1S TO 8£ OI.JITa.A/ll£D ANO RaOCA l!D IF NECESSARY} ® �:'°� ������::J,'f!fffotf,,t'J%c i!�:1'/���r ':s� �.:.'.k!fgi. ,z;-;s;/o. 84-088920 ANO Nl)l£J,IB£R J, 1986 AS A/?£A - U • .J91 Sil FT.. 1.02 ACR£S I 0� PROPOS£0 PARC£/. 2. M'f"A -lUO SO.FT., 0.02 ACffESIOVCRPROPOS£0 LOT 'A'. (ABOIC AR£AS £/tCWOE" me PORTION 1#71i/N PROPOSCO ST,rEET 'A? (Pt..DnmH<RECW) {CASEMENT ro REMAIN} ®S�'!f������=��1:::Bi,tJ,'"�iM (Pt..Onm H£RCON) (£ASDIEN7S TO 8£ Olllra..NMED ANO Ril.OCA 7EtJ IF NECESSARY} ® 2.50' ANO 7.�' 1#0£ £ASDl£NT FOR SIOEWALK PIJRPOS£S. GRANITT) ro rHC CITY OF RANCHO CUCAAIONCA. Rf:COROEDNOICM8£R 9, 198/J ASINST. NO. 88-.J79405, D.R. (Pl.OT1C()H£RCON) {EASEltlENT TO RD,IAIN - WU 8£ COMPLETELY CONTAINF:D IN Pl.l8UC S1R££1) © 4;£fo?{1� �t�rs,�ff? ::1� ��ANra; ro {PI..OT1C()H£RCON) (£ASDIENTTOR£JIAIN} EXISTlNG LEGAL DESCR/P TION: [O £XlSllNC PARCE/. I (PROPERTY}: �Rfil �:=: 'ft:rt°ci. 6t:}�':::Il7,$"M!?ff?:Jo 'fft:�. �c!I s1 ANOS2 OFPARC£/. MAPS, IN TH£0fl1C£0F rHCCOUNTYRECa?OCR OFSAll) COUNTY. [)EX!SllNCPARCEI.. 2 (EASCMENT): ��E;f�trtcc� f/fi//�T� �Aft' !':i ��Dec;:,:'..� �"'a� �b ':f!Joffr::F�i��"ff!:}!r ANO EAS ID?l.r OIRECllON, IN. T"H£ IICST 4()(}.(J()f"ECTOF THAT PORTION OF THC EAST HALF OF THCSOi.lTH/tCST Oi/AIH�R Of" SECTION 1l, ro,,,.,SH/P 1 SOOTH, RANCE 6 IIBT. SAN 8£/?NAIIOINO BASE ANOY£R/O/AN,LYINCSOl.lrHCRLrOf"rHCNCY?THERl.rUN£0FrHCLANOC.:Wl£lfilro '1::/ Jf/ ,f/f(,/Jt'J/fdw� Br [)ffi) R£C0RD£0 APf?/l. 6, 1964 IN BOOK 6122, EXCEPnNG fH£R£f"ROM me S(X_/fH 60 ITET, C.:Wlelfil ro THE COUNTY Of" SAN 8£/?NAIIOIND. fOlf ROAD P/JlfPOSES. sr O£CD R£C0f/0£0 0£C£1,18£ff 29. 1969 IN BOOK 7361. PAC£7050ff/CIA;. R£COROS. S.,,,10 CASEIIENT IS SET FQlffH er O<ct:P//ON AN{) R£$£RVAllO,,, ON THAT C£f?TAIN Dm) ctWl.f"l1NCUNO roMONOPO/ltER COMPANY, A Ct:flPO!fATION. R£COM)£J}A/JGUST l, 1972/N800K 799J, PACE 7120ff/CIAL RECOlfOS. [IjE»SllNGPARCEI.. .J (EASCMEN T): �iif;2��'if{ ilfl�:f1,.,Tf/J:f5Jl:1frZ r:; ro riilfcjfZ_,_f(t!f�1!!fE:o?s't;Ri�=. 1:��(/f�:,fE. TH£ IICSTJS5.00FECT Of" THATPORnoN Of" TH££ASTHA£F Of" TH£ SOi.lTHIICST ���f���:t£S6uf!:l6,�t?f��fi/!o r�#J.�Afo��tt,.,�sc:tm�e,,.'7fs5%'/'Jff:r,J�7HC O£C£iJB£R 9. 1966 IN BOOK 6740. PAC£ 45$ Of"flCIAt R£CORVS. I I =;;��::" I I I I I PARCEL 1 I 2,4g;,,;;:�R� ��� BUILDING 1 (Sff ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FOR SPECIFICS) {S££ CONC£PnJAL GRADING PLANS FOR SPECIFICS) [jEXISTINC PAffCEI. 4 (£ASE11£Nr}: Z�NG:"rll" ZONING:"GI" HEAVYINOUSTRIAL GENERAL INDUSTRIAL EXISTING:BUll..04NG ��:,:;.\���TRl"I. I ZONING: "GI" !GOIERALINOUSTRl"I. tfifJ?�T,ffifJl&�:+,.,�fiJL�f /ifro a:wsTRUCr.usc,11,11NTAINANORCPAIR A RAJU«JAOSPt.llffflACK,JOfffTIIIOC �x!l:fftt;,J;/ru_�:::�t::o/AST£RI.YOIR£C'fl(W. IN, CW. Ovf"RAN{J rHCIICST.J55.00FECTOFTHATP0R'fl(W0FfHC£ASTHA;.F0FTH£SOl)fHN£ST QVAIITCRANO TH£ SOOTHl:ASTQVARTCR Of" THENCY?fH/1,CSTQVARTCROf"SEC'fl(W ll, i�r�=�ff!:�cc!:1Y:O:ro:J?iOC.W,l�:lf:CA�S SAll)t:ASEIIEN1SAl/£SETFORTH Br £XCEPllOl'J ANOR£SERVAllCW Ol'JTHATCV?rAIN ���:19�1� ':o!:°':1/:ftCE cr:tt'ilfic1�L �:ON, R£C{Y([)£[) [)£)(JSTINGPAHC£1. S (EASEIIENr): A NON-ExaUSIVC £ASEll£NT ANO RIGHT Of" WA r. ro BE US£0 IN COl,/MCW //Alli � �slNfff!JW:NO £CRESS. JO FECT lllll; TH£ CCNTCRLINE Of" ltHICI-I IS B£(;INNING AT A POINT IN rHC IIBTUN£ OF rHCEAST HAi.FOF THC SOl)fHNCST Oi/AIITCR OF SAil) SECnON 17 OfSTANT Al.ONG SAID //,CST UN£ A NO TH£ lff:ST UN£ Of" rHCSOI.ITH HALFOFrHCSOI.ITHEAST Oi.lAIITCROf"rHCNOli'fHIICSTOi.lARTOiOFS.,,,/0 SEC'fl(Wll,SOi.llH0°14'2S'lt£ST7.J2.00ITET FNOIITH£NOli'THIICSTCOl?Nt:ROf" SAJ!)SOi/fHNAIFOFrHCSOIITHEASTQUARTCROFT"HENCY?fHIICSTOi/All7ER;fHENC£ NOlffH 89°55' IO'EAST, .J55FEET. SAll)£ASEM£NT IS SET FQlffHSY£XC£PTIONANORESERVA'fl(WCW THAT CERTAIN GRANT [)£El) CC.WVCl1NC UNO ro aJRns WAmE CA/l"S, AKA KEN anms ANO TrJlfRI£ CA� AKA TOlfR/£ cwms. HIJSBAND ANO lllfl; RECOlfOW 0£CEJl8£R 9, 1966, IN BO(JK6740PAGC-f55,0f"Of"FICIA;.R£CORVS. 1,;I�' OJ,«· C6 ::3, .(:! ;? ?? j,O.J/ .ro FT. L\� � � ioi .., .... i� cs � srflEE=fY�-----{ -':� --�----/IOR1H r--------OETAI� -50' nru: TO SA/OESTATCO!f/Nll"RCST AT rHCOA/l"HERE OFIS VCSWIN: BRID(;£POINT RANCHOCUCAM'�U.C,a!h,ia.,,,,•lffllftHillabJ/ltyccmpa,,y. 2.PRO.£CTAiXJRCSS:124.J44fHST,rEET RANCHO CUC/Ula'i(;A. CAUFOl?NIA .1 ASSESSO/?'SPARCfl_ NUM8£RS: 0229-28.J-50 ANO 0229-28.J-51 4. PARCEI..AR£AS: I.ANO O£SCRl8£D IN TH£ llTU: REPORT.· /.EGA;. OESCRIPllON FEC: .J,981,084 S.F./91 . .J!, ACRES £1a5'WGSWEA80 'H4"1!5f//?§AGl'fS £XJSllNG NET Al/£A: • .J,926,260 S.F./90-1.J ACR£$ (SEE ARCA $/JIJ/JARrFORPROPOSEDAR£AS) S. ZCWIN(;: £XISllN(;: "HI" HEA VY INlX./STRIAl. AN{) "(;I" CENCRAl. IN{)(JSlRIAt PROPOSEl):(;1•(;£N£/?A;.IN{)(JSlRIAt 6 THCl'ROPCRTYINOICAWHERECWISSITUAIEtJIIITHINTHEF/.OCOINS/JRANCE lfATC MAP (F.I.R.11.) It/TH MAP ND. 0607/Cl/6;1.J, =cnl.f" OA TC: SEPTC/JBV/ 2, 2016. COl,/11/JNITY M)IJ(J£R: 060671 FOR CITY OF RANCHO CU(;,J,JJ()N(;A PANEL NUUBER:86;1.J,S/Jfl"IX· 'f,ZON£"X-UN$HA()£()"(AR£AS0£T£Rl,li11£1),08£ /)IJT"SIO£ TH£ a2x ANNI/At CHANCE Fi.OOOPI.AJN). 7. SUB.CCTSITC ISCtJRREN!Lr[)£'.fiCl"fll ltlfH20N£-Sl/)l?r8/J/UJ/NCSOl'J £()f" 'Mf/CHHAS T'IKJ STOl?r0f"f1CEARl'"A IIITH A COMBJNEOlJUIUJIN(;P£R/I/ETEI? FOOTPRINT AREA Of" l.400,.J6SSO. F.T 8. C£(X0GCAt HAZAROS.· A Al.Oi.llST-Pli'la.OsPt:c1Al. SllJOIESZONES: THC STAil" Of"CAUFORNIA HAS NOTPlfOWJ£0 SVFnCIENTINFOlfMAllON TO 0£r£R/JIN£ IF TH£ SI.IBJ£CTffl(Y'£ffTY/S Oi/TSllJE OF ANr ALOU/STPfr/Ot..0 SP£CIAtSll.1()1£SZON£SB£CAUSE NOSP£CIAtSllJOl£SZONt:SOITICIAt1JAf' FORaJASn OUADfUNCU:HASBEIN PIJBI.ISH£1)ASOF THIS OATC. 8. SDSMICHAZAROZONES.· me STAil" Of" CAUFOlfN/A HAS NOT Plf()WJ£[) Sl.lfflCl£NT INFOlfMA'fl(W ro 0£T"£/?IJINC IF TH£ SIJBJECT PRO"ERTYIS Oi/1St[J£ Of" ANr ZONER£0i/llflN(; INVCSTICAllCWFORUC/U£FACTIONOlfFOR£ARTHO!JAK£-INOIJCll)UNOSl../0£S BECAUSE NO SE/5/J/C HA ZARD ZONt:S OfflOAL /J,IP FOR CIJASll Oi/MllfANCU: HAS BEEN PU8USH£1J AS Of" THIS OA ll". STREET "A" I te:::::::=====;::=c::=======.�PARCEL "=" • ��-�.!.! $(( 1110( -�-L-r--------'iij OWNER ( DEVELOPER.· BRU>f!icx;.71;:r;fc£�?#-§ooPHOl'J£:(21S)805-6667 FAX· (S/0) 85.J-842;1 TOTAL NET J,l(H,522 SO, FT. (NET) (PAHCEIS f .t 2) 85.0-U Aai'f3' (NET) PRCPOSEO lOT'A' 5.o.JI SO. FT. QII.J ACRES ARCHITECT: 132-:.�Tll'lc:J �re ,oo Pl-f0'/£.·(949)J4l-0920 FAX: (949) ;141-0922 EXISTlNG APN'S: APN: 0229-2B.J-50 APN: 0229-28.J-51 3.0 Project Description Figure 3-4 Proposed Tentative Parcel Map No. 202 71 SCH No. 2020100056 Page 3-7 Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report Source(s): RGA (01-15-2021) . BUILDING 2 : j ! I J SINGLE TENANT "� '!2 WAREHOUSE BUILDING � i§ , · l_ .FOOTPRINT: 738,270 SF--, ·� I . J_I· 7 MEZZ ANINE: 14,230 SF -1 '"7 I G.F.A.: 752,500 SF . OCCUPANCY: B/S-1 I -• -··�-•·-�CONSTRUCTION TYPE: 11I-B� ·' -� . I I -+ NUMBER OF STORIES: 1 +-� MAX. HEIGHT: 50 FT. ·-1 -· �0� EXISTING INDUSTRIAL BUILDING WITH OPEN TRAILER DROP LOT .....'! 'ILJIII I II LJ 1111 Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga ["] = = = � EXISTING INDUSTRIAL BUILDING SITE PLAN GENERAL NOTES: 1.TYPICALOODEG.PARKINGSTAL LSSIZES ARE 9WX 18'LONG INCLUDINGA 1'LANDSCAPE OVERHANG TYPICAL EXCEPT AT ACCESSIBLESTALLS 3.SETBACKRl-:OUIRl-:t,UNTS BUILDING SETBACK PMKINGSETBACK AVf..LANDSCAPESETBACK FIRE OEPT GENERAL NOTES: 45FEETFROMCURBFACE 45FEETFROM CURBFACE 45FEETFROM CURBFACE 1.FIRE ACCESSLANESSHALL COMPLY WJTH THE FOLLOWlNG MIN.WIDTH 26FEIT MIN .CLEARANCE 14'-6" INSIDEMDIUS 20FT OUTSIDE RADIUS 46FT WEIGHTCAPACITY 80,CXXlLBS 2.ALLGATESSHALLBE INSTALLEDPERTHEFIRE DISTRICT REOUIREMENTS 3.SIGNAGESTANDARDS PERRANCHO CUCAMONGA FIREPROTECTJON DISTRICT DECEMBER 2016 ASSESSOR'S NUMBERS: APN:0m-283-!xl,0229-233--51 3.0 Project Description KEYNOTES:@ 2. IYPICAL PARKIHGS TALL-9'X 13'. r..AYBEREDUCEDT09'X lrW/1'--0"0VERHA�G.ST RIPINGP[R CITYS TANDARDS J.TYPICAL LOW EMITTIHG/FU£L[FFICl[NT /CARl'OOI.IVAliPOOLPARKINGS TALL-!l'X1S'.MAY8[ REDIJCED T09'XlrWll'--O·ovERHAliGS TRIPINGPER CJTYSTAliDA.RDS.MINIMUM�OFALlP,'JOONG SP ACESPRtMDEDPERBUILCING.AMINIMUMOF6\\0FALL PARKINGSPACESPRtMDEDPERBUILCING SHALLB[EQIJIPPED FORFUTURE EVCHARGINGCAPACITY. 4.r THICKCONCRETE YARDWIGRADELEVEL TRUCXOOORSANDAUT OPAAKINGAREAS 5.FULLYIRRIGATEDLANDSCAPEARfA80UNDEDBY6•coNCRETECURB-SHCONCEPTLA�DSCAP[ ,� 6.PRlMARYBUILCING[NTRA.�CEWI DECORATI\l[CONCRETE [N TRYWALK. 7.LOCATION OF�'--O"HJG!l TRASHAliD RECYCLABLEBINS.SEESH[IT A2-1 FOR ELEVAT ION A.�D SEC TIONS �.NEW�'--O"HIGHBLACK TllBEST HLHNCE ll lfXSO'TRUCK TRAILERP,'JOO�GARU.. 12.4CC[SSl6LEPARKINGS TALLS9'X1S'--O.MIM 1l.DASHECLIN[INDICATES:NEW5'--0"WIDESURFAC[WALK ACCESSIBLEPAIBOF T RAVHFROM (··· i�o8:AL�D��to��Ns����s;t:,��o:t��� �T T���i /��N���T��;l���R�E l(PROVIDEBREAKAREA/LUNCH PATIOWITHSEATING.SEEPROJEC T DATAON Al--OFORMIN SFARfA AliD NUMB[R OF SEATS 15.PROPOSWLOCATION FORF�EWATERMETERAND 2"SUPPLYLINE INTOBUILDING.ABOVEGR OIJND BACXFLOWSANDDETECTOR CH[CKASSEMBLIES SHALLBESCRE[NEDBYA J'MIN.14'MAX.CMUWALL ON JSIDES,J'CLEAR TOIBEASSEMB LY.S[EPLANVIEW 16.PROPOSEDSEWERLATERALFROM PUBLICRIGHT OFWAYS[RVING80 THBUILCINGS1&2 17[XIS TINGDIW[WAYAPROM TOBEREMOVEC 1�. NEW CURB AND GU THR P[RCITY STANDARD 1!1.PROPOSEDONSITEFIR.El!YDRANT LOCATIO NS 20.ALLUTILITYSTRUC TURESSUCHAS TRANSFORMERSAliDBACKFlOW DEVIC[SSHALLBESCR.EENED BYLANDSCAPE,SHLANDSCAPEPLAN 2l CONCRfl[LANDINGAND81CYCLE RACKFOR 81KES.SEE PROJ[CT DATAFORSPACES R.EQUIRED 22.LONGTERMMOUNTEDBICYCLERACK.(NOTELONG TERMRACKT OB[INSTALLADJACENT TO [l[C TRICALROOM T OCOMPLYWITH CALGRE[N)S[EPROJECT DATAFORSPAC[SREQUIRED 2l. TYP.�'HIGH PAlNTECCONCREHSCR.EENWo\ll ELEVATIONWIACC[NTREVEALSAliDPAlNTED M:C[NTSTO MATCHBUILDINGARCHIT[CT UR[ !!ct�:E���TILT-UP ARE PUMP STRUCTURE -15' HEIGHT, PAlNTEC TO COORDINA TE W/8LIILDl�G PROJECT DATA GENERAi.PLAN EXISTING ZONE PROPOSED ZONE SITEAREA: GENERAL INOUSTRIAL&HEAVYINOUSTRIAL GENERALINOUSTRIAL(Gl)ANDHEAVY INOUSTRIAL(HI) GENERAL INOUSTRIAL(GI) LEGAL OESCRlPTION FH EXISTING 6THSTREETAREA: PROPOSED STREET"A" LOTA REMNANTLOT(SEEPARCELMAP} 3,981,084SF/91.39AC 58,562SF/1.34AC 212,968SF /4.89AC 5,031SF/0.11AC 3.704,522SF/85.04AC GROSSSITEAREA NET SITE ARfA 2,484,027SF 1,484,SOOSF 3,981,084SF 3.704,522SF 2,402,411SF 1,302,112SF BUILDING AREA FOOTPRINT AREA 1,403,SOOSF MEZZANINE(WHSEOROFFICE): 19,00JSF GROSS FLOOR AREA: 1,422,SOOSF BUILDING AREA BY USE OFFICEARfA 25,00JSF WAREHOUSEAREA 1,397,SOOSF GROSS COVERAGE 56.50% GROSS FAR 573 LANDSCAPE PROVIDED COVERAGE 9.8% AREA: 236,200SF AUTO PARKING REQUIRED PARKING OFFICE@1/2 50 100STALLS WAREHOUSE 1-20K SF@1l1CXXl 20STALLS 20K-40KSFC1/200l lOSTALLS >40KSFC1/4!XXl 348STALLS TOTAL 478STALLS PROVIDED PARKING 478STALLS DOCK LOADING POSITIONS 134DOCKS TRAILERPARKlNG PROV1DED:221TfWLERS BICYCLE PARKING 738,270SF 14,230SF 752,SOOSF 16.(XXlSF 736,SOOSF 49.73% 400 10..'.l% 134,400SF 64STALLS 20STALLS 10STALLS 174STALLS 268STALLS 268STALLS 91DOCKS 91TRAILERS 2,141,770SF 33,230SF 2,175,!XXlSF 41,CXXlSF 2,134,!XXlSF 5300% 0.546 10.00% 370,600SF 746STALLS 746STALLS 273DOCKS 310TRAILERS SHORTTERM 24REQ./24PROV 14REQ./14PROV 38REQ./38PROV LONGTERM 24REQ./24PROV.14REQ./14PROV 38REQ./38PROV EMPLOYEE OUTDOOR AREAS SF REQUIRED SF PROVlDED SEATING REQUIRED SEATING PROVIDED 1,!XXlSF 1,!XXlSF 43SEATS 48SEATS SXJSF 540SF 28SEATS 32SEATS 1,500SF 1,540SF 71SEATS 80SEATS Figure 3-5 Conceptual Site Plan SCH No. 2020100056 Page 3-8 Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.0 Project Description Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 3-9 manufactured goods (and to a lesser extent, raw materials) prior to their distribution to retail locations or other warehouses. There are different types of high-cube warehouses that have various operational characteristics (e.g., fulfillment centers which can be non-sort or sort facilities, cold storage warehouses, etc.). The future tenants of the buildings are not known at the time of writing this Draft EIR. However, for purposes of analysis in this Draft EIR, and based on the proposed building design/site plan and associated parking layout, it is assumed that 90% of the building square footage would be operated as a high-cube non-sort fulfillment center warehouse2 and the remaining 10% would be operated as a high-cube cold storage warehouse3. The general term “high-cube warehouse” is used throughout this Draft EIR to describe the above Project characteristics; where specific to an analysis, the terms non-sort fulfillment center or cold storage warehouse are also used. A discussion of operational characteristics of the proposed buildings is provided in Section 3.4.3.G, below. As shown in Table 3-1, Building 1 and Building 2 Summary, total building area would include approximately 2,175,000 sf consisting of warehouse uses and 41,000 sf of ancillary office space (refer to the proposed conceptual site plan presented on Figure 3-5). There would be approximately 2,136,200 sf of ground level floor space and approximately 33,230 sf of mezzanine. The proposed buildings would comply with the development standards for industrial districts set forth in Section 17.36.040, the City of Rancho Cucamonga’s Development Code, related to, but not limited to minimum lot area and width, setbacks, distance between buildings, floor area ratio, maximum building height and landscape area. Table 3-1 Building 1 and Building 2 Summary Building 1 Building 2 Total Warehouse Space 1,397,500 sf 736,500 sf 2,134,000 sf Office Space 25,000 sf 16,000 sf 41,000 sf Total Building Area 1,422,500 sf 752,500 sf 2,175,000 sfa sf: square feet a. Includes 33,230 sf of mezzanine that may function as office and/or warehouse space. The proposed high-cube warehouse buildings are further described below. Prior to the issuance of building permits to construct Building 1 and Building 2, the Project Applicant would be required to submit construction documents/plans to the City of Rancho Cucamonga for review and approval. The construction documents/plans would be required to comply with the City of Rancho Cucamonga Building Code, which is based on the California Building Code and is included in Title 15, Buildings and Construction, of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code. Further, the Project construction would comply with California Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential 2 Fulfillment centers can be categorized as either sort or non-sort facilities. A non-sort fulfillment center typically ships large box items that use more automation than manual sortation. A sort fulfillment center typically ships out smaller items, requiring extensive sorting, typically by manual means. (Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Rate 155) 3 A cold storage warehouse has the ability to keep temperature sensitive items in a temperature-controlled environment. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.0 Project Description Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 3-10 Buildings (Title 24 Standards) and the Title 24 California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen Code).  Building 1. Building 1 would be a rectangular building (approximately 1,912 feet long and 710 feet wide) located on the southern portion of the Project site. As described above and shown on Figure 3-5, Building 1 would include approximately 1,422,500 sf of floor area (25,000 sf of ancillary office space and 1,397,500 sf of warehouse space). An approximately 19,000 sf mezzanine is proposed, which could be used as either ancillary office or warehouse space. Building 1 would be a cross-dock building, meaning that loading docks are located on opposite sides of the building; Building 1 would provide 92 loading dock doors on both the east side and west side of the building within enclosed truck courts, for a total of 184 loading door docks. Passenger vehicle parking stalls, which could include parking for employees, visitors, and delivery vans/vehicles, would be distributed south of the building, and near each corner of the building (near anticipated office spaces). Outdoor patio area for employees (employee break areas) would also be provided in compliance with Section 17.122.030 of the City’s Development Code (anticipated to be located near the office areas at the southeast and southwest corners of Building 1). Building 1 would be designed with a varied roofline. For purposes of analysis in this Draft EIR, and as identified on the conceptual site plan, it is assumed the building height would reach a maximum of 50 feet at the top of parapet. The building would be constructed of concrete tilt- up panels and low-reflective blue glass. The building’s exterior color palette would be comprised of various shades of white and gray with blue accents. Decorative building elements would include aluminum panels at office corner parapets, canopies at the office entries, and anodized aluminum window shades. Building 1 would also include a green screen material on a tube steel frame for planting of climbing vines. Conceptual architectural elevations for Building 1 are provided on Figure 3-6a and Figure 3-6b, Conceptual Building Elevations – Building 1. Conceptual renderings are provided on Figure 3-7, Conceptual Building Renderings. As shown, various architectural elements would effectively avoid monotony and repetition in building elevations. Additionally, the proposed building materials would minimize glare. It should also be noted that rooftop equipment would be screened behind the parapet and would not be visible from the street, as shown on the typical equipment screen line of sight drawing included on Figure 3-6a.  Building 2. Building 2 would be a rectangular building (approximately 1,046 feet long and 680 feet wide) located on the northern portion of the Project site. As described above and shown on Figure 3-5, Building 2 would include approximately 752,500 sf of floor area, including approximately 16,000 sf of ancillary office space and 736,500 sf of warehouse space. An approximately 14,230 sf mezzanine is proposed, which could be used as either ancillary office or warehouse space. Building 2 would also be a cross-dock building with 40 loading dock doors on the north side of the building and 51 loading dock doors on the south side of the Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report Source(s): RGA (01-15-2021) u...li o"' -::C -'•>-u..,,. 60' PROPOSED PACKAGE UNIT-----­ BUILDING PARAPET HEIGHT----� TILT-UP BUILDING-----� 11 �I 0- - 34' 17' 26' 17' 11' r. TUBE STEL FENCE PER DETAIL, BLACK IN COLOR T.O.P. FINISH FLOOR TYPICAL EQUIPMEN T SCREEN LINE OF SIGHT TYPICAL TUBE STEEL FENCE ELEVATION -----------------------------------SCAlEl"=l0'--0" SCAlE:1/4"�1'-11" t!OTE:llNEOFSIGHTTAKEHfROM6'-0'ABOi'EFIHISHGRADE , ', , ', :_.,_____,,' \ ____ --------------------------------------------------------�' SEE BLOWUP BELOW LEFT ' , '------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------' SEE BLOWUP AT BOTTOM OF SHEET OVERALL SOUTH ELEVATION OFFICE CORNER-PARTIAL SOUTH ELEVATION -WEST END OFFICE CORNER -PARTIAL SOUTH ELEVATION -EAST END PARTIAL SOUTH ELEVATION -CENTER Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga KEYNOTES ® 8.PROPOSEDFUTURE TENANTSIGNAGE LOCATION UNDERSEPARATESIGNPACKAGE.NOT INCLUOEDIN TH�SUBMITTAL PACKAGE 9.8'HIGHBLACK TUBULARSTEEL ROLLINGGATEWIVIEW OBSCURINGPERFORATEDMESH­TYP.ATYAADENTRANCES 10.TYP.8'HIGH PAINTEDCONCRETESCREENWALLEL EVATIONW/ACCEHTR£VEALSAND PAINTEDACCENTS TOMATCH BUILOINGARCHITECTURE �:()��EEN SCREEN W/TUBE STEEL FRAME, wrrn ART WORK LOCATED IN LANDSCAPE IN SEE BLOWUP BELOW RIGHT FINISH SCHEDULE CJ P-1. P-2. -P-3. -P-4. GL-5. 3.0 Project Description FIELD COLOR SW 7005 -PURE WHITE LIGHT ACCENT COLOR SW 7073 -NETWORK GRAY DARK ACCENT COLOR SW 7076 -CYBERSPACE ACCENT COLOR SW 6804 -DIGNITY BLUE GLASS -PRIMARY WINDOW PPG SOLARCOOL PACIFICA Figure 3-6a Conceptual Building Elevations -Building l SCH No. 2020100056 Page 3-11 Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report Source(s): RGA (01-15-2021) Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga OVERALL NORTH ELEVATION ------------------------··sEEBLOWUPBELOW ·----------------------- OVERALL WEST ELEVATION (EAST ELEVATION IS SIMILAR/ REVERSED) PARTIAL ENLARGED WEST ELEVATION -NORTH END PARTIAL ENLARGED WEST ELEVATION -SOUTH END SEE BLOWUP BELOW 3.0 Project Description --------------------------SEE BLOWUP BOTTOM SHEET·------------------------- Figure 3-6b Conceptual Building Elevations -Building l SCH No. 2020100056 Page 3-12 Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report Source(s): RGA (01-15-2021) Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga 3.0 Project Description BUILDING 1 -VIEW TO THE NORTHEAST FROM 4TH STREET BUILDING 2-VIEW TO THE SOUTHWEST FROM 6TH STREET Figure 3-7 Conceptual Building Renderings SCH No. 2020100056 Page 3-13 Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.0 Project Description Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 3-14 building within enclosed truck courts. Passenger vehicle parking stalls, which could include parking for employees, visitors, and delivery vans/vehicles, would be distributed east of the building, and near each of the building’s corners. An outdoor patio area for employees would also be provided, and is anticipated to be located near the office at the northeast corner of Building 2. To provide a cohesive aesthetic character, the architectural style, building materials, and decorative building elements for Building 2 would be the same as that identified above for Building 1. Conceptual architectural elevations for Building 2 are provided on Figure 3-8a and Figure 3-8b, Conceptual Building Elevations – Building 2, and a conceptual rendering is provided on Figure 3-7. Building 2 would also have a varied roofline. For purposes of analysis in this Draft EIR, and as identified on the conceptual site plan, it assumed the building height would reach a maximum of 50 feet at the top of parapet. As with Building 1, rooftop equipment would be screened and would not be visible from the street (refer to Figure 3-8a). B. Circulation and Parking 1. Project Site Vehicular Circulation The existing public street network abutting the Project site consists of 4th Street to the south and 6th Street to the north; both of these roadways are designated truck routes. It should be noted that the southern portion of 4th Street is under the jurisdiction of the City of Ontario. 4th Street is identified as a Major Divided Arterial in the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Community Mobility Element, and 6th Street is identified as Secondary Arterial. Based on the preliminary conditions of approval established for the Project, the Project would include the following improvements to these roadways along the Project site frontage: remove and replace the curb and gutter, and grind and overlay the asphalt concrete pavement. As shown on Figure 3-5, the Project would include the construction of a new public roadway referred to as Street A. Street A would extend in a north-south direction with intersections at 4th Street and 6th Street, and would form the eastern boundary of the Project site. Street A would be a designated Industrial Collector (66-foot full-width right-of-way). There would be one travel lane, landscaped parkway in each direction, and a sidewalk on the west side of the street (refer to the typical cross section provided on Figure 3-9, Typical Cross Sections – Street A). Vehicular and truck traffic access would be provided to the Project site via the following proposed driveways shown on Figure 3-10, Proposed Site Access:  Driveway 1 on 6th Street – full access for both passenger cars and trucks  Driveway 2 on 4th Street – full access for both passenger cars and trucks  Driveway 3 on 4th Street – full access for passenger cars only  Driveway 4 on 4th Street – full access for passenger cars only  Driveway 5 on proposed Street A – full access for both passenger cars and trucks  Driveway 6 on proposed Street A – full access for passenger cars only  Driveway 7 on proposed Street A – full access for both passenger cars and trucks Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report Source(s): RGA (01-15-2021) 60' PROPOSED PACKAGE UNIT-----� BUILDING PARAPET HEIGHT----, TILT-UP BUILDING-----, 34' 17' 26' 17' 11' TYPICAL EQUIPMEN T SCREEN LINE OF SIGHT SCAlEl"=l0'--0" t!OTE:llNEOFSIGHTTAKEHfROM6'-0'ABOi'EFIHISHGRADE SEE BLOWUP BELOW LEFT OVERALL SOUTH ELEVATION PARTIAL SOUTH ELEVATION -WEST END T.O.P. FINISH FLOOR . � : 111ilii■llliiliilil■·0 I \ _______________________________________________________________ ,,' SEE BLOWUP ON SHEET 2A3-2 OVERALL EAST ELEVATION Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga r. TUBE STEL FENCE PER DETAIL, BLACK IN COLOR � -=l=cjcci=J=J=lc=l=l=l=cjccj=J=J=lc=l=ll=l=cjccj=J=J=lc=l==l=J=lc=l=l=l=cl=l lal=l=cjccj=!=l=l=cjcci=l=J=lc=l=I= TYPICAL TUBE STEEL FENCE ELEVATION KEYNOTES ® 8.PR0POSEDFUTURETENANTSIGNAGE LOCATI0N UNDERSEPARATESIGNPACKAGE.N0T INCLUOEDIN TH�SUBMITTALPACKAGE 9.8'HIGHBLACKTUBULAR STEEL ROLLINGGATE WIVIEWOBSCURINGPERFORATEDMESH­TYP.ATYAADENTRANCES 10.TYP.8'HIGHPAINTEDC0NCRETESCREENWALLEL EVATI0NW/ACCEHT R£VEALSAND PAINTEDACCENTSTOMATCH BUILOINGARCHITECTURE SEE BLOWUP BELOW RIGHT OFFICE CORNER -PARTIAL SOUTH ELEVATION -EAST END SEE BLOWUP ON SHEET 2A3-2 'r· 3.0 Project Description FINISH SCHEDULE CJ P-1. FIELD COLOR SW 7005 -PURE WHITE P-2. LIGHT ACCENT COLOR SW 7073 -NETWORK GRAY -P-3. DARK ACCENT COLOR SW 7076 -CYBERSPACE -P-4. ACCENT COLOR SW 6804 -DIGNITY BLUE GL-5. GLASS -PRIMARY WINDOW PPG SOLARCOOL PACIFICA "-"'-'-'-Fl Figure 3-Sa Conceptual Building Elevations -Building 2 SCH No. 2020100056 Page 3-15 Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report Source(s): RGA (01-15-2021) OFFICE CORNER -PARTIAL EAST ELEVATION -SOUTH END OFFICE CORNER -PARTIAL EAST ELEVATION -NORTH END SEE BLOWUP BELOW OVERALL NORTH ELEVATION -� OFFICE CORNER -PARTIAL NORTH ELEVATION -WEST END " ' � ' '. �-,,• " •• J',,._ • " cf • • • •{ •( 1 • • • • • • • • •( •( • • '.:;t ::; --- -I--1 7!------i; ---r--I --1 --r --i -7r--I OVERALL WEST ELEVATION 3.0 Project Description Figure 3-Sb Conceptual Building Elevations -Building 2 Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 3-16 Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report + BUILOING2 wd�����?:�61NG [ ;fl -· -fOOTPRINT:738,270Sf § ! . •-• -M�����i�23ft . i i �=;:�.�· i i . =0•" .. i i i - t +- + -t + ! ! ! ! EXIST E'LY P/L 1' 2:1 MAX SLOPE t Al 8' 2' :;;,,.' 33' PROP. 8 C&G Source(s): Thienes Engineering, Inc. (01-08-2021}, RGA (01-15-2021} Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga 22' �. i i r •i STREET"A' TYPICAL SECTION PROP. AC PVMT A-STREETTYPICAL SECTION NTS 22' BUILDING1 SINGLE TENANT WAREHOUSE BUILDING F:�:E�,��l i i G.f.A.:1,422,SOOSF t-[�=£i:';'· =•0·" 33' PROP. ST. LT {STAGGERED @120' -130') PROP. 8 C&G 6' PROP W'LY R/W 5' .w PROP. SIDEWALK t A2 3.0 Project Description fiji1i�Mi Figure 3-9 Typical Cross Section -Street A SCH No. 2020100056 Page 3-17 Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report Source(s): Urban Crossroads (01-19-2021) LEGEND: FULL = FULL ACCESS P = PASSENGER CARS ONLY T = TRUCKS ONLY PT = PASSENGER CARS AND TRUCKS Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga 3.0 Project Description Figure 3-10 Proposed Site Access SCH No. 2020100056 Page 3-18 Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.0 Project Description Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 3-19  Driveway 8 on proposed Street A – full access for both passenger cars and trucks  Driveway 9 on proposed Street A – full access for trucks only  Driveway 10 on proposed Street A – full access for trucks only Proposed public roadway Street A would allow for full access for passenger cars and trucks at both 6th Street and 4th Street, and the intersection of 4th Street and Street A would be signalized. An internal network of drive aisles would be provided to serve each building, which would meet RCFPD standards for access, width, and turning radii. The proposed fire access plan is provided on Figure 3-11, Proposed Fire Access Plan. 2. Non-Vehicular Circulation, Transit, Commute Trip Reduction, and Freight Rail In the vicinity of the Project site, which is in a designated Transit Priority Area (TPA)4, there are bus stops on the north and south side of 4th Street. The bus stops on the north side of 4th Street adjacent to the Project site would remain in use. To facilitate use of transit and non-vehicular circulation and to meet applicable requirements for accessibility pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Project would include improvements to 4th Street and 6th Street along the Project site frontage. The following improvements are anticipated based on the preliminary conditions of approval established for the Project, and would be confirmed by the City during final design: removal and replacement of the existing sidewalk, and installation of Class II bikeways adjacent to the Project site. To facilitate bicycle travel and comply with the CALGreen Code and Section 17.64.100 of the City’s Development Code, exterior short-term and long-term bicycle parking would be provided at each building near the office areas (24 short-term and 24 long-term spaces for Building 1 [48 total], and 14 short-term and 14 long-term spaces for Building 2 [28 total]). With respect to freight rail, the portion of existing rail spur within the Project site that is within the parcel for Building 2 would be retained (south of 6th Street). The remaining portion of the rail spur within the Building 1 parcel would be removed. However, the Project has been designed to allow for future rail use at Building 1, should it be desired by a tenant. 3. Parking The Project has been designed to comply with Chapter 17.64.050 of the City’s Development Code related to parking requirements. As shown on the conceptual site plan (refer to Figure 3-5), parking would be provided as described below. In the event of future parking space striping revisions that alter the number or locations of on-site passenger vehicle and/or trailer parking spaces, such revisions would also be required to comply with the City’s Development Code. 4 A Transit Priority Area is defined as a half mile area around an existing major transit stop or an existing stop along a high-quality transit corridor, as further described in Section 4.13, Transportation, of this Draft EIR. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 0 ·I qoI Source(s): RGA (01-15-2021) I [_' j�I I I I .L-I : _: ____ , __ ,BUILDING 2 --•----� , .I I I SINGLE TENANT I ' I FOOTPRINT: 738,270 SF I � �: '-o" __ j I MEZZANINE: 14,230 SF 1� 1 : • -_ 1· GJ.A.: 752,_500 SF _ _ g, I : o I OCCUPANCY:B/S-1 I §: :□ CONSTRUCTIONTYPE:111-B □: ; G I I I NUMBEROFSTORIES:1 :::.:: ;�--1-----1MAX.HE0:50FT. -•-•---!� �· ·-I 1 1-1 --i-1 -1-1-•-•-•- "'"' ! 8'--0"HTUBESTEELFENCE u Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga ---�-7---- 0 �-, l t_ ',. -� -l-� -t -t � 7 \ - 3.0 Project Description '=-�-�--------"�_J J EXISTING-PRISIUNTACILITY 1 _;p-_J ,, -_J L,__J __ __ ··---PR0PERTYLINE3214.24'_-____ _ __________________ _ ______ -------� -------��,('r}.----�,f";'L� �--� ___j _, � EXISTING INDUSTRIAL BUILDING L + L + L + "" I-'" ... , ... ,. 92 DOCK ODORS I J___J l,91i;--O" BUILDING 1 ·r ·rl ·-_J SINGLE TENANT I -----FOOTPRINT: 1,403,500 SF7---� -� MEZZANINE: 19,000 SF G.F.A.: 1,422,500 SF I CON�Jf�oCJ�P1r1111-B 7 NUMBER Of STORIES: 1 I -~----('X.-"'$"-SJFT 7--��- ·-_j __ J I ,_ I I I -�---t--�--r--•-j---t- ___ J ____ J __ �� I--�- .!.. LlllJJ1 L 7 8'--0"HTUBESTHLFENCf ��I EXISTING INDUSTRIAL BUILDING Figure 3-11 Proposed Fire Access Plan SCH No. 2020100056 Page 3-20 Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.0 Project Description Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 3-21 Building 1. The truck court on the east side of Building 1 would include 124 trailer parking stalls, the truck court on the west side of Building 1 would include 97 trailer parking stalls, and 478 passenger vehicle parking stalls (including employee vehicles and delivery vans/vehicles) would be distributed along the south side of the building and near the corners of the building (where building offices/entrances are anticipated). Approximately 33 of the vehicle parking stalls would be provided within the truck court located on the east side of the building. There would be 429 standard stalls, 39 clean air/vanpool/electric vehicle stalls, and 10 accessible spaces. Building 2. The truck court on the north side of Building 2 would include 42 trailer parking stalls, the truck court on the south side of Building 2 would include 49 trailer parking stalls, and 268 passenger vehicle parking stalls (including employee vehicles and delivery vans/vehicles) would be distributed along the east side of the building and near the corners of the building (where building offices/entrances are anticipated). Approximately 56 of the vehicle parking stalls would be provided within the truck court located on the south side of the building. There would be 238 standard stalls, 22 clean air/vanpool/electric vehicle stalls, and 8 accessible stalls. 4.6th Street Railroad Spur Crossing Under existing conditions, 6th Street west of the Project site terminates at the existing BNSF railroad spur. The City’s General Plan anticipates completion of 6th Street between Santa Anita Avenue and Etiwanda Avenue. T The Project does not require this connection for operations. Additionally, the Project would include a new public street (Street A), which extends along the eastern Project site boundary connecting 4th Street and 6th Street, further enhancing vehicular circulation in the area. Nonetheless, for CEQA purposes, implementation of the crossing by the Project Applicant has been analyzed in this Draft EIR. The Project Applicant’s ultimate obligations relative to implementation of the crossing will be determined as part of the Development Agreement between the City and the Project Applicant (refer to the discussion provided in Section 3.4.4). Portions of the crossing are outside the control of the City of Rancho Cucamonga and the Project Applicant, as the improvement would require BNSF and California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) approval. Although implementation of this at-grade crossing is not required from a CEQA perspective to address any traffic deficiencies resulting from the Project, Section 4.1 through Section 4.15 of this Draft EIR address the potential environmental impacts that would occur with implementation of the crossing, as applicable. The timing for implementation of the crossing, which would require approval from BNSF Railway and CPUC, has not been determined. A design for this crossing was previously completed as part of the approved 6th Street – Street and Railroad Crossing Improvements from West of Railroad Crossing to Etiwanda Avenue, which was associated with construction of the Southern California Edison (SCE) facility north of the Project site (north of and abutting 6th Street). The previously approved 6th Street improvement plan is the basis for analysis in this Draft EIR, and is included in Figure 3-12, 6th Street At-Grade Crossing. As shown in Figure 3-12, there would be an at-grade crossing of the rail spur, which would connect to the existing roadway on either side of the railroad. A sidewalk would also be installed on the south side of the roadway connecting sidewalks to the east and west. This at-grade crossing would also involve the installation of railroad crossing arms and signals Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 6TH STREET CROSSING -EXISTING CONDITION Source(s): Bridge Development Partners (August 2020), SCE (08-10-2009) Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga 6TH STREET CROSSING-DESIGN PER CITY PLANS 0+00 f+OO 3.0 Project Description D Project Limits Dstudy Area Figure 3-12 6th Street At-Grade Crossing SCH No. 2020100056 Page 3-22 Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.0 Project Description Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 3-23 for safety purposes, and installation of a concrete crossing of the railroad tracks within BNSF right-of- way. There is an existing high-power SCE transmission line pole in the right-of-way for this improvement (north side of 6th Street) that would remain in place. C. Landscape, Fences/Walls, and Exterior Lighting 1. Landscape Existing trees and other vegetation on the Project site would be removed, and new landscaping would be installed covering approximately 370,600 sf of the Project site (10%), including street parkways, as identified in conceptual landscape plan presented on Figure 3-13, Conceptual Landscape Plan. Proposed landscaping would be ornamental in nature and would feature trees, shrubs, and drought- tolerant accent plants in addition to a variety of groundcovers. As shown on Figure 3-13, landscaping would primarily be installed along the Project site’s street frontages with 4th Street and 6th Street. Landscaping also would occur at building entries, in and around automobile parking areas, and within the parkway along proposed Street A. The landscape plan has been developed in compliance with Chapter 17.82, Water Efficient Landscaping, of the City’s Development Code, which requires measures be implemented to reduce water use associated with landscaping. The number of trees to be planted would comply with the City’s landscape requirements and tree replacement requirements, including replacement of all heritage trees with other heritage trees on a 1:1 basis (refer to 3.4.5, Tree Removal Permit). 2. Fences/Walls A combination of tube steel fencing and concrete screen walls and would be provided on the Project site, primarily for screening and security. As shown in Figure 3-14, Wall and Fence Plan, an 8-foot- high tube steel fence would be provided along the western Project site boundaries, and 8-foot-high screen walls would be provided along the perimeter of the truck courts on the east side of Building 1, north side of Building 2, at the southern entrances to the truck courts for Building 1 accessed from 4th Street, and at the eastern entrances to the truck court for Building 2 accessed from Street A. Eight-foot- high sliding steel gates would be provided at the remaining truck court entrances. The sliding steel gates at the southern entrances to the Building 1 truck court would have perforated mesh to obscure views of the truck courts from 4th Street. As shown on Figure 3-14 , the Project also requires retaining walls of various heights including, but not limited to:  A: south of Building 2 (approximately 2-feet 8-inches to 15-fee 4-inchest high with an 8-foot- high tube steel fencing on top)  B: west of the northern portion of Building 1 along the property boundary (approximately 3- feet 4-inches to 18-feet)  C: west of Building 2 along the property boundary (approximately 3-feet 4-inches to 8-feet 8- inches-high)  D: along the northwest portion of Building 2 (approximately 2-feet to 8-feet 8-inches-high) Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report Saurce(s): Hunter Landscape (01-20-2021) Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga BUILDING2 PLANTING LEGEND i �,.,,,w,�,�•" Ct,it,ilp� Euealyplusni�li; 36"Box 24"Box Strawt,.rryT,.• Baj,,FairyOuoi.r Lavar>dula'GoodwinCteekGrey' Lwcop/')'j/um f. 'Grffn Cloud' Te""5Ronger H<t,� te!ace-� L Standard L Stondoird C..nturyPlam H .. peroloep•,...illora 1 ... ,..,.., .... ,., TrailingAcacia Rosmarinus . o.'H1infMtonC..,per Huntir,g10<ilarv,,1Ro-ry Muhler>bergiacnpi!aris Pinl<Muhly �==: jaamiric,idos �:" �::--cx:.;:wo�Red' BUILDING 1 lJ Cl 3'T"'-LL SCREENHEDGE PLEASE NOTE • ALL IMPR OVEMENTS WITHIN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-Of'.WAY. I �!�TREES,SHAl.l.BE INSTALLEOPERTHEPI.JBLICIMI :�;ic�!;r����;'6���:���Ll.n;: $AMP\.E OFTHEWEEDFA8RICBARRIER TOTHEPROJECl PROPOSED. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING DE WEEOBARRIERSW.LLBEPERMEAl!LE PARKING LOT TREES· 1 TREE/3 $TALL$ su����1 �Ei,4;!;�:���g "PROVIOEOTREES•160 su:���,��i,�;!i:'-!� "PROVIDEOTREES-00 BUILDING PERIMETER TREES BU���1�1 �E�·���� 135 "PROVIDEDTREES•\35 su��1�1 �E�·�EES • n "PRDVIDEDTREES•72 0 126 HERITAGE TREES CURRENTLY EXIST ON SITE O· r;;��l::":::•esAAeeeo�se,rnee .. ,'"' 1•V!JHITEALDER 100 -EXISTING HERITAGE TflEES AAE PROPOSED TO SE REMO> HERITAGE TflEES REMOVED WILL BE REPLACE AT A 1:1 RATIO, ·mees F'!EMOVED. 100 "REP'tACEMENTTflEES•103 34-EIJCAL.YPTUSAAEHERITAGEREPLACEMENTSPER PLAN Note:All e,,;1stingEucalyptustre.,..an>toben>plaa,dwilhEucalyp1u �]�1��:£ff!ff}E�JJS£!�s��1 3.0 Project Description Figure 3-13 Conceptual Landscape Plan SCH No. 2020100056 Page 3-24 Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report r ! i�1,,·1�� I I' ' I, 3'-4'H CMU@ DDCA i I I J·� i 'I jlijj ii\:�:,11 �::!�!1 I !: I Cl) I 1,!, I I J:i::I� iJ: f-1 � I ' (1 ilil i 11'1, !j! 1 ·I 11 1 !11 11 I i 'l I I. ii 3'-4'H CMU@ DDCA Source(s): RGA (01-15-2021) \ D ��--8'-0"H SLIDING STEEL GATE Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga + ·BUILDING 21,055' 303' 8'-0'H TUBE STEEL FENCE 8'-0'H TUBE STEEL FENCE + 346' VARIABLE HT. RETAINING WALL SEE CIVIL 860' (E) RET. WALL TO REMAIN BUILDING 1 1,430' 'l 8'-0'H TUBE STEEL FENCE J 8'-0"H SLIDING STEEL GATE W/ PERE. MESH TO OBSCURE VIEW OF TRUCK COURT + 3.0 Project Description l ii., \Ii I 3'-4'H CMU@ DDCA J qI i--:-- LJ.J LU a:: f­ C/) ''l11,I 3'-4'H CMU@ DDCA Iii'·'1 r Figure 3-14 Wall and Fence Plan SCH No. 2020100056 Page 3-25 Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.0 Project Description Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 3-26 E: along the northeast portion of Building 2 (approximately 2 feet 8-inches to 7-feet 4-inches- high) F: along the northeast portion of Building 1 (approximately 2-feet 8-inches to 6-feet -high) G: near the southwest corner of Building 1 (approximately 6-feet 8-inches to 12-feet -high) D.Exterior Lighting The Project would include various lighting elements to ensure safety and security of the facilities. Proposed lighting would be in compliance with applicable outdoor lighting standards established by the City of Rancho Cucamonga in Section 17.58 of the City’s Development Code, the CALGreen Code, and the Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards, as applicable. New sources of light would be located on-site and primarily include parking lot pole-mounted lights, and building-mounted outdoor security lighting (refer to Figure 3-15, Exterior Lighting Plan). Parking lot light poles would be 25-feet high and would have LED cut-off fixtures. The lighting would be directed away from adjoining properties and the public right-of-way. Existing street lights that conflict with the location of proposed driveways and/or streets would be removed/replaced in compliance with the City’s specifications. E.Utilities and Infrastructure Municipal and private utility facilities that would be necessary to serve the Project are currently available within or adjacent to the Project site. On-site utility infrastructure necessary to serve the proposed project—including water, sanitary sewer, drainage, water quality treatment, and dry utilities (e.g., electricity and telecommunications) would be installed with the proposed development and would connect to existing and/or future utility lines5. The required utility infrastructure that would be installed as part of the Project is within the physical impact area for the Project evaluated in this Draft EIR. The final sizing and design of on-site facilities would occur during final design. Following is a description of existing and proposed infrastructure. Domestic and Recycled Water. Water service to the Project site is provided by the Cucamonga Valley Water District (CVWD). Existing water lines on-site would be removed, as necessary to accommodate the proposed development. There is an existing 16-inch water line and an existing 30-inch recycled water line in 6th Street, and a 12-inch water line in 4th Street that would serve the Project (refer to Figure 3-16, Conceptual Water and Sewer Plan). As part of the Project, 2- and 3-inch water distribution lines, irrigation lines, and a 10-inch fire service line would be installed within the building sites to connect to the existing water lines. These on-site facilities would be sized to accommodate the required fire flow and anticipated water demand based on the proposed land uses and landscape plan. The irrigation water demand would be accommodated solely from recycled water. The proposed buildings would be fully sprinklered, and site fire pumps would be provided for each building. 5 Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Utility (RCMU) has indicated that they would provide electric service to the Project; however, RCMU would need to extend electric facilities to the Project site to provide this service. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report Source(s): RGA (01-05-2021) I­ LU LU 0:: I­ V') I I-'° I C''"'' I ::::�;:;�;::, "'" -fl ' :�:::" --1 � PROVIJEJO"CLEAR POLEBASEABOVE FINISHEOGRADEORAS DIRECTEOBY PROVIJE24"DIAMETERSANDBI.ASTEO SMOOTHCONCRETE POl.£BASEWJW1" CHAMFER FUUCIRCUMFERENCE POL£BASESHALLBE DESIGNEDBYA SlRUCTURALPROFESSION&LICENSEO ENGINEER IN THEST.t,TEOFTHEPROJECT AI..LPOLESgtjAI..LB£LOCATEDINSIDETHE PROPERTYLINEANDAT LEAST3'FROM CURBS.,t,VOIOAI..LOBSTRUCTIONS, EXCEPTATPROPERTYLINESWITHOTHER CAR LOT POLE BASE DETAIL PROVIOE54"CL.EARPOLEB"'5EABOVE FINISHEDGRAOE ORAS DIRECTEDBY PROVIOE24"DIAMETERSANDBLASTED SMOOTHCONCRETEPOLEBASEWITH1" CHAMFER FULL CIRCUMFERENCE POLEB"'5E SHA LLBEDESKJNEDBYA STRUCTURAL PROFESSIONAL LICENSED ENGINEER INTHE STATE OF THEPROJECT ALLPOLESSHALL BELOCATED INSIOETHE PROPERTYLINEAND,ULEASTJ'FROM CURBS.AVOIDALLOBSTRUCTKJNS, EXCEPTATPROPERTYLINESWrrnornER TRUCK LOT POLE BASE DETAIL PB54 ! ,., .. u ...... ""' , ...... , U1" H,_ 00,_ U1 U1 ',,. . � ... ,., .. ,. .. , ,,.,., i;i VSQW [isl III-HS-71XmA 6 WST D WST-PC 1:8:J WST-W 0 UOL U.S. \U 1 --"""11WAL.I.MlAT:'OFTJoro 04 U.S. \U 1 --flS->M'i11PO.HITAT2!iFT>FG .. U.S. \U 1 --flS->M'i11WAL.I.MlAT2!iFTJoro U.S. \U 1 --flS->M'i11PO.HITAT2!iFT>FG UGHTH, 22.5FTP<I.EJO .. IIASE U.S. \U 1 ---11P<I.EMlAT2!iFT>FG UGHTH, 22.5FTP<I.EJO .. IIASED'>WG4 "'5f9.ACI( METl\l \U IDJSNG,"'5f9.ACl(PM<IID IETALORM311XMR.4CIRWT """"'6E.\CH'MIH2lll.IDS,1 a.HflPl>SIICCPTICIB.llWE.<Ol LID.1FCHBl-­ METALO"IICM:llJfTN;RATE IB.llWE.<Ol!RUTIIONlll "'5f9.ACI( METAL \U IDJSNG,"'5f9.ACl(PM<IID ..... METALORM311XMR.4CIRWT """"'6E.\CH'MIH2lll.IDS,1 a.HflPl>SIICCPTICIB.llWE.<Ol LID.1M<UEIIUCl(PI.A.STC IDJSESllES>EDIB.llWE.<Ol -·�-­METALO"IICM:llJfTN;RATE "'5f9.ACI( METl\l \U IDJSNG,"'5f9.ACl(PM<IID >IS.ft IETALORM311XMR.4CIRWT """"'6E.\CH'MIH2lll.IDS,1 a.HflPl>SIICCPTICIB.llWE.<Ol LID.1M<UEIIUCl(PI.A.STC IDJSESllES>EDIB.llWE.<Ol -·�-­ METALO"IICM:llJfTN;RATE "'5f9.ACI( METl\l \U IDJSNG,"'5f9.ACl(PM<IID >IS.ft METALORM311XMR.4CIRWT """"'6E.\CH'MIH2lll.IDS,1 a.HflPl>SIICCPTICIB.llWE.<Ol LID.1M<UEIIUCl(PI.A.STC IDJSESllES>EDIB.llWE.<Ol -·�-­METALO"IICM:llJfTN;RATE "'5f9.ACI( METAL \U IDJSNG,"'5f9.ACl(PM<IID METALORM311XMR.4CIRWT """"'6E.\CH'MIH2lll.IDS,1 a.HflPl>SIICCPTICIB.llWE.<Ol LID.1FOOloEll-­ METALO"IICM:llJfTN;RATE U.S. \U "'5f9.ACI( METl\l \U --flS->M'i11P<I.EMlAT2!iFTOFTB1-IDJSNG,"'5f9.ACl(PM<IID UGHTH, -WG4 METALORM311XMR.4CIRWT """"'6E.\CH'MIH2lll.IDS,1 a.HflPl>SIICCPTICIB.llWE.<Ol LID.1M<UEIIUCl(PI.A.STC IDJSESllES>EDIB.llWE.<Ol -·�-­METALO"IICM:llJfTN;RATE WSHEO. -•· "5T_LEO_,., ___ \IF_"""'-T.ft 40001<.---- "5TLEO. -•· "5T_LEO_,., ___ \IF_"""'-T.ft 40001<. ___ _ "5TLEO. -•· "5T_LEO_,., ___ w,_.....,_T_ft 40001<.---"""'-T "'5f9.ACI( METl\l \U --flS->M'i11-VfAT2!iFTOFTB1 IDJSNG,"'5f9.ACl(PM<IID METALORM311XMR.4CIRWT [Z] ��!:'w ���.=.'...o. r---------------- ------------------------� -------,------------------------�------------------------.--------------��� ----------------------� -----, j r t + NEW STREET II A" I I I ,--I I' '�, ·a: '7 I.I "[ ! •ill -��I : ·· 1 !----------+---�..____,._._____,._._r"--'----,-"-''------"-"-,---"-'-���-,---"-"-"-"-----"-"--,----" { '"1 I r j � ----------- 1, I I I I LI L- t I I I I I '"I I I I I I '"I I I I I '"I I I I I '"I I I { Jf-----------���������-����������---------l r•I ■ . ·---=- .. .-r , .. :L • • ' ' ' ' ' ' ' • ' ' ' ' ' L.,....w...1 ' L, -�----------------------�-----------------------..J...---------------------------------------------�------• r I l ------------------------------------------� ------� �. �' Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga I 3.0 Project Description Figure 3-15 Exterior Lighting Plan SCH No. 2020100056 Page 3-27 Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report Source(s): Thienes Engineering, Inc. (01-20-2021) Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga 6"· LEGEND • • • Existing Recycled Water Line------ 6 Existing Domestic Water Line Existing Sewer Line -.,,, -;';ll•.;.. 6" 1'D.i! I I I � � Proposed Recycled Water Line O Point of Connection Proposed Domestic Water Line Proposed Sewer Line Proposed Fire Water Main Line ffl! -..:ii� 6" 3.0 Project Description � - -..:;;J ·ftif--:. """" 6" I I Figure 3-16 Conceptual Water and Sewer Plan SCH No. 2020100056 Page 3-28 Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.0 Project Description Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 3-29 Sewer. The CVWD also provides wastewater collection for the Project site. There is an existing 18-inch sewer line in 4th Street that would serve the Project (refer to Figure 3-16). The Project would include installation of 6-inch sewer laterals for each building, and an 8-inch sewer line beneath the trailer parking area along the western boundary of the Project site, which would connect to the existing sewer line in 4th Street. Storm Water and Water Quality (Building Sites). As further discussed in Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, of this Draft EIR, storm water runoff from the Project site currently drains southerly to an existing public storm drain that conveys runoff from the Project site and other sites located on the north side of 4th Street to the southerly side of the street to an existing City of Ontario storm drain system. The facility under 4th Street is a double 7-foot wide by 3-foot-high reinforced concrete box (RCB). The proposed drainage conditions at the Project site would generally maintain existing drainage patterns; Figure 3-17, Preliminary Drainage and BMP Map, and Figure 3-18, Proposed Storm Drain System, depict the proposed drainage system and water quality Best Management Practices (BMPs). Runoff from the Project site would be collected in grate inlets and catch basins and directed to an on-site storm drain system that would connect to the existing RCB in 4th Street. To mitigate the additional 100-year peak flow rates, detention would be utilized in the truck yard areas associated with each building. A public storm drain would be installed in proposed Street A, which would connect to the existing storm drain in 4th Street. Public catch basins would be constructed along proposed Street A to collect the runoff. The landscaped areas fronting 4th Street and 6th Street (approximately 1.3 acres) would sheet flow off-site. Roof and surface runoff would sheet flow into inlets where stormwater would be intercepted into the underground retention systems for water quality treatment. These systems would utilize infiltration as their primary form of treatment and would store stormwater runoff until it gradually exfiltrates into the underlying soil. Pollutant removal occurs through the infiltration of runoff and the absorption of pollutants into the soil. This practice has high pollutant removal efficiency and can also help recharge groundwater, thus helping to maintain low flows in stream systems. The landscaped area fronting 4th Street and 6th Street are considered self‐ treating and would not be routed to the underground retention system for treatment. The maximum extent practicable (MEP) principle would be used in order to treat disturbed public right‐of‐way (ROW) impervious areas on-site. This area is approximately 0.18 acres and is included along with the on-site design capture volume (DCV). In addition to the site design identified above, and as further discussed in Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, of this Draft EIR, structural and non-structural source-control BMPs would be implemented as part of the Project, as required by current water quality regulations. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report Source(s): Thienes Engineering, Inc. (01-21-2021) LEGEND G ��oSJu��INi�N owmsM T61��AY' G)s3-TRASHENCLOSURE 0S4-EFF1CIENT IRRI GATION G)NOT USEO ® CONTECH 42-INCH PERFORATED CMP © Nt-EOUCATIONAL MATERW..S 0 NJ-LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT BMPS @N4-BMP MAINTENANCE 0N13-HOUSEKEEPING OFLOAfllNG DOCKS @N14-CATCHBASIN INSPECTION @N15-SWEEPING OF PARKINGLOTS @DRAIN INSERT{S) @ROOF DRAIN INSERTS RD ROOF DRAIN CORRUGATED METAL PIPE ----BOUNOAAY -DRAINAGE AREAS ----FlOW DIRECTION INFILTRATION FACILITY LOCATION Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga I --1- ·-1-I -1- . I . -J- BIO CLEAN 8" DIA DOWNSPOUT FILTER P.:2!!£ 1.3 SO FT FILTER SURFACE AREA FILTER INSERT Stainless Steel HANDLES TREATMENT FLOW RATE = 1.14 CFS BYPASS FLOW RATE = 2.25 CFS Bio�Clean A Forterra Company NOTES HIGH FLOW BYPASS For Model# BC-DFB 1. Tht1 d,evice nho.11 be aired ae.::ording to the nominal aize ¢f the interccnn,ictlnq droincge sy,it,im. it.I no time sholl the entrance �ju bfl larger thon t'la exi\ ai1.•. 2. The dt1vjce lh<JII tie imltalle<I in on OCCtHible IOC<Jtion to provide for rr,eoM of ,.,po·r and main\enonce. 3. The device oholl t,., in!!l.olled usin� apprOV<!d ad<!pten, or coupling9 to ottoch th, devict1 to th� downs;x:,ut or trainor,t8 pipe. 4. Scr..ena ore m<ie• ollt of 46 mHh flloinl"H �\ul. 0.0055<n. wire diameters. 55'.!t Ojlen orcun� exterior of filler in..,rt. 810 Cl.£»/ E/'MRONMElflAL PO 80X IJ69. OCEANSiOf. C,, P 76f.HJJJ640 F 750.4.JJ.Ji19 ROOF DRAIN FIL TEA INSERT l I. . l I 495.50' I I I BUILDING .J 1 ---1I. I ..I.I I I I.. I l I. I l I. f-----383.50' ----� PROJECT AREA: 90.05 AC 90.05 AC(OISTURB£DAREA) 67.38 AC (EXISTING IMPER\IIOUS) 5.91 AC (PROPOSED IJJIIDSCAPE) 84.14 AC (PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS) 88.85 AC(NET) 91.39 AC (GROSS) I herebyoertilythat the necessary watero:,.iality management plan best management practictl d8"1ces have been constructodund..-myslJ!)llt\'isk>nandemfunctiooelk>lhebes(o/myk"""'1e<!Qeasoflhedalebek>w. --.�.=,.,=, .. �-------�-.. -- INSTAU.ONE4"A1.Ut.llNUl,I STORl,I DRAIN PIJ,CNID, PAINTED BLUEWITli it. 1/4" SCl(.Wl'Et.lOU�'-GfiOI..E(NO OUMPINCDRAIHS TO WATERWA'r)f'ISHWTTHWit.'<f. (PRCMDEOB'YEIQIEERIHCSERVICESDEf'AATMENT)ONCENTEROfCATCHSISIN BElWEENSCORINGUNENIOCURBUNE.STORMDRAINPI.JCAAOl,IUST BE INSTAI..L.ED 'MTH "NO Dl,11,(ptNG DIWNS TO Wit.TERWAY' R00NG TOWARD TI-£ STREET. MUST INSTAil PI.JCAA() MTH A 11•·x1· H,1.1,11,!ER sa R1VET (PR0',1DEO BY ENGlt.{ERl'-G SERVICES DEPARTMENT) NW t.lASONR'l'.-IOIESM:. BMP CMP-1 CMP-2 CMP-3 CMP-4 CMP-5 CMP-6 CMP-7 CMP-8 CMP-9 ( CUMULATNELY 0.18 ACRES OF R/W IMPROVEMENTS WILL BE TREATED UTILIZING CMP-7 cJMULATIVELY 0.18 ACRES OF R{'W IMPROVEMENTS WILL BE rEATEO UTILIZING CMP-7 BMP COORDINATES LATITUDE LONGITUDE 34.081115 -117.532382 34.079254 -117.532451 34.077507 -117.534163 34.079528 -117.535462 34.081155 -117.535438 34.083376 -117.534640 34.085838 -117.533804 34.083762 -117.532116 34.077738 -117.535677 AR64 SUMMARY: 3,981,084 SQ. FT. 9/.39 ACRES TOTAL NU J, 704,522 SO. FT. (NU) (PARCELS I d-2} 85.044 ACRES (NU) 3.0 Project Description Figure 3-17 Preliminary Drainage and BMP Map SCH No. 2020100056 Page 3-30 Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report Source(s): Thienes Engineering, Inc. (01-20-2021) Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga LEGEND ---Existing Reinforced Concrete Box Proposed 12"-42" Storm Drain Line -Proposed Infiltration Facility I. I ■Proposed Catch Basin 0 Point of Connection 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 I I I I 3.0 Project Description �. I 'I I-­LU LU a: I­ I/I ::c 1- ,;f' Figure 3-18 Proposed Storm Drain System SCH No. 2020100056 Page 3-31 Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.0 Project Description Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 3-32 Dry Utilities. Southern California Edison (SCE) has existing 12 kV underground facilities adjacent to the Project site in 6th Street and 4th Street. However, Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Utility (RCMU), has indicated that they intend to provide electric service to the Project. To serve the proposed development, above ground transformers would be installed at each building and on-site electric facilities would connect to either existing electric facilities or future RCMU facilities in 4th Street and/or 6th Street (to be installed by RCMU). If RCMU extends their backbone infrastructure to the Project site, the City would analyze any impacts of such extension under CEQA. Frontier Communications and Charter-Spectrum Communications have franchise rights to operate communication systems in the area and may provide telecommunication services to the Project, if not provided by RCMU. Frontier and Charter-Spectrum have existing underground facilities in 6th Street. However, RCMU has indicated that they intend to provide telecommunication service to the Project. If RCMU extends their backbone infrastructure to the Project site to provide service, the City would analyze any impacts of such extension under CEQA. The installation of new communication systems would be the best available technology at the time of the development (currently fiber optic service) and would connect to existing facilities in 6th Street. Southern California Gas Company (SCGC) owns and operates the existing natural gas facilities within and around the Project site, including gas mains within 4th Street and 6th Street. However, natural gas service to the Project is not required and the Project does not include the installation of natural gas lines. Connections to existing gas lines in 4th Street and 6th Street could be made in the future if a tenant requires natural gas for operations. F. Demolition and Construction Activities The Project Applicant anticipates that Project construction would be initiated in 2021 and be complete in 2022. Initially, existing structures and improvements on the Project site would be demolished and/or removed. As required by the City of Rancho Cucamonga and the CALGreen Code, the majority of the demolition materials that are to be hauled off-site would be recycled. The concrete and asphalt paving would be processed and remain on-site. Following completion of demolition or removal of existing buildings and improvements at each building site, site work (including grading and installation of utility infrastructure) and vertical building construction would be initiated. The conceptual grading plan for the Project is presented on Figure 3-19a and Figure 3-19b, Conceptual Grading Plan, and the cut/fill map is presented on Figure 3-20, Cut and Fill Map. Based on the conceptual grading plan, existing soils would be reused on-site as compacted structural fill soil, and earthwork for Building 1 and Building 2 is anticipated to balance on-site (no need for import or export of soil). Building 1 would require approximately 134,615 cubic yards (cy) of cut and fill, and Building 2 would require approximately 138,483 cy of cut and fill. Concrete and asphalt concrete (AC) demolition debris generated on-site would be crushed/pulverized and re- used on-site as grading fill material. It is estimated that there would be 125,120 tons of demolished concrete and approximately 3,809 tons of pulverized asphalt. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report Source(s): Thienes Engineering, Inc. (01-20-2021) Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga 11 LEGEND 11076'� Proposed Grading Contour X L_J X Proposed Grading Cross-Section (See Figure 3-20b for details} • I D 11 B1: 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 I , 1052' 3.0 Project Description ::c: I­., Figure 3-l 9a Conceptual Grading Plan SCH No. 2020100056 Page 3-33 Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report EXIST P/1. A ST. C/1. I 66' PROP R/W EXISTING FENCE I PROTECT IN PlACE IX tl' ___'12' . •LEXii��� IN TpW�----. PROP PROP I ------------�--�-lOXJ -2.a. a'c&G\--1 CURB- EJOST P/1. & --- A ST. C/1. I �."' -L I • I PROP R/W --- EXIST A ST. PROP P/l.�--�--C,/1., ______ R/W,r-__ _ -z� GRADE 66' SECTION A-A SCALE; N.T.S. 174' I �� "'"" fS \ ---------SECTIO�rB1-B1 SCALE: N.T.S. 174' PROP BLDG --------------------------- 60' I .� nm Q.}� - ""OP BUlG PROP 11-----------+-'FS-l---------------+---+----------il Source(s): Thienes Engineering, Inc. (01-19-2021) Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga ---------------------------2_5,:------------------------------------1--0.5% ------------1.2,: --- SECTION B2-B2 SCAI..E:N.T.S. BUILDING EXIST SET8�ACK _____R/W ,:,.. I 11' ... I 20' I J2' ��---111--\P,sROP,,_ ______ --+ --�I ___ _ ·�·, BLDG � I =-=-----------__ -__ -_-_f,Hi'•�,,,m .. ;,_-� __ �.�,..�_\--,. __ _,_ 20:s �-,-,--JJ8f-- V-GUTTER I --�� PROP 3' 1 --�s=E=c=Tai-co=N c-c SCALE: N.T.S. I 4th STREET ----�-"r 60' I �-f L --- �---; t ��T PAD 6thSIBEET EXIST '[ ---� .... ---R/W 60' ----·-:o�---------+ ff_!IV P£R PlAN 191' 60' 245' 22' 125' SECTION F-F _______ ,SCAI.£: N.T.S.-+------ 125' PROP 126' 60' 0,5,: 82' --, SECTION G-0 SCALE:N.T.S. 3.0 Project Description 6a.JRB EJOST p 5.5' Figure 3-l 9b Conceptual Grading Plan SCH No. 2020100056 Page 3-34 Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report Source(s): Thienes Engineering, Inc. (01-19-2021) Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga BLDG1 VOLUME TABLE CUT/FILL VOLUME(cyds) Color CUT 74,000 FILL 98,000 STREET VOLUME TABLE CUT/Fill VOLUME( cyds) Color CUT 7,000 ■ FILL 8,000 ■ BLDG2 VOLUME TABLE I CUT/Fill VOLUME(cyds) Color CUT 118,000 ■ FILL 112,000 ■ 3.0 Project Description I I l-1I 'W1 -I 1w1 I CI:1 : I I�:I I I I I ' I I �: I I I I I I I I I I r I I I I I I Figure 3-20 Cut and Fill Map SCH No. 2020100056 Page 3-35 Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.0 Project Description Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 3-36 While the grading operation is anticipated to balance on-site, for purposes of analysis in this Draft EIR, it is assumed that there could be a need for the use of heavy haul truck trips during grading activities. It is estimated that there could be up to five one-way truck trips per day during grading operations. The depth of excavation would vary for the Project components, but would likely extend to maximum depths of up to 26-feet below the ground service (bgs) for installation of the Project’s infiltration vaults. Following the completion of grading, foundations, slabs, and tilt-up wall panels would be poured and the proposed buildings would be erected, connected to the underground utility system, and painted. Finally, finish grading/paving would occur and landscaping and fencing/walls would be installed. For purposes of analysis in this Draft EIR, it is anticipated that construction activities would generally follow a schedule similar to that listed in Table 3-2, Estimated Construction Schedule, below, and would generally utilize the typical heavy equipment listed in Table 3-3, Estimated Construction Equipment Fleet. The exact calendar dates of each construction activity are subject to change and may differ from those listed in Table 3-2. This construction schedule represents a “worst-case” analysis scenario should construction occurs 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.6 The duration of construction activity and associated equipment represents a reasonable approximation of the expected construction fleet as required per CEQA Guidelines. Table 3-2 Estimated Construction Schedule Area Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Days Overall Site Site Work Demolition/Crushing 07/01/2021 10/04/2021 68 Grading 07/01/2021 10/04/2021 68 Building 1 Site Work Utilities/Infrastructure Construction 010/05/2021 01/24/2022 80 Paving 01/25/2022 02/21/2022 20 Vertical Construction Building Construction/Architectural Coating 02/22/2022 11/28/2022 200 Building 2 Site Work Utilities/Infrastructure Construction 010/05/2021 01/24/2022 80 Paving 01/25/2022 02/21/2022 20 Vertical Construction Building Construction/Architectural Coating 02/22/2022 11/28/2022 200 6 As shown in the CalEEMod User’s Guide Version 2016.3.2, Section 4.3 “OFFROAD Equipment” as the analysis year increases, emission factors for the same equipment pieces decrease due to the natural turnover of older equipment being replaced by newer less polluting equipment and new regulatory requirements. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.0 Project Description Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 3-37 Table 3-3 Estimated Construction Equipment Fleet Area Phase Name Equipment Amount Hours Per Building 1 Utilities/Infrastructure Excavators 1 8 Skip Loaders/Backhoes 3 8 Trencher 1 8 Water Trucks 1 4 Building Construction Cranes 1 8 Crawler Tractors 1 8 Forklifts 2 8 Generator Sets 1 8 Laser Screed 1 8 Scissor Lifts/Boom Lifts 8 8 Skip Loaders/Backhoes 3 8 Water Trucks 1 4 Welders 2 8 Paving Pavers 1 8 Paving Equipment 1 8 Rollers 1 8 Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 8 Building 2 Utilities/Infrastructure Excavators 1 8 Skip Loaders/Backhoes 3 8 Trencher 1 8 Water Trucks 1 4 Building Construction Cranes 1 8 Crawler Tractors 1 8 Forklifts 2 8 Generator Sets 1 8 Laser Screed 1 8 Scissor Lifts/Boom Lifts 8 8 Skip Loaders/Backhoes 3 8 Water Trucks 1 4 Welders 2 8 Paving Pavers 1 8 Paving Equipment 1 8 Rollers 1 8 Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 8 Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.0 Project Description Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 3-38 Construction workers would travel to the site by passenger vehicle, and construction equipment and building materials deliveries would arrive by medium- and heavy-duty trucks. Trucks would use designated truck routes including 4th Street and 6th Street. It is anticipated that construction vehicles traveling to the Project site would be routed from I-15, east along 4th Street, to the Project site. Additionally, if needed, construction vehicles could continue on 4th Street to Etiwanda Avenue, go north to 6th Street and west to the Building 2 site entrance. Detailed construction routes would be determined in coordination with the City as part of the encroachment permit process. It is expected that the construction trailer, laydown yard, parking, and crusher (needed to crush concrete so that it can be re-used on-site as grading fill material) would be located in the eastern portion of the Project site. AC would be pulverized in place. For purposes of analysis in this Draft EIR, construction equipment is expected to operate on the Project site approximately eight hours per day, six days per week (Monday through Saturday). Even though the Rancho Cucamonga Development Code permits construction to occur for a longer period of time, construction equipment is not in continuous use and some pieces of equipment are used only periodically throughout a typical day of construction. Thus, approximately eight hours of daily use per piece of equipment is a reasonable assumption. Should construction activities need to occur at night (such as concrete pouring activities which benefit from reduced transit times and air temperatures that are lower than what occurs during daytime), the Project Applicant would be required to obtain authorization for nighttime work from the City of Rancho Cucamonga. In addition to on-site construction activities, the Project would involve site adjacent roadway and driveway access improvements, as previously described. As described above, utility infrastructure would be installed on-site and would connect to existing utility lines in the adjacent roadways, or future utility lines that may be installed in the future (e.g., electric and telecommunications lines installed by RCMU). Construction of the at-grade crossing would involve the removal and replacement of existing rail at the crossing and construction of the 6th Street roadway connection. This construction activity is expected to use a limited number of construction equipment including one backhoe, one dump truck and one roller. It is estimated that construction of the at-grade crossing would last approximately 3 weeks. G. Operational Characteristics At the time this Draft EIR was prepared, the specific tenants of the proposed buildings were unknown; however, as previously discussed in Section 3.4.3.B, based on the proposed building design/site plan, it is anticipated that the proposed buildings would be operated as high-cube non-sort fulfillment center and high-cube cold storage warehouse uses, with one tenant in each building. As previously discussed, for purposes of analysis in this Draft EIR, it is assumed that 90% of the building square footage would be occupied by high-cube non-sort fulfillment center warehouse uses and the remaining 10% would be occupied by high-cube cold storage warehouse uses. The Project’s buildings are designed such that business operations would be conducted within the enclosed buildings, with the exception of traffic movement and parking. The Project is assumed to be operational 24 hours per day, seven days per week, with exterior loading and parking areas illuminated at night. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.0 Project Description Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 3-39 The number of employees generated by the Project would be dependent on the future businesses that occupy the proposed buildings. For purposes of analysis in this Draft EIR, and based on employment generation factors presented in the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan for General Industrial Land uses, it is estimated the Project would generate approximately 1,479 employees. This is a net increase of 277 employees compared to the number of employees that would be generated with occupation of the existing buildings (refer to additional information about employment generation provided in Section 4.12, Population and Housing, of this Draft EIR). As further discussed in Section 4.13, Transportation, of this Draft EIR, during operation, employees, visitors, and vehicles hauling goods would travel to and from the Project site on a daily basis. Using the trip generation rates in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (10th Edition) for high-cube non-sort fulfillment center warehouse and high-cube cold storage warehouse uses, Project operations are expected to generate an estimated 4,008 actual vehicle trip-ends per day, and a net increase of 976 vehicle trip-ends per day when taking into consideration daily trips that would be generated if the existing buildings were occupied (3,032 actual vehicle trip-ends per day). Pursuant to State law, on-road diesel-fueled trucks are required to comply with various air quality and greenhouse gas emission standards, including, but not limited to, the type of fuel used, engine model year stipulations, aerodynamic features, and idling time restrictions. Compliance with State law is mandatory and inspections of on-road diesel trucks subject to applicable State laws are conducted by the California Air Resources Board (CARB). This Draft EIR is intended to provide a conservative environmental analysis of the Project’s potential impacts. For instance, a cold storage warehouse generates greater environmental impacts than a high cube warehouse, since cold storage generates more trips per square foot and has higher energy impacts due to the low temperatures required by the facility’s refrigerated trucks and on-site storage. In the event that the Project is occupied in the future by 100% high-cube warehouses uses (and no cold- storage), those operations would be less than, and therefore within, the envelope of impacts analyzed by this Draft EIR. A high-cube sort fulfillment center warehouse is not proposed as part of the Project, and the site plan as proposed does not support this on-site use. Nevertheless, to provide a conservative analysis, this Draft EIR also analyzes, where applicable, the operational impacts resulting from replacement of the non-sort fulfillment center use with a sort fulfillment center use. Specifically, a supplemental analysis is provided, where applicable, of 90% high-cube sort fulfillment center warehouse operations and 10% high-cube cold storage warehouse uses. This supplemental analysis is related to impacts based on trip generation (e.g., air quality, energy, greenhouse gas emissions, off-site traffic noise, and transportation) and would be expected to generate an estimated 13,070 actual vehicle trip-ends per day, and a net increase of 10,038 total vehicle trip-ends per day (passenger cars and trucks) when taking into consideration daily trips that would be generated by use of the existing buildings (3,032 actual vehicle trip-ends per day as discussed in Section 4.13). For comparison, the high-cube non-sort fulfillment center warehouse and high-cube cold storage building operations would generate 3,472 actual passenger car vehicle trip ends per day, compared to 12,528 actual passenger car vehicle trip ends per day with the high-cube sort fulfillment center warehouse use. There would be a minimal difference in truck trip ends per day (536 trips ends per day with a non-sort warehouse operation compared to 542 Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.0 Project Description Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 3-40 trip ends per day with a sort warehouse operation), and no difference in trip generation for the high- cube cold storage warehouse use. 3.4.4 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT The Project Applicant and the City of Rancho Cucamonga are contemplating entering into a Development Agreement related to the Project. California Government Code Sections 65864-65869.5 authorize the use of development agreements between any city, county, or city and county, with any person having a legal or equitable interest in real property that is subject to a development proposal. The Development Agreement would provide the Project Applicant with assurance that development of the Project may proceed subject to the rules and regulations in effect at the time of Project approval. The Development Agreement would also provide the City of Rancho Cucamonga with assurance that certain obligations of the Project Applicant would be met, such as the required timing of public improvements, the Applicant's contribution toward funding community improvements, and other conditions. No physical changes in the environment (beyond those described herein) are assumed in connection with the Development Agreement. 3.4.5 TREE REMOVAL PERMIT As further discussed in Section 4.3, Biological Resources, of this Draft EIR, trees in the City of Rancho Cucamonga are regulated by Section 17.16.080 of the City’s Development Code. A tree removal permit is required prior to removal of any “heritage tree.” There are up to 125 trees located on-site that meet the minimum requirements for classification as a heritage tree. The majority of these trees would be removed with implementation of the Project; therefore, a tree removal permit is required. As previously discussed, the proposed conceptual landscape plan includes the planting of new trees on- site. These trees would meet the requirements for tree replacement as established in the City’s Development Code. 3.5 SUMMARY OF REQUESTED ACTIONS The City of Rancho Cucamonga has primary approval responsibility for the Project. As such, the City serves as the Lead Agency for this Draft EIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15050. The City’s Planning Commission will evaluate this Draft EIR and the Project Applicant’s requested discretionary applications, and will make a recommendation to the City Council on the legislative portions of the application and whether the EIR should be certified. The City Council is the decision-making authority for the Project and will consider the Project along with the Planning Commission’s recommendations and will make a final decision to approve, approve with changes, or deny the Project. The City will consider the information contained in this Draft EIR and the Project’s Administrative Record in its decision-making processes. In the event of approval of the Project and certification of the EIR, the City would conduct administrative reviews and process ministerial permits and approvals to implement Project requirements and conditions of approval. The Final EIR informs State, regional, and local government approvals needed for construction and/or operation of the Project, whether or not such actions are known or are explicitly listed. A list of the anticipated actions under City of Rancho Cucamonga jurisdiction is provided in Table 3-4, Project Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.0 Project Description Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 3-41 Related Approvals/Permits; the initial discretionary approvals to be considered by the City Council were described previously in this section. In addition, discretionary and/or administrative actions may be necessary from other government agencies to fully implement the Project. Table 3-4 also lists the government agencies that may be required to use the Project’s EIR during their consultation and review of the Project and its implementing actions, and provides a summary of the anticipated subsequent actions associated with the Project. Table 3-4 Project Related Approvals/Permits Public Agency Approvals and Decisions City of Rancho Cucamonga Discretionary Approvals Planning Commission and/or City Council  Approve, conditionally approve, or deny: o General Plan Amendment o Zoning Map Amendment o Site Plan and Architectural Review (DRC2020-00202) o Tentative Parcel Map No. 20271 o Development Agreement o Tree Removal Permit  Certify the Project’s EIR along with appropriate CEQA Findings. Subsequent Discretionary and Ministerial Approvals City of Rancho Cucamonga  Approve Grading Plans and Issue Permits  Approve Final Maps  Approve Building Plans and Issue Permits  Issue Landscape Permits  Approve Street Improvement Plans and Issue Permits.  Approve Infrastructure Plans and Issue Permits  Approve Encroachment Permits for Construction Activities in the Public Right-of-Way  Approve Night-time Construction Activities  Accept Public Right-of-Way Dedications  Approve the Final Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) prepared in accordance with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit requirements. Responsible and Other Agencies/Entities – Subsequent Approvals and Permits California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC)  Approval of the 6th Street at-grade crossing of the BNSF railroad spur State Water Resources Control Board  Coverage under the statewide general National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) for stormwater discharges from construction sites South Coast Air Quality Management District  Issuance of permits to construct and/or permits to operate new stationary sources of equipment that emit or control air contaminants, such as HVAC units Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.0 Project Description Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 3-42 Public Agency Approvals and Decisions City of Ontario  Approval of encroachment permit for 4th Street intersection improvements and traffic signal modifications. Utility Service Providers  Issuance of permits and associated approvals, as necessary for the installation of on-site new utility infrastructure or connections to existing facilities. Burlington North Santa Fe (BNSF)  Approval of the 6th Street at-grade crossing of the BNSF railroad spur Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.0 Environmental Setting and Impact Evaluation Overview Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No.2020100056 Page 4-1 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND IMPACT EVALUATION OVERVIEW 4.0.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING OVERVIEW In conformance with Section 15125(a) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) must include a description of the local and regional physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the project, normally as they exist at the time the Notice of Preparation (NOP) is published. The environmental setting will normally constitute the baseline physical conditions by which a lead agency determines whether an impact is significant. This Section provides a summary overview of the current regional and local setting of the Project. The NOP, which is included in Appendix A of this Draft EIR, was published for public review on October 2, 2020. A detailed description of the environmental setting (baseline conditions), as required by CEQA, is provided in Sections 4.1 through 4.15, of this Draft EIR, which address individual environmental topics. As further discussed in Section 6.1, Effects Determined Not to be Significant, of this Draft EIR, the City has concluded that the Project would have no impact related to agriculture and forestry resources and mineral resources due to the lack of these resources on-site. The Project is also not located in an area subject to wildfires and would have no impacts related to this issue. Additionally, the Project involves redevelopment of the Project site with industrial uses and would not directly generate new residents; therefore, the Project would have a less than significant impact related to public services and recreation. No further discussion of these topics is provided in this Section. A. Regional 1. Regional Setting The Project site is located in the southwestern part of San Bernardino County in the City of Rancho Cucamonga (refer to Figure 3-1, Location Map). San Bernardino County, with a land area of 20,105 square miles, is located in the southeastern portion of the State of California. It is bordered by Los Angeles County, Orange County, and Kern County on the west, the Colorado River and the States of Arizona and Nevada on the east, Riverside County on the south, and Inyo County and the southwest corner of Clark County, Nevada on the north. The City of Rancho Cucamonga and its Sphere of Influence encompass 24,442 gross acres (City of Rancho Cucamonga, 2010b). The City is surrounded by developed areas of various municipalities to the west, south and east, including the cities of Upland, Ontario, and Fontana and a large area of unincorporated San Bernardino County to the north (refer to Figure 3-1). The northernmost portion of the City’s Sphere of Influence is adjacent to the San Gabriel Mountains in the San Bernardino National Forest. The City’s topography is relatively flat, with the exception of the foothill areas in the northern portion of the City. The City of Rancho Cucamonga’s southern boundary with the City of Ontario is formed by 4th Street, which also forms the southern boundary of the Project site. Interstate and regional access to the City is Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.0 Environmental Setting and Impact Evaluation Overview Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No.2020100056 Page 4-2 provided by Interstate (I)-15, which runs in a general north-south direction and crosses the eastern portion of the City, and by State Route (SR)-210, an east-west freeway which passes through the center of the City. I-10 also provides regional access and is located approximately 0.75 mile south of the City boundary. 2. Regional Planning Context As further discussed in Section 4.10, Land Use and Planning, of this Draft EIR, the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) is a Joint Powers Authority (JPA) under California State law, established as an association of local governments and agencies that voluntarily convene as a forum to address regional issues. Under federal law, SCAG is designated as a Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) and under State law as a Regional Transportation Planning Agency and a Council of Governments. The SCAG region encompasses six counties (Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura) and 191 cities in an area covering more than 38,000 square miles. SCAG develops long-range regional transportation plans including sustainable communities strategy and growth forecast components, regional transportation improvement programs, regional housing needs allocations, and other plans for the region (SCAG, 2020a). On April 7, 2016, SCAG adopted the 2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) to address the region’s future needs for “mobility, economy, and sustainability” (SCAG, 2016). On September 3, 2020, SCAG’s Regional Council adopted Connect SoCal (SCAG’s 2020-2045 RTP/SCS). Connect SoCal is a long-range visioning plan that builds upon and expands land use and transportation strategies established over several planning cycles to increase mobility options and achieve a more sustainable growth pattern. The 2016-2040 RTP/SCS and Connect SoCal each include a Technical Appendix titled “Goods Movement” that apply to the Project because the Project entails a use that is closely associated with, and relies directly on the goods movement system (e.g., manufacturing, construction, retail trade, wholesale trade and transportation, and warehousing). The City of Rancho Cucamonga is in the South Coast Air Basin (SoCAB), which is managed by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). The SoCAB includes parts of San Bernardino, Los Angeles, and Riverside counties and all of Orange County. The SCAQMD is directly responsible for reducing emissions from stationary (area and point), mobile, and indirect sources. It has responded to this requirement by preparing a sequence of Air Quality Management Plans (AQMPs). An AQMP establishes a program of rules and regulations directed at attaining the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS). The regional plan applicable to the proposed Project is SCAQMD’s 2016 AQMP, which is discussed in Section 4.2, Air Quality, of this Draft EIR. The Project site is in the Airport Influence Area (AIA) of the Ontario International Airport. The Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ONT ALUCP), adopted by the Ontario City Council on April 19, 2011, promotes compatibility between Ontario International Airport and the land uses that surround it. The ONT ALUCP includes compatibility criteria, which provides the foundation for compatibility policies. As further discussed in Section 4.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.0 Environmental Setting and Impact Evaluation Overview Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No.2020100056 Page 4-3 this Draft EIR, the Project site is located outside the Safety Zones and Noise Impact Zones, but is within an Airspace Protection Zone and an Overflight Notification Zone (refer to Figure 4.8-1, Compatibility Policy Map: Airspace Protection Zones, and Figure 4.8-2, Compatibility Policy Map: Overflight Notification Zones). As discussed in Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, the Project site is located within the jurisdiction of the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). Water quality information for the Santa Ana River is contained in the Santa Ana RWQCB Water Quality Control Plan for the Santa Ana River Basin (Basin Plan). The Basin Plan establishes water quality standards for the ground and surface waters of the region, including the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The City of Rancho Cucamonga is located within the Chino and Cucamonga Groundwater Basins. The California Department of Water Resources (DWR) currently categorizes the Chino and Cucamonga Groundwater Basins as “very low” priority. Therefore, the Chino and Cucamonga Groundwater Basins are not subject to the requirements of the 2014 Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA). B. Local 1. Project Location The Project site is located at 12434 4th Street, in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County, California. The Project site is bounded by 4th Street to the south and 6th Street to the north, and generally located between Etiwanda Avenue to the east and Santa Anita Avenue to the west. The Project location is shown on Figure 3-1 of this Draft EIR. Site-adjacent improvement areas are limited to the existing portions of 4th Street and 6th Street that front the Project site and would be subject to roadway improvements and utility installations, as described in Section 3.0 of this Draft EIR. The 6th Street at-grade crossing study area was previously shown in Figure 3-12, 6th Street At-Grade Crossing, in Section 3.0, and includes the area potentially subject to physical impacts associated with construction of the 6th Street at-grade crossing of the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) railway west of the Project site. 2. Planning Context With respect to local planning considerations, Title 17 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code is the City’s Development Code. The Development Code contains land use and development procedures and regulations applicable to development in the City. Section 17.26, Establishment of Zoning Districts, of the Development Code establishes the framework of zoning districts in the city and their relationships to the City’s General Plan land use designations. The City of Rancho Cucamonga adopted the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan (City of Rancho Cucamonga, 2010a) and certified the Rancho Cucamonga 2010 General Plan Update Program Environmental Impact Report (General Plan EIR) on May 19, 2010; the General Plan has subsequently been amended. The Project site is within the Southeast Focus Area, as designated in the General Plan; this area supports the only remaining land in Rancho Cucamonga devoted to heavy industrial uses. Existing General Plan land use designations and zoning for the Project site are Heavy Industrial (northern portion of the site – approximately 55.2 acres) and General Industrial (southern portion of the site – approximately 36.2 acres). Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.0 Environmental Setting and Impact Evaluation Overview Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No.2020100056 Page 4-4 3.Project Site Setting As shown in Figure 4.0-1, Project Vicinity, Aerial Overview, the southern portion of the Project site is currently occupied by an approximately 22-foot-high, 23,240-square-foot (sf), retail building, and an approximately 52-foot-high, 1,431,000-sf warehouse building (includes a 58,000-sf mezzanine), which were occupied by Big Lots until February 2020. These buildings could be reoccupied under existing conditions without any discretionary approvals from the City. Truck trailer parking surrounds the warehouse building, and loading docks are located on the east and south sides of the building. Automobile parking is provided in the southeast portion of the Project site, and east of the existing retail building. Ornamental landscaping, including ornamental trees and heritage trees, exists throughout the site, primarily along 4th Street. Existing surface parking lots (auto and truck trailer) and vacant land (previously a vineyard) are located in the northern portion of the Project site. Existing structures and improvements would be demolished to accommodate the Project. Under existing conditions, 6th Street west of the Project site terminates in the eastbound and westbound directions at the existing BNSF railway. This area is disturbed, with limited vegetation. The Project is located in the Guasti United States Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5- minute quadrangle. As discussed in Section 4.3, Biological Resources, of this Draft EIR, due to previous and existing land uses and activities, no native plant communities or natural communities of special concern were observed within the Project site, site-adjacent improvement areas, 6th Street at-grade crossing study area, or surrounding areas. There is a mixture of developed land and disturbed vacant land on-site. The northernmost portion of the Project site is disturbed and includes a former grape vineyard and disturbed areas. These disturbances have eliminated the natural plant communities that once occurred (ELMT, 2020a). The majority of the 6th Street at-grade crossing study area is developed and is minimally vegetated or devoid of vegetation. The undeveloped portion of this area primarily supports early successional and non-native/weedy plant species (ELMT, 2020b). The Project site, site-adjacent improvement areas and 6th Street at-grade crossing study area do not contain suitable habitat to support sensitive plant or wildlife species. Further, these areas do not support Delhi Sand soils needed for suitable habitat for the Delhi Sands flower-loving fly (DSF) (ELMT and Bruyea, 2020; ELMT 2020b). There are 589 existing trees at the Project site, 125 of these meet the minimum requirements for a “heritage tree,” as defined in the City’s Development Code. There are 12 trees within the 6th Street at- grade crossing study area, one of which meets the criteria for a heritage tree (Psomas, 2021). There are no areas that would be considered jurisdictional by the Army Corps of Engineers, RWQCB, or California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) within the Project-site, site-adjacent improvement areas, or 6th Street at-grade crossing study area (ELMT, 2020a; ELMT 2020b). However, there is an ephemeral swale/channel and water detention basin that borders the eastern boundary of the Project site, but is outside of the Project limits (ELMT, 2020a). The entire Project site has been disturbed by previous development and agricultural activities. As discussed in Section 4.4, Cultural Resources, and Section 4.6, Geology and Soils, the records search, literature review and pedestrian survey determined that no historic resources are located on the Project site, site adjacent improvement areas, or 6th Street at-grade crossing study area, and no archaeological or paleontological resources are known to be present (BFSA 2020a; BFSA 2020b). The agricultural use of the Project site for the growing of grapes during the early to mid-twentieth century, as visible in Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.0 Environmental Setting and Impact Evaluation Overview Source(s): City of Rancho Cucamonga, ESRI, Nearmap Imagery (2020}, SB County (2019} Figure 4.0-l • - � 0 350 700 1,400 �� PL ---Feet �� Project Vicinity, Aerial Overview Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4-5 Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.0 Environmental Setting and Impact Evaluation Overview Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No.2020100056 Page 4-6 historic aerial photographs and represented by the remnant vineyard found within the north portion of the Project, is consistent with the Project’s proximity to the National Register-eligible Guasti Historic District, which is comprised of over 50 buildings and features (many of which have been removed). The Guasti Historic District is situated on Guasti Road between Archibald and Turner avenues, approximately 3.5 miles southwest of the Project site (BFSA, 2020a). The remnant vineyard on-site and surrounding areas, including the 6th Street at-grade crossing study area, are not identified for agricultural uses by the City’s General Plan or the California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. The nearest designated Farmland is located approximately 0.9 mile north of the Project site. As discussed in Section 4.6 of this Draft EIR, and shown on Figure 4.0-2, Topographic Map, the Project site is relatively flat and does not contain, nor is it adjacent to, any steep natural or manufactured slopes. The Project site is not located in a fault hazard area; the closest active fault to the site is the Red Hill Fault, which is located approximately 4.1 miles to the northwest. The site topography ranges from approximately 1,090 feet above mean sea level (amsl) in the northwestern area of the site to approximately 1,048 feet amsl in the southeastern area of the site. The site topography in the southern parcel generally slopes downward to the south at a gradient of less than approximately 1%, and to the south at a gradient of approximately 2% in the northern parcel. According to data from the nearest monitoring well located approximately 8,484 feet south of the Project site, groundwater is estimated to occur approximately 283 feet below the ground surface of the Project site; groundwater was not encountered at any of the borings conducted as part of the site-specific geotechnical investigation (SCG, 2021). There are various surface and subsurface drainage conveyances on the Project site, as further described in Section 4.9, which ultimately drain to a City of Ontario storm drain system within 4th Street (Thienes Engineering, 2021). A detailed discussion of hazardous material site listings for the Project site and surrounding areas is provided in the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) included in Appendix I of this Draft EIR, and a summary is provided in Section 4.8 of this Draft EIR. The Project site was historically used for agricultural purposes from at least 1938 through 1975, and existing buildings and facilities were occupied by Pic-N-Save and Big Lots. The Phase I ESA identified historic recognized environmental conditions (HRECs), and recognized environmental conditions (RECs) located on-site associated with previous uses. However, based on the laboratory results of the soil testing conducted as part of the site- specific subsurface investigation there are no contaminants from previous uses that would be considered a concern for the proposed industrial uses (Ardent, 2019a; Ardent, 2019b). Based on the site-specific Asbestos Sampling Report prepared for the Project site, asbestos containing (ACMs) are not present on-site (Ardent, 2019c). As described in Section 4.11, Noise, of this Draft EIR, the Project site is subject to the noise compatibility requirements of the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Public Health and Safety Element and the noise standards outlined in the Rancho Cucamonga Development Code for construction and operation. As noted in Section 4.11, existing hourly daytime (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.) noise levels Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report ·�H.S,T. Source(s): USGS (2018) Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cuca monga 4.0 Environmental Setting and Impact Evaluation Overview WHITTRAM AVE J--0 i §0' >l- JVALLEY-BLVD '.] FONTANA JURUPAAVE I Figure 4.0-2 Topographic Map SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4-7 Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.0 Environmental Setting and Impact Evaluation Overview Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No.2020100056 Page 4-8 range from 53.5 dBA Leq to 64.5 dBA Leq, while average nighttime (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) noise levels in the study area range from 54.6 dBA Leq to 62.7 dBA Leq. As described in Section 4.13, Transportation, of this Draft EIR, local access to the Project site is provided by 4th Street, designated as a Major Divided Arterial in the City’s General Plan, and 6th Street, a Secondary Arterial. The cities of Rancho Cucamonga and Ontario designate 6th Street and 4th Street, respectively, as truck routes. 6th Street current terminates west of the Project site at the BNSF railroad spur; however, the City plans to ultimately construct an at-grade crossing of the railroad spur to complete 6th Street between Santa Anita Avenue and Etiwanda Avenue. With respect to alternative modes of transportation, Omnitrans Transit Agency provides local transit service throughout San Bernardino County, including the City of Rancho Cucamonga; Omnitrans Route 61 extends along 4th Street, south of the Project site. There is an existing pedestrian pathway along the north side of 4th Street adjacent to the Project site, which extends east and west of the site. The BNSF railroad has facilities in the vicinity of the Project site used for freight service only, not for passenger service. There is an at-grade crossing of a BNSF freight line at 4th Street approximately 390 feet west of the Project site; however, based on train count data from November 2019, there is limited use of this facility (estimated one movement per week) (FRA, 2019). A railroad spur is located in the northeast portion of the Project site and provides access to a BNSF rail line. As discussed in Section 4.15, Utilities and Service Systems, of this Draft EIR, utility providers currently serving the Project site include Cucamonga Valley Water District (CVWD) (potable water, recycled water, and sewer service); Southern California Edison (SCE) (electric); Southern California Gas Company (SCGC) (natural gas); and Frontier Communications and Charter-Spectrum Communications (telecommunications). Each of these providers has existing utility infrastructure in roadways adjacent to the Project site. Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Utility (RCMU) has indicated an intent to provide electric service to the Project; however, RCMU does not currently have utility infrastructure in the vicinity. Solid waste collection services for the City, including the Project site, are provided by Burrtec Waste Industries. Solid waste that is not diverted is disposed of at the Mid-Valley Landfill, a County Class III (i.e., municipal waste) landfill located in Rialto, owned by the San Bernardino County Solid Waste Management Division, and operated by Burrtec Waste Industries. 4.Surrounding Land Uses The Project site is largely surrounded by developed areas that have Heavy Industrial and General Industrial General Plan land use designations and zoning. An SCE substation is located to the north of the Project site (across 6th Street). The San Bernardino County West Valley Detention Center (a short- term County jail facility) is located to the east (west of Etiwanda Avenue). South of the Project site, across 4th Street, are light industrial/warehouse uses in the Crossroads Business Park Specific Plan area of the City of Ontario. There are no residential uses in the Project vicinity; the nearest residential use is located 1.4 miles west of the Project site. 4.0.2 INTRODUCTION TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS Sections 4.1 through 4.15 of this Draft EIR provide analysis of impacts for those environmental topics where it was determined that the proposed Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project (Project) could Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.0 Environmental Setting and Impact Evaluation Overview Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No.2020100056 Page 4-9 result in “potentially significant impacts” as identified in the NOP included in Appendix A of this Draft EIR. Each topical section includes the following information: A description of the existing setting including a discussion of the regulatory framework, if applicable. Identification of thresholds of significance. Identification of applicable Regulatory Requirements (RRs). Analysis of potential Project impacts. Identification of Project-specific Mitigation Measures (MMs), if required, to reduce the identified Project impacts. Identification of the level of significance of impacts after mitigation, including unavoidable significant adverse impacts. Evaluation of potential cumulative impacts. As described in Section 3.0, the Project involves redevelopment of the existing approximately 23,240- sf retail building, 1,431,000-sf warehouse building, and associated automobile and truck trailer parking and landscaping with two high-cube warehouse buildings with a combined building area of approximately 2,175,000 sf The Project proposed and analyzed in this Draft EIR involves 90% occupancy by a high-cube non-sort fulfillment center warehouse uses, and 10% occupancy by a high- cube cold storage warehouse use. Additionally, the Project, as analyzed in this Draft EIR, includes associated vehicular and non-vehicular improvements, parking, landscaping, lighting, walls/fences, utility infrastructure, construction-related activities, and operations. A high-cube sort fulfillment center warehouse is not proposed as part of the Project, and the site plan as proposed does not support this type of on-site use. Nevertheless, to provide a conservative analysis, this Draft EIR also analyzes, where applicable, the operational impacts resulting from high-cube sort fulfillment center warehouse (90% of the building area) and high-cube cold storage warehouse uses (10% of the building area). The supplemental analysis is related to impact analyses that are based on trip generation. Therefore, the supplemental analysis is provided for applicable thresholds of significance in the Air Quality, Energy, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Noise and Transportation sections of this Draft EIR. The “Project” evaluated in this Draft EIR includes the proposed development on the approximately 91.4-gross-acre1 Project site, including a new public roadway referred to as “Street A” and minor off- site improvement areas adjacent to the Project site primarily for driveway/access improvements and utility connections (site-adjacent improvement areas). Although not required for Project operations or to mitigate any significant transportation impacts of the Project, the 6th Street at-grade crossing at the BNSF railroad spur, an off-site circulation improvement, was also evaluated in this Draft EIR. For 1 The Project site encompasses approximately 85.0 net acres, excluding existing and proposed public roadway right- of-way and other area to be granted to the City. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.0 Environmental Setting and Impact Evaluation Overview Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No.2020100056 Page 4-10 each topical area, analysis assumptions and impact conclusions with and without the 6th Street at-grade crossing are identified, as applicable. As discussed in Section 2.0, Introduction, analysis in this Draft EIR relies on information presented in the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan EIR, as applicable. The General Plan EIR, which is incorporated by reference in this Draft EIR, provides a broad discussion of the environmental setting for the City, and environmental effects of future development in the City, as anticipated under the General Plan, such as the Project. 4.0.3 REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES For each topical issue addressed in Sections 4.1 through 4.15, of this Draft EIR, certain applicable Regulatory Requirements (RR)s, and Project-specific Mitigation Measures (MM)s, as needed, are identified. These items are described below. Regulatory Requirements (RRs). RRs are based on federal, State, or local regulations or laws that are frequently required independently of CEQA review and also serve to offset or prevent specific impacts. The City may impose additional conditions on the project during the approval process, as appropriate, including those that are standard to all projects, typical to a project of a particular nature, or specific to the proposal. Project-specific Mitigation Measures (MMs). Where a potentially significant environmental effect has been identified and is not reduced to a level considered less than significant through the application of RRs, Project-specific MMs have been recommended in accordance with CEQA and will be included in the Project’s Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP). 4.0.4 ANALYSIS OF CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Section 15130 of the CEQA Guidelines states that cumulative impacts shall be discussed where they are significant. Section 15130 of the CEQA Guidelines further states that this discussion shall reflect the level and severity of the impact and the likelihood of occurrence, but not in as great a level of detail as that necessary for the Project alone. Section 15355 of the CEQA Guidelines defines cumulative impacts as “. . . two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts.” Section 15130(a) of the CEQA Guidelines states that “[a]n EIR shall discuss cumulative impacts of a project when the project’s incremental effect is cumulatively considerable.” Section 15355(b) of the CEQA Guidelines states that “cumulative impacts represent the change in the environment caused by the incremental impact of a project when added to other closely related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects in the vicinity.” Section 15130(b)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines states that the information utilized in an analysis of cumulative impacts should come from one of two sources, either: Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.0 Environmental Setting and Impact Evaluation Overview Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No.2020100056 Page 4-11 1. A list of past, present, and probable future projects producing related cumulative impacts, including if necessary, those projects outside the control of the agency, or 2. A summary of projections contained in an adopted local, regional, or Statewide plan, or related planning document, that describes or evaluates conditions contributing to the cumulative effect. As discussed in subsection 3.6, Project Components, of this Draft EIR, although the Project involves a General Plan amendment for a portion of the site (from Heavy Industrial to General Industrial) to provide a consistent land use designation for the Project, the Project is consistent with the land use envisioned for the Project site under the City’s General Plan. The cumulative impact analysis provided in the General Plan EIR is hereby incorporated by reference and is publicly available2 for review at the location cited in Section 2.5, Public Review of the EIR, of this Draft EIR. The General Plan EIR primarily utilizes the “summary of projections” approach (see Item No. 2 above) in the cumulative analysis, which focuses on regional projections. The City’s General Plan establishes policy to guide long-term (2030) development within the City of Rancho Cucamonga based on growth projections. Similarly, the SCAG growth projections (population, housing and employment), prepared as part of the RTP, provide estimates of long-term development within the region. The City of Rancho Cucamonga is part of SCAG’s San Bernardino Associated Governments Subregion 1 and the SCAG six-County region. The cumulative impact analysis in the General Plan EIR considers the environmental impacts from the City’s General Plan in combination with the potential environmental impacts of regional growth as projected through the year 2030. This approach provides for consideration of the combined effect of impacts that could be cumulatively considerable, in compliance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15130(b)(1) (City of Rancho Cucamonga, 2010b). Cumulative impacts are addressed for each topic analyzed in Sections 4.1 through 4.15 of this Draft EIR. Because of the nature of individual environmental factors, the cumulative area for each topical issue is not the same. The individual cumulative areas for the issues addressed in this Draft EIR are provided in the respective impact sections, and are consistent with the General Plan EIR, as applicable. In addition to the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan study area, the cumulative analysis for individual topical areas may consider specific cumulative study areas designated by respective agencies for regional or area-wide conditions. For instance, topic-specific cumulative study areas have been developed (e.g., SoCAB for air quality and the Santa Ana River Watershed for hydrology and water quality). Also, this Draft EIR considers regional programs directed at mitigating cumulative impacts of development such as those instituted for urban runoff. Finally, and where appropriate to the analysis in question, cumulative impacts are assessed with reference to a list of cumulative projects. A comprehensive cumulative project list was compiled based on information provided by the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division in conjunction with research conducted to identify cumulative development projects in nearby jurisdictions, including San Bernardino County and the cities of Ontario and Fontana. Figure 4.0-3, Cumulative Development Location Map, illustrates the location of identified cumulative development with respect to the Project 2 Available on the City’s website at: https://www.cityofrc.us/community-development/planning Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.0 Environmental Setting and Impact Evaluation Overview Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No.2020100056 Page 4-12 site. A summary of cumulative development projects and their proposed land uses are provided in Table 4.0-1, Cumulative Development Land Use Summary, below. An overall summary of the land uses proposed by the cumulative development projects is provided in Table 4.0-2, Summary of Land Uses Presented in Table 4.0-1. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.0 Environmental Setting and Impact Evaluation Overview Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No.2020100056 Page 4-14 Table 4.0-1 Cumulative Development Land Use Summary TAZ Name Land Use Quantity Units City of Rancho Cucamonga RC1 Tempo at the Resort1 Residential 80 DU RC2 Empire Lakes Specific Plan Residential 2,650 - 3,450 DU Non-Residential 220.000 TSF RC3 Homecoming at the Resort1 Multifamily (Mid-Rise) 867 DU RC4 Haven and Arrow Commercial 200.175 TSF RC5 8281 Utica Office General Office 12.000 TSF RC6 Watt Communities Residential 302 DU Commercial 8.650 TSF RC7 Cityscape Residential 160 DU RC8 Westburry Residential 133 DU RC9 Hickory and Arrow Industrial Industrial 34.161 TSF RC10 Two industrial warehouse buildings Industrial 651.000 TSF RC11 Milliken and Jersey Industrial Industrial 143.014 TSF RC12 Foothill and Mayten Industrial Industrial 171.322 TSF City of Ontario O1 PCUP13-034 Hotel 122 RMS City of Fontana F1 Southwest Industrial Park (SWIP), Speedway Industrial2 Commercial Retail 762.191 TSF Industrial 1778.446 TSF Existing Development to Remain 31.508 TSF F2 PDEV13-007 General Industrial 618.536 TSF San Bernardino County SB1 P201800248 Storage Facility 2.54 AC SB2 P201800216 Storage Yard 1.50-3.50 AC General Office Commercial Retail SB3 P201700333 General Light Industrial & Truck Storage 1.50 AC SB4 P201800608 Truck Terminal 4.01 AC SB5 P201700395 Gas Station 1.12 AC SB6 P201800098 General Office 5.000 TSF SB7 P201700725 Warehouse & General Office 10.080 TSF SB8 Kaiser Commerce Center Warehousing 165.324 TSF Note: DU = dwelling units; TSF = thousand square feet; AC = acre; RMS = rooms 1. Project is included in the Empire Lakes Specific Plan 2. Source: Southwest Industrial Park (SWIP) Project TIA, RBF Consulting, September 29, 2011 Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.0 Environmental Setting and Impact Evaluation Overview Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No.2020100056 Page 4-15 Table 4.0-2 Summary of Land Uses Presented in Table 4.0-1 Land Use Quantity Units Residential 4,192-4,992 DU Commercial 988.02 TSF Industrial 3,561.80 TSF Hotel 122 RMS Other Non-Residential Uses (measured in TSF) 261.588 TSF Other Non-Residential Uses (measured in AC) 10.67-12.67 AC Note: DU = dwelling units; TSF = thousand square feet; AC = acre; RMS = rooms 1. Land Uses, Quantity, and Units are a summary of the data provided in Table 4.0-1, Cumulative Development Land Use Summary Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.0 Environmental Setting and Impact Evaluation Overview Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No.2020100056 Page 4-16 4.0.5 REFERENCES Ardent Environmental Group, Inc. (Ardent). 2019a (October 8). Results of a Subsurface Investigation Big Lots Warehouse 12322 and 12434 East 4th Street Rancho Cucamonga, California. (Included in Appendix I2 of this Draft EIR). ———. 2019b (October 8). Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Big Lots Warehouse 12322 and 12434 East 4th Street Rancho Cucamonga, California. (Included in Appendix I1 of this Draft EIR). ———. 2019c (October 23). Asbestos Sampling Report 12322 and 12434 East 4th Street Rancho Cucamonga, California. (Included in Appendix I3 of this Draft EIR). Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. (BFSA). 2020 (December 17). A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Rancho Cucamonga, California. (Included in Appendix D of this Draft EIR). ———. 2020b (September 16). Paleontological Assessment for the 12434 4th Street Project Rancho Cucamonga, California. (Included in Appendix G of this Draft EIR). ELMT Consulting (ELMT). 2021a (January 22). Habitat Assessment for the Proposed Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Located at 12434 4th Street, City of Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County, California. (Included in Appendix C1 of this Draft EIR). ———. 2021b (January 22). Habitat Assessment for the Proposed At-Grade Crossing of the BNSF Railroad at 6th Street in Association with the Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project. (Included in Appendix C3 of this Draft EIR). ELMT and Bruyea Biological Consulting. 2020 (May). Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Site, 12434 4th Street, City of Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County, California, Delhi Sands Flower-Loving Fly Habitat Suitability Assessment. (Included as Attachment E in Appendix C1 of this Draft EIR). Federal Railroad Administrative (FRA). 2019 (November 7). US DOT Crossing Inventory Form -4th Street. City of Rancho Cucamonga (Rancho Cucamonga). 2010a (amended through September 2019). Rancho Cucamonga General Plan. Available: https://www.cityofrc.us/community- development/planning ———. 2010b. Rancho Cucamonga 2010 General Plan Update Program Environmental Impact Report SCH No. 2000061027. Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). 2016. SCAG 2016-2040 Regional Transportation Program and Sustainable Communities Strategy. Available: http://scagrtpscs.net/Documents/2016/final/f2016RTPSCS.pdf ———. 2020a. Connect SoCal (The 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy of the Southern California Association of Governments. Available: https://www.connectsocal.org/Documents/Adopted/fConnectSoCal-Plan.pdf Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.0 Environmental Setting and Impact Evaluation Overview Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No.2020100056 Page 4-17 City of Ontario (Ontario). 2011 (April). Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. Available: http://www.ontarioplan.org/alucp-for-ontario-international-airport/ Psomas. 2021 (January 22). Tree Inventory Report for the Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project at 12434 4th Street, Rancho Cucamonga, California. (Included in Appendix C2 of this Draft EIR). Southern California Geotechnical (SCG). 2021 (January 12). Geotechnical Investigation Two Proposed Warehouses, 12434 4th Street, Rancho Cucamonga, California. (Included in Appendix F of this Draft EIR). Thienes Engineering, Inc. (Thienes). 2021 (January 20). Preliminary Hydrology Calculations for Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga – 2 Buildings 4th Street Ranch Cucamonga, CA. (Included in Appendix J2 of this Draft EIR). Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.1 Aesthetics Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.1-1 4.1 AESTHETICS The section describes the existing visual character of the Project site and the surrounding area. This section also addresses the consistency of the Project with applicable regulations addressing scenic quality and potential light and glare impacts. Information presented in this section is primarily based on the analyses of site photographs, site reconnaissance, and Project design information provided in the Project application. There were no Notice of Preparation (NOP) comment letters received related to aesthetics. 4.1.1 RELEVANT POLICIES AND REGULATIONS A. Local 1. Rancho Cucamonga General Plan The Managing Land Use, Community Design, and Historic Resources Chapter of the General Plan focuses on land use, community design, and historic resources and how they help shape the physical features of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Figure LU-6, Community Design Framework, identifies a number of streets in the City as Special Boulevards for which the landscape/hardscape design, trails, and setback standards will be master planned and consistently applied throughout the length of the Special Boulevard segment or route. As identified on Figure LU-6, the nearest Special Boulevard to the Project site is Charles Smith Avenue/Rochester Avenue, approximately 0.6 mile west of the Project site, and west of Interstate (I)-15. Table LU-22, General Plan Special Boulevards, of the General Plan also identifies segments of 4th Street and 6th Street as Special Boulevards; however, these segments are not located along the Project site boundaries but are farther west (west of Archibald Avenue and Haven Avenue, respectively). (Rancho Cucamonga, 2010a) Figure LU-6 also identifies gateways that provide the first impression of Rancho Cucamonga for people entering the City, and view corridors that provide distant views of the San Gabriel Mountains to the north and/or views of the Santa Ana Mountains to the south. There are no gateways or view corridors adjacent to the Project site. The nearest view corridor is 2.3 miles west of the Project site along Haven Avenue. A number of goals and policies in the General Plan address aesthetics and the visual environment of the City. These relevant goals and policies are addressed under Threshold 1.3 in Section 4.1.4, below, along with the Project’s consistency with each goal and policy. 2. Rancho Cucamonga Development Code Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code Title 17 is the City’s Development Code, which includes development standards and guidelines to implement the goals and objectives of the General Plan and to guide and manage the future growth of the City in accordance with the General Plan. Among other purposes, the established standards and guidelines are to attain the physical advantages that result from comprehensive and orderly land use and resource planning. Chapter 17.36.040 of the Development Code includes development standards for industrial districts. The development standards relevant to scenic Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.1 Aesthetics Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.1-2 quality include, but are not limited to, the following: minimum lot area, building setbacks, maximum height limits; landscape requirements; streetscape setback requirements; and, equipment screening. Other sections of the Development Code relevant to scenic quality of the Project include:  Chapter 17.16.080 and 17.80 (Tree Removal Permit and Tree Preservation Ordinance), promote the preservation of eucalyptus windrows1 and heritage trees,2 which are considered community resources. These provisions of the Development Code are further discussed in Section 4.3, Biological Resources, of this Draft EIR. Generally, these regulations include guidelines for the protection of heritage trees, tree replacement, and tree maintenance.  Chapter 17.48 (Fences, Walls, and Screening), regulates the height and location of fences to provide light, air, and privacy without obstructing views, establishes buffers between different land uses, and safeguards against visual obstructions at the intersections of streets and/or driveways. The provisions apply to all projects that undergo site development review.  Chapter 17.58 (Outdoor Lighting Standards), regulates lighting to balance the safety and security needs for lighting with the City’s desire to preserve dark skies and to ensure that light trespass and glare have negligible impact on surrounding property (especially residential) and roadways.  Chapter 17.120.030 (Building Design), indicates that a recognizable design theme shall be established for each building. That theme shall be one which creates a harmonious building style, form, size, color, material, and roofline, as it relates to surrounding planned or existing development. Subtle variations are encouraged that provide visual interest but do not create abrupt changes causing discord in the overall design of the immediate area.  Chapter 17.122.030 (Design Provisions for Commercial, Office, and Industrial Development), provides design provisions and guidelines specific to certain land uses (i.e., industrial land uses). The majority of design standards and guidelines for commercial, office, and industrial development are provided in Chapter 17.120 (General Design Provisions). The standards that are unique to industrial development and that influence the visual character of a development site include parking areas and special architectural provisions.  Chapter 17.124 (Design Provisions for Public Art), promotes the general welfare and enhance the quality of life for city residents, workers, and visitors by improved public placemaking which will require certain developments to include or provide for public art or architecture that qualifies as art. Specific Development Code standards addressing scenic quality that are relevant to the Project, including standards for areas in Industrial Districts, are discussed under Threshold 1.3 in Section 4.1.4, below. 1 A windrow is a continuous row of trees originally planted to create a windbreak or physical separation between two uses. 2 Heritage trees include eucalyptus windrows; trees that are over 30 feet tall with 20 inches of trunk diameter; multi-trunk trees with 30 inches or more of trunk diameter; a stand of trees; or other trees that are historically or culturally significant. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.1 Aesthetics Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.1-3 4.1.2 EXISTING SETTING A. Visual Characteristics of the Project Site and Surrounding Area 1. Visual Character of Project Site and Surrounding Area The Project site is located in the southeast portion of the City, within the Southeast Focus Area, as designated in the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan. The Southeast Focus Area is developed primarily with industrial uses and the visual character of this area, including the Project site, is urban in nature, composed mainly of large parcels with one- and two-story industrial buildings without a cohesive design theme. The Project site is visible from immediately surrounding industrial land uses (to the north, south, and west), and the San Bernardino County West Valley Detention Center (to the east), which are not public or otherwise sensitive viewer groups. In addition, the Project site is visible to drivers, pedestrians, and bicyclists along adjacent public roadways. The visual character of the area is depicted in the site photographs provided in Figure 4.1-1a, Site Photographs North of Project Site, and Figure 4.1-1b, Site Photographs South of Project Site, which were taken from ground level public vantage points adjacent to the Project site and are representative of views from surrounding roadways, including sidewalks. The Project site is relatively flat and gradually slopes from northwest to southeast. The site topography ranges from approximately 1,090 feet above mean sea level (amsl) in the northwestern area of the site to approximately 1,048 feet amsl in the southeastern area of the site. Because the topography of the Project site and surrounding area is relatively flat, and the surrounding area is predominantly developed, views of the Project site from vantage points beyond the adjacent roadways and land uses are obstructed primarily by intervening development. Travelers on the adjacent roadways have distant views as they look down the roadway corridors. As previously noted in Section 4.1.1A.1, the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan identifies view corridors that are areas that provide a long-range view of scenic resources (i.e., the San Gabriel Mountains to the north and/or views of the Santa Ana Mountains to the south), usually along a roadway. There are no designated view corridors adjacent to the Project site. The nearest view corridor is 2.3 miles west of the Project site along Haven Avenue. The photographs in Figure 4.1-1a depict views from vantage points3 north of the Project site and are representative of existing views experienced by individuals traveling along 6th Street. Views 1 and 3 depict views looking toward the Project site, while View 2 and View 4 depict the streetscape and context of the surrounding area along 6th Street. Scattered mature trees line the south side of 6th Street; however, the Project site is prominent from these viewpoints. As shown in Figure 4.1-1a, the undeveloped northern portion of the Project site (previous vineyard) is in the foreground view, and the existing warehouse building is in the background. There are obstructed distant background views of the Santa Ana Mountains. Views to the north from 6th Street are obstructed by the landscape berm and screenwall on the south side of the SCE Etiwanda Substation located north of 6th Street (north of the Project site). Overhead high-power electrical transmission lines are also located along the north side of 6th Street. 3 A vantage point is a place or position that affords a view of something, while a viewshed is the view of an area from a specific vantage point. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report View l View 1: Looking southeast toward the Project site View3 View 3: Looking southwest toward the Project site Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga View2 View 2: Looking east along 6th Street with the Project site visible in the right portion of the image View4 View 4: Looking west along 6th Street with the Project site visible in the left portion of the image 4.1 Aesthetics � Key Map m Figure 4. l -la Site Photographs North of the Project Site SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.1-4 Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report Views View 5: Looking northwest toward the Project site Views View 8: Looking northwest toward the Project site Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga View6 View 6: Looking northeast toward the Project site View9 View 9: Looking west along 4th St reet with the Project site visible in the right portion of the image View 7 View 7: Looking north toward the Project site at the existing driveway 4.1 Aesthetics � Key Map m Figure 4. l -l b Site Photographs South of Project Site SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.1-5 Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.1 Aesthetics Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.1-6 The photographs in Figure 4.1-1b depict views from vantage points south of the Project site and are representative of existing views experienced by individuals traveling along 4th Street. View 5 through View 8 depict views looking toward the Project site, while View 9 depicts the streetscape and context of the surrounding area along 4th Street. While the smaller retail building on-site is visible from 4th Street, the existing warehouse building, which is setback from 4th Street by a landscape area, is largely obstructed from public views by mature trees in the southern portion of the Project site. There are existing street lights along the southern perimeter of the Project site (on the north side of 4th Street). The mature trees that line 4th Street are a focal point from this vantage point. 2. Light and Glare The Project site is developed with warehouse and retail uses and associated facilities with existing sources of lighting, including lighting for parking areas and buildings. Other nearby sources of light include exterior lighting from the surrounding industrial buildings and the West Valley Detention Center, street lighting, and vehicle headlights along existing roadways. There are no existing buildings or other man-made features on-site or in proximity to the site that are constructed of substantial glare inducing materials. 4.1.3 THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE According to Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, a project will normally have a significant adverse environmental impact on aesthetics if it will:  Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista.  Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway.  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 points.) If the project is in an urbanized area, if it will conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality.  Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. 4.1.4 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Threshold 1.1 Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? The City of Rancho Cucamonga is located at the southern base of the San Gabriel Mountains at the eastern end of the range. The San Bernardino Mountains are just east of the San Gabriel Mountains and the two mountain ranges are divided by the Cajon Pass. According to the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan EIR, scenic vistas in and near the City include views of the San Gabriel Mountains and San Bernardino Mountains to the north and northeast, the foothills at the northern end of the City that Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.1 Aesthetics Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.1-7 provide views of open space areas, and other scenic resources such as eucalyptus windrows, scattered vineyards, and natural vegetation in flood-control and utility corridors (Rancho Cucamonga, 2010b). The Project site is in an established industrial area in the southeast portion of the City (Southeast Focus Area). As described previously, the Project site is developed, disturbed, and void of natural lands and landforms. Views of scenic vistas from vantage points along 4th Street and 6th Street, including mountain views, are intermittent and limited. The Project site is approximately 6.3 miles south of the San Gabriel Mountains and 15.2 miles south of the San Bernardino Mountains. The Project is not within the viewshed of a designated view corridor. The nearest designated view corridors to the Project site are along Haven Avenue (looking north and south), approximately 2.3 miles west of the Project site, and looking north from 6th Street (generally at the Resort Parkway), approximately 1.7 miles west of the Project site. The Project site is not within the viewshed of these view corridors. As described in Section 4.3, Biological Resources, of this EIR, there are eucalyptus trees that occur as part of a windrow located to the north and west of the existing warehouse building. The majority of these heritage trees would be removed as part of the Project; however, the trees would be replaced in accordance with the City’s tree replacement and tree removal permit requirements as outlined in Chapter 17.16.080 and Chapter 17.80 (Tree Removal Permit and Tree Preservation Ordinance) of the Development Code (refer to Regulatory Requirements [RR] 3-3 and RR 3-4 in Section 4.3). Although the City’s tree replacement requirements are not in place to protect scenic vistas, the required replacement of trees, which is reflected on the Project’s landscape plan (refer to Figure 3-13 in Section 3.0 of this Draft EIR) includes the planting of eucalyptus trees as well as other tree species. Further, the former vineyard in the northern portion of the Project site no longer exists, and this area does not represent an existing scenic resource. Therefore, the proposed on-site development would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista resulting in a less than significant impact. Site adjacent roadway and infrastructure improvements and the at-grade crossing of the railroad track at 6th Street also do not include any features that would impact a scenic vista. Impact 1.1 The Project, including site-adjacent improvements and the 6th Street at-grade crossing, would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista, resulting in a less than significant impact. No mitigation is required. Threshold 1.2 Would the Project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? According to the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) List of Designated and Eligible Scenic Highways, the Project site is not in proximity to a State scenic highway (Caltrans, 2020). 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 19.8 miles north of the Project site. Due to distance and intervening topography, the Project would not be visible from SR-2. Because the Project is not within a State scenic highway corridor, the Project does not have the potential to degrade scenic resources within a State scenic highway and no impacts would occur. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.1 Aesthetics Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.1-8 Impact 1.2 The Project site is not located within a State scenic highway. Therefore, no impact would occur. Threshold 1.3 Would the Project, 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.? As discussed in Section 3.0, Project Description, the existing structures and associated facilities and landscaping on-site would be demolished or removed. The Project site would be redeveloped with two new high-cube warehouse buildings. Conceptual architectural elevations for each building and representative-colored elevations are provided in Section 3.0 of this Draft EIR. As shown, the buildings would have a contemporary architectural design, with a varied roof line, articulation, various building materials, and decorative building elements to provide visual interest, which does not exist with the existing buildings. Landscaping with a cohesive landscape design would be planted throughout the Project site, and fences/walls would be installed, as also described in Section 3.0. Given the urban nature of the Project site and surrounding areas, the analysis for this threshold is appropriately based on review of the potential for the Project to conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. As previously identified in Section 4.1.1, Relevant Policies and Regulations, regulations governing scenic quality are established through the City’s Development Code, and the City’s General Plan, which includes project-level policies relevant to scenic quality, as discussed below. A. Rancho Cucamonga Development Code As discussed in Section 4.0, Environmental Setting and Impact Evaluation Overview, the northern portion of the Project site (approximately 55.2 acres) is designated for Heavy Industrial uses and the southern portion of the site (approximately 36.2) is designated for General Industrial uses. The Project involves a General Plan Amendment and Zoning Map Amendment to change the land use designation and zoning for the northern portion of Project site from Heavy Industrial to General Industrial, for consistency across the Project site (refer to Section 3.0, Project Description). As discussed previously in Section 4.1.1, Chapter 17.36.040 of the Development Code outlines permitted uses and development standards for Industrial District zoning classifications, and other chapters/sections of the Development Code include regulations relevant to scenic quality. Table 4.1-1, Development Code Standards Consistency Analysis, below, addresses the Project’s consistency with applicable Development Code requirements. The Project would not conflict with applicable development standards. Additionally, the Project involves a Site Plan and Architectural Review, and the required review would ensure that the Project would comply with the applicable regulations regarding scenic quality. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.1 Aesthetics Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.1-9 Table 4.1-1 Development Code Standards Consistency Analysis APPLICABLE REQUIREMENTS PROJECT CONSISTENCY Development Standards for Industrial Districts (Section 17.36.040 of the Development Code) Minimum Lot Area: 0.5-acre for General Industrial uses No Conflict. Proposed Tentative Parcel (TPM) Map No. 20271 (refer to Figure 3-4 in Section 3.0 of this Draft EIR) would modify the parcel configuration on- site to include two parcels that facilitate implementation of the Project. The proposed parcels would be approximately 55.1 net-acres (Building 1) and approximately 29.9 net acres (Building 2), which would exceed the required minimum lot area of 0.5 acre. Therefore, the Project would be consistent with the minimum lot requirement. Minimum Lot Width: 100 feet No Conflict. As shown on Figure 3-5 the proposed parcels would be 1,140 feet wide and would exceed the required minimum lot width of 100 feet. Therefore, the Project would be consistent with the minimum lot width requirement. Minimum Setbacks Front Yard: See Table 17.36.040-2 (detailed under “Special Streetscape Standards” below) Side Yard: 5 feet Rear Yard: 0 feet No Conflict. As shown on the conceptual site plan presented in Figure 3-5, building setbacks would meet or exceed the minimum setback requirements. The Project would therefore be consistent with the setback requirements. Maximum Building Height: 35 feet at the front setback (buildings exceeding 35 feet high shall be set back an additional one foot from the front setback for each one foot of height up to a maximum setback of 70 feet). Maximum height of 75 feet No Conflict. The conceptual building elevations for the proposed buildings indicate that the building heights would be a maximum of 50-feet at the top of parapet. The maximum 50-foot height would exceed the 35-foot height limit at the front setback by 15-feet. However, the buildings would be setback more that 15-feet from the front setback. Therefore, the Project would be consistent with the maximum building height requirement. Floor Area Ratio (FAR): 50-60% No Conflict. As shown on the conceptual site plan presented in Figure 3-5, the FAR for Building 1 would be 57.3% and the FAR for Building 2 would be 49.6%, with an overall FAR of 54.6%. Therefore, the buildings would be within the allowable FAR range and the Project would be consistent with the FAR requirement. Minimum Open Space/Landscape Area: 10% No Conflict. As shown on Figure 3-5, total landscaping within the Project site area would be 370,600 sf, including landscaping within the new street, which is 10% of the Project’s net area. Therefore, the proposed landscaping is consistent with the 10% landscape area requirement. Special Streetscape Standards: No Conflict. 4th Street is a Major Arterial, 6th Street is a Secondary Arterial, and proposed new Street A would be an Industrial Collector. As shown on the conceptual site plan presented in Figure 3-5, landscaped Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.1 Aesthetics Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.1-10 APPLICABLE REQUIREMENTS PROJECT CONSISTENCY Major Arterial and Special Boulevard - 45 feet average depth of landscape; 45 feet building setback; 25 feet parking setback Secondary Arterial - 35 feet average depth of landscape; 35 feet building setback; 30 feet parking setback Local/Collector - 25 feet average depth of landscape; 25 feet building setback; 15 feet parking setback streetscapes would be provided in accordance with the established requirements. Equipment screening. The following equipment screening standards shall apply: a. All roof, wall and ground mounted equipment shall be screened from all sides within the Industrial Park (IP) and General Industrial (GI) zoning districts. c. All screening shall be architecturally integrated with the building design and where possible a roof parapet wall shall be used to screen roof or wall mounted equipment. No Conflict. As shown on the conceptual building elevations presented in Figure 3-6 and Figure 3-8a and b for Building 1 and Building 2, respectively, each building would include a parapet. This architectural feature would screen views of rooftop equipment from public views (adjacent roadways), as shown in the “Typical Equipment Screen Line of Sight” provided on Figure 3-6 and Figure 3-8a. The parapet would be integrated into the building design. The Project would therefore be consistent with this requirement. Other Development Code Requirements Chapter 17.48, Fences, Walls and Screening: All materials, supplies, equipment, and operating trucks shall be stored within an enclosed building or area screened from public view. Within industrial areas, all storage area screening shall be architecturally integrated with surrounding buildings by the use of concrete, masonry, or other similar materials not to exceed a height of eight feet measured from finished grade. For walls comprised of the combination of a screen wall on top of a retaining wall, the overall height of the combined wall may exceed eight feet provided that the part of the wall that faces the public right-of-way (street, sidewalk, etc.), does not exceed eight feet in height (measured from the finished grade immediately adjacent to the wall and the top of the wall). No Conflict. As shown in Figure 3-14, Wall and Fence Plan, the Project includes a combination of tube steel fencing and concrete screen walls primarily for screening and security, and retaining walls. Consistent with the established height requirements, an 8-foot-high tube steel fence would be provided along the western Project site boundary, and 8-foot-high screen walls would be provided along the perimeter of the truck courts on the north side of Building 2, at the east and entrance to the northern truck court for Building 2, on the east side of Building 1, and at the entrances to the truck courts in Building 1. Eight-foot-high sliding steel gates would be placed at the truck court entrances. The sliding steel gates at the southern entrances to the Building 1 truck court would have perforated mesh to obscure views of the truck courts from 4th Street. As required, the screenwalls would effectively screen equipment and operation truck areas, as well as storage areas. As described in Section 3.0, and shown on Figure 3-14, and the grading sections presented on Figure 3-19b, the Project also requires retaining walls of various heights including along public rights-of-way. The walls that face the public right-of-way would not exceed 8-feet in height. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.1 Aesthetics Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.1-11 APPLICABLE REQUIREMENTS PROJECT CONSISTENCY 17.58 Outdoor Lighting Standards. Height limit for light fixtures in industrial areas is 25 feet. All outdoor lighting shall be recessed and/or constructed with full downward shielding in order to reduce light and glare impacts on trespass to adjoining properties and public rights-of-way. Each fixture shall be directed downward and away from adjoining properties and public rights-of-way, so that no light fixture directly illuminates an area outside of the project site intended to be illuminated. Outdoor lighting shall be designed to illuminate at the minimum level necessary for safety and security and to avoid the harsh contrasts in lighting levels between the project site and adjacent properties. For parking lots, the minimum required illumination is 1.0 foot-candles, and the maximum is 4.0 foot-candles. For non-residential structures, entryways and doors the minimum illumination is 1.0 foot-candle. Consistent. As described in Section 3.0, and shown on the exterior lighting plan provided on Figure 3-15, the Project includes parking lot pole-mounted lights, and building-mounted outdoor security lighting. Consistent with the lighting standards, the parking lot poles would be 25-feet high and would include cut-off fixtures and shielding to ensure that the lighting is directed away from adjoining properties and the public right-of-way. Further, as shown on Figure 3-15, the estimated minimum and maximum lighting levels would comply with the City’s lighting requirements (as measured in foot-candles). 17.120.030 Building Design. Create a harmonious building style, form, size, color, material, and roofline, as it relates to surrounding planned or existing development. Subtle variations are encouraged that provide visual interest. a. Provide architectural treatment to all elevations. b. Integrate screening for roof-mounted equipment into the building design (e.g., extend parapet walls). c. At the primary building entrance provide changes in roof-form, building massing, additional architectural articulation to clearly identify the entry location. No Conflict. As shown on the buildings elevations and conceptual architectural renderings presented in Figures 3-6 through 3-8, the proposed design for Building 1 and Building 2 would be harmonious, with consistent architecture, building materials, etc. The buildings have a varied roof line, articulation, various building materials, and decorative building elements to provide visual interest. The proposed buildings would be constructed with concrete tilt-up panels and low- reflective blue glass, primarily at the office entries. Decorative building elements include aluminum panels at office corner parapets, canopies at the office entries, and anodized aluminum window shades. Additionally, the buildings would be a maximum of 50-feet high, similar to the existing warehouse building on-site (estimated to be 52-feet high) and other warehouse and industrial buildings in the vicinity of the Project. Further, as discussed under “equipment screening” above, each building would include a parapet. This architectural feature would screen views of rooftop equipment from public views (adjacent roadways). The parapet would be integrated into the building design. The Project would therefore be consistent with these requirements. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.1 Aesthetics Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.1-12 APPLICABLE REQUIREMENTS PROJECT CONSISTENCY 17.122.030 Commercial, office, and industrial development. Includes standards that influence the visual character of a development site, including: special site design provisions for industrial development for the following issue areas, potentially applicable to the Project: No Conflict. As shown on the buildings conceptual landscape plan presented in Figure 3-13, the parking areas would be screened from public view with landscaping, screening walls, and building orientation. Parking areas: a. Screen parking areas from public view with mounding, landscaping, low walls, grade differentials, and building orientation. Special architectural provisions. a. Paint roll-up doors and service doors to blend in with main building colors. b. The creative use of building materials is required. A minimum of two primary building materials shall be used. The recommended primary and secondary building materials are as follows: i. Primary building materials: concrete, sandblasted concrete, textured block, brick, granite, marble, and similar materials. ii. Secondary building materials: glass, tile, polished brass or copper, brick, concrete, painted metal elements, painted accent stripe, and other similar materials. c. The use of prefabricated, all-metal steel sheathing for buildings is prohibited from the industrial park and general industrial categories. This is not to preclude the use of metal detail within architecturally designed buildings such as “Cortin” steel. Where used, metal buildings shall be architecturally designed to be compatible with surrounding land use and architecture. No Conflict. As shown on the buildings elevations and conceptual architectural renderings presented in Figures 3-6 through 3-8, the proposed buildings would have a consistent contemporary architectural design. The proposed buildings would be constructed with concrete tilt-up panels and low-reflective blue glass. The building’s exterior color palette would be comprised of various shades of white and gray with blue accents. Decorative building elements include aluminum panels at office corner parapets, canopies at the office entries, and anodized aluminum window shades. Building 1 would also include a green screen material on a tube steel frame for planting of climbing vines. The Project would therefore be consistent with these requirements. 17.124 Design Provision for Public Art Industrial projects subject to this chapter must include art work that has a minimum value that meets or exceeds an amount equal to the sum of one dollar per square foot, or meet in lieu requirements (donate art or pay an in-lieu fee). No Conflict. The Project would comply with this requirement through the payment of in-lieu fees. B. Rancho Cucamonga General Plan As previously discussed, the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan contains planning goals and policies for visually appealing community design. Activities undertaken by a planning agency must be consistent with the goals and policies of the agency’s general plan. The Rancho Cucamonga General Plan serves as the main land use policy document for the City. Therefore, future development in the Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.1 Aesthetics Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.1-13 City must comply with the General Plan’s goals and policies. The State’s general rule for a General Plan consistency determination is that “an action, program, or project is consistent with the General Plan if, considering all its aspects, it will further the objectives and policies of the General Plan and not obstruct their attainment” (OPR, 2017). Table 4.1-2, General Plan Policy Consistency Analysis, provides an analysis of the Project’s consistency with goals and policies outlined in the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan applicable to scenic quality. The Project would not conflict with applicable goals and policies. Table 4.1-2 General Plan Policy Consistency Analysis GENERAL PLAN GOAL/POLICY CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS COMMUNITY DESIGN Goal LU-12: Foster a variety of travel routes that are enjoyable ways to experience Rancho Cucamonga. Policy LU-12.1 Ensure that streetscape design along roadways creates a strong landscaped edge, provides a coherent high-quality appearance along each route, and enhances the image of adjacent development. No Conflict. The area surrounding the Project site includes one- and two-story industrial and warehouse buildings as well as the San Bernardino West Valley Detention Center, each with varying architectural styles and no cohesive design theme. As shown on the conceptual site plan presented in Figure 3-5 and the conceptual landscape plan presented in Figure 3-13, the Project includes landscaped streetscapes along 4th Street, 6th Street, and proposed Street A. The streetscape would comply with the special streetscape standards established in the Development Code, and vertical elements (e.g., trees) would be used as unifying features. The Project would therefore be consistent with this policy. Goal LU-13: Take full advantage of view lines and vista points with carefully designed development. Policy LU-13.1 On north-south roadways, open space corridors, and other locations where there are views of scenic resources, trees, and structures, encourage framing and orientation of such views at key locations, and endeavor to keep obstruction of views to a minimum. No Conflict. As previously discussed under Threshold 1.1, the Project is not within the viewshed of a designated view corridor. However, new Street A, which would extend along the eastern perimeter of the Project site, would provide north-south views for people traveling along this roadway that do not currently exist, including distance mountain views. The Project would therefore be consistent with this policy. Goal LU-14: Support public art as an important amenity of a beautiful City. Policy LU-14.1 Pursue the placement of public art in prominent locations particularly along major travel corridors. No Conflict. The Project would comply with this policy through the payment of in-lieu fees, which are collected by the City to fund placement of public art. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Goal ED-4: Implement consistent high-quality standards for all future development. Policy ED-4.1 Encourage high-quality design for infill development and continue to support new high-quality uses. No Conflict. Refer to the consistency analysis provided in Table 4.1-1 for Chapter 17.120.030, Building Design, of the City’s Development Code. As shown on the Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.1 Aesthetics Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.1-14 GENERAL PLAN GOAL/POLICY CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS Policy ED-4.3 Improve connectivity between development projects to create a more cohesive atmosphere. conceptual building elevations and architectural renderings, the proposed design for Building 1 and Building 2 include architecture, building materials, and design elements to ensure a high-quality design. Although located on separate parcels, the design for Building 1 and Building 2 would be consistent to create a cohesive visual atmosphere. The Project would therefore be consistent with these policies. RESOURCE CONSERVATION Goal RC-1: Encourage stewardship of natural open space areas, environmentally sensitive lands, and agricultural resources. Policy RC-1.2 Develop measures to preserve and enhance important views along north-south roadways, open space corridors, and at other key locations where there are significant views of scenic resources. No Conflict. Refer to the consistency analysis for Policy LU-13.1. The Project would be consistent with this policy. Impact 1.3 The Project would not conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality and no impact would occur. Threshold 1.4 Would the Project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? The Project site is in an area of the City that is subject to lighting and glare from existing on-site and surrounding urban land uses. The primary sources of light include building-mounted lighting, parking lot lighting, headlights from automobiles and trucks, and street lights along the surrounding roadways. The primary sources of glare include buildings and vehicles. 1. Light It is not anticipated that permanent lighting would be required during most construction activities, as construction typically occurs during the daylight hours. The Rancho Cucamonga Development Code, Section 17.66.050(D)(4) permits construction to occur between the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on any day except Sundays or national holidays. In accordance with Section 17.66.050(D)(4), most of the project’s construction activities would be limited to these hours. Limited nighttime construction would be required for nighttime concrete pours which would require temporary lighting. Impacts from the temporary lighting elements would be minimized through mandatory compliance with Rancho Cucamonga Development Code, Section 17.58.050 which requires all outdoor lighting be fully shielded in order to prevent glare, light trespass, and light pollution. Additionally, there are no sensitive receptors within the immediate vicinity of the Project site that would be impacted by the use of temporary nighttime lighting. Thus, impacts due to construction lighting would be less than significant. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.1 Aesthetics Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.1-15 As discussed in Section 3.0, Project Description, of this Draft EIR, the Project would include various lighting elements to ensure safety and security of the facilities. The proposed lighting would be in compliance with applicable lighting standards established by the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The location of on-site lighting is presented in Figure 3-15 in Section 3.0 of this Draft EIR, and would primarily include parking lot pole-mounted lights, and building-mounted outdoor security lighting for the proposed buildings. Parking lot light poles would be 25-feet high and would have cut-off fixtures. The lighting would be directed away from adjoining properties and the public right-of-way. The lighting would be designed to produce lighting photometric (levels) similar or better than existing conditions. Due to the urban nature of the Project site and surrounding areas and the presence of existing light sources, as well as the lack of residential uses or other light-sensitive uses near the site, impacts associated with increases in lighting levels at the site from the Project would be less than significant. 2. Glare Glare is caused by light reflections from pavement, vehicles, and building materials such as reflective glass and polished surfaces. During daylight hours, the amount of glare depends on intensity and direction of sunlight. Glare can create hazards to motorists and nuisances for pedestrians and other viewers. The proposed buildings would be constructed primarily with non-reflective materials (such as concrete), and with a low-reflective blue glass limited to the building entrances and windows at office areas. The proposed building elevations show that there would be no expansive glazing materials or other materials on facade areas that would create noticeable glare from sunlight. Additionally, Building 1 would include a green screen material on a tube steel frame for planting of climbing vines which would reduce potential glare-related impacts. The Project site is surrounded by existing roadways and vehicle lights. The Project would not pose a hazard to motorists traveling in the Project vicinity, nor would it affect surrounding land uses. In addition, the proposed trees along the Project site’s frontages with 4th Street and 6th Street and proposed Street A would further reduce the potential for nominal glare to impact passing motorists and the surrounding land uses. This impact would be less than significant. Impact 1.4 The Project site is located in an urban area and the Project would not create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. Impacts would be less than significant. 4.1.5 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Section 4.1.7, Cumulative Impacts (Aesthetics), of The Rancho Cucamonga General Plan EIR, which is incorporated by reference, identifies that cumulative aesthetic impacts are primarily analyzed in terms of impacts within the City of Rancho Cucamonga, Sphere of Influence, and surrounding area, as aesthetic impacts are primarily confined to local areas. The Rancho Cucamonga General Plan EIR anticipates urban growth within the City, adjacent cities, and unincorporated County areas. The General Plan EIR acknowledged that future developments and redevelopments would alter the visual quality of the landscape through the introduction of structures in currently open areas and the redevelopment of older structures to other land uses or with higher density/intensity uses. Future Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.1 Aesthetics Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.1-16 developments would also contribute to the cumulative loss of undeveloped land in the City and adjacent cities, and in San Bernardino County. As identified in the General Plan EIR, development and design review of individual development projects by surrounding cities and the County and compliance with applicable design standards and guidelines by individual development projects would reduce visual impacts; however, the General Plan EIR determined that cumulative impacts to visual character and quality would be significant and unavoidable. The General Plan EIR concluded that implementation of the General Plan would not result in any other cumulatively-considerable aesthetics impacts. The study area for cumulative aesthetic impacts for the Project includes areas in the same viewshed as the Project. If the projects are not visible from the same vantage point, the viewer would not perceive them at the same time and they would not result in a cumulative change in the visual character or quality. As shown on Figure 4.0-3, Cumulative Development Location Map, there are cumulative projects in the vicinity of the Project, but due to distance, topography, and intervening development, these projects would not be in the same viewshed as the Project. The Project site is not within a scenic vista, within a State scenic highway, or along a City-designated scenic corridor. Therefore, the Project would not contribute to cumulative impacts related to these aesthetic issues. As analyzed in this section, the Project would not conflict with the applicable regulations outlined in the Development Code, or General Plan goals and policies addressing scenic quality. Any future development within the same viewshed as the Project site, including in the City or Ontario to the south, would also be required to comply with applicable municipal regulations addressing scenic quality. The Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant aesthetic impact related to scenic quality. As with existing development in the area, light and glare impacts from the Project and future development in the area would be reduced through the adherence to appliable lighting standards established in the City’s Development Code. Based on the City’s cumulative projects list, there are currently no cumulative development projects identified in the vicinity of the Project. The Project’s impacts are less than significant and the Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative aesthetic impact related to light and glare. 4.1.6 MITIGATION MEASURES No significant adverse impacts related to aesthetics would result and no mitigation measures are required. 4.1.7 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION Project impacts related to aesthetics would be less than significant. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.1 Aesthetics Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.1-17 4.1.8 REFERENCES California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2019. Caltrans Designated and Eligible Scenic Highways. Web. Accessed August 30, 2020. Available at: https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/lap-landscape-architecture-and-community-livability/lap- liv-i-scenic-highways California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR). 2017 (July 31). 2017 General Plan Guidelines. Available at: http://opr.ca.gov/docs/OPR_COMPLETE_7.31.17.pdf Rancho Cucamonga, City of. 2010a (May 19). Rancho Cucamonga General Plan. Available at: https://www.cityofrc.us/community-development/planning ———. 2010b (February). Rancho Cucamonga 2010 General Plan Update Program Environmental Impact Report. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.2 Air Quality Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.2-1 4.2 AIR QUALITY This section provides a Project-specific analysis of the Project’s potential to have adverse effects related to air quality during construction and operation. Information presented in this section is derived primarily from the Project-specific reports identified below. Refer to Section 4.2.8, References, for a complete list of references.  Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Air Quality Impact Analysis (herein, “AQIA”), dated April 15, 2021, prepared by Urban Crossroads, and included in Appendix B1 of this Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (Urban Crossroads, 2021a).  Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Mobile Source Health Risk Assessment (herein, “HRA”), dated April 15, 2021, prepared by Urban Crossroads, Inc., and included in Appendix B2 of this Draft EIR (Urban Crossroads, 2021b).  Construction Health Risk Assessment Memorandum (herein, “Construction HRA”), dated March 19, 2021, prepared by Urban Crossroads, Inc., and included in Appendix B3 of this Draft EIR (Urban Crossroads, 2021c). The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) submitted a Notice of Preparation (NOP) comment letter with the following input:  Recommendations on the scope of the air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and health risk analysis for the Project, including modeling.  Project-related air quality impacts should be identified and quantified against the SCAQMD regional and localized significance thresholds.  If a permit from the SCAQMD is required, SCAQMD should be identified as a responsible agency.  Feasible mitigation measures should be identified for significant impacts, and suggested mitigation measures and design considerations to reduce air quality and health risk impacts are provided. 4.2.1 RELEVANT POLICIES AND REGULATIONS A. Federal Regulations 1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) regulates emissions sources such as aircraft, ships, and certain locomotives. The USEPA’s air quality mandates are drawn primarily from the Clean Air Act (CAA), which was first enacted in 1955 and subsequently amended; Congress's most recent major amendments were in 1990. The CAA established National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). These standards identify air quality levels for criteria pollutants that are considered the maximum levels of ambient (background) air pollutants considered safe (with an adequate margin of Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.2 Air Quality Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.2-2 safety) to protect the public health and welfare. The NAAQS are shown in Table 4.2-1, Ambient Air Quality Standards. As part of its enforcement responsibilities, the USEPA requires each State with federal nonattainment areas to prepare and submit a State Implementation Plan (SIP) that includes pollution control measures that demonstrate how the standards will be met. The 1990 amendments to the CAA that identify specific emission reduction goals for areas not meeting the NAAQS require a demonstration of reasonable further progress toward attaining and incorporating additional sanctions for failure to attain or meet interim milestones. The CAA sections most directly applicable to the development of the Project site include Title I (Non-Attainment Provisions) and Title II (Mobile Source Provisions). Title I provisions were established with the goal of attaining the NAAQS for the following criteria pollutants O3, NO2, SO2, PM10, CO, PM2.5, and Pb. The NAAQS were amended in July 1997 to include an additional standard for O3 and to adopt a NAAQS for PM2.5. B. State Regulations 1. California Environmental Protection Agency The mission of the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) is to restore, protect, and enhance the environment, to ensure public health, environmental quality, and economic vitality. This is accomplished by developing, implementing, and enforcing environmental laws that regulate air, water, and soil quality, pesticide use, and waste recycling and reduction. Relevant to air quality, the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) consists of the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and the Office Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA). In 2012, the Legislature passed Senate Bill (SB) 535, which targets disadvantaged communities in California for the investment of proceeds from the State’s cap-and-trade program to improve public health, quality of life, and economic opportunity in California’s most burdened communities, while also reducing pollution. SB 535 directed that 25% of the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund's proceeds go to projects that provide a benefit to disadvantaged communities. The legislation gave CalEPA responsibility for identifying those communities. In 2016, the Legislature passed Assembly Bill (AB) 1550, which now requires that 25% of proceeds from the fund be spent on projects located in disadvantaged communities. CalEPA has prepared a list of disadvantaged communities for the purpose of SB 535 and CalEnviroScreen is a general mapping tool developed by OEHHA to help identify California communities that are most affected by sources of pollution. 2. California Air Resources Board The California Air Resources Board (CARB), a part of the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA), is responsible for ensuring implementation of the California Clean Air Act (CCAA) (AB 2595), responding to the federal CAA, and for regulating emissions from consumer products and motor vehicles. AB 2595 mandates the achievement of the maximum degree of emissions reductions possible from vehicular and other mobile sources to attain the state ambient air quality standards by the earliest practical date. CARB established the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.2 Air Quality Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.2-3 Table 4.2-1 Ambient Air Quality Standards Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.2 Air Quality Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.2-4 Table 4.2-1 Ambient Air Quality Standards (Cont’d) (Urban Crossroads, 2021a, Table 2-2) Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.2 Air Quality Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.2-5 for all pollutants for which the federal government has NAAQS and, in addition, establishes standards for SO4, visibility, hydrogen sulfide (H2S), and vinyl chloride (C2H3Cl). However, at this time, H2S and C2H3Cl are not measured at any monitoring stations in the South Coast Air Basin (SoCAB) because they are not considered to be a regional air quality problem. Generally, the CAAQS are more stringent than the NAAQS (as shown in Table 4.2-1). Local air quality management districts, such as the SCAQMD, regulate air emissions from stationary sources such as commercial and industrial facilities. All air pollution control districts have been formally designated as attainment or non-attainment for each CAAQS. Serious non-attainment areas are required to prepare Air Quality Management Plans (AQMP) that include specified emission reduction strategies in an effort to meet clean air goals. The AQMPs are then integrated into the State SIP. Toxic Air Contaminants In 1984, as a result of public concern for exposure to airborne carcinogens, CARB adopted regulations to reduce the amount of toxic air contaminant (TAC) emissions resulting from mobile and area sources, such as cars and trucks, stationary sources, and consumer products. The TACs responsible for most of the known cancer risk associated with airborne exposure in California include:  TACs derived from mobile sources (Diesel Particulate Matter [DPM], benzene [C6H6], and 1,3-butadiene [C4H6]);  TACs derived from stationary sources (perchloroethylene [C2Cl4], and hexavalent chromium [Cr(VI)]; and  TACs derived from photochemical reactions of emitted VOCs (formaldehyde [CH2O] and acetaldehyde [C2H4O]). Ambient concentrations and emission trends of these TACs have declined in recent years due to various regulations the CARB has implemented to address cancer risk, as further discussed in Section 2.9 of the AQIA included in Appendix B1 of this Draft EIR. CARB and the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach (POLA and POLB) have adopted several iterations of diesel trucks that aim to reduce DPM. More specifically, CARB Drayage Truck Regulation, CARB statewide On-road Truck and Bus Regulation, and the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach Clean Truck Program (CTP) require accelerated implementation of “clean trucks” into the statewide truck fleet. In other words, older more polluting trucks will be replaced with newer, cleaner trucks as a function of these regulatory requirements. Moreover, the average statewide DPM emissions for Heavy Duty Trucks (HDT), in terms of grams of DPM generated per mile traveled, will dramatically be reduced due to the aforementioned regulatory requirements. Community Air Protection Program In response to AB 617 (2017), which addresses criteria air pollutants and TACs from sources other than vehicles, CARB established the Community Air Protection Program (CAPP). The CAPP’s focus Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.2 Air Quality Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.2-6 is to reduce exposure in communities most impacted by air pollution. This Statewide effort includes community air monitoring and community emissions reduction programs. In addition, the Legislature appropriated funding to support early actions to address localized air pollution through targeted incentive funding to deploy cleaner technologies in these communities and grants to support community participation in the CAPP process. AB 617 also includes new requirements for accelerated retrofit of pollution controls on industrial sources, increased penalty fees, and greater transparency and availability of air quality and emissions data, which will help advance air pollution control efforts throughout the State. This new effort provides an opportunity to continue to enhance air quality planning efforts and better integrate community, regional, and State level programs to provide clean air for all Californians. 3. Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards and California Green Building Standards California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 24 Part 6: The California Energy Code was first adopted in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to reduce California’s energy consumption. The standards are updated periodically to allow consideration and possible incorporation of new energy-efficient technologies and methods. CCR, Title 24, Part 11: California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen), is a comprehensive and uniform regulatory code for all residential, commercial, and school buildings that went in effect on January 1, 2009, and is administered by the California Building Standards Commission (CBSC). The CBSC updates the CALGreen program regularly, with the most recent approved update consisting of the 2019 California Green Building Code Standards that became effective January 1, 2020. Energy-efficient buildings require less electricity; therefore, increased energy efficiency reduces fossil fuel consumption and decreases greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The 2019 Title 24 standards will result in less energy use, thereby reducing air pollutant emissions associated with energy consumption in the SoCAB and across the State of California. For example, the 2019 Title 24 standards require solar photovoltaic systems for new homes, establish requirements for newly constructed healthcare facilities, encourage demand-responsive technologies for residential buildings, and update indoor and outdoor lighting requirements for nonresidential buildings. The CEC anticipates that single-family homes built with the 2019 standards will use approximately 7% less energy compared to the residential homes built under the 2016 standards. Additionally, after the implementation of solar photovoltaic systems, homes built under the 2019 standards will use about 53% less energy than homes built under the 2016 standards. Nonresidential buildings (such as the Project) will use approximately 30% less energy due to lighting upgrade requirements. Because the Project would be constructed after January 1, 2019, the 2019 CALGreen standards are applicable to the Project and require, among other items:  Short-term bicycle parking. If the new project or an additional alteration is anticipated to generate visitor traffic, provide permanently anchored bicycle racks within 200 feet of the visitors’ entrance, readily visible to passers-by, for 5% of new visitor motorized vehicle parking spaces being added, with a minimum of one two-bike capacity rack (5.106.4.1.1). Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.2 Air Quality Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.2-7  Long-term bicycle parking. For new buildings with tenant spaces that have 10 or more tenant- occupants, provide secure bicycle parking for 5% of the tenant-occupant vehicular parking spaces with a minimum of one bicycle parking facility (5.106.4.1.2).  Designated parking for clean air vehicles. In new projects or additions to alterations that add 10 or more vehicular parking spaces, provide designated parking for any combination of low- emitting, fuel-efficient and carpool/van pool vehicles as shown in Table 5.106.5.2 (5.106.5.2).  Electric vehicle (EV) charging stations. New construction shall facilitate the future installation of EV supply equipment. The compliance requires empty raceways for future conduit and documentation that the electrical system has adequate capacity for the future load. The number of spaces to be provided for is contained in Table 5.106. 5.3.3 (5.106.5.3).  Outdoor light pollution reduction. Outdoor lighting systems shall be designed to meet the backlight, uplight, and glare ratings per Table 5.106.8 (5.106.8)  Construction waste management. Recycle and/or salvage for reuse a minimum of 65% of the nonhazardous construction and demolition waste in accordance with Section 5.408.1.1. 5.405.1.2, or 5.408.1.3; or meet a local construction and demolition waste management ordinance, whichever is more stringent (5.408.1).  Excavated soil and land clearing debris. 100% of trees, stumps, rocks and associated vegetation and soils resulting primarily from land clearing shall be reused or recycled. For a phased project, such material may be stockpiled on-site until the storage site is developed (5.408.3).  Recycling by Occupants. Provide readily accessible areas that serve the entire building and are identified for the depositing, storage, and collection of non-hazardous materials for recycling, including (at a minimum) paper, corrugated cardboard, glass, plastics, organic waste, and metals, or meet a lawfully enacted local recycling ordinance, if more restrictive (5.410.1).  Water conserving plumbing fixtures and fittings. Plumbing fixtures (water closets and urinals) and fittings (faucets and showerheads) shall comply with the following: o Water Closets. The effective flush volume of all water closets shall not exceed 1.28 gallons per flush (5.303.3.1) o Urinals. The effective flush volume of wall-mounted urinals shall not exceed 0.125 gallons per flush (5.303.3.2.1). The effective flush volume of floor- mounted or other urinals shall not exceed 0.5 gallons per flush (5.303.3.2.2). o Showerheads. Single showerheads shall have a minimum flow rate of not more than 1.8 gallons per minute and 80 psi (5.303.3.3.1). When a shower is served by more than one showerhead, the combined flow rate of all showerheads and/or other shower outlets controlled by a single valve shall not exceed 1.8 gallons per minute at 80 psi (5.303.3.3.2). o Faucets and fountains. Nonresidential lavatory faucets shall have a maximum flow rate of not more than 0.5 gallons per minute at 60 psi (5.303.3.4.1). Kitchen faucets shall have a maximum flow rate of not more than 1.8 gallons per minute of 60 psi (5.303.3.4.2). Wash fountains shall have a maximum flow rate of not more than 1.8 gallons per minute Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.2 Air Quality Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.2-8 (5.303.3.4.3). Metering faucets shall not deliver more than 0.20 gallons per cycle (5.303.3.4.4). Metering faucets for wash fountains shall have a maximum flow rate not more than 0.20 gallons per cycle (5.303.3.4.5).  Outdoor portable water use in landscaped areas. Nonresidential developments shall comply with a local water efficient landscape ordinance or the current California Department of Water Resources’ Model Water Efficient (MWELO), whichever is more stringent (5.304.1).  Water meters. Separate submeters or metering devices shall be installed for new buildings or additions in excess of 50,000 sf or for excess consumption where any tenant within a new building or within an addition that is project to consume more than 1,000 gallons per day (5.303.1.1 and 5.303.1.2).  Outdoor water use in rehabilitated landscape projects equal or greater than 2,500 sf Rehabilitated landscape projects with an aggregate landscape area equal to or greater than 2,500 sf requiring a building or landscape permit (5.304.3).  Commissioning. For new buildings 10,000 sf and over, building commissioning shall be included in the design and construction processes of the building project to verify that the building systems and components meet the owner’s or owner representative’s project requirements (5.410.2). C. Regional Regulations 1. South Coast Air Quality Management District The Project is in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, in the South Coast Air Basin (SoCAB), where the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) is the agency principally responsible for comprehensive air pollution control. As a regional agency, the SCAQMD works directly with the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), county transportation commissions, and local governments and cooperates actively with all applicable federal and State government agencies. The SCAQMD develops rules and regulations, establishes permitting requirements for stationary sources, inspects emissions sources, and enforces such measures through educational programs or fines when necessary. SCAQMD is directly responsible for reducing emissions from stationary (area and point), mobile, and indirect sources. It has responded to this requirement by preparing a sequence of air quality management plans (AQMPs). As further discussed below, an AQMP establishes a program of rules and regulations directed at attaining the NAAQS and CAAQS. Section 2.9 of the AQIA included as Appendix B1 of this Draft EIR provides a detailed discussion of regional air quality improvement in the SoCAB. Air Quality Management Plan The NAAQS and CAAQS presented in Table 4.2-1 establish the context for the local AQMPs and for determining the significance of a project’s contribution to local or regional pollutant concentrations. The NAAQS and CAAQS represent the level of air quality considered safe, with an adequate safety margin, to protect public health and welfare. They are designed to protect those people most susceptible Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.2 Air Quality Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.2-9 to further respiratory distress such as asthmatics, the elderly, very young children, people already weakened by other diseases or illness, and persons engaged in strenuous work or exercise. The SCAQMD is responsible for bringing air quality in areas under its jurisdiction into conformity with federal and State air quality standards. Currently, the NAAQS and CAAQS are exceeded in most parts of the SoCAB. In response, the SCAQMD has adopted a series of AQMPs to meet the State and federal ambient air quality standards. AQMPs are updated regularly to more effectively reduce emissions, accommodate growth, and minimize any negative fiscal impacts of air pollution control on the economy. The AQMP control measures and related emission reduction estimates are based on emissions projections for a future development scenario derived from land use, population, and employment characteristics defined in consultation with local governments. Accordingly, conformance with the AQMP for development projects is determined by demonstrating compliance with local land use plans and/or population projections. In March 2017, the SCAQMD released the Final 2016 AQMP, the most recent approved AQMP. The 2016 AQMP continues to evaluate current integrated strategies and control measures to meet the NAAQS and explore new and innovative methods to reach its goals. Some of these approaches include utilizing incentive programs, recognizing existing co-benefit programs from other sectors, and developing a strategy with fair-share reductions at the federal, State, and local levels. Similar to the 2012 AQMP, the 2016 AQMP incorporates scientific and technological information and planning assumptions, including the 2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (2016-2040 RTP/SCS) and updated emission inventory methodologies for various source categories. The 2022 AQMP is currently being developed by SCAQMD to address the EPA’s strengthened ozone standard. Development of the 2022 AQMP is in its early stages and no formal timeline for completion and adoption is currently known. SCAQMD Rules There are numerous requirements that development and redevelopment projects must comply with by law. They were put in place by federal, State, and local regulatory agencies to improve air quality. SCAQMD Rule 402, Nuisance, states that a project 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. SCAQMD Rule 403, Fugitive Dust, is intended to reduce the amount of particulate matter entrained in the ambient air due to anthropogenic (human-made) fugitive dust sources by requiring actions to prevent and reduce fugitive dust emissions. Rule 403 applies to any activity or human-made condition capable of generating fugitive dust and requires best available control measures to be applied to earthmoving and grading activities. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.2 Air Quality Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.2-10 SCAQMD Rule 1113 limits the Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) content of architectural coatings used on projects in the SCAQMD. Any person who supplies, sells, offers for sale, or manufactures any architectural coating for use on projects in the SCAQMD must comply with the current VOC standards set in this rule. SCAQMD Rule 201 requires a “Permit to Construct” prior to the installation of any equipment “the use of which may cause the issuance of air contaminants . . .”, and Regulation II provides the requirements for the application for a Permit to Construct. Rule 203 similarly requires a Permit to Operate. Rule 219, Equipment Not Requiring a Written Permit Pursuant to Regulation II, identifies “equipment, processes, or operations that emit small amounts of contaminants that shall not require written permits . . .” SCAQMD Rule 2202 provides employers with a menu of options to reduce mobile source emissions generated from employee commutes, to comply with federal and State CAA requirements. This Rule applies to any employer who employs 250 or more employees on a full or part-time basis at a worksite for a consecutive six-month period calculated as a monthly average, unless otherwise exempt. An employer subject to this Rule is required to annually register with the SCAQMD to implement an emission reduction program, in accordance with subdivisions (f) and (g), that will obtain emission reductions equivalent to a worksite specific emission reduction target (ERT) specified for the compliance year. D. Local Regulations 1. Rancho Cucamonga General Plan The Public Health and Safety Chapter of the General Plan addresses air quality, atmosphere, and climate. Motor vehicles represent the major source of regional emissions throughout the SoCAB and the City. The Public Health and Safety Chapter identifies that sources of non-mobile air pollution include industrial/manufacturing uses, auto repair businesses, dry cleaners, and other businesses that regularly use chemical solvents. Common sources of PM10 include road dust, construction activity, grading, and fires (including fireplaces). Air pollution is significantly worse where air pollutants are concentrated, including energy-intensive industrial areas, high volume roads, diesel truck routes, rail yards, and seaports. A number of goals and policies in the Public Health and Safety Chapter address air quality in the City. These relevant goals and policies are listed in Table 4.10.2, General Plan Consistency Analysis, in Section 4.10, Land Use and Planning, of this Draft EIR, along with an assessment of the Project’s consistency with each goal and policy. Goals and policies included in the Community Mobility Chapter of the General Plan applicable to industrial land uses are presented in Table 4.13-3, Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Consistency Analysis, Section 4.13, Transportation. Related to air quality, this includes goals and policies to reduce dependency on automobiles, which serves to reduce air pollutant emissions from mobile sources. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.2 Air Quality Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.2-11 2. City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Code Chapter 17.50, Implementation of Green Building Code, of the City’s Development Code requires that new non-residential (including mixed-use development) and residential development or substantial renovations comply with all mandatory provisions of the “City of Rancho Cucamonga, Green Building Compliance Matrix” as required by the CalGreen Code. Section 17.64.100, Bicycle Parking Requirements, of the City’s Development Code, requires that all new construction provide bicycle parking. This section of the Development Code outlines requirements for short- and long-term bicycle parking (number of spaces, design requirements, etc.), parking and maneuvering areas, and visibility. Requirements for the number of bicycle parking spaces are similar to those outlined in the CalGreen Code, discussed above. Chapter 17.78, Transportation Demand Management (TDM), of the City’s Development Code encourages employers to implement programs to help reduce the use of single-occupancy vehicles, which also serves to reduce air pollutant emissions from mobile sources. Relevant to the Project, developments subject to the TDM Ordinance include light industrial uses with 250,000 square feet or more. The ordinance requires the provision of passenger loading areas, preferential parking for carpool and vanpool vehicles, shower and locker facilities, video conferencing, and any two of the following: ridesharing program, leasing of vans, company fleet cars, subsidized transit passes, and modified work hours. Section 17.66.060, Odor, Particulate Matter, and Air Containment Standards, of the City’s Development Code, includes performance standards to ensure that uses and activities occur in a manner to protect the public health and safety and that do not produce adverse impacts on surrounding properties or on the community at large. The following standards are relevant to air quality. A. Sources of odorous emissions, particulate matter, and air containment standards shall comply with the air pollution control district's rules and regulations and the state Health and Safety Code. B. Noxious odorous emissions in a manner or quantity that is detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort, or welfare is declared to be a public nuisance and unlawful, and shall be modified to prevent further emissions release, except for agricultural operations in compliance with this title. No emission of odors shall be permitted in such quantities as to be readily detectable when diluted in the ratio of one volume of odorous air to four volumes of clean air at the property line as specified in section 17.66.030 (Points of Measurement) of this chapter. Any process which may involve the creation or emission of any odors shall be provided with a secondary safeguard system, so that control will be maintained if the primary safeguard system should fail. C. No dust or particulate matter shall be emitted that is detectable by a reasonable person without instruments. D. Exhaust air ducts shall be located or directed away from abutting residentially zoned properties. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.2 Air Quality Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.2-12 4.2.2 EXISTING SETTING The Project site is located in the SoCAB within the jurisdiction of SCAQMD. Provided below are descriptions of existing air quality within the SoCAB and a discussion of air pollutant constituents. A. Air Pollution Constituents 1. Criteria Pollutants Criteria pollutants are pollutants that are regulated through the development of human health-based and/or environmentally based criteria for setting permissible levels. Air pollutants are classified as either primary or secondary, depending on how they are formed. Primary pollutants are emitted directly from a source into the atmosphere. Examples of primary pollutants include carbon monoxide (CO); nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and nitric oxide (NO) (which are collectively known as oxides of nitrogen [NOx]); sulfur dioxide (SO2); particulates 10 microns or less in diameter (PM10); particulates 2.5 microns or less in diameter (PM2.5); and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). The predominant source of air emissions generated by Project development would be from vehicle emissions. Motor vehicles primarily emit CO, NOx, and VOCs. Secondary pollutants are created over time and are formed in the atmosphere as chemical and photochemical reactions take place. An example of a secondary pollutant is ozone (O3), which is one of the products formed when NOx reacts with VOCs in the presence of sunlight. Other secondary pollutants include photochemical aerosols. Secondary pollutants such as O3 represent major air quality problems in the SoCAB. The Federal Clean Air Act of 1970 established the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Seven “criteria” air pollutants have now been identified using specific medical evidence, and NAAQS have been established for those pollutants. The State of California has adopted standards (known as California Ambient Air Quality Standards [CAAQS]) for the same seven criteria pollutants, but the State has established different and generally more restrictive allowable levels. The criteria pollutants are CO, NO2, O3, lead, PM10, PM2.5, VOC and SO2. Further discussion of the criteria pollutants, their sources, and their effects on human health are presented in Table 4.2-2, Criteria Pollutants. Table 4.2-2 Criteria Pollutants Criteria Pollutant Description Sources Health Effects CO CO is a colorless, odorless gas produced by the incomplete combustion of carbon-containing fuels, such as gasoline or wood. CO concentrations tend to be the highest during the winter morning, when little to no wind and surface-based inversions trap the pollutant at ground levels. Because CO is emitted directly from internal combustion engines, Any source that burns fuel such as automobiles, trucks, heavy construction equipment, farming equipment and residential heating. Individuals with a deficient blood supply to the heart are the most susceptible to the adverse effects of CO exposure. The effects observed include earlier onset of chest pain with exercise, and electrocardiograph changes indicative of decreased oxygen (O2) supply to the heart. Inhaled CO has Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.2 Air Quality Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.2-13 Criteria Pollutant Description Sources Health Effects unlike ozone (O3), motor vehicles operating at slow speeds are the primary source of CO in the SCAB. The highest ambient CO concentrations are generally found near congested transportation corridors and intersections. no direct toxic effect on the lungs but exerts its effect on tissues by interfering with O2 transport and competing with O2 to combine with hemoglobin present in the blood to form carboxyhemoglobin (COHb). Hence, conditions with an increased demand for O2 supply can be adversely affected by exposure to CO. Individuals most at risk include fetuses, patients with diseases involving heart and blood vessels, and patients with chronic hypoxemia (O2 deficiency) as seen at high altitudes. SO2 SO2 is a colorless, extremely irritating gas or liquid. It enters the atmosphere as a pollutant mainly as a result of burning high sulfur-content fuel oils and coal and from chemical processes occurring at chemical plants and refineries. When SO2 oxidizes in the atmosphere, it forms SO4. Collectively, these pollutants are referred to as sulfur oxides (SOx). Coal or oil burning power plants and industries, refineries, diesel engines A few minutes of exposure to low levels of SO2 can result in airway constriction in some asthmatics, all of whom are sensitive to its effects. In asthmatics, increase in resistance to air flow, as well as reduction in breathing capacity leading to severe breathing difficulties, are observed after acute exposure to SO2. In contrast, healthy individuals do not exhibit similar acute responses even after exposure to higher concentrations of SO2. Animal studies suggest that despite SO2 being a respiratory irritant, it does not cause substantial lung injury at ambient concentrations. However, very high levels of exposure can cause lung edema (fluid accumulation), lung tissue damage, and sloughing off of cells lining the respiratory tract. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.2 Air Quality Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.2-14 Criteria Pollutant Description Sources Health Effects Some population-based studies indicate that the mortality and morbidity effects associated with fine particles show a similar association with ambient SO2 levels. In these studies, efforts to separate the effects of SO2 from those of fine particles have not been successful. It is not clear whether the two pollutants act synergistically, or one pollutant alone is the predominant factor. NOx NOx consists of nitric oxide (NO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and nitrous oxide (N2O) and are formed when nitrogen (N2) combines with O2. Their lifespan in the atmosphere ranges from one to seven days for nitric oxide and nitrogen dioxide, to 170 years for nitrous oxide. NOx is typically created during combustion processes and are major contributors to smog formation and acid deposition. NO2 is a criteria air pollutant and may result in numerous adverse health effects; it absorbs blue light, resulting in a brownish-red cast to the atmosphere and reduced visibility. Of the seven types of nitrogen oxide compounds, NO2 is the most abundant in the atmosphere. As ambient concentrations of NO2 are related to traffic density, commuters in heavy traffic may be exposed to higher concentrations of NO2 than those indicated by regional monitoring station. Any source that burns fuel such as automobiles, trucks, heavy construction equipment, farming equipment and residential heating. Population-based studies suggest that an increase in acute respiratory illness, including infections and respiratory symptoms in children (not infants), is associated with long-term exposure to NO2 at levels found in homes with gas stoves, which are higher than ambient levels found in Southern California. Increase in resistance to air flow and airway contraction is observed after short-term exposure to NO2 in healthy subjects. Larger decreases in lung functions are observed in individuals with asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (e.g., chronic bronchitis, emphysema) than in healthy individuals, indicating a greater susceptibility of these sub-groups. In animals, exposure to levels of NO2 considerably higher than ambient concentrations result in increased susceptibility to infections, possibly due to the observed changes in cells involved in Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.2 Air Quality Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.2-15 Criteria Pollutant Description Sources Health Effects maintaining immune functions. The severity of lung tissue damage associated with high levels of O3 exposure increases when animals are exposed to a combination of O3 and NO2. O3 O3 is a highly reactive and unstable gas that is formed when VOCs and NOx, both byproducts of internal combustion engine exhaust, undergo slow photochemical reactions in the presence of sunlight. O3 concentrations are generally highest during the summer months when direct sunlight, light wind, and warm temperature conditions are favorable to the formation of this pollutant. Formed when reactive organic gases (ROG) and NOx react in the presence of sunlight. ROG sources include any source that burns fuels, (e.g., gasoline, natural gas, wood, oil) solvents, petroleum processing and storage and pesticides. Individuals exercising outdoors, children, and people with preexisting lung disease, such as asthma and chronic pulmonary lung disease, are considered to be the most susceptible sub-groups for O3 effects. Short-term exposure (lasting for a few hours) to O3 at levels typically observed in Southern California can result in breathing pattern changes, reduction of breathing capacity, increased susceptibility to infections, inflammation of the lung tissue, and some immunological changes. Elevated O3 levels are associated with increased school absences. In recent years, a correlation between elevated ambient O3 levels and increases in daily hospital admission rates, as well as mortality, has also been reported. An increased risk for asthma has been found in children who participate in multiple outdoor sports and live in communities with high O3 levels. O3 exposure under exercising conditions is known to increase the severity of the responses described above. Animal studies suggest that exposure to a combination of pollutants that includes O3 may be more toxic than exposure to O3 alone. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.2 Air Quality Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.2-16 Criteria Pollutant Description Sources Health Effects Although lung volume and resistance changes observed after a single exposure diminish with repeated exposures, biochemical and cellular changes appear to persist, which can lead to subsequent lung structural changes. Particulate Matter PM10: A major air pollutant consisting of tiny solid or liquid particles of soot, dust, smoke, fumes, and aerosols. Particulate matter pollution is a major cause of reduce visibility (haze) which is caused by the scattering of light and consequently the significant reduction air clarity. The size of the particles (10 microns or smaller, about 0.0004 inches or less) allows them to easily enter the lungs where they may be deposited, resulting in adverse health effects. Additionally, it should be noted that PM10 is considered a criteria air pollutant. PM2.5: A similar air pollutant to PM10 consisting of tiny solid or liquid particles which are 2.5 microns or smaller (which is often referred to as fine particles). These particles are formed in the atmosphere from primary gaseous emissions that include SO4 formed from SO2 release from power plants and industrial facilities and nitrates that are formed from NOx release from power plants, automobiles and other types of combustion sources. The chemical composition of fine particles highly depends on location, time of year, and weather conditions. PM2.5 is a criteria air pollutant. Sources of PM10 include road dust, windblown dust and construction. Also formed from other pollutants (acid rain, NOx, SOx, organics). Incomplete combustion of any fuel. PM2.5 comes from fuel combustion in motor vehicles, equipment and industrial sources, residential and agricultural burning. Also formed from reaction of other pollutants (acid rain, NOx, SOx, organics). A consistent correlation between elevated ambient fine particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) levels and an increase in mortality rates, respiratory infections, number and severity of asthma attacks and the number of hospital admissions has been observed in different parts of the United States and various areas around the world. In recent years, some studies have reported an association between long-term exposure to air pollution dominated by fine particles and increased mortality, reduction in lifespan, and an increased mortality from lung cancer. Daily fluctuations in PM2.5 concentration levels have also been related to hospital admissions for acute respiratory conditions in children, to increased school absences, to a decreased respiratory lung volumes in normal children, and to increased medication use in children and adults with asthma. Recent studies show lung function growth in children is reduced with long term exposure to particulate matter. The elderly, people with pre- existing respiratory or Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.2 Air Quality Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.2-17 Criteria Pollutant Description Sources Health Effects cardiovascular disease, and children appear to be more susceptible to the effects of high levels of PM10 and PM2.5. VOC VOCs are hydrocarbon compounds (any compound containing various combinations of hydrogen and carbon atoms) that exist in the ambient air. VOCs contribute to the formation of smog through atmospheric photochemical reactions and/or may be toxic. Compounds of carbon (also known as organic compounds) have different levels of reactivity; that is, they do not react at the same speed or do not form O3 to the same extent when exposed to photochemical processes. VOCs often have an odor, and some examples include gasoline, alcohol, and the solvents used in paints. Exceptions to the VOC designation include CO, carbon dioxide, carbonic acid, metallic carbides or carbonates, and ammonium carbonate. VOCs are a criteria pollutant since they are a precursor to O3, which is a criteria pollutant. The terms VOC and ROG (see below) interchangeably. Organic chemicals are widely used as ingredients in household products. Paints, varnishes and wax all contain organic solvents, as do many cleaning, disinfecting, cosmetic, degreasing and hobby products. Fuels are made up of organic chemicals. All of these products can release organic compounds while you are using them, and, to some degree, when they are stored. Breathing VOCs can irritate the eyes, nose and throat, can cause difficulty breathing and nausea, and can damage the central nervous system as well as other organs. Some VOCs can cause cancer. Not all VOCs have all these health effects, though many have several. ROG Similar to VOC, ROGs are also precursors in forming O3 and consist of compounds containing methane, ethane, propane, butane, and longer chain hydrocarbons, which are typically the result of some type of combustion/decomposition process. Smog is formed when ROG and NOx react in the presence of sunlight. ROGs are a criteria pollutant since they are a precursor to O3, which is a criteria pollutant. The terms ROG and Sources similar to VOCs. Health effects similar to VOCs. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.2 Air Quality Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.2-18 Criteria Pollutant Description Sources Health Effects VOC (see previous) interchangeably. Lead (Pb) Pb is a heavy metal that is highly persistent in the environment and is considered a criteria pollutant. In the past, the primary source of Pb in the air was emissions from vehicles burning leaded gasoline. The major sources of Pb emissions are ore and metals processing, particularly Pb smelters, and piston-engine aircraft operating on leaded aviation gasoline. Other stationary sources include waste incinerators, utilities, and lead- acid battery manufacturers. It should be noted that the Project does not include operational activities such as metal processing or Pb acid battery manufacturing. As such, the Project is not anticipated to generate a quantifiable amount of Pb emissions. Metal smelters, resource recovery, leaded gasoline, deterioration of Pb paint. Fetuses, infants, and children are more sensitive than others to the adverse effects of Pb exposure. Exposure to low levels of Pb can adversely affect the development and function of the central nervous system, leading to learning disorders, distractibility, inability to follow simple commands, and lower intelligence quotient. In adults, increased Pb levels are associated with increased blood pressure. Pb poisoning can cause anemia, lethargy, seizures, and death; although it appears that there are no direct effects of Pb on the respiratory system. Pb can be stored in the bone from early age environmental exposure, and elevated blood Pb levels can occur due to breakdown of bone tissue during pregnancy, hyperthyroidism (increased secretion of hormones from the thyroid gland) and osteoporosis (breakdown of bony tissue). Fetuses and breast-fed babies can be exposed to higher levels of Pb because of previous environmental Pb exposure of their mothers. Odor Odor means the perception experienced by a person when one or more chemical substances in the air come into contact with the human olfactory nerves. Odors can come from many sources including animals, human activities, industry, natures, and vehicles. Offensive odors can potentially affect human health in several ways. First, odorant compounds can irritate the eye, nose, and throat, which can reduce respiratory volume. Second, Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.2 Air Quality Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.2-19 Criteria Pollutant Description Sources Health Effects studies have shown that the VOCs that cause odors can stimulate sensory nerves to cause neurochemical changes that might influence health, for instance, by compromising the immune system. Finally, unpleasant odors can trigger memories or attitudes linked to unpleasant odors, causing cognitive and emotional effects such as stress. (Urban Crossroads, 2021a, Table 2-1) 2. Toxic Air Contaminants Toxic air contaminants (TACs) are chemicals generally referred to as “non-criteria” air pollutants. They are known or suspected to cause serious health problems, but do not have a corresponding ambient air quality standard. There are hundreds of air toxics, and exposure to these pollutants can cause or contribute to cancer or non-cancer health effects such as birth defects, genetic damage, and other adverse health effects. Effects may be both chronic (i.e., of long duration) or acute (i.e., severe but of short duration) on human health. Acute health effects are attributable to sudden exposure to high concentrations of air toxics. These effects can include nausea, skin irritation, respiratory illness, and, in some cases, death. Chronic health effects usually result from low-dose, long-term exposure to air toxics. The effect of major concern for this type of exposure is cancer, which typically requires a latency period of 10 to 30 years after exposure to develop. 3. Diesel Emissions Diesel engines utilize compression to ignite fuel, contrary to standard gasoline engines which use conventional spark plugs. Engines that use compression typically run at higher temperatures than gasoline engines, thereby causing the formation of substantially more NOx than in gasoline engines. In 1998, CARB designated DPM, which is present in diesel engine exhaust, as a TAC. B. Monitored Air Quality The Project site is located within SCAQMD Source Receptor Area (SRA) 33. Within SRA 33, the SCAQMD Interstate 10 (I-10) Near Road monitoring station, located approximately 0.9 mile southeast of the Project site, is the nearest long-term air quality monitoring station for CO and NO2. The I-10 Near Road monitoring station does not include data for O3, PM10, and PM2.5. As such, the Central San Bernardino Valley 1 monitoring station, located in SRA 34, is the next nearest monitoring station for O3, PM10, and PM2.5, and is located approximately 2.5 miles northeast of the Project site. It should be noted that the Central San Bernardino Valley 1 monitoring stations was utilized in lieu of the I-10 Near Road monitoring station only in instances where data was not available. The most recent three years of data available is shown on Table 4.2-3, Project Air Quality Monitoring Summary (2017-2019), Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.2 Air Quality Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.2-20 Table 4.2-3 Project Air Quality Monitoring Summary (2017-2019) Pollutant Standard Year 2017 2018 2019 O3 Maximum Federal 1-Hour Concentration (ppm) 0.137 0.141 0.124 Maximum Federal 8-Hour Concentration (ppm) 0.118 0.111 0.109 Number of Days Exceeding State 1-Hour Standard > 0.09 ppm 49 38 41 Number of Days Exceeding State/Federal 8-Hour Standard > 0.070 ppm 49 69 67 CO Maximum Federal 1-Hour Concentration > 35 ppm 4.2 1.6 1.5 Maximum Federal 8-Hour Concentration > 20 ppm 1.3 1.3 1.1 NO2 Maximum Federal 1-Hour Concentration > 0.100 ppm 0.086 0.088 0.086 Annual Average 0.029 0.027 0.028 PM10 Maximum Federal 24-Hour Concentration (µg/m3) > 150 µg/m3 75 64 88 Annual Federal Arithmetic Mean (µg/m3) 39.3 34.1 34.8 Number of Days Exceeding Federal 24-Hour Standard > 150 µg/m3 0 0 0 Number of Days Exceeding State 24-Hour Standard > 50 µg/m3 7 9 12 PM2.5 Maximum Federal 24-Hour Concentration (µg/m3) > 35 µg/m3 39.2 29.2 46.5 Annual Federal Arithmetic Mean (µg/m3) > 12 µg/m3 12.0 11.1 10.8 Number of Days Exceeding Federal 24-Hour Standard > 35 µg/m3 1 0 0 ppm = Parts Per Million µg/m3 = Microgram per Cubic Meter Source: Data for O3, CO, NO2, PM10, and PM2.5 was obtained from SCAQMD Air Quality Data Tables. (Urban Crossroads, 2021a, Table 2-4) and identifies the number of days ambient air quality standards were exceeded for the study area, which is considered to be representative of the local air quality at the Project site. Data for O3, CO, NO2, PM10, and PM2.5 for 2017 through 2019 was obtained from the SCAQMD Air Quality Data Tables. Additionally, data for SO2 has been omitted as attainment is regularly met in the SCAB, and few monitoring stations measure SO2 concentrations. Regional air quality is defined in a regulatory sense by whether the area has or has not attained State and/or federal ambient air quality standards, as determined by monitoring data. Areas that are in nonattainment are required to prepare plans and implement measures that will bring the region into attainment. When an area has been reclassified from nonattainment to attainment for a federal standard, the status is identified as “maintenance,” and there must be a plan and measures established that will keep the region in attainment for the following ten years. Table 4.2-4, Attainment Status of Criteria Pollutants in the SoCAB, lists the current attainment designations for the SoCAB. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.2 Air Quality Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.2-21 Table 4.2-4 Attainment Status of Criteria Pollutants in the SoCAB Criteria Pollutant State Designation Federal Designation O3 – 1-hour standard Nonattainment -- O3 – 8-hour standard Nonattainment Nonattainment PM10 Nonattainment Attainment PM2.5 Nonattainment Nonattainment CO Attainment Unclassifiable/Attainment NO2 Attainment Unclassifiable/Attainment SO2 Unclassifiable/Attainment Unclassifiable/Attainment Pb1 Attainment Unclassifiable/Attainment Note: See Appendix 2.1 to the Project’s AQIA (Appendix B1 of this Draft EIR) for a detailed map of State/National Area Designations within the SoCAB “-“ = The national 1-hour O3 standard was revoked effective June 15, 2005. (Urban Crossroads, 2021a, Table 2-3) C.Regional Air Quality Improvement The SCAQMD is the lead agency charged with regulating air quality emission reductions for the entire SoCAB. SCAQMD rule development through the 1970s and 1980s resulted in dramatic improvement in SoCAB air quality. Nearly all control programs developed through the early 1990s relied on (i) the development and application of cleaner technology; (ii) add-on emission controls, and (iii) uniform California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review throughout the SoCAB. This approach has significantly reduced industrial emission sources, and vehicle emissions have been reduced by technologies implemented at the State level by CARB. SCAQMD created AQMPs, which represent a regional blueprint for achieving healthful air on behalf of the 16 million residents of the SoCAB. The 2012 AQMP states, “the remarkable historical improvement in air quality since the 1970’s is the direct result of Southern California’s comprehensive, multiyear strategy of reducing air pollution from all sources as outlined in its AQMPs.” Emissions of O3, NOx, VOC, and CO have been decreasing in the SCAB since 1975 and are projected to continue to decrease beyond 2021. These decreases result primarily from motor vehicle controls and reductions in evaporative emissions. Refer to Section 2.9 of the Project’s AQIA (Appendix B1 of this Draft EIR) for a complete description of regional air quality improvement. D.Sensitive Receptors Some people are especially sensitive to air pollution and are given special consideration when evaluating air quality impacts from projects. These groups of people include children, the elderly, and individuals with pre-existing respiratory or cardiovascular illness. Structures that house these persons or places, where they gather, are defined as “sensitive receptors.” These structures typically include uses such as residences, hotels, and hospitals where an individual can remain for 24 hours. Receptors in the Project study area are shown in Figure 4.2-1, Sensitive Receptor Locations. The nearest land use to the Project site where an individual could remain for 24 hours is the West Valley Detention Center (location R2) at 9500 Etiwanda Avenue, 364 feet/111 meters from the Project site. This receptor is used for evaluation of localized impacts of PM10 and PM2.5. 1 The Federal nonattainment designation for lead is only applicable towards the Los Angeles County portion of the SCAB. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report LEGEND: [=J Site Boundary � Receptor Locations -• Distance from receptor to Project site boundary (in feet) Source(s): Urban Crossroads (01-18-2021) Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga 4.2 Air Quality Figure 4.2-1 Sensitive Receptor Locations SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.2-22 Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.2 Air Quality Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.2-23 The Heritage Bag manufacturing facility is the nearest industrial/commercial receptor, which is located approximately 120 feet west of the Project site’s western boundary at 12320 4th Street. Consistent with the SCAQMD localized significance threshold (LST) Methodology, the nearest industrial/commercial use to the Project site is used to determine construction and operational LST air impacts for emissions of NOx and CO as the averaging periods for these pollutants are shorter (8 hours or less), and it is reasonable to assume that an individual could be present at these sites for periods of one to 8 hours. Other non-residential sensitive receptor locations include an existing church use, located 1,658 feet northwest of the Project site; the Hyatt Place Ontario, located 4,167 feet southwest of the Project site; and the Courtyard by Marriott Ontario, located approximately 5,321 feet west of the Project site. E. Existing Emissions The Project site is currently occupied by a 1,431,000 square feet (sf) warehouse building and 23,240 sf retail building. For analysis purposes, the emissions associated with architectural coatings, consumer products, and landscape maintenance equipment were calculated based on assumptions provided in CalEEMod2. Existing energy-related emission estimates were based on actual utility usage presented on utility bills for the Project site provided by the Project Applicant. Lastly, mobile source emissions were based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) trip generation information provided in the Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga High-Cube Fulfillment Center Traffic Memo for operation of the warehouse building as a high-cube transload short-term storage warehouse use (without cold storage) and operation of the retail building as a free-standing discount store use (Urban Crossroads, 2021d). The estimated operation-source emissions from the existing development are summarized in Table 4.2- 5, Emissions from Existing Development. Detailed operation model outputs are presented in Appendices 3.5 and 3.6 to the Project’s AQIA (Appendix B1 of this Draft EIR). Table 4.2-5 Emissions from Existing Development Source Emissions (lbs/day) VOC NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5 Summer Area Source 32.50 1.36E-03 0.15 1.00E-05 5.30E-04 5.30E-04 Energy Source 2.93 26.66 22.39 0.16 2.03 2.03 Mobile Source (Passenger Cars) 9.04 15.79 108.03 0.31 31.12 8.43 Mobile Source (Trucks) 3.50 110.82 29.67 0.47 17.88 5.77 Total Maximum Daily Emissions 47.97 153.26 160.24 0.95 51.03 16.22 Winter Area Source 32.50 1.36E-03 0.15 1.00E-05 5.30E-04 5.30E-04 Energy Source 2.93 26.66 22.39 0.16 2.03 2.03 Mobile Source (Passenger Cars) 8.51 16.41 93.03 0.29 31.12 8.42 Mobile Source (Trucks) 3.22 113.32 20.88 0.47 17.81 5.75 Total Maximum Daily Emissions 47.16 156.39 136.44 0.92 50.95 16.20 CalEEMod operational-source emissions for the existing development are presented in Appendices 3.5 and 3.6 to the Project’s AQIA (included in Appendix B1 of this Draft EIR). (Urban Crossroads, 2021a, Table 3-11) 2 On October 17, 2017, the SCAQMD in conjunction with the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) and other California air districts, released the latest version of the CalEEMod Version 2016.3.2. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.2 Air Quality Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.2-24 4.2.3 THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE According to Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, a project will normally have a significant adverse environmental impact on air quality if it would:  Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan.  Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard.  Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.  Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people. Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines also indicates that, 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 significance determinations. The SCAQMD has developed regional significance thresholds for other regulated pollutants, as summarized at Table 4.2-6, Maximum Daily Regional Emissions Thresholds. The SCAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Significance Thresholds (April 2019) indicate that any projects in the SoCAB with daily emissions that exceed any of the indicated thresholds should be considered as having an individually and cumulatively significant air quality impact. Table 4.2-6 Maximum Daily Regional Emissions Thresholds1 Pollutant Regional Construction Threshold Regional Operational Thresholds NOx 100 lbs/day 55 lbs/day VOC 75 lbs/day 55 lbs/day PM10 150 lbs/day 150 lbs/day PM2.5 55 lbs/day 55 lbs/day SOx 150 lbs/day 150 lbs/day CO 550 lbs/day 550 lbs/day Pb 3 lbs/day 3 lbs/day lbs/day = Pounds Per Day 1. South Coast Air Quality Management District CEQA Air Quality Significance Thresholds (April 2019) (Urban Crossroads, 2021a, Table 3-1) The thresholds used for the construction-source localized significant thresholds LST analysis are presented in Table 4.2-7, Maximum Daily Localized Construction Emissions Thresholds. Although the total acreage disturbed is more than 5 acres per day for construction activities, the LST Methodology only provides look-up tables for sites with an area with daily disturbance of 5 acres or less. For projects that exceed 5 acres, the 5-acre LST look-up tables can be used as a screening tool to determine which pollutants require additional detailed analysis. This approach is conservative as it assumes that all on-site emissions associated with the project would occur within a concentrated 5-acre area. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.2 Air Quality Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.2-25 Table 4.2-7 Maximum Daily Localized Construction Emissions Thresholds Pollutant Construction Localized Thresholds NOx 286 lbs/day CO 2,570 lbs/day PM10 87 lbs/day PM2.5 24 lbs/day Localized Thresholds presented in this table are based on the SCAQMD Final LST Methodology, July 2008 (Urban Crossroads, 2021a, Table 3-13) LSTs for a 5-acre site during operations also were used as a screening tool to determine if further detailed analysis is required. As such, the threshold values presented in Table 4.2-8, Maximum Daily Localized Operational Emissions Thresholds, are from the look-up tables at 5 acres and a 111-meter distance for localized PM10 and PM2.5 evaluation and a 37-meter receptor distance for localized NOx and CO evaluation. Table 4.2-8 Maximum Daily Localized Operational Emissions Thresholds Pollutant Operational Localized Thresholds NOx 286 lbs/day CO 2,570 lbs/day PM10 22 lbs/day PM2.5 6 lbs/day Localized Thresholds presented in this table are based on the SCAQMD Final LST Methodology, July 2008 (Urban Crossroads, 2021a, Table 3-15) Concerning “cumulatively considerable” increases in emissions, the SCAQMD has published a report on how to address cumulative impacts from air pollution: White Paper on Potential Control Strategies to Address Cumulative Impacts from Air Pollution. In this report the SCAQMD states (Page D-3): “…the SCAQMD uses the same significance thresholds for project specific and cumulative impacts for all environmental topics analyzed in an Environmental Assessment or Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The only case where the significance thresholds for project specific and cumulative impacts differ is the Hazard Index (HI) significance threshold for TAC emissions. The project specific (project increment) significance threshold is HI > 1.0 while the cumulative (facility-wide) is HI > 3.0. It should be noted that the HI is only one of three TAC emission significance thresholds considered (when applicable) in a CEQA analysis. The other two are the maximum individual cancer risk (MICR) and the cancer burden, both of which use the same significance thresholds (MICR of 10 in 1 million and cancer burden of 0.5) for project specific and cumulative impacts. Projects that exceed the project-specific significance thresholds are considered by the SCAQMD to be cumulatively considerable. This is the reason project-specific and cumulative significance thresholds are the same. Conversely, projects that do not exceed the project- specific thresholds are generally not considered to be cumulatively significant.” Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.2 Air Quality Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.2-26 Therefore, this analysis assumes that individual projects that do not generate operational or construction emissions that exceed the SCAQMD’s recommended daily thresholds for project-specific impacts also would not cause a cumulatively-considerable increase in emissions for those pollutants for which the SoCAB is in nonattainment, and, therefore, would not be considered to have a significant, adverse air quality impact. Alternatively, individual project-related construction and operational emissions that exceed SCAQMD thresholds for project-specific impacts would be considered cumulatively considerable. With respect to carcinogenic chemical risk, the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook (1993) states that emissions of toxic air contaminants (TACs) are considered significant if an HRA shows an increased cancer risk of greater than 10 in one million. Based on guidance from the SCAQMD in the document, Health Risk Assessment Guidance for Analyzing Cancer Risks from Mobile Source Diesel Idling Emissions for CEQA Air Quality Analysis, for purposes of this analysis, 10 in one million is used as the cancer risk threshold for evaluating the Project’s potential TAC impacts associated with cancer risk. The SCAQMD also has established non-carcinogenic risk parameters for use in HRAs. Non- carcinogenic risks are quantified by calculating a "hazard index," expressed as the ratio between the ambient pollutant concentration and its toxicity or Reference Exposure Level (REL). An REL is a concentration at or below which health effects are not likely to occur. A hazard index less of than one (1.0) means that adverse health effects are not expected. Within this analysis, non-carcinogenic exposures of less than 1.0 are considered less-than-significant. 4.2.4 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS A. Regulatory Requirements In addition to adhering to the state-mandated provisions of Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards and the CalGreen Code, the Project is required to adhere to the following Regulatory Requirements (RRs). Additionally, the Project Applicant would be required to comply with provisions of the following requirements of the City’s Development Code, which are presented in Section 4.13 of this Draft EIR, and require actions be taken to reduce the use of single-occupancy vehicles: Chapter 17.78, Transportation Demand Management (TDM); and, Section 17.64.100, Bicycle Parking Requirements. RR 2-1 During construction, the Contractor shall comply with South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rules 402 and 403, to minimize short term emissions of dust and particulates. SCAQMD Rule 402 requires that air pollutant emissions not be a nuisance off-site. SCAQMD Rule 403 requires that fugitive dust be controlled with the best available control measures so that the presence of such dust does not remain visible in the atmosphere beyond the property line of the emission source. The Contractor shall provide the City of Rancho Cucamonga with a SCAQMD- approved Dust Control Plan or other sufficient proof of compliance with Rule 403, prior to grading permit issuance. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.2 Air Quality Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.2-27 RR 2-2 Architectural coatings shall be selected so that the volatile organic compound (VOC) content of the coatings is compliant with SCAQMD Rule 1113. This requirement shall be included as notes on the contractor specifications, which shall be reviewed by the City of Rancho Cucamonga Building and Safety Services Department prior to issuance of a building permit. RR 2-3 The Project Applicant and/or future tenants shall comply with SCAQMD Rule 201 and Regulation II (requiring a Permit to Construct prior to the installation of any equipment that may cause air contaminants) as well as Rule 203 (requiring a Permit to Operate prior to the use of any equipment that may cause air contaminants). These rules and regulation are required unless the Project's equipment or aspects are exempt under Rule 219, which identifies those equipment, processes, or operations that do not require permits. The Project Applicant shall provide the City of Rancho Cucamonga with the SCAQMD-approved Permit to Construct and Permit to Operate or other sufficient proof of compliance with Rules 201 and 203, prior to occupancy permit issuance. RR 2-4 Building occupants shall comply with Rule 2202, which provides employers with a menu of options to reduce mobile source emissions generated from employee commutes, to comply with federal and State CAA requirements. This Rule applies to any employer who employs 250 or more employees on a full or part-time basis at a worksite for a consecutive six-month period calculated as a monthly average, unless otherwise exempt. An employer subject to this Rule is required to annually register with the SCAQMD to implement an emission reduction program, in accordance with subdivisions (f) and (g), that will obtain emission reductions equivalent to a worksite specific emission reduction target (ERT) specified for the compliance year. RR 2-5 The Project shall be operated in compliance with established standards in Section 17.66.060, Odor, Particulate Matter, and Air Containment Standards, of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Code. These standards address compliance with the rules and regulations of the air pollution control district and the state Health and Safety Code related to odorous emissions, particulate matter, and air containment; noxious odor emissions; and restrictions on the emission of dust and particulate matter. B. Impact Analysis Threshold 2.1 Would the Project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? In March 2017, the SCAQMD released the Final 2016 AQMP (2016 AQMP). The 2016 AQMP continues to evaluate current integrated strategies and control measures to meet the NAAQS and explore new and innovative methods to reach its goals. Some of these approaches include utilizing incentive programs, recognizing existing co-benefit programs from other sectors, and developing a strategy with fair-share reductions at the federal, State, and local levels. Similar to the 2012 AQMP, the 2016 AQMP incorporates scientific and technological information and planning assumptions, including the 2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (2016-2040 RTP/SCS), a planning document that supports the integration of land use and transportation to help the Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.2 Air Quality Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.2-28 region meet the federal CAA requirements. The Project’s consistency with the AQMP is determined based on the 2016 AQMP, as discussed below. Criteria for determining consistency with the AQMP are defined in Chapter 12, Sections 12.2 and Section 12.3 of the 1993 CEQA Handbook. These indicators are discussed below. Consistency Criterion No. 1: The proposed Project would not result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or cause or contribute to new violations or delay the timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emissions reductions specified in the AQMP. The violations that Consistency Criterion No. 1 refers to are the CAAQS and NAAQS. CAAQS and NAAQS violations would occur if regional or localized significance thresholds were exceeded. As discussed under the analysis of Threshold 2.2, the Project’s construction activities would not exceed any of the SCAQMD LSTs, although without mitigation, construction activities would exceed the SCAQMD Regional Threshold for NOx. As such, prior to mitigation, the Project has the potential to conflict with the 2016 AQMP, and this is evaluated as a potentially significant impact. However, with the implementation of mitigation measure (MM) 2-1, which requires the use of Tier 3 and Tier 4 construction equipment, Project construction emissions would be below all of the SCAQMD Regional Thresholds, including the regional threshold for NOx. See Table 4.2-12. Accordingly, with the required mitigation implementation, the Project’s construction activities would not conflict with the 2016 AQMP, resulting in a less than significant impact. As also indicated under the analysis of Threshold 2.2, and when taking into consideration existing emissions from the Project site, the Project’s net operational emissions would not exceed the applicable regional thresholds or LST thresholds for operational activity. Therefore, the Project operational activities would not conflict with the 2016 AQMP according to this criterion, resulting in a less than significant impact. Consistency Criterion No. 2: The Project would not exceed the assumptions in the AQMP based on the years of Project build-out phase. The 2016 AQMP demonstrates that the applicable ambient air quality standards can be achieved within the timeframes required under federal law. Growth projections from local general plans adopted by cities in the SCAQMD are provided to the SCAG, which develops regional growth forecasts, which are then used to develop future air quality forecasts for the AQMP. Therefore, development consistent with the growth projections in the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan is considered to be consistent with the AQMP. Peak day emissions generated by construction activities are largely independent of land use assignments but are a function of development scope and maximum disturbance. Irrespective of the site’s land use designation, the development of the site to its maximum potential would likely occur, with disturbance of the entire site occurring during construction activities. As such, Project construction activities would not exceed the assumptions in the AQMP based on the years of the Project build-out phase, and a less than significant impact would result. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.2 Air Quality Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.2-29 The City of Rancho Cucamonga is currently in the process of updating its General Plan. Based on the current General Plan, the Project site is designated for General Industrial and Heavy Industrial uses. The General Industrial designation permits a wide range of industrial activities that include 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 industrial activity. The Heavy Industrial designation permits heavy manufacturing, compounding, processing or fabrication, warehousing, storage, freight handling, truck services and terminals, and supportive service commercial uses. Heavy Industrial areas are located to take advantage of rail lines and arterial roadway access and minimize impacts on surrounding land uses. As discussed in Section 3.4.3.B of the Project Description, the Project is proposed to consist of two high-cube warehouse buildings with a total building area of 2,175,000 sf. Even though the Project involves a General Plan amendment and zone change to change, the land use designation of the northern portion of the site from Heavy Industrial to General Industrial for consistency across the site, the Project’s proposed high-cube warehouse uses are consistent with the types of uses anticipated by the General Industrial and Heavy Industrial land use designation and zoning and the growth assumptions anticipated in Rancho Cucamonga General Plan. Further, as discussed in Section 4.13 of this Draft EIR, the Project would have a less than significant impact related to vehicle miles traveled (VMT) because it meets the Low VMT screening criteria for the “Production-Attraction” VMT per service population measure of VMT. Additionally, the Project’s VMT impact would be considered less than significant based on the comparison of baseline project generated VMT per service population to the City’s baseline condition. Based on the preceding discussion, the Project would not conflict with the 2016 AQMP according to this criterion, resulting in a less than significant impact. Impact 2.1 The Project’s net operational emissions would not exceed the applicable SCAQMD regional thresholds or LST thresholds, and the Project’s construction and operational characteristics would not exceed the assumptions in the AQMP based on the years of Project build-out phase. However, prior to mitigation the Project’s construction- related emissions would exceed the SCAQMD regional thresholds for NOx. Thus, Project-related construction activities have the potential to result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or cause or contribute to new violations or delay the timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emissions reductions specified in the 2016 AQMP, resulting in a potentially significant impact. With the implementation of MM 2-1, the Project would not conflict with the 2016 AQMP, and this impact would be less than significant. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.2 Air Quality Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.2-30 Threshold 2.2 Would the Project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard? The SCAQMD in conjunction with the CAPCOA and other California air districts released CalEEMod Version 2016.3.2. The purpose of this model is to calculate construction-source and operational-source criteria pollutant (VOCs, NOx, SOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.5) and GHG emissions from direct and indirect sources, and to quantify applicable air quality and GHG reductions achieved from mitigation measures and regulations. Accordingly, the latest version of CalEEMod has been used for the Project to determine construction and operational air quality emissions. Output from the model runs for both construction and operational activity are provided in Appendices 3.1 through 3.8 of the Project’s AQIA, included in Appendix B1 of this Draft EIR. On August 19, 2019, the EPA approved the 2017 version of the EMFAC model web database for use in SIP and transportation conformity analyses. EMFAC2017 is a mathematical model that was developed to calculate emission rates, fuel consumption, and VMT from motor vehicles that operate on highways, freeways, and local roads in California, and is commonly used by CARB to project changes in future emissions from on-road mobile sources. The Project’s AQIA utilizes summer, winter, and annual EMFAC2017 emission factors to derive vehicle emissions associated with Project operational activities, which vary by season. Because the EMFAC2017 emission rates are associated with vehicle fuel types while CalEEMod vehicle emission factors are aggregated to include all fuel types for each individual vehicle class, the EMFAC2017 emission rates for different fuel types of a vehicle class are averaged by activity or by population and activity to derive CalEEMod emission factors. The equations applied to obtain CalEEMod vehicle emission factors for each emission type are detailed in CalEEMod User’s Guide Appendix A: Calculation Details for CalEEMod. EMFAC2017 emission rates utilized in the analysis can be found in Appendix 3.7 of the Project’s AQIA. 1. Construction Emissions – Regional Significance Construction activities associated with the Project would result in emissions of VOCs, NOx, SOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.5. Air quality emissions are expected from the Project’s anticipated construction activities described in Section 3.0, Project Description, of this Draft EIR, and Section 3.4 of the Project’s AQIA, summarized in Table 4.2-9, Project Construction Activities. The construction activities would overlap but would be staggered during the construction period. To provide a conservative estimate of impacts, as shown in Table 4.2-10, Overlapping Construction Activities, certain phase activities are anticipated to overlap. Modeling overlapping construction activity provides a worst-case scenario of the maximum peak daily construction emissions levels for criteria pollutants. The proposed construction activities also would include the at-grade crossing of the railroad spur to complete 6th Street between Santa Anita Avenue and Etiwanda Avenue; the anticipated scope of the construction area for this at-grade crossing is described in Section 3.0 of this Draft EIR, and shown on Figure 3-13, 6th Street At-Grade Crossing. Due to the limited construction area and limited scope of construction activities for this roadway improvement, use of heavy construction equipment would not be required. Construction of the at-grade crossing would involve the removal and replacement of Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.2 Air Quality Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.2-31 Table 4.2-9 Project Construction Activities Area Phase Name Phase Type Overall Site Site Work Demolition/Crushing Grading Building 1 Site Work Utilities/Infrastructure Construction Paving Vertical Construction Building Construction Architectural Coating Building 2 Site Work Utilities/Infrastructure Construction Paving Vertical Construction Building Construction Architectural Coating (Urban Crossroads, 2021a, Table 3-2) Table 4.2-10 Overlapping Construction Activities Overlap Area Activity 1 Overall Site Construction Demolition/Crushing and Grading 2 Building 1 Utilities/Infrastructure Construction Building 2 3 Building 1 Paving Building 2 4 Building 1 Building Construction/Architectural Coating Building 2 CalEEMod construction-source (unmitigated) emissions are presented in Appendix 3.1 to the Project’s AQIA (included in Appendix B1 of this Draft EIR). (Urban Crossroads, 2021a, Table 3-6) existing rail at the crossing and construction of the 6th Street roadway connection. This construction activity is expected to use a limited number of construction equipment including one backhoe, one dump truck and one roller. It is estimated that the at-grade crossing construction work would last approximately 3 weeks. Further, if the at-grade crossing is constructed concurrently with the Project no additional equipment beyond that anticipated for the Project would be required and the estimated air pollutant emissions presented below would not be exceeded. If the 6th Street at-grade crossing is constructed after completion of the Project’s construction activities, AQ emissions associated with construction of the at-grade crossing are anticipated to be nominal and would not exceed the emissions identified for Project-related construction activities. Therefore, the construction analysis included for the Project includes the envelope of potential impacts associated with construction of the 6th Street at- grade crossing. CalEEMod calculates maximum daily emissions for summer and winter periods. Table 4.2-11, Overall Construction Emissions Summary (Without Mitigation) summarizes the estimated maximum daily Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.2 Air Quality Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.2-32 Table 4.2-11 Overall Construction Emissions Summary (Without Mitigation) Overlap Emissions (lbs/day) VOC NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5 Summer Overlap 1 20.86 258.23 129.44 0.37 56.24 18.20 Overlap 2 2.94 39.29 29.66 0.09 2.85 1.71 Overlap 3 4.77 15.10 15.91 0.04 1.03 0.66 Overlap 4 74.47 112.10 160.92 0.47 30.23 10.22 Winter Overlap 1 20.87 258.19 129.13 0.37 56.24 18.20 Overlap 2 2.97 39.12 29.97 0.08 2.85 1.71 Overlap 3 4.77 15.06 15.93 0.04 1.03 0.66 Overlap 4 74.58 111.95 147.19 0.44 30.24 10.22 Maximum Daily Emissions 74.58 258.23 160.92 0.47 56.24 18.20 SCAQMD Regional Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55 Threshold Exceeded? NO YES NO NO NO NO CalEEMod construction-source (unmitigated) emissions are presented in Appendix 3.1 to the Project’s AQIA (included in Appendix B1 of this Draft EIR). (Urban Crossroads, 2021a, Table 3-7) construction emissions without mitigation for both summer and winter periods. The details of construction phases, demolition activities, selection of construction equipment, areas to be paved, and other input parameters, including CalEEMod data, are included in the AQIA in Appendix B1 of this Draft EIR. Further, the Project is required to comply with SCAQMD rules during construction. Compliance with Rule 403 (RR 2-1), which addresses fugitive dust, and Rule 1113 (RR 2-2), which addresses architectural coatings are anticipated in CalEEMod. Appendix 3.1 to the Project’s AQIA presents the detailed construction model outputs. As indicated in Table 4.2-11, under the assumed construction scenarios, emissions resulting from the Project construction would exceed the SCAQMD regional threshold for NOx emissions. As previously shown in Table 4.2-4, the Project area has been designated as nonattainment for O3, PM10, and PM2.5, for the CAAQS and designated as nonattainment for O3 and PM2.5.for the NAAQS. NOx emissions are a precursor to O3. The Project’s construction-related emissions of NOx would result in a cumulatively-considerable net increase of a criteria pollutant for which the Project region is nonattainment (i.e., O3), which is considered a significant impact. Table 4.2-12, Overall Construction Emissions Summary (With Mitigation), shows the Project’s construction emissions with the implementation of Mitigation Measure (MM) 2-1, which requires the use of Tier 3 and Tier 4 construction equipment for certain construction activities. As shown, with the implementation of MM 2-1, Project construction emissions would be below the SCAQMD regional thresholds, including the regional threshold for NOx. Therefore, the Project would not result in a cumulatively-considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the Project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard, including NOx emissions, an ozone precursor. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.2 Air Quality Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.2-33 Table 4.2-12 Overall Construction Emissions Summary (With Mitigation) Overlap Emissions (lbs/day) VOC NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5 Summer Overlap 1 5.00 94.78 183.19 0.37 49.34 11.81 Overlap 2 1.12 21.89 31.32 0.09 1.77 0.74 Overlap 3 4.23 15.27 18.63 0.04 1.07 0.74 Overlap 4 70.02 83.41 169.73 0.47 29.76 9.92 Winter Overlap 1 5.02 94.73 182.89 0.37 49.34 11.81 Overlap 2 1.14 21.72 31.63 0.08 1.77 0.75 Overlap 3 4.23 15.23 18.64 0.04 1.07 0.74 Overlap 4 70.14 83.27 156.00 0.44 29.76 9.92 Maximum Daily Emissions 70.14 94.78 183.19 0.47 49.34 11.81 SCAQMD Regional Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55 Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO NO NO CalEEMod construction-source (mitigated) emissions are presented in Appendix 3.2 of the Project’s AQIA (Appendix B1 of this Draft EIR). (Urban Crossroads, 2021a, Table 3-8) 2. Operational Emissions – Regional Significance Operational emissions are calculated based on land use types, the number of units or building sizes associated with a project, vehicle trip characteristics, etc. The results are expressed in pounds per day and are compared with the SCAQMD regional thresholds to determine impact significance. The Project’s operational emissions were calculated using CalEEMod, described previously. The primary sources of long-term operational emissions resulting from the Project include: area sources, energy sources (electricity), mobile sources (i.e., vehicles), on-site cargo handling equipment (e.g., forklifts), and transportation refrigeration units (TRUs), which are described in Section 3.5 of the AQIA included in Appendix B1 of this Draft EIR. The Project's primary source of operational emissions would be from mobile sources, specifically the trucks that would travel to and from the Project site and operate within the Project site. For mobile source emissions, traffic data was obtained from the Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga High-Cube Fulfillment Center Traffic Memo (Urban Crossroads, 2021d), which is summarized in Section 4.13 of this Draft EIR. As discussed in Section 3.4.3.B of the Project Description, based on the currently proposed building design/site plan, it is anticipated that 90% of the proposed building area (Building 1 and Building 2) would be operated as high-cube non-sort fulfillment center warehouse uses (1,957,500 sf), and the remaining 10% of the building area (Building 1 and Building 2) would be occupied by high-cube cold storage warehouse uses (217,500 sf). The estimated operational emissions are conservative in that they do not take credit for adherence to SCAQMD rules that would be implemented during operation (refer to RR 2-3, RR 2-4, and RR 2-5, above presented in Section 4.2.4A), or compliance with the City’s Development Code provisions for implementation of TDM strategies and bicycle facilities that serve to reduce use of single occupancy vehicles. Appendix B1 of this Draft EIR presents the results of the modeling calculations. However, because the proposed Project would replace existing uses, an emissions credit has been applied for emissions associated with the existing uses. The existing land-use is estimated to generate 3,032 two- Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.2 Air Quality Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.2-34 way vehicular trips per day; thus, for purposes of analysis the net change in emissions between the existing uses and the proposed use has been evaluated and is based on the net increase of 976 two-way vehicle trips per day. Emissions associated with architectural coatings, consumer products, and landscape maintenance equipment were calculated based on assumptions provided in CalEEMod. Estimated emissions from the existing development on-site were previously presented in Table 4.2-5, Emissions from Existing Development. The estimated net operational-source emissions are summarized in Table 4.2-13, Summary of Peak Operational Emissions. Detailed operation model outputs for the Project are presented in Appendices 3.3 through 3.4 of the Project’s AQIA (Appendix B1 of this Draft EIR). As shown in Table 4.2-13, the Project’s net daily regional emissions from on-going operations would not exceed any SCAQMD Regional Thresholds. Therefore, during operation, the Project would not result in a cumulative- considerable net increase of a criteria pollutant for which the Project region is in nonattainment under an applicable federal of State ambient air quality standard, resulting in a less than significant impact. No mitigation is required. A high-cube sort fulfillment center warehouse use is not proposed as part of the Project, and the site plan as currently proposed does not support this on-site use. Nevertheless, for the purpose of providing a conservative analysis, the potential operational impacts associated with an increase in net trip generation that could occur if the proposed buildings operated as 90% high-cube sort fulfillment center warehouse and 10% high-cube cold storage warehouse uses have been evaluated. The Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga High-Cube Sort Fulfillment Center Supplemental Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, Health Risk, and Energy Assessment (Sort Use Supplemental Assessment) prepared by Urban Crossroads (April 15, 2021) (Urban Crossroads, 2021e) is provided in Appendix B4 of this Draft EIR. The increased trip generation and associated increase in emissions is based on an estimate of trips presented in Section 4.13 of this Draft EIR. As presented in Table 1 of the Sort Use Supplemental Assessment, the net daily regional emissions from operation of the proposed buildings as high-cube sort fulfillment center warehouse and high-cube cold storage warehouse uses would not exceed any SCAQMD Regional Thresholds and would result in a less than significant impact. 3. Health Consequences from Criterial Pollutants In December 2018, in the case of Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal.5th 502 (“Friant Ranch”), the California Supreme Court held that an EIR's air quality analysis must meaningfully connect the identified significant air quality impacts to the human health consequences of those impacts, or meaningfully explain why that analysis cannot be provided. Although the Project would not result in any significant and unavoidable air quality impacts, the following health consequences from criteria pollutants is provided for informational purposes. As noted in the Brief of Amicus Curiae by the SCAQMD in the Friant Ranch case (Brief), which is included in Appendix 3.11 of the Project’s AQIA (Appendix B1 of this Draft EIR), SCAQMD has among the most sophisticated air quality modeling and health impact evaluation capability of any of the air districts in the State, and thus it is uniquely situated to express an opinion on how lead agencies should correlate air quality impacts with specific health outcomes. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.2 Air Quality Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.2-35 Table 4.2-13 Summary of Peak Operational Emissions Source Emissions (lbs/day) VOC NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5 Summer Area Source 49.28 3.69E-03 0.40 3.00E-05 1.44E-03 1.44E-03 Mobile Source (Passenger Cars) 9.44 8.59 142.42 0.41 43.99 11.80 Mobile Source (Trucks) 3.97 122.18 34.13 0.52 20.09 6.45 On-Site Equipment Source 0.23 2.11 2.31 3.06E-03 0.14 0.13 TRUs 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 Total Maximum Daily Emissions 63.18 133.14 179.52 1.19 64.48 18.64 Existing Emissions 47.97 153.26 160.24 0.95 51.03 16.22 Net Emissions (Project – Existing) a 15.21 -20.12 19.28 0.25 13.46 2.42 SCAQMD Regional Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55 Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO NO NO Winter Area Source 49.28 3.69E-03 0.40 3.00E-05 1.44E-03 1.44E-03 Mobile Source (Passenger Cars) 8.85 9.11 120.18 0.38 43.99 11.80 Mobile Source (Trucks) 3.67 125.00 24.55 0.52 20.02 6.42 On-Site Equipment Source 0.23 2.11 2.31 3.06E-03 0.14 0.13 TRUs 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 Total Maximum Daily Emissions 62.29 136.48 147.71 1.16 64.41 18.61 Existing Emissions 47.16 156.39 136.44 0.92 50.95 16.20 Net Emissions (Project – Existing) a 15.14 -19.91 11.26 0.24 13.46 2.42 SCAQMD Regional Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55 Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO NO NO CalEEMod operational-source emissions are presented in Appendices 3.3 and 3.4 of the Project’s AQIA (included in Appendix B1 of this Draft EIR). a The Project results in a net decrease in NOx, CO, and SOx emissions since it does not generate any energy source emissions as it would not be served by natural gas. (Urban Crossroads, 2021a, Table 3-12) The SCAQMD noted that it may be “difficult to quantify health impacts for criteria pollutants.” SCAQMD used O3 as an example of why it is impracticable to determine specific health outcomes from criteria pollutants for all but very large, regional-scale projects. First, forming O3 “takes time and the influence of meteorological conditions for these reactions to occur, so ozone may be formed at a distance downwind from the sources.” Second, “it takes a large amount of additional precursor emissions (NOx and VOCs) to cause a modeled increase in ambient ozone levels over an entire region,” Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.2 Air Quality Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.2-36 with a 2012 study showing that “reducing NOx by 432 tons per day (157,680 tons/year) and reducing VOC by 187 tons per day (68,255 tons/year) would reduce ozone levels at the SCAQMD’s monitor site with the highest levels by only 9 parts per billion.” SCAQMD concluded that it “does not currently know of a way to accurately quantify ozone-related health impacts caused by NOx or VOC emissions from relatively small projects.” The San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD) Brief ties the difficulty of correlating the emission of criteria pollutants to health impacts to how ozone and particulate matter are formed, stating that “[b]ecause of the complexity of ozone formation, a specific tonnage amount of NOx or VOCs emitted in a particular area does not equate to a particular concentration of ozone in that area.” Similarly, the tonnage of PM “emitted does not always equate to the local PM concentration because it can be transported long distances by wind,” and “[s]econdary PM, like ozone, is formed via complex chemical reactions in the atmosphere between precursor chemicals such as sulfur dioxides (SOx) and NOx,” meaning that “the tonnage of PM-forming precursor emissions in an area does not necessarily result in an equivalent concentration of secondary PM in that area.” The disconnect between the amount of precursor pollutants and the concentration of ozone or PM formed makes it difficult to determine potential health impacts, which are related to the concentration of ozone and PM experienced by the receptor rather than levels of NOx, SOx, and VOCs produced by a source. Most local agencies, including the City of Rancho Cucamonga, lack the data to do their own assessment of potential health impacts from criteria air pollutant emissions, as would be required to establish customized, locally-specific thresholds of significance based on potential health impacts from an individual development project. The use of national or “generic” data to fill the missing local data gap would not yield accurate results because such data does not capture local air patterns, local background conditions, or local population characteristics, all of which play a role in how a population experiences air pollution. Because it is impracticable to accurately isolate the exact cause of a human disease (for example, the role a particular air pollutant plays compared to the role of other allergens and genetics in causes of asthma), existing scientific tools cannot accurately estimate health impacts of the Project’s air emissions without undue speculation. Instead, readers are directed to the Project’s AQIA (included as Appendix B1 of this Draft EIR and summarized herein), which provides extensive information concerning the quantifiable and non-quantifiable health risks associated with criteria pollutant emissions related to the Project’s construction and long-term operation. The LST analysis presented below under the analysis of Threshold 2.3 determined that the Project would not result in emissions exceeding SCAQMD’s LSTs during either construction or long-term operation. In addition, and unlike the Project at issue in the Friant Ranch case, Project would not result in any significant and unavoidable air quality impacts. Therefore, the proposed Project would not be expected to exceed the most stringent applicable federal or State ambient air quality standards for emissions of CO, NOx, PM10, and PM2.5. As the Project’s emissions would comply with federal, State, and local air quality standards, the Project’s emissions are not sufficiently high enough to result in a significant heath impact. Moreover, they are also not high enough to use a regional modeling program to correlate health effects on a basin- wide level, and would not provide a reliable indicator of health effects if modeled. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.2 Air Quality Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.2-37 Impact 2.2 Prior to mitigation and with adherence to applicable regulatory requirements (R-1 and R-2), Project’s construction activities would result in a cumulatively-considerable net increase of NOx, which is an O3 precursor, for which the Project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard, resulting in a potentially significant impact. This impact would be mitigated to a less than significant level with implementation of MM 2-1. During operation, the Project would not result in a cumulatively-considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the Project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard, and impacts would therefore be less than significant. Threshold 2.3 Would the Project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? 1. Localized Impacts from Criteria Pollutants LSTs represent the maximum emissions from a project that will not cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard at the nearest residence or sensitive receptor. For evaluating Project-related LST impacts, the analysis in the Project’s AQIA makes use of methodology included in the SCAQMD Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology (LST Methodology). Refer to Section 3.6 of the Project’s AQIA (included in Appendix B1 of this Draft EIR) for a discussion of the methodology used to calculate the Project’s localized air quality impacts. Receptor locations are off-site locations where sensitive individuals (defined previously) may be exposed to emissions from Project activities. Consistent with the SCAQMD LST Methodology, the nearest land use where an individual could remain for 24 hours to the Project site (in this case the West Valley Detention Center) has been used to determine construction and operational air quality impacts for emissions of PM10 and PM2.5, since PM10 and PM2.5 thresholds are based on a 24-hour averaging time. Sensitive receptors at a greater distance from the Project site would be exposed to fewer emissions from Project activities. Therefore, analyzing the closest sensitive receptor provides a conservative analysis of Project impacts. As per the LST Methodology, commercial and industrial facilities are not included in the definition of sensitive receptor because employees and patrons do not typically remain on-site for a full 24 hours but are typically on-site for 8 hours or less. However, LST Methodology explicitly states that “LSTs based on shorter averaging periods, such as the NO2 and CO LSTs, could also be applied to receptors such as industrial or commercial facilities since it is reasonable to assume that a worker at these sites could be present for periods of one to eight hours.” Therefore, any adjacent land use where an individual could remain for 1 or 8-hours, that is located at a closer distance to the Project site than the nearest receptor used for the PM10 and PM2.5 analysis, must be considered to determine construction and operational LST air impacts for emissions of NO2 and CO since these pollutants have an averaging time of one to eight hours. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.2 Air Quality Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.2-38 Localized Significance – Construction LST thresholds of significance for construction-related activities were previously presented in Table 4.2-7, and sensitive receptors are discussed under Section 4.2.2.D. As described in the Project’s AQIA (included in Appendix B1 of this Draft EIR), as a conservative measure, it is assumed that a maximum of 10 acres per day can be actively disturbed during construction of the Project. Although the total acreage disturbed is more than 5 acres per day for construction activities, the LST Methodology only provides look-up tables for sites with an area with daily disturbance of 5 acres or less. For projects that exceed 5 acres, the 5-acre LST look-up tables can be used as a screening tool to determine which pollutants require additional detailed analysis. This approach is conservative as it assumes that all on- site emissions associated with the project would occur within a concentrated 5-acre area. This screening method would therefore over-predict potential localized impacts, because by assuming that on-site construction activities are occurring over a smaller area, the resulting concentrations of air pollutants are more highly concentrated once they reach the smaller site boundary than they would be for activities if they were spread out over a larger surface area. On a larger site, the same amount of air pollutants generated would disperse over a larger surface area and would result in a lower concentration once emissions reach the project site boundary. Table 4.2-14, Localized Significance Summary of Construction (Without Mitigation), identifies the localized impacts at the nearest receptor location in the project's vicinity. As previously stated, the nearest receptor utilized to evaluate localized construction emissions of PM10 and PM2.5 is the West Valley Detention Center, approximately 111 meters from the Project site. For the evaluation of localized NOx and CO impacts, the nearest receptor is represented by the Heritage Bag manufacturing facility, located approximately 37 meters from the Project site. For analytical purposes, overlapping emissions associated with peak demolition/crushing and grading activities are considered for purposes of LSTs since this scenario represents the maximum localized emissions that would occur. Any other construction phases of development that overlap would result in lesser emissions and consequently lesser impacts than what is disclosed herein. Table 4.2-14 Localized Significance Summary of Construction (Without Mitigation) On-Site Emissions Emissions (lbs/day) NOx CO PM10 PM2.5 Demolition/Crushing and Grading Maximum Daily Emissions 248.31 124.50 54.66 17.75 SCAQMD Localized Threshold 286 2,570 87 24 Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO CalEEMod localized construction-source emissions are presented in Appendix 3.1 of the Project’s AQIA (included in Appendix B1 of this Draft EIR). (Urban Crossroads, 2021a, Table 3-14) As shown in Table 4.2-14, without mitigation, localized construction emissions would not exceed the applicable SCAQMD LSTs for emissions of any criteria pollutant. Outputs from the model runs for unmitigated construction LSTs are provided in Appendix 3.1 to the Project’s AQIA (included in Appendix B1 of this Draft EIR). As such, based on the SCAQMD LSTs, localized emissions associated Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.2 Air Quality Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.2-39 with Project construction activities would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, and impacts would therefore be less than significant. No mitigation is required. Localized Significance – Long-Term Operations LST thresholds of significance for operational-related activities were previously presented in Table 4.2-8. As noted previously, the LST methodology provides look-up tables for sites with an area with daily disturbance of 5 acres or less. For projects that exceed 5 acres, the 5-acre LST look-up tables can be used as a screening tool to determine whether pollutants require additional detailed analysis. This approach is conservative as it assumes that all on-site emissions associated with the Project would occur within a concentrated 5-acre area. This screening method would therefore over-predict potential localized impacts, because by assuming that on-site operational activities are occurring over a smaller area, the resulting concentrations of air pollutants are more highly concentrated once they reach the smaller site boundary than they would be for activities if they were spread out over a larger surface area. On a larger site, the same amount of air pollutants generated would disperse over a larger surface area and would result in a lower concentration once emissions reach the Project-site boundary. As such, LSTs for a 5-acre site during operations are used as a screening tool to determine if further detailed analysis is required. The LST analysis generally includes on-site sources (i.e., area, energy, mobile, and on-site cargo handling equipment, as discussed in Section 3.5 of the Project’s AQIA, included in Appendix B1 of this Draft EIR). However, it should be noted that the CalEEMod outputs do not separate on-site and off-site emissions from mobile sources. To establish a maximum potential impact scenario for analytic purposes, the emissions shown in Table 4.2-15, Localized Significance Summary of Operations (Without Mitigation), represent all on-site Project-related stationary (area) sources and Project-related mobile sources. The longest on-site distance is 1.50 -mile for both trucks and passenger cars. As shown in Table 4.2-15, net operational emissions would not exceed the LST thresholds for the nearest sensitive receptor. As such, based on the SCAQMD LSTs, localized emissions associated with Project operational activities would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, and impacts would therefore be less than significant. Table 4.2-15 Localized Significance Summary of Operations (Without Mitigation) Operational Activity Emissions (lbs/day) NOx CO PM10 PM2.5 Proposed Project Maximum Daily Emissions 15.62 36.05 5.14 1.71 Existing Emissions 42.13 54.59 6.27 3.22 Net Emissions (Project – Existing) -17.98 -7.36 -1.17 1.58 SCAQMD Localized Threshold 286 2,570 22 6 Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO CalEEMod localized operational-source emissions are presented in Appendices 3.2 and 3.3. (Urban Crossroads, 2021a, Table 3-16) As previously identified, a high-cube sort fulfillment center warehouse use is not proposed as part of the Project, and the site plan as currently proposed does not support this on-site use. Nevertheless, for Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.2 Air Quality Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.2-40 the purpose of providing a conservative analysis, the potential localized emissions from operations associated with an increase in net trip generation that could occur if the proposed buildings operated as 90% high-cube sort fulfillment center warehouse and 10% high-cube cold storage warehouse uses have been evaluated. As presented in Table 2 of the Sort Use Supplemental Assessment, the maximum localized emissions from operation of the proposed buildings as high-cube sort fulfillment center warehouse and high-cube cold storage warehouse uses would not exceed any SCAQMD thresholds resulting in a less than significant impact. 2. Project Mobile Source Health Risk Assessment In order to evaluate the potential significance of the Project’s mobile-source DPM emissions with operation of the proposed buildings as 90% high-cube non-sort fulfillment center warehouse and 10% high-cube cold storage warehouse, the Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Mobile Source Health Risk Assessment (HRA) has been prepared by Urban Crossroads (April 15, 2021) and is included as Appendix B2 of this Draft EIR. The Project’s operational HRA is based on SCAQMD guidelines to produce conservative estimates of human health risk posed by exposure to DPM. Vehicle DPM emissions were calculated using emission factors for PM10 (which includes DPM) generated with the 2017 version of the CARB's EMFAC model, which is the latest model at this time approved for use by the EPA. Emission factors calculated using EMFAC 2017 are expressed in units of grams per vehicle miles traveled (g/VMT) or grams per idle-hour (g/idle-hr), depending on the emission process. The EMFAC model generates emission factors in terms of grams of pollutant emitted per vehicle activity and can calculate a matrix of emission factors at specific values of temperature, relative humidity, and vehicle speed. Refer to Section 2.2 of the Project’s HRA for a detailed description of the methodologies used to estimate the Project’s DPM emissions. The Mobile Source Health Risk Assessment is a separate analysis from the Health Consequences Assessment previously provided (as a result of Friant Ranch). The focus of the Mobile Source Health Risk Assessment is the potential health impacts associated with toxic air contaminants (TACs), specifically DPM whereas the health consequences assessment is an evaluation of potential health outcomes as a result of exposure to criteria pollutant emissions. Tables 2-1 and 2-2 of the Project’s HRA shows the calculated emission factors. As a conservative measure, a 2022 EMFAC 2017 run was conducted assuming a static 2022 emissions factor data set for the entire analysis duration herein (e.g., 30 years). The use of 2022 emission factors would overstate potential impacts since this approach assumes that emission factors remain “static” and do not change over time due to fleet turnover or cleaner technology with lower emissions that would be incorporated into vehicles after 2022. Additionally, based on EMFAC 2017, Light-Heavy-Duty Trucks are comprised of 45.12% diesel, Medium-Heavy-Duty Trucks are comprised of 91.03% diesel, and Heavy- Heavy-Duty Trucks are comprised of 92.75% diesel. Trucks fueled by diesel are accounted for by these percentages accordingly in the emissions factor generation. Similar to off-site traffic, on-site vehicle running emissions were calculated by applying the running exhaust PM10 emission factor (g/VMT) from EMFAC and the total vehicle trip number over the length of the driving path using the same formula utilized for on-site emissions. In addition, on-site vehicle idling exhaust emissions were calculated by applying the idle exhaust PM10 emission factor (g/idle- Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.2 Air Quality Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.2-41 hr) from EMFAC and the total truck trip over the total assumed idle time (15 minutes). On-site truck idling was estimated to occur as trucks enter and travel through the Project site. Although the Project’s diesel-fueled truck and equipment operators will be required by State law to comply with CARB’s idling limit of 5 minutes, staff at SCAQMD recommends that the on-site idling emissions be calculated assuming 15 minutes of truck idling, which would take into account on-site idling which occurs while the trucks are waiting to pull up to the truck bays, idling at the bays, idling at check-in and check-out, etc. As such, the Project’s HRA calculates truck idling at 15 minutes, consistent with SCAQMD’s recommendation. All trucks associated with this high-cube cold storage warehouse use were presumed to have TRUs to account for cold storage operations. In a manner consistent with on-site truck idling, the analysis assumes that each TRU accessing the site would idle for 30 minutes, even though the CARB’s anti- idling rules mandate a 5-minute idling time. All TRUs are assumed to be 34 horsepower with a load factor of 0.53 (0.02 grams of PM10 per brake-horsepower-hour). The resultant TRU emissions were subsequently added to the running and idle emissions to produce a composite emission profile. Each roadway and related source location were modeled as multiple adjacent volume sources. Due to the large number of sources modeled for the analysis, each source's corresponding coordinates are identified in the dispersion model input/output files presented in Appendix 2.1 to the Project’s operational HRA. The DPM emission rate for each volume source was calculated by dividing the source emission rate (g/second) as shown on Table 4.2-16, DPM Emissions from Project Trucks (Warehouse), and Table 4.2-17, DPM Emissions from Project Trucks (Cold Storage), by the number of volume sources representing the lateral extent of each link and/or roadway segment. The modeled truck travel routes included in the HRA are based on the anticipated truck trip distributions (inbound/outbound), illustrated in Figure 4.13-6 and Figure 4.13-7, respectively, in Section 4.13 of this Draft EIR. The modeled truck routes are consistent with the trip distribution patterns identified in the Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga High-Cube Fulfillment Center Traffic Memo to determine the potential impacts to receptors in the project's proximity and along the identified truck routes. As such, the modeling domain considered all identified roadway segments leading to and from I-15 and I-10 and inbound/outbound movements along 4th Street/San Bernardino Avenue and 6 th Street. The modeled emissions sources for both on-road and on-site sources are illustrated in Figure 4.2-2, Modeled Emission Sources On-Road, and Figure 4.2-3, Modeled Emission Sources On-Site. It should be noted that the construction of this at-grade crossing at 6th Street does not affect the HRA since no Project trucks would occur along 6th Street west of the Project site with or without the at-grade crossing. To assess the impact of Project-related emissions, air quality modeling utilizing the AMS/EPA Regulatory Model AERMOD was performed to assess the downwind extent of DPM emissions from both on-site and off-site mobile source activity. AERMOD is a steady-state Gaussian plume model applicable to emitted air pollutants that employ best state-of-practice parameterizations for characterizing meteorological influences and atmospheric dispersion. Refer to Section 2.3 of the Project’s Operational HRA (included in Appendix B1 of this Draft EIR) for a discussion of modeling parameters used for the analysis of the Project’s DPM-related health risks. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.2 Air Quality Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.2-42 Table 4.2-16 DPM Emissions from Project Trucks (Warehouse) (Urban Crossroads, 2021b, Table 2-3) VMT aTruck Emission Rate bTruck Emission Rate bDaily Truck Emissions cModeled Emission Rates d(miles/day)(grams/mile)(grams/idle-hour)(grams/day)(g/second)Onsite Idle A (Building 2 northern loading docks)330.09280.768.785E-06Onsite Idle B (Building 2 southern loading docks)330.09280.768.785E-06Onsite Idle C (Building 1 eastern loading docks)610.09281.411.631E-05Onsite Idle D (Building 1 western loading docks)610.09281.411.631E-05Onsite Travel (including Project truck traffic on Street A)374 757.600.0424832.183.725E-04Foothill Blvd. East to Etiwanda Ave. from I-15 / 10% Inbound199.060.018500.171.941E-06Etiwanda Ave. South to 6th St. from Foothill Blvd. / 10% Inbound1925.800.018500.485.523E-066th St. West from Etiwanda Ave. / 10% Inbound198.600.018500.161.841E-06San Bernardino Ave. West to Etiwanda Avenue / 5% Inbound94.740.018500.091.015E-064th St. West from Etiwanda Ave. 60% Inbound112 53.540.018500.991.146E-05Etiwanda Ave. North to 4th St. from I-10 / 55% Inbound103 69.020.018501.281.478E-054th St. East from I-15 / 30% Inbound5627.610.018500.515.911E-06Foothill Blvd. West from Etiwanda Ave. to I-15 / 10% Outbound198.710.018500.161.866E-06Etiwanda Ave. North from 6th St. to Foothill Blvd. / 10% Outbound 1925.800.018500.485.523E-066th St. East to Etiwanda Ave. / 30% Outbound5625.800.018500.485.523E-06Etiwanda Ave. South from 6th St. to I-10 / 20% Outbound3747.410.018500.881.015E-054th St. East to San Berardino Ave. / 5% Outbound99.200.018500.171.970E-064th St. West to I15 / 65% Outbound122 59.820.018501.111.281E-05a Vehicle miles traveled are for modeled truck route only. b Emission rates determined using EMFAC 2017. Idle emission rates are expressed in grams per idle hour rather than grams per mile.c This column includes the total truck travel and truck idle emissions. For idle emissions this column includes emissions based on the assumption that each truck idles for 15 minutes. Trucks Per Day Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.2 Air Quality Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.2-43 Table 4.2-17 DPM Emissions from Project Trucks (Cold Storage) (Urban Crossroads, 2021b, Table 2-4) VMT aTruck Emission Rate bTruck Emission Rate bDaily Truck Emissions cModeled Emission Rates d(miles/day)(grams/mile)(grams/idle-hour)(grams/day)(g/second)Onsite Idle A (Building 2 northern loading docks)140.14442.572.977E-05Onsite Idle B (Building 2 southern loading docks)140.14442.572.977E-05Onsite Idle C (Building 1 eastern loading docks)260.14444.785.528E-05Onsite Idle D (Building 1 western loading docks)260.14444.785.528E-05Onsite Travel (including Project truck traffic on Street A)162 328.160.0396116.861.951E-04Foothill Blvd. East to Etiwanda Ave. from I-15 / 10% Inbound83.930.016520.111.279E-06Etiwanda Ave. South to 6th St. from Foothill Blvd. / 10% Inbound811.170.016520.313.640E-066th St. West from Etiwanda Ave. / 10% Inbound83.720.016520.101.213E-06San Bernardino Ave. West to Etiwanda Avenue / 5% Inbound42.050.016520.066.689E-074th St. West from Etiwanda Ave. 60% Inbound4923.190.016520.667.620E-06Etiwanda Ave. North to 4th St. from I-10 / 55% Inbound4529.900.016520.859.830E-064th St. East from I-15 / 30% Inbound2411.960.016520.343.895E-06Foothill Blvd. West from Etiwanda Ave. to I-15 / 10% Outbound83.770.016520.111.230E-06Etiwanda Ave. North from 6th St. to Foothill Blvd. / 10% Outbound811.170.016520.313.640E-066th St. East to Etiwanda Ave. / 30% Outbound24 11.170.016520.313.640E-06Etiwanda Ave. South from 6th St. to I-10 / 20% Outbound1620.540.016520.586.689E-064th St. East to San Berardino Ave. / 5% Outbound43.990.016520.111.298E-064th St. West to I-15 / 65% Outbound5325.910.016520.738.507E-06Trucks Per Daya Vehicle miles traveled are for modeled truck route only. b Emission rates determined using EMFAC 2017. Idle emission rates are expressed in grams per idle hour rather than grams per mile.c This column includes the total truck travel and truck idle emissions. For idle emissions this column includes emissions based on the assumption that each truck idles for 15 minutes. d This column includes TRU emissions expressed in grams per hour. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report LEGEND: -Off-Site Truck Travel Source(s): Urban Crossroads (01-18-2021) Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga 4.2 Air Quality Figure 4.2-2 Modeled Emission Sources On-Road SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.2-44 Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report SAN BERNARDINO AVE LEGEND: -On-Site Truck Travel-On-Site Idling Source(s): Urban Crossroads (01-18-2021) Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga 4.2 Air Quality Figure 4.2-3 Modeled Emission Sources On-Site SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.2-45 Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.2 Air Quality Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.2-46 Tables 2-6 and 2-7 of the Project’s Operational HRA (included in Appendix B1 of this Draft EIR) summarize the exposure parameters for residents and workers based on the 2015 OEHHA Guidelines, while Appendix 2.2 to the Project’s HRA includes the detailed risk calculation. Based on the analysis presented in the Project’s operational HRA, the following provides a summary of potential impacts to residents and workers within the Project’s vicinity. Individual Exposure Scenario. The residential land use with the greatest potential exposure to Project DPM source emissions is located immediately east of Etiwanda Avenue between Arrow Route and Foothill Boulevard; Etiwanda Avenue is a designated truck route. At the maximally exposed individual receptor (MEIR), the maximum incremental cancer risk attributable to Project DPM source emissions is estimated at 0.58 in one million, which is less than the SCAQMD’s significance threshold of 10 in one million. At this same location, non- cancer risks attributable to the Project are 0.00018 and do not exceed the applicable significance threshold of 1.0. As such, the Project would not cause a significant human health or cancer risk to adjacent residences. The nearest modeled receptors are illustrated in Figure 4.2-4, Modeled Receptors for the Mobile Source Health Risk Assessment. It should be noted that the West Valley Detention Center was considered but did not meet the criteria for a residential occupancy since the West Valley Detention Center is a facility where an individual could remain for a short-term period (not years), and since the HRA impacts for a residential occupancy are based on a 30-year exposure duration. Worker Exposure Scenario. The worker receptor land use with the greatest potential exposure to Project DPM source emissions is the West Valley Detention Center located approximately 364 feet east of the Project site3. At the maximally exposed individual worker (MEIW), the maximum incremental cancer risk impact at this location is 0.98 in one million, which is less than the SCAQMD’s threshold of 10 in one million. At this same location, non- cancer risks attributable to the Project are 0.0026 and do not exceed the applicable significance threshold of 1.0. As such, the Project would not cause a significant human health or cancer risk to adjacent workers. The nearest modeled receptors are illustrated on Figure 4.2-4. School Child Exposure Scenario. The school site land use with the greatest potential exposure to Project DPM source emissions is the Sacred Heart Parish School located approximately 1.5 miles (7,900 feet) north of the Project site, and adjacent to Foothill Boulevard, a designated truck route. At the maximally exposed individual school child (MEISC), the maximum incremental cancer risk impact attributable to the Project at this location is calculated to be an estimated 0.04 in one million, which is less than the significance threshold of 10 in one million. At this same location, non-cancer risks attributable to the Project are 0.00005 and do not exceed the applicable significance threshold of 1.0. As such, the Project would not cause a significant human health or cancer risk to nearby school children. The nearest modeled receptors are illustrated in Figure 4.2-4. 3 Although there may be other worker receptors located nearer in terms of physical distance to the Project site, this location is the maximally impacted based on local meteorological conditions. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report LEGEND: 0 Residential Receptor0 Worker Receptor0 School Receptor Source(s): Urban Crossroads (01-18-2021) Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga 4.2 Air Quality Figure 4.2-4 Modeled Receptors for the Mobile Source Health Risk Assessment SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.2-47 Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.2 Air Quality Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.2-48 Accordingly, and based on the preceding analysis, the Project’s operational DPM emissions with operation of the proposed buildings as 90% high-cube non-sort fulfillment center warehouse and 10% high-cube cold storage warehouse uses would not expose sensitive receptors to a cancer risk impact greater than 10 in one million and would not result in non-cancer risks exceeding the applicable significance threshold of 1.0. As such, Project-related operational DPM emissions would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, and impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is required. As previously identified, a high-cube sort fulfillment center warehouse use is not proposed as part of the Project, and the site plan as currently proposed does not support this on-site use. Nevertheless, for the purpose of providing a conservative analysis, the potential significance of the Project’s mobile- source DPM emissions from operations associated with an increase in net trip generation that could occur if the proposed buildings operated as 90% high-cube sort fulfillment center warehouse and 10% high-cube cold storage warehouse uses have been evaluated. As presented in the Sort Use Supplemental Assessment, the operation of high-cube sort fulfillment center warehouse and high-cube cold storage warehouse uses would result in 542 two-way truck trips, or 6 two-way truck trips more (or 1.1% more) than the Project. Since there is a linear relationship between risk estimates and associated truck trips, the operations with the sort use are expected to result in a maximum cancer risk estimate of 0.59 in one million for the nearest residence, 0.99 in one million for the nearest worker, and 0.04 in one million for the nearest school child exposure which do not exceed the applicable threshold of 10 in one million and impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is required. 3. Construction Health Risk Assessment In order to evaluate the potential significance of the Project’s DPM emissions during construction, a Construction Health Risk Assessment (Construction HRA) has been prepared by Urban Crossroads (March 19, 2021) and is included as Appendix B3 of this Draft EIR. The analysis was conducted in accordance with the guidelines in the SCAQMD Health Risk Assessment Guidance for Analyzing Cancer Risks from Mobile Source Diesel Idling Emissions for CEQA Air Quality Analysis. SCAQMD recommends using the U.S. EPA’s AERMOD model. The Lakes AERMOD View (Version 9.9.0) was used to calculate annual average particulate concentrations associated with site operations, and incorporates the U.S. EPA’s latest AERMOD Version 19191. Modeling assumptions are presented in the Construction HRA, and the modeled receptors are the same as those presented in Figure 4.2-4 for the mobile source HRA. The results of the Construction HRA are as follows:  Residential Exposure Scenario. At the MEIR (east of Etiwanda Avenue between Arrow Route and Foothill Boulevard, the maximum incremental cancer risk attributable to Project DPM source emissions is estimated at 0.08 in one million, which is less than the SCAQMD’s significance threshold of 10 in one million. At this same location, non-cancer risks attributable to the Project construction is 0.0002 and does not exceed the applicable significance threshold of 1.0. As such, the Project would not cause a significant human health or cancer risk to adjacent residences from construction. It should be noted that the West Valley Detention Center was considered but did not meet the criteria for a residential occupancy since the West Valley Detention Center is a facility where an individual could remain for a short-term period (not Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.2 Air Quality Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.2-49 years), and since the HRA impacts for a residential occupancy are based on long-term exposure over several years.  Worker Exposure Scenario. As previously identified, the worker receptor land use with the greatest potential exposure to Project DPM source emissions during construction is the West Valley Detention Center4. At the MEIW, the maximum incremental cancer risk impact at this location from construction is 0.41 in one million, which is less than the SCAQMD’s threshold of 10 in one million. At this same location, non-cancer risks attributable to the Project is 0.008 and does not exceed the applicable significance threshold of 1.0. As such, the Project would not cause a significant human health or cancer risk to adjacent workers from construction.  School Child Exposure Scenario. A previously identified, the school site land use with the greatest potential exposure to Project DPM source emissions is at the Sacred Heart Parish School, which is adjacent to Foothill Boulevard, a designated truck route. At the MEISC, the maximum incremental cancer risk impact attributable to the Project at this location is calculated to be an estimated 0.02 in one million which is less than the significance threshold of 10 in one million. At this same location, non-cancer risks attributable to the Project is 0.00007 and does not exceed the applicable significance threshold of 1.0. As such, the Project would not cause a significant human health or cancer risk to nearby school children from construction. Accordingly, the Project’s construction-related DPM emissions would not expose sensitive receptors to a cancer risk impact greater than 10 in one million and would not result in non-cancer risks exceeding the applicable significance threshold of 1.0. As such, construction-related DPM emissions would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, and impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is required. 4. CO “Hot Spots” An adverse CO concentration, known as a “hot spot”, would occur if an exceedance of the state one- hour standard of 20 ppm or the eight-hour standard of 9 ppm were to occur. It has long been recognized that CO hotspots are caused by vehicular emissions, primarily when idling at congested intersections. In response, vehicle emissions standards have become increasingly stringent in the last twenty years. Currently, California's allowable CO emissions standard is a maximum of 3.4 grams/mile for passenger cars (there are requirements for certain vehicles that are more stringent). With the turnover of older vehicles, the introduction of cleaner fuels, and the implementation of increasingly sophisticated and efficient emissions control technologies, CO concentration in the SoCAB is now designated as attainment. To establish a more accurate record of baseline CO concentrations affecting the SoCAB, a CO “hot spot” analysis was conducted in 2003 for four busy intersections in Los Angeles at the peak morning 4 Although there may be other worker receptors located nearer in terms of physical distance to the Project site, this location is the maximally impacted based on local meteorological conditions. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.2 Air Quality Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.2-50 and afternoon time periods. This “hot spot” analysis did not predict any violation of CO standards, as shown in Table 3-16 of the Project’s AQIA (included in Appendix B1 of this Draft EIR). Based on the SCAQMD's 2003 AQMP and the 1992 Federal Attainment Plan for Carbon Monoxide (1992 CO Plan), peak CO concentrations in the SoCAB resulted from unusual meteorological and topographical conditions and not a result of traffic volumes and congestion at a particular intersection. As evidence of this, for example, of the 9.3 ppm 8-hour CO concentration measured at the Long Beach Boulevard and Imperial Highway intersection (highest CO generating intersection within the “hot spot” analysis), only 0.7 ppm was attributable to the traffic volumes and congestion at this intersection; the remaining 8.6 ppm were due to the ambient air measurements at the time the 2003 AQMP was prepared. In contrast, the ambient 8-hour CO concentration within the Project study area is estimated at 1.4 ppm-1.6 ppm (refer to Table 4.2-3, previously presented). Therefore, even if the traffic volumes for the Project were double or even triple of the traffic volumes generated at the Long Beach Boulevard and Imperial Highway intersection, coupled with the on-going improvements in ambient air quality, the Project would not be capable of resulting in a CO “hot spot” at any study area intersections. Similar considerations are also employed by other Air Districts when evaluating potential CO concentration impacts. More specifically, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) concludes that under existing and future vehicle emission rates, a given project would have to increase traffic volumes at a single intersection by more than 44,000 vehicles per hour (vph) – or 24,000 vph where vertical and/or horizontal air does not mix – in order to generate a significant CO impact. Traffic volumes generating the CO concentrations for the “hot spot” analysis are shown on Table 3-17 of the Project’s AQIA (included in Appendix B1 of this Draft EIR). The busiest intersection evaluated was at Wilshire Boulevard and Veteran Avenue, which has a daily traffic volume of approximately 100,000 vph and AM/PM traffic volumes of 8,062 vph and 7,719 vph respectively. The 2003 AQMP estimated that the 1-hour concentration for this intersection was 4.6 ppm; this indicates that, should the daily traffic volume increase four times to 400,000 vehicles per day, CO concentrations (4.6 ppm x 4 = 18.4 ppm) would still not likely exceed the most stringent 1-hour CO standard (20.0 ppm). As shown in Table 3-19 of the Project’s AQIA (included in Appendix B1 of this Draft EIR), the intersection of I-15 Southbound Ramps and 4th Street would have the highest AM/PM traffic volumes of 4,376 vph and 5,508 vph respectively. As such, Project-related traffic volumes are less than the traffic volumes identified in the 2003 AQMP. Therefore, the Project would not produce the volume of traffic required to generate a CO “hot spot” either in the context of the 2003 Los Angeles hot spot study or based on representative BAAQMD CO threshold considerations. Therefore, CO “hot spots” are not an environmental impact of concern for the Project. Localized air quality impacts related to mobile- source emissions would therefore be less than significant. 5. Disadvantaged Communities With respect to the Community Air Protection Program (CAPP) (AB 617), each year CARB’s governing board (Board) is required to consider selecting communities for participation in the CAPP. Communities are selected for developing community air monitoring systems, emissions reduction programs, or both in order to improve air quality in their community. Over the first two years of the Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.2 Air Quality Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.2-51 CAPP (2018 and 2019), the Board selected 13 communities where these focused actions are underway (CARB, 2019). The City of Rancho Cucamonga is not one of the selected communities, and to date has not been nominated to participate in the CAPP (CARB, 2020). CalEnviroScreen is a general mapping tool developed by the OEHHA to help identify California communities most affected by pollution sources. CalEPA designates the Project site and its immediately surrounding areas being part of a disadvantaged community for the purpose of SB 535 (OEHHA, 2018). As previously discussed, SB 535 targets disadvantaged communities in California for investment of proceeds from the State’s cap-and-trade program to improve public health, quality of life, and economic opportunity in California’s most burdened communities, while also reducing pollution. The Project entails the development of two high-cube warehouse buildings, which would bring jobs and other economic opportunities to the local area without State assistance. The environmental effects of the Project are fully evaluated in this Draft EIR. Regional emissions associated with operation would be less than significant, and with the incorporation of mitigation, regional emissions associated with construction would also be less than significant. This Draft EIR provides a disclosure of localized impacts that may affect this CalEPA-designated disadvantaged community. As indicated in the preceding analysis, the Project’s localized construction and operational emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD LST thresholds, and the Project would not result in significant health impacts due to DPM emissions. The Project also would not cause or contribute to any CO “hot spots.” Impact 2.3 The Project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, including localized construction emissions, localized construction emissions, diesel mobile health risks, or CO “Hot Spots”; therefore, impacts would be less than significant. Threshold 2.4 Would the Project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people? Land uses generally associated with odor complaints include agricultural uses (livestock and farming); wastewater treatment plants; food processing plants; chemical plants; composting operations; refineries; landfills; dairies; and fiberglass molding facilities. The Project does not contain land uses typically associated with emitting objectionable odors. Potential odor sources associated with the Project may result from construction equipment exhaust and the application of asphalt and architectural coatings during construction activities and the temporary storage of typical solid waste (refuse) associated with the proposed Project’s (long-term operational) uses. Standard construction requirements would minimize odor impacts from construction. The construction odor emissions would be temporary, short-term, and intermittent in nature and would cease upon completion of the respective phase of construction and are thus considered less than significant. It is expected that Project-generated refuse would be stored in covered containers and removed at regular intervals in compliance with the City’s solid waste regulations. The Project also would be required to comply with SCAQMD Rule 402 to prevent occurrences of public nuisances (refer to RR 2-1), and Section 17.66.060, Odor, Particulate Matter, and Air Containment Standards, of the City’s Development Code, which addresses compliance with the rules and regulations of the SCAQMD and the state Health and Safety Code related to odorous Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.2 Air Quality Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.2-52 emissions and odors (refer to RR 2-5). Therefore, odors associated with the Project construction and operations would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. Impact 2.4 The Project would not result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people, and would adhere to applicable regulatory requirements addressing odor emissions (refer to RR 2-1 and RR 2-5). Impacts would be less than significant. 4.2.5 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS As indicated in the analysis of Threshold 2.1, with implementation of MM 2-1, the Project’s construction-related and operational emissions would not result in a conflict with the SCAQMD 2016 AQMP and impacts would be less than significant. As such, cumulatively-considerable impacts due to a conflict with the AQMP would be less than significant. The AQMD has published a report on how to address cumulative impacts from air pollution: White Paper on Potential Control Strategies to Address Cumulative Impacts from Air Pollution. In this report the AQMD states (Page D-3): “…the AQMD uses the same significance thresholds for project specific and cumulative impacts for all environmental topics analyzed in an Environmental Assessment or EIR. The only case where the significance thresholds for project specific and cumulative impacts differ is the Hazard Index (HI) significance threshold for toxic air contaminant (TAC) emissions. The project specific (project increment) significance threshold is HI > 1.0 while the cumulative (facility-wide) is HI > 3.0. It should be noted that the HI is only one of three TAC emission significance thresholds considered (when applicable) in a CEQA analysis. The other two are the maximum individual cancer risk (MICR) and the cancer burden, both of which use the same significance thresholds (MICR of 10 in 1 million and cancer burden of 0.5) for project specific and cumulative impacts. Projects that exceed the project-specific significance thresholds are considered by the SCAQMD to be cumulatively considerable. This is the reason project-specific and cumulative significance thresholds are the same. Conversely, projects that do not exceed the project- specific thresholds are generally not considered to be cumulatively significant.” As previously discussed, the CAAQS designate the Project area as nonattainment for O3, PM10, and PM2.5 while the NAAQS designates the Project area as nonattainment for O3 and PM2.5. Based on the SCAQMD report on how to address cumulative impacts from air pollution, projects that exceed the Project-specific significance thresholds are considered by the SCAQMD to be cumulatively considerable. This is the reason project-specific and cumulative significance thresholds are the same. Conversely, projects that do not exceed the project-specific thresholds are generally not considered to be cumulatively significant. Therefore, this analysis assumes that individual projects that do not generate operational or construction emissions that exceed the SCAQMD’s recommended daily thresholds for project-specific impacts would also not cause a cumulatively considerable increase in Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.2 Air Quality Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.2-53 emissions for those pollutants for which the SoCAB is in nonattainment, and, therefore, would not be considered to have a significant, adverse air quality impact. Alternatively, individual project-related construction and operational emissions that exceed SCAQMD thresholds for project-specific impacts related to criterial pollutant emissions would be considered cumulatively considerable. As indicated under the analysis of Threshold 2.2, the Project would not exceed the SCAQMD Regional Thresholds during operation; thus, Project operational emissions would be less than cumulatively considerable based on the SCAQMD regional thresholds. However, the Project would exceed the SCAQMD regional threshold for NOx during Project construction activities. However, within implementation of MM 2-1, this impact would be reduced to a less than significant level. As such, the Project’s regional construction and operational emissions would be less than cumulatively considerable. As discussed under the analysis of Threshold 2.3, the Project would not exceed the SCAQMD LST thresholds during either construction or operation. Additionally, the Project would not cause or contribute to any CO “Hot Spots.” The Project also would not result in cancer risk or health hazards exceeding the SCAQMD thresholds of significance of 10 in one million and 1.0, respectively. Consistent with SCAQMD report on how to address cumulative impacts from air pollution discussed above, since the Project does not exceed the applicable health risk thresholds and does not result in a significant impact on an individual basis, the Project would not be considered to be cumulatively significant and a less than significant cumulative health risk impact would occur. With respect to odors, the Project does not include any land uses or activities associated with the generation of odors or other emissions that could adversely affect a substantial number of people and would have a less than significant odor impact. Thus, the Project-related odor impacts would be less than cumulatively considerable. 4.2.6 MITIGATION MEASURES MM 2-1 Prior to grading permit and building permit issuance, the City of Rancho Cucamonga shall verify that the following applicable notes are included on the grading plans and building plans. Project contractors shall be required to ensure compliance with these notes and permit periodic inspection of the construction-site by City of Rancho Cucamonga staff or its designee to confirm compliance. These notes also shall be specified in bid documents issued to prospective construction contractors.  During construction activity, Project construction contractors shall ensure that off- road diesel construction equipment complies with applicable California Air Resources Board (CARB) emissions standards or equivalent and shall ensure that all construction equipment is tuned and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications.  The following off-road construction equipment shall be CARB Tier III certified or better, by construction phase as shown: ○ Demolition/Crushing: Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.2 Air Quality Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.2-54  Boom Lift  Concrete/Industrial Saws  Crusher  Skid Steer ○ Utilities/Infrastructure:  Trencher ○ Building Construction:  Forklifts  Generator Sets  Welders ○ Paving:  Pavers  Paving Equipment  Rollers ○ Architectural Coating  Air Compressors  The following off-road construction equipment shall be CARB Tier IV Final certified or better, by construction phase as shown: ○ Demolition/Crushing:  Breakers  Excavators  Generator Sets  Rubber Tired Dozers ○ Grading:  Crawler Tractors  Excavators  Graders  Rubber Tired Dozers  Scrapers ○ Utilities/Infrastructure:  Excavators  Skip Loaders/Backhoes ○ Building Construction  Cranes  Crawler Tractors  Laser Screed  Scissor Loaders/Backhoes  Skip Loaders/Backhoes Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.2 Air Quality Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.2-55 4.2.7 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION Project impacts related to air quality would be less than significant after mitigation. 4.2.8 REFERENCES California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2019 (November). Community Air Protection Program: 2019 Community Recommendations Staff Report. Available at: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2019- 12/2019_community_recommendations_staff_report_november_8_acc_3.pdf ———. 2020. Community Nominations. Available at: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our- work/programs/community-air-protection-program/community-selection/2018-community- selection-and California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA). 2018 (June) SB 535 Disadvantaged Communities. Available at: https://oehha.maps.arcgis.com/apps/View/index.html?appid=c3e4e4e1d115468390cf61d9db8 3efc4 Urban Crossroads, Inc. 2021a (April 15). Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Air Quality Impact Analysis. (Included in Appendix B1 of this Draft EIR). ———. 2021b (April 15). Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Mobile Source Health Risk Assessment. (Included in Appendix B2 of this Draft EIR). ———. 2021c (March 19). Construction Health Risk Assessment Memorandum. (Included in Appendix B3 of this Draft EIR). ———. 2021d (April 15). Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga High-Cube Fulfillment Center Traffic Memo, City of Rancho Cucamonga. (Included in Appendix L2 of this Draft EIR). Urban Crossroads. 2021e (April 15). Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga High-Cube Sort Fulfillment Center Supplemental Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, Health Risk, and Energy Assessment. (Included in Appendix B4 of this Draft EIR). Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.3 Biological Resources Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.3-1 4.3 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES This section describes the conditions of the existing biological resources on the Project site and site- adjacent improvement areas. Information presented in this section is primarily based on the following reports:  Habitat Assessment for the Proposed Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Located at 12434 4th Street, City of Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County, California (Habitat Assessment) prepared by ELMT Consulting (ELMT) in January 2021 and included in Appendix C1 of this Draft EIR.  Delhi Sands Flower-Loving Fly Habitat Suitability Assessment (DSF Habitat Suitability Assessment) prepared for the Project site by ELMT and Bruyea Biological Consulting in May 2020 and included in Appendix C1 of this Draft EIR.  Tree Survey Report for the Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project at 12434 4th Street, Rancho Cucamonga, California (Tree Survey Report), prepared by Psomas in January 2021 and included in Appendix C2 of this Draft EIR.  Habitat Assessment for the Proposed At-Grade Crossing of the BNSF Railroad at 6th Street in Association with the Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project (6th Street At-Grade Crossing Habitat Assessment), prepared by ELMT in January 2021 and included in Appendix C3 of this Draft EIR. In response to the Notice of Preparation (NOP) for this Draft EIR, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) provided input on issues that should be addressed. The comments received are summarized below:  Identify and map various habitat types within the Project site.  Provide a general biological inventory of species present or that have the potential to be present within each habitat type.  Provide a complete and recent inventory of rare, threatened, endangered, and other sensitive species located within the Project footprint and within offsite areas with the potential to be affected.  The Project site has the potential to provide suitable foraging and/or nesting habitat for burrowing owl; a habitat assessment, survey and impact assessment should be completed, as appropriate.  Analyze potential direct, indirect and cumulative impacts to biological resources.  Address a reasonable range of alternatives, including a “no project” alternative.  Identify mitigation measures and alternatives that are appropriate and adequate to avoid or minimize potential impacts, to the extent feasible. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.3 Biological Resources Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.3-2  A California Endangered Species Act (CESA) Incidental Take Permit (ITP) must be obtained if the Project has the potential to result in the “take” of State-listed CESA species.  Incorporate water-wise concepts in project landscape design plans.  Report any special status species and natural communities detected during Project surveys to the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB).  Payment of CDFW Notice of Determination filing fees will be required. 4.3.1 RELEVANT POLICIES AND REGULATIONS Following is a discussion of regulations that are applicable to the Project based on the existing conditions on the Project site and site adjacent improvement areas in public rights-of-way as described in Section 4.3.2, Existing Setting, below. A. Federal 1. Federal Endangered Species Act The Federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 (FESA) protects plants and animals listed under the act as “endangered” or “threatened.” These federally listed species are protected from unauthorized “take,” which is defined in the FESA as “harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect or attempt to engage in any such conduct.” 16 U.S.C §§ 1532(19) & 1538(a). In this definition, “harm” includes “any act which actually kills or injures fish or wildlife, and emphasizes that such acts may include significant habitat modification or degradation that significantly impairs essential behavioral patterns of fish or wildlife.” 50 C.F.R. § 17.3. Enforcement of FESA is administered by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Unless performed for scientific or conservation purposes with the permission of USFWS, “take” of listed species is only permissible if the USFWS issues an Incidental Take Permit (“ITP”) through Section 10 of FESA, which requires USFWS to conclude that “the impacts of such taking” have been “minimize[d] and mitigate[d]… [to] the maximum extent practicable,” “the taking will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival and recovery of the species in the wild,” and the applicant has made adequate assurances for a Habitat Conservation Plan (“HCP”). 16 U.S.C. § 1539(a); 50 CFR §§17.21(a), (c) & 17.31(a). All federal agencies, including the USFWS in issuing an ITP, must ensure that their activities are “not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of habitat of such species.” 16 U.S.C. §1536(a). Section 4 of FESA requires designation of Critical Habitat: specific areas within the geographical range occupied by a species where physical or biological features “essential to the conservation of the species” are found and “which may require special management considerations or protection.” 16 U.S.C. § 1538(5)(A). Critical Habitat may also include areas outside the current geographical area occupied by the species that are nonetheless “essential for the conservation of the species.” Id. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.3 Biological Resources Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.3-3 2. Migratory Bird Treaty Act The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) prohibits actions, unless permitted, “to pursue, hunt, take, capture, kill, attempt to take, capture or kill, possess, offer for sale, sell, offer to barter, barter, offer to purchase, purchase, deliver for shipment, ship, export, import, cause to be shipped, exported, or imported, deliver for transportation, transport or cause to be transported, carry or cause to be carried, or receive for shipment, transportation carriage, or export, , any migratory bird, any part, nest or egg of any such bird, or any produce, whether or not manufactured, which consists, or is composed in whole or part, of any such bird or any part, nest, or egg thereof,” included in the terms of the Conventions between the United States and four neighboring countries for the protection of migratory birds or any part, nest, or egg of any such bird.” (16 U.S.C. § 703). The MBTA covers the taking of any nests or eggs of migratory birds, except as allowed by permit pursuant to 50 CFR, Part 21. Disturbances causing nest abandonment and/or loss of reproductive effort (i.e., killing or abandonment of eggs or young) may also be considered “take.” This regulation seeks to protect migratory birds and active nests. In 1972, the MBTA was amended to include protection for migratory birds of prey (e.g., raptors). Six families of raptors occurring in North America were included in the amendment: Accipitridae (kites, hawks, and eagles); Cathartidae (New World vultures); Falconidae (falcons and caracaras); Pandionidae (ospreys); Strigidae (typical owls); and Tytonidae (barn owls). The provisions of the 1972 amendment to the MBTA protects all species and subspecies of the families listed above. The MBTA protects over 800 species including geese, ducks, shorebirds, raptors, songbirds and many relatively common species. Bird species protected under the provisions of the MBTA are identified by the List of Migratory Birds (50 CFR 10.13), as updated by the 1983 American Ornithologists’ Union (AOU) Checklist and published supplements by the USFWS. B. State 1. California Endangered Species Act In addition to federal laws, the state of California implements the California Endangered Species Act (CESA), Fish and Game Code Section 2050 et seq., which is enforced by CDFW. The CESA program maintains a separate listing of species beyond the FESA, although the provisions of each act are similar. State-listed threatened and endangered species are protected under provisions of CESA. Activities that may result in “take” of individuals (defined in Fish and Game Code Section 86 as “hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill”) are regulated by CDFW. Habitat degradation or modification is not included in the definition of “take” under CESA. Nonetheless, CDFW has interpreted “take” to include the destruction of nesting, denning, or foraging habitat necessary to maintain a viable breeding population of protected species. The State of California considers an endangered species as one whose prospects of survival and reproduction are in immediate jeopardy. A threatened species is considered as one present in such small numbers throughout its range that it is likely to become an endangered species in the near future Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.3 Biological Resources Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.3-4 in the absence of special protection or management. A rare species is one that is considered present in such small numbers throughout its range that it may become endangered if its present environment worsens. State threatened and endangered species are fully protected against take, as defined above. The CDFW maintains a list of Species of Special Concern (SSC), a species watch list. Species on this list are either of limited distribution or their habitats have been reduced substantially, such that a threat to their populations may be imminent. SSCs may receive special attention during environmental review, but they do not have formal statutory protection. At the federal level, USFWS also uses the label Species of Concern, as an informal term that refers to species which might be in need of concentrated conservation actions. As the Species of Concern designated by USFWS do not receive formal legal protection, the use of the term does not necessarily ensure that the species will be proposed for listing as a threatened or endangered species. If a species is also federally listed, CDFW can issue a consistency finding in accordance with Section 2080.1 of the California Fish & Game Code if the USFWS has issued an incidental take authorization that also satisfies CESA requirements. 2. California Environmental Quality Act Section 15380 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines independently defines “endangered” and “rare” species separately from the definitions in CESA or used by CDFW. In summary, under CEQA, “endangered” species of plants or animals are defined as those whose survival and reproduction in the wild are in immediate jeopardy, while “rare” species are defined as those who are in such low numbers that they could become endangered if their environment worsens, or species that are likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future and may be considered “threatened” under the FESA.. 3. California Fish and Game Code The CDFW administers the California Fish and Game Code. Several sections of the Code are applicable to natural resource management. Birds of Prey and Migratory Birds Section 3503 of the California Fish and Game Code makes it unlawful to destroy any birds’ nest or any birds’ eggs that are protected under the MBTA. Further, any birds in the orders Falconiformes or Strigiformes (Birds of Prey, such as hawks, eagles, and owls) are protected under Section 3503.5 of the Fish and Game Code. Section 3503.5 of the California Fish and Game Code specifically protects birds of prey. A consultation with CDFW may be required prior to the removal of any bird of prey nest that may occur on a project site. The Code states: It is unlawful to take, possess, or destroy any birds in the orders Falconiformes or Strigiformes (birds-of-prey) or to take, possess, or destroy the nest or eggs of any such bird except as otherwise provided by this code or any regulation adopted pursuant thereto. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.3 Biological Resources Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.3-5 Section 3513 of the California Fish and Game Code duplicates the federal protection (under MTBA) of migratory birds. The Code states: It is unlawful to take or possess any migratory nongame bird as designated in the Migratory Bird Treaty Act . . . before January 1, 2017, any additional migratory nongame bird that may be designated in that federal act after that date, or any part of a migratory nongame bird described in this section, except as provided by rules and regulations adopted by the United States Secretary of the Interior under that federal act before January 1, 2017, or subsequent rules or regulations adopted pursuant to that federal act, unless those rules or regulations are inconsistent with this code. A consultation with CDFW would be required prior to the removal of a bird of prey nest from a project site. Fully Protected Birds and Mammals Section 3511 of the California Fish and Game Code lists Fully Protected bird species and Section 4700 of the California Fish and Game Code lists Fully Protected mammals, where the CDFW is unable to authorize the issuance of permits or licenses to take these species. Fully Protected birds are not expected to occur at the Project site or site-adjacent improvement areas due to lack of suitable habitat. C. City of Rancho Cucamonga 1. Rancho Cucamonga General Plan The Resource Conservation Chapter of the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan (General Plan) guides the preservation, protection, conservation, re-use, replenishment, and efficient use of Rancho Cucamonga’s limited natural resources, including wildlife resources. The Wildlife Resources section of this chapter of the General Plan indicates that wildlife resources include “all of the plants and wildlife species located in natural areas, particularly in the hillsides and open space areas.” Wildlife species, sensitive wildlife habitat areas, and wildlife protection efforts are addressed in this section of the General Plan. There are no wildlife resources identified in the General Plan on, or in the vicinity of the Project site. However, this Draft EIR section provides a site-specific discussion of the biological resources that are present and identifies mitigation, as necessary to protect these resources. (Rancho Cucamonga, 2010a) A number of goals and policies in the Resource Conservation Chapter address biological resources in the City. These relevant goals and policies are listed in Table 4.9-2 in Section 4.9, Land Use and Planning, of this Draft EIR, along with the Project’s consistency with each goal and policy. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.3 Biological Resources Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.3-6 2. Development Code Section 17.16.080 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code Title 17 Development Code (Development Code) outlines the City’s review process for the removal of heritage trees,1 which are considered community resources. The provisions of the Development Code apply to all heritage trees on all private property in the City, with certain exceptions. Heritage trees cannot be removed, relocated, or destroyed within City limits without first obtaining a Tree Removal Permit from the Planning Director. The tree removal application is typically submitted with the application for tentative subdivision maps or other proposals for urban development. The Planning Director has the discretion to approve, conditionally approve, or deny the application for a Tree Removal Permit and may impose conditions deemed necessary to implement the provisions of this Section including, but not limited to: i. Replacement of the removed tree or trees with tree(s) of species and quantity commensurate with the aesthetic value of the tree or trees removed. ii. Tree relocation to another site on the property; provided that the environmental conditions of said new location are favorable to the survival of the tree and provided further that such relocation is accomplished by qualified landscape architect or qualified arborist. The City’s tree preservation requirements are provided in Chapter 17.80, Tree Preservation, of the Development Code. The purpose of this Chapter “is to protect trees, considered to be a community resource, from indiscriminate cutting or removal.” The provisions in this Chapter are specifically intended to protect and expand the eucalyptus windrows but also apply to other heritage trees. This Chapter outlines the City’s tree replacement policy for eucalyptus windrows and other heritage trees, and the protection of preserved, relocated, and new trees during construction. 4.3.2 EXISTING SETTING Following is discussion of existing site conditions relevant to biological resources, based on the Habitat Assessments included in Appendix C1 and Appendix C3 of this Draft EIR, and the Tree Survey Report included in Appendix C2. A literature review and records search were conducted by ELMT Consulting to determine which special-status biological resources have the potential to occur on or within the general 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 CDFW’s QuickView Tool in the Biogeographic Information and Observation System (BIOS), 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. Standard field guides and texts were 1 Per Section 17.16.080(c), a heritage tree is defined as any tree that meets at least one of the following criteria: (1) all eucalyptus windrows; (2) any tree in excess of 30 feet high and having a single truck diameter at breast height (dbh) of 20 inches or more as measured 4.5 feet from ground level; (3) multi-trunk trees having a total dbh of 30 inches or more measured 4.5 feet from ground level; (4) a stand of trees, the nature of which makes each dependent upon the others for survival; or (5) any other tree as may be deemed historically or culturally significant by the Planning Director because of age, size, condition, location, or aesthetic qualities. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.3 Biological Resources Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.3-7 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 (NRCS), Soil Survey;  USFWS Critical Habitat designations for Threatened and Endangered Species;  USFWS Endangered Species Profiles; and,  USFWS National Wetlands Inventory (NWI). Following the literature reviews, a general habitat assessment/field investigation of the Project site, site-adjacent improvement areas, and areas within 500 feet was conducted by ELMT biologists on April 1, 2020, to document existing conditions and assess the potential for special-status biological resources to occur. Similarly, a field investigation of the 6th Street at-grade crossing and surrounding areas within 500 feet was conducted on July 24, 2020. Plant communities and land cover types identified on aerial photographs during the literature review were verified by walking meandering transects throughout the study areas. In addition, aerial photography was reviewed prior to the field investigations 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 investigations. A. Vegetation Types Plant communities were mapped using 7.5-minute United States Geological Survey (USGS) topographic base maps and aerial photography. Common plant species observed during the field investigation were identified by visual characteristics and morphology in the field and recorded in a field notebook. Unusual and less-familiar plants were photographed in the field and identified in the laboratory using taxonomic guides. Due to historic and existing land uses, no native plant communities or natural communities of special concern were observed on or within 500 feet of the Project site. There is a mixture of developed land and an abandoned vineyard that was historically used for agricultural land uses and is considered disturbed. These disturbances have eliminated the natural plant communities that once occurred on the Project site. The Project site, site-adjacent improvement areas within the developed roadway of 4th Street (south of the Project site) and 6th Street (north of the Project site), and the 6th Street at-grade crossing study area, consist of two land cover types that would be classified as disturbed and developed (refer to Figure 4.3-1, Project Site Vegetation Map and Figure 4.3-2, 6th Street At-Grade Crossing Vegetation Map). The areas within 500 feet of the Project site are primarily composed of existing developments with minimal undeveloped areas. However, there is an ephemeral swale/channel and detention basin that borders the eastern boundary of the project site, and separates the Project site from the West Valley Detention Center. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.3 Biological Resources Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.3-8 Developed areas generally encompass all building/structures and paved/impervious surfaces. The developed areas within the Project site are comprised of the existing industrial development, paved and loose gravel parking lots, and landscaped areas. The Project site primarily supports developed areas that are landscaped with ornamental plant species, and trees. In addition, site-adjacent improvement areas would occur within the developed roadway of 4th Street (south of the Project site) and 6th Street (north of the Project site). In addition to tree species identified below in Section 4.3.2.G, Trees, plant species observed in association with the existing developed areas include ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus), California buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum), mulefat (Baccharis salicifolia), and trailing acacia (Acacia redolens). The northern, disturbed portion of the Project site supports a vacant, heavily disturbed area that historically supported a grape vineyard. In the decades since active agricultural activities ceased in the area, the northern portion of the site continues to have a remnant grape vineyard that has an understory that supports ruderal/weedy and early-successional plant species. Plant species observed in the disturbed area of the northern boundary of the Project site include agricultural grape (Vitis sp.), cryptantha (Cryptantha sp.), pectocarya (Pectocarya sp.), Spanish clover (Acmispon americanus), short-podded mustard (Hirschfeldia incana), golden crownbeard (Verbesina encelioides), red- stemmed filaree (Erodium cicutarum), fiddleneck (Amsinckia sp.), ragweed (Ambrosia psilostachya), Mediterranean grass (Schismus sp.), telegraph weed (Heterotheca grandiflora), horehound (Marrubium vulgare), dwarf nettle (Urita urens), red brome (Bromus madritensis), milk thistle (Silybum marianum), and sweet clover (Melilotus indicus). The ephemeral channel and detention basin east of the Project site primarily support a mulefat scrub plant community. The bottom of the channel and basin is dominated by mulefat (Baccharis salicifolia) with a dominance of California buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum) and short-podded mustard on the bank and fringes. The majority of the 6th Street at-grade crossing study area is developed and is minimally vegetated or devoid of vegetation. The undeveloped portion of this area primarily supports early successional and non- native/weedy plant species. In addition to trees identified in Section 4.3.2.G, below, plant species observed in this area include Mediterranean mustard (Hirschfeldia incana), flax-leaved horseweed (Erigeron bonariensis), Russian thistle (Salsola tragus), spurge (Euphorbia sp.), sunflower (Helianthus annuus), and telegraph weed. B. Wildlife Wildlife species detected during the field investigations by sight, calls, tracks, scat, or other sign were recorded during surveys in a field notebook. Field guides were used to assist with identification of wildlife species during the survey. Plant communities provide foraging habitat, nesting/denning sites, and shelter from adverse weather or predation. A description of those wildlife species that were observed or are expected to occur within the Project site is provided below. The discussion is to be used as a general reference and is limited by Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report Legend II II Project Site 1111 Disturbed Source(s): ELMT Consulting (12-29-2020) Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga 4.3 Biological Resources Figure 4.3-1 Project Site Vegetation Map SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.3-9 Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report Legend II II Bridge Point Project Site II II 6th Street At-Grade Crossing 1111 Disturbed1111 Developed Source(s): ELMT Consulting (12-29-2020) Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga �.J "C ltl ltl r a:::: co 4.3 Biological Resources �, !-1·•.. -1-•. - �!1 l h. -�. . . I Cfilb€D ., . Figure 4.3-2 6th Street At-Grade Crossing Vegetation Map SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.3-10 Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.3 Biological Resources Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.3-11 the season, time of day, and weather conditions in which the field investigation was conducted. The Project site and site-adjacent improvement areas, and the 6th Street at-grade crossing study area, provide limited habitat for wildlife species except those tolerant of a high degree of anthropogenic disturbances and development. It should be noted that no fish, amphibians, or hydrogeomorphic features (e.g., creeks, ponds, lakes, reservoirs) with frequent sources of water that would support populations of fish or amphibians were observed on the Project site and site-adjacent improvement areas. Therefore, no fish or amphibians are expected to occur and are presumed absent from these areas. The off-site ephemeral channel and detention basin (outside of the Project impact area, have the potential to provide minimal habitat for Baja California treefrog (Pseudacris hypochondriaca) during the winter months when stormwater is present. Baja California treefrog is a relatively common species in riparian/riverine areas, and is not a special-status species. No fish, amphibian, or mammal species were observed during the field investigation for the 6th Street at-grade crossing. This area provides minimal foraging and cover habitat for a wildlife species adapted to a high degree of anthropogenic disturbance.  Mammals. The Project site, site-adjacent improvement areas, and areas within 500 feet, provide minimal foraging and cover habitat for a mammalian species tolerant of a high degree of anthropogenic disturbance. The only mammalian species detected during the field investigation were California ground squirrel (Otospermophilus beecheyi) and desert cottontail (Sylvilagus audubonii). Common mammalian species tolerant of a high degree of human disturbance that could potentially occur on-site include opossum (Didelphis virginiana), and raccoon (Procyon lotor). None of these aforementioned species are special-status species. The 6th Street at-grade crossing study provides minimal foraging and cover habitat for mammal species adapted to a high degree of anthropogenic disturbance.  Reptiles. The Project site, site-adjacent improvement areas, and areas within 500 feet, provide marginal foraging and cover habitat for a limited variety of reptile species tolerant of a high degree of anthropogenic disturbance. No reptile species were observed on-site during the field investigation. Common reptilian species that are tolerant of a high degree of human disturbance that could potentially occur on-site include western side-blotched lizard (Uta stansburiana elegans) and great basin fence lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis longipes). None of these common reptilian species are special-status species. The 6th Street at-grade crossing study provides minimal foraging and cover habitat for reptile species adapted to a high degree of anthropogenic disturbance. The only reptilian species observed during the field investigation of this area was the western side-blotched lizard (Uta stansburiana elegans), which is not a special-status species.  Birds. The Project site, site-adjacent improvement areas, and areas within 500 feet, provide minimal foraging and nesting habitat for a variety of bird species tolerant of a high degree of anthropogenic disturbance. Bird species detected during the field investigation, none of which are special-status species, include house finch (Haemorhouse mexicanus), Cassin’s kingbird Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.3 Biological Resources Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.3-12 (Tyrannus vociferans), lesser goldfinch (Spinus psaltria), northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos), Say’s phoebe (Sayornis saya), and yellow-rumped warbler (Setophaga coronata). None of these common avian species are special-status species. The 6th Street at-grade crossing study provides minimal foraging and cover habitat for bird species adapted to a high degree of anthropogenic disturbance. The only avian species observed during the field investigation for this area were American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos) and house finch (Haemorhous mexicanus), which are not special-status species. C. Nesting Birds No active nests or birds displaying nesting behavior were observed during the April 1, 2020 or July 24, 2020 field investigations. The Project site, site-adjacent improvement areas, 6th Street at-grade crossing study area, and surrounding areas, provide limited foraging habitat for year-round and seasonal avian residents, as well as migrating songbirds that could occur in the area. Additionally, the disturbed northern portion of the Project site and the 6th Street at-grade crossing study area have the potential to provide suitable nesting opportunities for birds that nest on the open ground and those tolerant of anthropogenic disturbances (e.g., killdeer (Charadrius vociferus), a common bird species that is not a special-status species). Additionally, the existing trees have the potential to provide suitable nesting opportunities. D. Migratory Corridors and Linkages 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. According to the San Bernardino County General Plan, the Project site, site-adjacent improvement areas, and the 6th Street at-grade crossing study area, have not been identified as occurring within a Wildlife Corridor or Linkage. E. Jurisdictional Areas Aerial photography was reviewed prior to conducting the field investigations in order to locate and inspect any potential natural drainage features, ponded areas, or water bodies that may fall under the jurisdiction of the United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), or CDFW. These agencies regulate activities within inland streams, wetlands, and riparian areas in California. In general, surface drainage features indicated as blue-line streams on USGS maps that are observed or expected to exhibit evidence of flow are considered potential riparian/riverine habitat and are also subject to state and federal regulatory jurisdiction. In addition, Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.3 Biological Resources Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.3-13 ELMT reviewed jurisdictional waters information through examining historical aerial photographs to gain an understanding of the impact of land-use on natural drainage patterns in the area. The USFWS NWI and the USGS National Hydrography Dataset were reviewed to determine if any blueline streams or riverine resources have been documented within or in the immediate vicinity of the Project site. Based on this review and field investigations, no jurisdictional drainage and/or wetland features were observed on the Project site, site-adjacent improvement areas, or 6th Street at-grade crossing study area, that would be considered jurisdictional by the Corps, RWQCB, or CDFW. However, there is an ephemeral swale/channel and water detention basin that borders the eastern boundary of the Project site, but is outside of the Project limits. F. Sensitive 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, site-adjacent improvement areas, and the 6th Street at0- grade crossing study area are primarily developed, completely surrounded by existing development, and do not connect with any natural areas or native plant communities in the region. The Habitat Assessments evaluated the conditions of the habitat(s) within the boundaries of the Project site, site- adjacent improvement areas, and 6th Street at-grade crossing study area to determine if the existing plant communities, at the time of the surveys, have the potential to provide suitable habitat(s) for special-status plant and wildlife species. Special-status plant and wildlife species were evaluated for their potential to occur 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 and site adjacent improvement areas are presented in Attachment D of the Habitat Assessment (provided in Appendix C1 of this Draft EIR). 1. Special-Status Plants and Sensitive Natural Communities According to the CNDDB and CNPS, 13 special-status plant species and no sensitive natural communities have been recorded on the Guasti USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle, which is applicable to the Project site, site-adjacent improvement areas, and the 6th Street at-grade crossing study area. No special-status plant species or sensitive natural communities were observed on the Project site or site- adjacent improvement areas during the field investigations. These areas, and areas within 500 feet, have been subject to previous and existing anthropogenic disturbances, which have reduced the suitability of the habitat to support special-status plant species known to occur in the general vicinity of the Project site and site-adjacent improvement areas. 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, site-adjacent improvement areas, and areas withing 500 feet do 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 these areas. No focused surveys are recommended (ELMT, 2021a). Special-status plant species were evaluated for their potential to occur within the 6th Street at-grade crossing study area and area within 500 feet based on habitat requirements, availability and quality of Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.3 Biological Resources Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.3-14 suitable habitat, and known distributions. No special-status plant species, or special-status plant communities were observed during the habitat assessment. The 6th Street at-grade crossing consists of existing development and disturbed areas that have been subject to a high level of anthropogenic disturbances. These disturbances have eliminated the natural plant communities that once occurred resulting in a majority of this area consisting of non-native, ruderal/weedy plant species that are surrounded by existing development that supports ornamental/landscaped areas. Based on habitat requirements for specific species and the availability and quality of the habitat, it was determined that no special-status plant species are expected to occur within the 6th Street at-grade crossing study area. 2. Special-Status Wildlife According to the CNDDB, 34 special-status wildlife species have been reported on the Guasti USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle. No special-status wildlife species were observed on the Project site, site- adjacent improvement areas, or within 500 feet of these areas, during the field investigation. Disturbances on the Project site and in the immediate vicinity of the Project site have greatly reduced if not eliminated potential foraging and nesting/denning opportunities for wildlife species. Based on habitat requirements for specific species and the availability and quality of on-site and surrounding habitats, it was determined that the Project site and areas within 500 feet have a low potential to support Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperii) and California horned lark (Eremophila alpestris actua). The disturbed northern portion of the Project site and the adjacent detention basin provide minimal foraging habitat for these species, and minimal nesting opportunities for California horned lark. Additionally, the trees on-site provide limited nesting opportunities for Cooper’s hawk. All remaining special-status wildlife species are presumed to be absent from the Project site and surrounding area due to lack of suitable habitat and existing development. Special-status wildlife species were evaluated for their potential to occur within the 6th Street at-grade crossing study area and area within 500 feet based on habitat requirements, availability and quality of suitable habitat, and known distributions. No special-status wildlife species were observed during the habitat assessment. The 6th Street at-grade crossing and area within 500 feet consists of existing development and disturbed areas that have been subject to a high level of anthropogenic disturbances. Based on habitat requirements for specific species and the availability and quality of habitat, it was determined that the 6th Street at-grade crossing study area and areas within 500 feet have a low potential to support Cooper’s hawk and California horned lark. The disturbed areas on and adjacent to the 6th Street at-grade crossing study area provides minimal foraging habitat for these species, and minimal nesting opportunities for California horned lark. Additionally, the existing trees provide limited nesting opportunities for Cooper’s hawk. Burrowing Owl The burrowing owl is currently listed as a California SSC. 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 California ground squirrels) whose burrows are used for roosting and nesting. The presence or absence Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.3 Biological Resources Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.3-15 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 drainpipes, stand-pipes, and dry culverts. Burrowing owls 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 whitewash) were observed during the field investigation of the Project site, site-adjacent improvement areas, and surrounding areas. The northern portion of 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, no suitable burrows (>4 inches in diameter) were observed during the field investigation. Further, tall fences, powerlines, ornamental trees, and tall office buildings surround the Project site, which decreases 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 that documented the isolated and disturbed nature of the undeveloped area on the Project site and surrounding areas, it was determined that the Project site, site adjacent improvement areas, and areas within 500 feet do not have the potential to support burrowing owls and focused surveys are not recommended, though a pre-construction survey is recommended, as further discussed under the impact analysis presented under Threshold 3.4 in Section 4.3.4, Environmental Impacts (ELMT, 2021a). Burrowing owl are also presumed absent from the 6th Street at-grade crossing study area; however, a pre-construction survey is also recommended (ELMT, 2021b) 3. Delhi Sands Flower-Loving Fly A DSF Habitat Suitability Assessment was prepared for the Project site and is included in the Habitat Assessment included in Appendix C1 of this Draft EIR; the results of the DSF Habitat Suitability Assessment are summarized here. Delhi Sands Flower-Loving Fly (DSF) occurs on Delhi sand soils, particularly clean dunes formed by aeolian processes. Soils and sands deposited by fluvial processes do not support DSF. These alluvial soils are composed of course sands, cobble and gravel (Tujunga soils) or coarse sands, silts and clays (Cieneba soils). In this part of San Bernardino County, the separation of soil types (aeolian vs. fluvial) has been lost due to the mixing and cross contamination from years of agricultural activities, development, and other man-made disturbances. Based on review of the regional (not site-specific) United States Department of Agricultural (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Survey (NRCS) Soil Survey for San Bernardino County, California, the majority of the surface soils within the Project site are mapped as Delhi fine sands (refer to Exhibit 5 of the DSF Habitat Suitability Assessment). This is consistent with the mapping of the Delhi Soils Area Boundary presented on Figure RC-4, Sensitive Biological Resources, of the Resource Conservation Element, of the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan. However, it should be noted that majority of the Project site (approximately 72%) is currently developed with structures and pavement. Depending on the extent of mixing and contamination, some areas formally mapped as Delhi sand soils no longer have potential to support DSF populations. Conversely, some areas formally mapped as Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.3 Biological Resources Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.3-16 Cieneba soils may now support wind deposited Delhi sand soils and have potential to support DSF. As further discussed in the DSF Habitat Suitability Assessment, six DSF experts developed suitability criterion, based partly on the relative abundance of clean Delhi sand soils versus the amount of Cienba or other alluvial soils, to rate the suitability of the habitat to support DSF. This qualitative assessment of DSF habitat was further refined by considering the relative degree of soil compaction. In summary, land with suitable DSF habitat includes only those areas with open, undisturbed Delhi Series soils that have not been permanently altered by residential, commercial, or industrial development, or other human actions. Areas known to contain Delhi sand soils and/or to be occupied by DSF have been divided by USFWS into three recovery units (Colton, Jurupa, and Ontario Recovery Units). These recovery units are defined as large geographic areas based on geographic proximity, similarity of habitat, and potential genetic exchange. The Project site is located within the Ontario Recovery Unit. In addition to review of the USDA NRCS soil mapping, a review of the local geological conditions and historical aerial photographs was conducted to assess the ecological changes that the Project site has undergone. In addition, a DSF-permitted biologist surveyed the Project site on April 30, 2020. The habitat suitability assessment consisted of a visual and tactile inspection of all areas on the Project site that contain Delhi sand soils. As previously noted, the majority of the Project site is developed; thus, the non-developed portion of the site was evaluated for the quality or purity of Delhi Sands and for its potential to support DSF. Areas were assigned one or more ratings ranging between 1 and 5, with 5 being the best quality and most suitable habitat. Soils rated 1 are considered unsuitable to support DSF, and include: soils dominated by heavy deposits of alluvial material including coarse sands and gravels with little or no Delhi sand soils and evidence of soil compaction; developed areas, non-Delhi sands soils with high clay, silt, and/or gravel content; and Delhi sands extensively and deeply covered by dumping of exotic soils, rubble, trash, or organic debris. Open sandy dunes with sparse vegetative cover were not observed on the Project site. As a result of previous development and disturbances on and surrounding the Project site, surface soils have been heavily mixed and compacted, and did not give way underfoot during the survey. Some areas contain loose soils at the surface in association with fossorial animal activity (mostly rodent burrows and ant mounds), but this was not commonly observed. Unconsolidated soils are present in some areas beneath the hardened surface layer. The northern portion of the Project site is disturbed, with heavily mixed soils containing alluvial materials (Tujunga Soils and Hilmar loamy sand) from historic agricultural activities and surrounding development. Good quality Delhi fine sands are absent on the Project site due to prolonged anthropogenic disturbance, including the disruption of the aeolian process in association with surrounding industrial developments and the onsite vehicle storage area. In addition, the introduction of gravel and other alluvial materials observed throughout much of the disturbed area have degraded soil quality, especially as it pertains to DSF. Therefore, the soils within the northern portion of the Project site were rated as “unsuitable quality” with a habitat quality rating of 1. The remainder of the site was not evaluated for DSF since it is developed. Additionally, the adjacent developed areas surrounding the Project site are incapable of supporting DSF, and there are no known extant DSF populations in the immediate vicinity. It is improbable that a dispersing DSF individual would temporarily occupy the Project site. Therefore, it was determined that the Project site does not support Delhi Sand soils needed Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.3 Biological Resources Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.3-17 for suitable habitat for DSF and DSF is presumed absent from the Project site. No further actions or focused surveys are recommended (ELMT and Bruyea, 2020). As a result of development and disturbances on and surrounding the 6th Street at-grade crossing study area, surface soils have been heavily mixed and compacted. The disturbed areas primarily support heavily mixed soils containing alluvial materials (Tujunga Soils and Hilmar loamy sand) from historic agricultural activities and surrounding development with no clean Delhi sand soils present. This area is generally surrounded by existing developments and no longer has connectivity to areas upwind containing Delhi Sands soils, areas subjected to Aeolian processes, or areas supporting DSF populations. Therefore, the soils within the disturbed portions of the 6th Street at-grade crossing study area are rated as “unsuitable quality” with a habitat quality rating of 1. The remainder of the 6th Street at-grade crossing study are was not evaluated for DSF since it is developed. Therefore, it was determined that the site does not support clean Delhi Sand soils needed for suitable habitat for DSF and DSF is presumed absent. No further actions or focused surveys are recommended (ELMT, 2021b). 4.Critical Habitats Under Section 4 of FESA, “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 biological features that are essential to the survival and eventual recovery of that species. The Project site, site-adjacent improvement areas, and 6th Street at-grade crossing study area are not located within federally designated Critical Habitat. The nearest designated Critical Habitat is located approximately 3.5 miles north of the Project site and site-adjacent improvement areas for San Bernardino kangaroo rat (Dipodomys merriami parvus) and approximately 3.7 miles southeast for coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica) (refer to Figure 4.3-3, Critical Habitat). (ELMT, 2021a). San Bernardino kangaroo rat Critical Habitat is approximately 3.5 miles north of the 6th Street at-grading crossing study area, and coastal California gnatcatcher Critical Habitat is approximately 4.3 miles to the southeast (ELMT, 2021b). G.Trees Trees in the City of Rancho Cucamonga are regulated by the Development Code (Chapter 17.16.080 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code). A tree removal permit is required prior to removing any “heritage tree,” which is defined as: 1)All eucalyptus windrows; 2)Any tree greater than 30 feet tall with a minimum trunk diameter of 20 inches; 3)Any multi-trunk tree whose combined trunk diameter is at least 30 inches; 4)A stand of trees the nature of which makes each dependent upon the others for survival; 5)Any tree determined to be historically or culturally significant. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.3 Biological Resources Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.3-18 Based on the results of the tree surveys conducted by Psomas in April 2020 and November 2020, a total of 125 trees that meet the minimum requirements for inclusion as a heritage tree are present on the Project site and site-adjacent improvement areas. There are also 464 non-heritage trees. Based on the results of the tree survey conducted by Psomas in November 2020, there are 12 trees within the 6th Street at-grade crossing study area, one of which meets the criteria for a heritage tree. A summary of the heritage trees is provided in Table 4.3-1, Tree Inventory Summary, and their locations are shown on Figure 4.3-4, Project Site Tree Locations, and Figure 4.3-5, 6th Street At-Grade Crossing Tree Locations (Psomas, 2020). The trees are generally in good health with no conspicuous signs of decay (e.g., trunk cavities, bleeding sap, broken limbs, or fungi). Trees located at the Project site were consistently maintained within the past year, prior to closing of the site. Evaluation of these trees was based on a visual assessment from the ground. Eucalyptus trees that occur as part of a windrow are the most common heritage tree on-site and consist of red ironbark trees located to the north and west of the existing warehouse facility. Eucalyptus windrows are comprised of planted, mature individuals that are greater than nine inches in trunk diameter. Additional volunteer eucalyptus saplings are interspersed throughout these windrows. These saplings are less than five inches in trunk diameter and were not documented as they are not considered to be part of the original windrow. Western sycamores comprise the second most common heritage tree species and are concentrated mainly along the northeast and southeast portions of the site. The sycamores are all mature specimens with evidence of anthracnose and minor leaf and limb dieback. While the anthracnose has only a minor negative effect on the health of these trees, it has resulted in a moderate decline of their aesthetics. The remaining heritage tree species on the Project site consist of white alder, silk floss tree, sweet gum, Canary Island pine, Italian stone pine, and Peruvian pepper tree. Nearly all these trees were rated as having good health. These trees are scattered to the north and south of the large warehouse complex. Notably, two white alders are located in the southwest corner of the site. This species is water-loving and requires more care in a landscaped environment. With no ongoing maintenance, the health and aesthetics of these trees are likely to decline. Other tree species on the Project site that did not qualify as heritage trees are mainly located within the parking lot areas and along their borders. Most of these trees are either carrotwood (Cupaniopsis anacardioides) or Brazilian pepper trees (Schinus terebinthifolia). An employee picnic area to the north of the warehouse has a surrounding garden containing Mexican fan palm (Washingtonia robusta), mulberry (Morus sp.), and shamel ash trees (Fraxinus uhdei). Many of the trees on the Project site are planted near pavement, structures, or within basins that likely have limited root development. Minor damage and upheaval are expected to occur as the roots continue to develop. Under existing conditions, stress in the form of reflected heat from nearby structures and pavement affects trees on the Project site. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report II II Project Site � Coastal California gnatcatcher � San Bernardino Merriam's kangaroo rat Source(s): ELMT Consulting (06-24-2020) Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga 4.3 Biological Resources Figure 4.3-3 Critical Habitat SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.3-19 Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report D Project Boundary Tree Types o Canary Island pine o Italian stone pine o Peruvian peppertree • red ironbarl< o silk fioss tree o sweet gum • western sycamore o white alder Note. Individually numbered frees meet the definition of a heritage tree. Locations for trees 126 lhrough 589 are denoted by polygons and are below the size threshold to be considered heritage frees II [_ Source(s): PSOMAS (01-22-2021} .J__. -. -- . } � .. ,., ... I I -Trees 265-325 Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga 124- Trees 568-589 4.3 Biological Resources I b I [] 1-I , I I '/, I I .1,,-'i1 :g '' . 11 I I,� -I Figure 4.3-4 Project Site Tree Locations SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.3-20 Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report IDI Project Boundary Tree Types •goldenrain tree•jacaranda 0 Peruvian peppertree 0 southern magnolia •Heritage Tree Source(s): PSOMAS (01-22-2021} Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga 4.3 Biological Resources Figure 4.3-5 6th Street At-Grade Crossing Tree Locations SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.3-21 Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.3 Biological Resources Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.3-22 Table 4.3-1 Tree Inventory Summary Tree Species Quantity Heritage Trees1 Non-Heritage Trees Total Trees on the Project Site tree-of-heaven Ailanthus altissima 0 1 1 white alder2 Alnus rhombifolia 2 2 4 silk floss tree Ceiba speciosa 9 18 27 carrotwood Cupianopsis anacardiodes 0 58 58 red ironbark Eucalyptus sideroxylon 51 25 76 shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 0 3 3 sweet gum Liquidambar styraciflua 6 38 44 white mulberry Morus alba 0 4 4 Canary Island pine Pinus canariensis 6 56 62 Italian stone pine Pinus pinea 5 1 6 western sycamore2 Platanus racemosa 33 110 143 black willow2 Salix gooddingii 0 1 1 arroyo willow2 Salix lasiolepis 0 4 4 Peruvian peppertree Schinus molle 13 53 66 Brazilian peppertree Schinus terebinthifolius 0 65 65 African sumac Searsia lancea 0 19 19 Chinese elm Ulmus parviflora 0 2 2 Mexican fan palm Washingtonia robusta 0 4 4 Project Site Trees Subtotal 125 464 589 Trees Near Railroad Crossing Site jacaranda Jacaranda mimosifolia 0 1 1 goldenrain tree 0 1 1 Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.3 Biological Resources Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.3-23 Tree Species Quantity Heritage Trees1 Non-Heritage Trees Total Koelreuteria paniculata southern magnolia Magnolia grandiflora 0 6 6 Peruvian peppertree Schinus molle 1 3 4 Railroad Crossing Trees Subtotal 1 11 12 GRAND TOTAL 126 475 601 1 For the Project site, heritage trees consist of single trunk trees with a diameter at breast height of at least 20 inches, or multi-trunk trees whose trunks are at least 30 inches diameter at breast height cumulatively. 2 Native tree species. Source: (Psomas, 2020) 4.3.3 THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE According to Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, a project will normally have a significant adverse environmental impact on biological resources if it would:  Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modification, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by CDFW or USFWS.  Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by CDFW or USFWS.  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.  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.  Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance.  Conflict with the provisions of an adopted HCP, Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP), or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.3 Biological Resources Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.3-24 4.3.4 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS A. Regulatory Requirements The Project is required to adhere to the following Regulatory Requirements (RRs). Additionally, RR 9-1 from Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, of this Draft EIR, is applicable and addresses potential water quality impacts during construction. RR 3-1 All construction activities shall comply with the MBTA and California Fish and Game Code Sections 3503, 3511 and 3513. The MBTA governs the taking and killing of migratory birds, their eggs, parts, and nests and prohibits the take of any migratory bird, their eggs, parts, and nests. Compliance with the MBTA and California Fish and Game Code shall be accomplished by completing the following:  Construction activities involving vegetation removal shall be conducted between September 1 and January 31. If construction occurs inside the peak nesting season (between February 1 and August 31), a pre-construction survey (or possibly multiple surveys) by a qualified Biologist shall be conducted within 72 hours prior to construction activities to identify any active nesting locations. If the Biologist does not find any active nests, the construction work shall be allowed to proceed. The biologist conducting the clearance survey shall document a negative survey with a report indicating that no impacts to active avian nests shall occur. If the biologist finds an active nest within the pre-construction survey area and determines that the nest may be impacted, the Biologist shall delineate an appropriate buffer zone around the nest. The size of the buffer shall be determined by the Biologist, and shall be based on the nesting species, its sensitivity to disturbance, expected types of disturbance, and location in relation to the construction activities. These buffers are typically 300 feet from the nests of non-listed species and 500 feet from the nests of raptors and listed species. Any active nests observed during the survey shall be mapped on an aerial photograph. Only construction activities (if any) that have been approved by a Biological Monitor shall take place within the buffer zone until the nest is vacated. The Biologist shall serve as a Construction Monitor when construction activities take place near active nest areas to ensure that no inadvertent impacts on these nests occur. Results of the pre-construction survey and any subsequent monitoring shall be provided to the Property Owner/Developer and the City. The monitoring report shall summarize the results of the nest monitoring, describe construction restrictions currently in place, and confirm that construction activities can proceed within the buffer area without jeopardizing the survival of the young birds. RR 3-2 All construction activities shall comply with Sections 3503, 3503.5, 3511 and 3513 of the California Fish and Game Code, which protect active nests of any raptor species, Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.3 Biological Resources Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.3-25 including common raptor species. Compliance with these codes shall be accomplished by completing the following:  If vegetation is to be cleared during the potential raptor nesting season (December 1 to August 31), all suitable habitat within 500 feet of the construction impact area shall be thoroughly surveyed for the presence of nesting raptors by a qualified Biologist within 72 hours prior to clearing. If the Biologist does not find any active nests, the construction work shall be allowed to proceed. The biologist conducting the clearance survey shall document a negative survey with a report indicating that no impacts to active avian nests shall occur. If any active nests are detected, the area shall be flagged and mapped on the construction plans with a buffer. The size of the buffer shall be determined by the Biologist and shall be based on the nesting species, its sensitivity to disturbance, expected types of disturbance, and location in relation to the construction activities. These buffers are typically 300 feet from the nest of non-listed species and 500 feet from the nests of raptors and listed species. The buffer area shall be avoided until the nesting cycle is complete or until it is determined that the nest has failed. Results of the pre-construction survey and any subsequent monitoring shall be provided to the Property Owner/Developer and the City. The monitoring report shall summarize the results of the nest monitoring, describe construction restrictions currently in place, and confirm that construction activities can proceed within the buffer area without jeopardizing the survival of the young birds.  Although presumed absent, prior to development of the Project site, a pre- construction burrowing owl clearance survey shall be conducted to ensure burrowing owls remain absent from the construction impact area. The clearance survey shall be conducted in accordance with the CDFW (2012) Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation which requires that two clearance surveys be conducted 14 – 30 days and 24 hours prior to any grading or vegetation removal on the Project site. If burrowing owls are observed on the Project site during the pre-construction surveys, a burrowing owl relocation plan shall be prepared and submitted to CDFW for review and approval prior to commencement of vegetation clearing/grubbing, grading, and construction activities on the Project site. The burrowing owl relocation plan shall outline methods to relocate any burrowing owls occurring on the Project site and ensure compliance with the MBTA and California Fish and Game Code. If an active burrow is found during the breeding season (February 1 through August 31), occupied burrows will not be disturbed and will be provided with a protective buffer unless a qualified biologist verifies through noninvasive means that either: (1) the birds have not begun egg laying, or (2) juveniles from the occupied burrows are foraging independently and are capable of Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.3 Biological Resources Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.3-26 independent survival. The size of the buffer will depend on the time of year and level disturbance as outlined in the CDFW Staff Report. RR 3-3 All tree replacement, protection, and maintenance associated with implementation of the Project shall be conducted in accordance with the requirements set forth in Chapter 17.80 of the City’s Development Code. RR 3-4 In compliance with the City’s Tree Removal Permit process (Rancho Cucamonga Development Code, Chapter 17.16.080), the Property Owner/Developer shall obtain a Tree Removal Permit from the Planning Director prior to removal, relocation, or destruction of any heritage tree. Conditions imposed by the Planning Director for replacement of removed trees or tree relocation shall be completed by the Property Owner/Developer. B. Impact Analysis Threshold 3.1 Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modification, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by CDFW or USFWS? The Project site, site-adjacent improvement areas, and 6th Street at-grade crossing study area consist of two land cover types that would be classified as disturbed and developed. As identified in Section 4.3.2 above, 13 sensitive plant species and 34 sensitive wildlife species have previously been recorded on the Guasti 7.5-minute quadrangle, which includes the Project site, site-adjacent improvement areas, and 6th Street at-grade crossing study area. However, no sensitive plant or wildlife species were observed in these areas or in surrounding areas within 500 feet during the habitat assessments. Further, these areas have been subject to existing anthropogenic disturbances for many decades. These disturbances have reduced the suitability of the habitat to support special-status plant species known to occur in the general vicinity of the Project site, and reduced potential foraging and nesting/denning opportunities for wildlife species. 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, site-adjacent improvement areas, and 6th Street at-grade crossing study area, and areas within 500 feet do 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 these areas. Disturbances in these areas have greatly reduced if not eliminated potential foraging and nesting/denning opportunities for wildlife species (ELMT, 2020a; ELMT, 2020b). Refer to discussion under Threshold 3.4 regarding migratory birds and raptors, and burrowing owl. As a result of development and disturbances on and surrounding the Project site, surface soils have been heavily mixed and compacted. The northern portion of the Project site is mapped as Delhi Sands, but the area is disturbed, with heavily mixed soils containing alluvial materials (Tujunga Soils and Hilmar loamy sand) from historic agricultural activities and surrounding development. The Project site and site-adjacent improvement areas are surrounded by existing developments and no longer have connectivity to areas upwind containing Delhi Sands soils, areas subjected to aeolian processes, or areas supporting DSF populations. Therefore, the soils within the northern portion of the Project site Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.3 Biological Resources Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.3-27 were rated as “unsuitable quality” with a habitat quality rating of 1. The remainder of the site was not evaluated for DSF since it is developed. Therefore, it was determined that the site does not support Delhi Sand soils needed for suitable habitat for DSF and DSF is presumed absent from the Project site. No impacts to DSF would occur and no mitigation is required (ELMT and Bruyea, 2020). The 6th Street at-grade crossing is also mapped as Delhi Sands soil; however, as with the Project site and previously discussed, the soils within the disturbed portions of the 6th Street at-grade crossing study area are rated as “unsuitable quality” with a habitat quality rating of 1. This area does not support clean Delhi Sand soils needed for suitable habitat for DSF and DSF is presumed absent from the area. No impacts to DSF would occur with implementation of the 6th Street at-grade crossing and no mitigation is required (ELMT, 2021b). Therefore, implementation of the Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status. No impact would result and no mitigation is required. Impact 3.1 The Project site, site-adjacent improvement areas, and 6th Street at-grade crossing study area, and surrounding areas, do not support native plant communities, nor do they provide suitable habitat for sensitive plant or wildlife species. Therefore, the Project would not impact Candidate, Sensitive, or Special Status species. Threshold 3.2 Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by CDFW or USFWS? Threshold 3.3 Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on State or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? The USFWS NWI and the USGS National Hydrography Dataset were reviewed to determine if any blueline streams or riverine resources have been documented within or in the immediate vicinity of the Project site, site-adjacent improvement areas, or 6th Street at-grade crossing study area; no such resources were identified. Additionally, based on the field investigation conducted for the Project, no jurisdictional drainage and/or wetland features were observed on the Project site, site-adjacent improvement areas, or 6th Street at-grade crossing study area that would be considered jurisdictional by the Corps, RWQCB, or CDFW. No other sensitive natural communities were identified as having the potential to occur, and no sensitive natural communities were observed during the field investigation. Additionally, the Project site, site-adjacent improvement areas, and 6th Street at-grade crossing study area are not located in federally designated Critical Habitat. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not impact riparian habitat, wetlands, or any sensitive natural community (ELMT, 2021a; ELMT 2021b). No impact would result and no mitigation is required. As previously identified, there is an ephemeral swale/channel and water detention basin that is off-site and near the eastern Project site boundary. There are existing walls and fences that provide a physical barrier between the Project site and these off-site areas, and no impacts would occur. Further construction activities Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.3 Biological Resources Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.3-28 on-site would be conducted in compliance with established construction-related water quality protection requirements, including the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activity (Construction General Permit), which requires preparation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) (refer to RR 9-1 from Section 4.9 of this Draft EIR). Impacts 3.2 and 3.3 The Project site, site-adjacent improvement areas, and 6th Street at-grade crossing study area do not support riparian habitat; USACE, CDFW, or RWQCB jurisdictional areas; wetlands; or, sensitive natural communities. Therefore, no impact would occur. Potential indirect impacts to the ephemeral channel and water detention basin east of the Project site, which are not within the Project’s impact limits, would be less than significant with adherence to construction-related water quality protection requirements. Threshold 3.4 Would the Project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? 1. Wildlife Movement As noted in the City’s General Plan EIR, the City of Rancho Cucamonga, including the Project site, site-adjacent improvement areas, and 6th Street at-grade crossing study area does not contain known native wildlife nursery sites (Rancho Cucamonga, 2010b). Furthermore, according to the San Bernardino County General Plan, these areas have not been identified as occurring within a Wildlife Corridor or Linkage; the nearest wildlife corridors are the Santa Ana River located approximately 7.5 miles south of the Project site, and Chino Hills Open Space located approximately 13 miles southwest of the Project (ELMT, 2021a). The Project would be confined to existing disturbed and developed areas and is surrounded by development, which has removed natural plant communities from the surrounding area. The Project is isolated from regional wildlife corridors and linkages, specifically the Santa Ana River and Chino Hills Open Space, and there are no riparian corridors, creeks, or useful patches of steppingstone habitat (natural areas) within or connecting the Project site, site-adjacent improvement areas, and 6th Street at- grade crossing study area to any identified wildlife corridors or linkages in the area. As a result, implementation of the Project would not disrupt or have any adverse effects on any migratory corridors or linkages in the surrounding area. No impact would result and no mitigation is required. 2. Migratory Birds and Nesting Raptors As previously discussed, no active nests were observed during the field investigations and the Project site, site-adjacent improvement areas, 6th Street at-grade crossing study area, and surrounding areas provide limited foraging and nesting habitat for year-round and seasonal avian residents, as well as migrating songbirds that could occur in the area. The disturbed northern portion of the Project site, and the 6th Street at-grade crossing study area have the potential to provide suitable nesting opportunities for birds that nest on the open ground and those acclimated to routine disturbances. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.3 Biological Resources Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.3-29 Based on habitat requirements for specific species and the availability and quality of onsite and surrounding habitats, the Project site and areas within 500 feet have a low potential to support Cooper’s hawk and California horned lark, neither of which are federally or state listed as endangered or threatened. The disturbed northern portion of the Project site and the adjacent detention basin provide minimal foraging habitat for these species, and minimal nesting opportunities for California horned lark. Additionally, existing trees provide limited nesting opportunities for Cooper’s hawk. Nesting birds are protected pursuant to the MBTA and California Fish and Game Code (Sections 3503, 3503.5, 3511, and 3513 prohibit the take, possession, or destruction of birds, their nests or eggs). Pre- construction clearance surveys for nesting bird and raptor species are required to be conducted prior to any vegetation removal, tree removal, or ground disturbing activities that may disrupt the birds during the avian and raptor nesting seasons (refer to RR 3-1 and RR 3-2). The nesting season generally extends from February 1 through August 31, but can vary slightly from year to year based upon seasonal weather conditions. Some raptor species can nest as early as December. Therefore, it is recommended that the nesting bird clearance window be expanded from December 1 through August 31. The pre-construction clearance survey for nesting avian species and raptors would be conducted within three days prior to any ground disturbing activities to ensure that no nesting birds would be disturbed during construction. As long as development does not cause direct take of a bird or egg(s) or disrupt nesting behaviors, immediate protections would not be required. If an active nest(s) is discovered during the pre-construction clearance survey, construction activities might have to be rerouted; a no- work buffer area may have to be established around the nest; or work might be delayed until the nest is inactive (young have fledged or the nest has failed). RR 3-1 and RR 3-2 require that a biological monitor be present to delineate the boundaries of the buffer area if an active nest is observed and to monitor the active nest to ensure that nesting behavior is not adversely affected by the construction activity. Although it was determined that the Project site, site adjacent improvement areas, the 6th Street at- grade crossing study area, and areas within 500 feet do not have the potential to support burrowing owls, pre-construction burrowing owl clearance surveys would also be required to ensure burrowing owls remain absent from these areas during construction (refer to RR 3-2). If burrowing owls are observed during the pre-construction surveys, a burrowing owl relocation plan would be prepared and submitted to CDFW for review and approval prior to commencement of vegetation clearing/grubbing, grading, and construction activities associated with the Project. The burrowing owl relocation plan would outline methods to relocate any burrowing owls occurring on the Project site, site-adjacent improvement areas, and 6th Street at-grade crossing study area per CDFW (2012) and ensure compliance with the MBTA and California Fish and Game Code. Compliance with the MBTA and Sections 3503, 3503.5, 3511 and 3513 of the California Fish and Game Code, as outlined in RR 3-1 and RR 3-2 would ensure that potential impacts to nesting birds and raptors are less than significant. No mitigation is required. Impact 3.4 The Project site, site-adjacent improvement areas and 6th Street at-grade crossing study area do not contain known native wildlife nursery sites and are not within a Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.3 Biological Resources Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.3-30 Wildlife Corridor or linkage. Vegetation and trees on the Project site, site-adjacent improvement areas, 6th Street at-grade crossing study area, and in the vicinity have the potential to provide suitable nesting opportunities for avian and raptor species. Compliance with the MBTA and Sections 3503, 3503.5, 3511 and 3513 of the California Fish and Game Code, as outlined in RR 3-1 and RR 3-2 would ensure that potential impacts to nesting birds and raptors are less than significant. Threshold 3.5 Would the Project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Chapter 17.80, Tree Preservation, of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Code, provides for the protection of eucalyptus windrows and heritage trees in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Section 17.16.080 of the Development Code outlines the requirements for obtaining a Tree Removal Permit. As identified above, there are 125 trees existing on-site that meet the requirements to be considered a heritage tree or are potentially part of a eucalyptus windrow, and there is 1 tree within the 6th Street at- grade crossing study area that meets the requirements to be a heritage tree. There are an additional 464 trees within the Project site and site-adjacent improvement areas, and 11 trees within the 6th Street at- grade crossing study area that are not heritage trees. Implementation of the Project would require the removal of existing trees within the Project site, site- adjacent improvement areas, and 6th Street at-grade crossing study area. As required, any tree removal would be conducted in compliance with the City’s requirements and any conditions imposed through the tree removal permit process. Adherence to RR 3-3 (which requires compliance with the Tree Preservation Ordinance) and RR 3-4 (which requires that tree removal permits be obtained) would ensure that Project implementation does not conflict with the City’s tree protection policies/requirements. Additionally, approximately 400 new trees would be planted on-site as part of the Project and would include the tree replacement necessary to comply with the City’s requirements. Therefore, no impact would occur and no mitigation is required. While the specific tree replacement requirements (number, size, type, etc.) for the Project would be established with issuance the tree removal permit(s), it is expected that there would be a minimum requirement for replacement of heritage trees at a 1:1 ratio, and that trees that are not located in the public right-of-way would be a minimum box size of 24-inches. The type and size of trees to be planted in the public right-of-way would comply with the standards established by the City’s Engineering Department. Impact 3.5 Removal of any heritage trees would be conducted in compliance with the City’s tree protection policies/requirements, as outlined in RR 3-3 and RR 3-4. No impact would occur related to conflict with tree protection policies or ordinances. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.3 Biological Resources Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.3-31 Threshold 3.6 Would the Project conflict with the provisions of an adopted HCP, NCCP, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? According to Figure RC-4, Sensitive Biological Resources, of the City’s General Plan, the Project site is not located within an adopted HCP; NCCP; or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan area (Rancho Cucamonga, 2010a). Therefore, implementation of the Project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted plan. No impact would occur. Impact 3.6 The Project site is not located within an adopted HCP; NCCP; or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan area. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted plan. No impact would occur. 4.3.5 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS The City of Rancho Cucamonga, including the Project site, site-adjacent improvement area, and 6th Street at-grade crossing study area, is predominantly developed and surrounded by urban development to the south, east, and west. The Project site does not contain sensitive biological resources and, based on information provided in the City’ General Plan EIR, potential cumulative projects in other developed areas of the City would not impact areas that contain significant biological resources (Rancho Cucamonga, 2010b). Additionally, any removal of vegetation or trees as part of the Project and any future development in the City would be required to comply with existing regulations for the protection of biological resources (e.g., the MBTA, and the City’s Tree Preservation Ordinance, and Tree Removal Permit requirements). Therefore, the Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact related to biological resources. 4.3.6 MITIGATION MEASURES With adherence to existing regulations outlined in RR 3-1 through RR 3-4, and RR 9-1 in Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, no significant adverse impacts related to biological resources would result and no mitigation measures are required. 4.3.7 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION Project impacts to biological resources would be less than significant. 4.3.8 REFERENCES California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2012 (March 7). Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. Sacramento, California. ELMT Consulting (ELMT). 2021a (January 22). Habitat Assessment for the Proposed Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Located at 12434 4th Street, City of Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County, California. (Included in Appendix C1 of this Draft EIR). ———. 2021b (January 22). Habitat Assessment for the Proposed At-Grade Crossing of the BNSF Railroad at 6th Street in Association with the Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project. (Included in Appendix C3 of this Draft EIR). Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.3 Biological Resources Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.3-32 ELMT and Bruyea Biological Consulting. 2020 (May). Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Site, 12434 4th Street, City of Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County, California, Delhi Sands Flower-Loving Fly Habitat Suitability Assessment. (Included as Attachment E in Appendix C1 of this Draft EIR). Psomas. 2021 (January 22). Tree Inventory Report for the Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project at 12434 4th Street, Rancho Cucamonga, California. (Included in Appendix C2 of this Draft EIR). Rancho Cucamonga, City of. 2010a (May 19). Rancho Cucamonga General Plan. Available at: https://www.cityofrc.us/community-development/planning ———. 2010b (February). Rancho Cucamonga 2010 General Plan Update Program Environmental Impact Report. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.4 Cultural Resources Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.4-1 4.4 CULTURAL RESOURCES This section evaluates the Project’s potential to have adverse effects on historical and archaeological resources. Information presented in this section is derived primarily from A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Rancho Cucamonga, California (Cultural Resources Assessment) dated December 17, 2020, and prepared by Brian F. Smith and Associates (BFSA). This report is included in Appendix D of this Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and summarized in this section. There were no Notice of Preparation (NOP) comments received addressing archaeological or historic resources; NOP comments addressing tribal cultural resources were received and are discussed in Section 4.14, Tribal Cultural Resources, of this Draft EIR. 4.4.1 RELEVANT POLICIES AND REGULATIONS The following discussion summarizes regulatory information for historic and archaeological resources that is particularly relevant to the Project. Regulatory information specifically relevant to Tribal Cultural Resources (e.g., Assembly Bill [AB] 52) is presented in Section 4.14, Tribal Cultural Resources, of this Draft EIR. A. State 1. California Environmental Quality Act and California Register of Historical Resources The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a lead agency to determine whether a project would have a significant effect on one or more historical resources. According to Section 15064.5(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines, a “historical resource” is defined as a resource listed in or determined to be eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) (PRC Section 21084.1); a resource included in a local register of historical resources (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064.5[a][2]); or any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript that a lead agency determines to be historically significant (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5[a][3]). Section 21083.2, 21084.1, and 5024.1 of the Public Resources Code (PRC), and Section 15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines were used as the basic guidelines for the cultural resources analysis. Section 5024.1 of the PRC requires evaluation of historical resources to determine their eligibility for listing in the CRHR. The purposes of the CRHR are to maintain listings of the State’s historical resources and to indicate which properties are to be protected from substantial adverse change. Per Section 15064.5(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, the criteria for listing resources in the CRHR, which were expressly developed to be in accordance with previously established criteria developed for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) (per the criteria listed at 36 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Section 60.4) are stated below. The resource: (A) Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage; (B) Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past; Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.4 Cultural Resources Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.4-2 (C) 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; or (D) Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. According to Section 15064.5(b)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, a project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment. CEQA defines a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource as “…physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of an historical resource would be materially impaired.” Section 15064.5(c) of the CEQA Guidelines provides that CEQA applies to effects on archaeological sites and contains the following additional provisions regarding archaeological sites: (1) When a project will impact an archaeological site, a lead agency shall first determine whether the site is an historical resource, as defined in subsection (a). (2) If a lead agency determines that the archaeological site is an historical resource, it shall refer to the provisions of Section 21084.1 of the Public Resources Code, Section 15126.4 of the CEQA Guidelines, and the limits contained in Section 21083.2 of the Public Resources Code do not apply. (3) If an archaeological site does not meet the criteria defined in subsection (a), but does meet the definition of a unique archaeological resource in Section 21803.2 of the Public Resources Code, the site shall be treated in accordance with the provisions of Section 21083.2. The time and cost limitations described in Public Resources Code Section 21083.2 (c-f) do not apply to surveys and site evaluation activities intended to determine whether the project location contains unique archaeological resources. (4) If an archaeological resource is neither a unique archaeological nor historical resource, the effects of the project on those resources shall not be considered a significant effect on the environment. It shall be sufficient that both the resource and the effect on it are noted in the Initial Study or EIR, if one is prepared to address impacts on other resources, but they need not be considered further in the CEQA process. Section 15064.5 (d) and (e) contain additional provisions regarding human remains (refer to the discussion of PRC Section 5097.98 below. 2. California Health and Safety Code (Sections 7050.5, 7051, and 7054) These sections of the California Health and Safety Code collectively address the illegality of interference with human burial remains (except as allowed under applicable sections of the California Public Resources Code). These sections also address the disposition of Native American burials in Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.4 Cultural Resources Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.4-3 archaeological sites and protect such remains from disturbance, vandalism, or inadvertent destruction. Procedures to be implemented are established for (1) the discovery of Native American skeletal remains during construction of a project; (2) the treatment of the remains prior to, during, and after evaluation; and (3) reburial. Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code specifically provides for the disposition of accidentally discovered human remains. Section 7050.5 states that, if human remains are found, no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains shall occur until the County Coroner has determined the appropriate treatment and disposition of the human remains. 3. California Public Resources Code (Section 5097.98) As identified in Section 15064.5(d) of the CEQA Guidelines, when the existence of, or the probable likelihood, of Native American human remains within the project is identified, a lead agency is required to work with the appropriate Native Americans as identified by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) as provided in PRC Section 5097.98. PRC Section 5097.98 states that, if remains are determined by the Coroner to be of Native American origin, the Coroner must notify the NAHC within 24 hours. When the NAHC receives notification of a discovery of Native American human remains from a County Coroner, it shall immediately notify those persons it believes to be most likely descended from the deceased Native American. The descendants may, with the permission of the owner of the land, or his or her authorized representative, inspect the site of the discovery of the Native American human remains and may recommend to the owner or the person responsible for the excavation work means for treatment or disposition, with appropriate dignity, of the human remains and any associated grave goods. The descendants shall complete their inspection and make recommendations or preferences for treatment within 48 hours of being granted access to the site. This regulation also requires that, upon the discovery of Native American remains, the landowner shall ensure that the immediate vicinity, according to generally accepted cultural or archaeological standards or practices, where the Native American human remains are located, is not damaged or disturbed by further development activity until the landowner has discussed and conferred with the most likely descendants regarding their recommendations and all reasonable options regarding the descendants' preferences for treatment. This section of the PRC has been incorporated into Section 15064.5(e) of the CEQA Guidelines. B. Local 1. Rancho Cucamonga General Plan The Resource Conservation Chapter guides the preservation, protection, conservation, re-use, replenishment, and efficient use of Rancho Cucamonga’s limited natural resources, including, but not limited to cultural resources. Should any resources be discovered, the City will take appropriate measures in accordance with existing laws to ensure the proper handling and preservation of artifacts. The Cultural Resources Assessment included in Appendix D, and this Draft EIR section, provide the required analysis of impacts to cultural resources, and identifies mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.4 Cultural Resources Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.4-4 The Managing Land Use, Community Design, and Historic Resources Chapter defines the distribution and location of land uses to achieve economic efficiency, to balance aesthetic appeal and functionality, and to preserve historical resources in an effort to enhance the overall quality of community life. The Historic Resources Element of the Managing Land Use, Community Design, and Historic Resources Chapter addresses the City’s historical development, historic resources (sites and routes), and goals and policies for historic preservation. Figure LU-8, Historic Resources, of the General Plan, does not identify any designated historic sites on the Project site. The Atchison Topeka & Santa Fe Railway (now Burlington Northern Santa Fe [BNSF] Railway) north of the Project site is identified as a historic transportation route. 4.4.2 EXISTING SETTING A. Archaeological Resources 1. Prehistoric Period Paleo Indian, Archaic Period Milling Stone Horizon, and the Late Prehistoric Shoshonean groups are the three general cultural periods represented in San Bernardino County. These periods are summarized below and further described in the Cultural Resources Assessment included in Appendix D. Reference is also made to the geological framework that divides the culture chronology of the area into four segments: the late Pleistocene (20,000 to 10,000 YBP [years before the present]), the early Holocene (10,000 to 6,650 YBP), the middle Holocene (6,650 to 3,350 YBP), and the late Holocene (3,350 to 200 YBP). The discussion of the cultural history of San Bernardino County presented in the Cultural Resources Assessment included in Appendix D references the San Dieguito Complex, Encinitas Tradition, Milling Stone Horizon, La Jolla Complex, Pauma Complex, and San Luis Rey Complex, since these culture sequences have been used to describe archaeological manifestations in the region. The Late Prehistoric component present in the southwestern area of San Bernardino County was represented by the Gabrielino and Serrano Indians. A discussion of the ethnohistoric and ethnographic background of the Project site and surrounding areas is provided in Section 4.14, Tribal Cultural Resources, of this Draft EIR.  Paleo Indian Period (Late Pleistocene: 11,500 to circa 9,000 YBP). The Paleo Indian Period is associated with the terminus of the late Pleistocene. The environment during the late Pleistocene was cool and moist, which allowed for glaciation in the mountains and the formation of deep, pluvial lakes in the deserts and basin lands. However, by the terminus of the late Pleistocene, the climate became warmer, which caused glaciers to melt, sea levels to rise, greater coastal erosion, large lakes to recede and evaporate, extinction of Pleistocene megafauna, and major vegetation changes. Paleo Indians were likely attracted to multiple habitat types, including mountains, marshlands, estuaries, and lakeshores. These people likely subsisted using a more generalized hunting, gathering, and collecting adaptation utilizing a variety of resources including birds, mollusks, and both large and small mammals.  Archaic Period (Early and Middle Holocene: circa 9,000 to 1,300 YBP). The Archaic Period of prehistory began with the onset of the Holocene around 9,000 YBP. The transition from the Pleistocene to the Holocene was a period of major environmental change throughout Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.4 Cultural Resources Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.4-5 North America. The general warming trend caused sea levels to rise, lakes to evaporate, and drainage patterns to change. In Southern California, the general climate at the beginning of the early Holocene was marked by cool/moist periods and an increase in warm/dry periods and sea levels. The coastal shoreline at 8,000 YBP, depending upon the particular area of the coast, was near the 20-meter isobath, or one to four kilometers further west than its present location. The rising sea level during the early Holocene created rocky shorelines and bays along the coast by flooding valley floors and eroding the coastline. The warming trend and rising sea levels generally continued until the late Holocene (4,000 to 3,500 YBP). At the beginning of the late Holocene, sea levels stabilized, rocky shores declined, lagoons filled with sediment, and sandy beaches became established. The sedimentation of the lagoons was significant in that it had profound effects on the types of resources available to prehistoric peoples. Habitat was lost for certain large mollusks but habitat was gained for other small mollusks. The changing lagoon habitats resulted in the decline of larger shellfish, the loss of drinking water, and the loss of Torrey Pine nuts, causing a major depopulation of the coast as people shifted inland to reliable freshwater sources and intensified their exploitation of terrestrial small game and plants, including acorns. The Archaic Period in Southern California is associated with a number of different cultures, complexes, traditions, horizons, and periods, including San Dieguito, La Jolla, Encinitas, Milling Stone, Pauma, and Intermediate.  Late Prehistoric Period (Late Holocene: 1,300 YBP to 1790). Approximately 1,350 YBP, a Shoshonean-speaking group from the Great Basin region moved into San Bernardino County, marking the transition to the Late Prehistoric Period. This period has been characterized by higher population densities and elaborations in social, political, and technological systems. Economic systems diversified and intensified during this period, with the continued elaboration of trade networks, the use of shell-bead currency, and the appearance of more labor-intensive, yet effective, technological innovations. Technological developments during this period included the introduction of the bow and arrow between A.D. 400 and 600 and the introduction of ceramics. Atlatl darts were replaced by smaller arrow darts, including the Cottonwood series points. Other hallmarks of the Late Prehistoric Period include extensive trade networks as far reaching as the Colorado River Basin and cremation of the dead. Results of the Records Search BFSA conducted a records search at the South-Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) located at California State University, Fullerton (CSUF), which is the State of California’s official cultural resource records repository for San Bernardino County. In addition to the SCCIC data, additional information was obtained from both private and public sources to further assess the project’s sensitivity for cultural resources. The records search for the project did not identify any previously recorded cultural resources within the Project site. However, five cultural resources have been recorded within one-mile of the area covered by the Cultural Resources Assessment, which consists of the Project site and site-adjacent improvement areas. The results of the records search are provided in the Confidential Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.4 Cultural Resources Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.4-6 Appendix to the Cultural Resource Survey, which is available for review at the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department. All of the resources are historic, and include the remnants of the Kaiser Steel Mill, two railroad alignments, structures (no longer standing) associated with the Etiwanda Grape Products Company, and the Etiwanda Power Plant/Substation. Brief descriptions of the sites located within a one-mile radius are provided in Table 4.4-1, Previously Recorded Archaeological Sites Within a One-Mile Radius of the Project, and the complete records search results are provided in Appendix D. Based on the records search results, a total of 47 cultural resource studies have been conducted within a one- mile radius of the Project; however, none of the studies included the Project site or site-adjacent improvement areas. Table 4.4-1 Previously Recorded Archaeological Sites Within a One-Mile Radius of the Project Site Number Site Description SBR-4131H Kaiser Steel Mill (Point of Historical Interest) SBR-6847H Historic Atchison-Topeka & Santa Fe Railroad alignment SBR-10,330H Historic Southern Pacific Railroad alignment P-36-016452 Historic Etiwanda Grape Products Company Not formally recorded with the SCCIC Historic Etiwanda Power Plant/ Substation Source: (BFSA, 2020) The records search and literature review suggest that there is a low potential for archaeological sites to be contained within the boundaries of the Project site and site-adjacent improvement areas because it has been previously graded and developed and historically consisted of an agricultural field. Further, although seasonal drainages did traverse the area before their channelization, the area does not appear to have ever contained permanent/year-round sources of water, bedrock outcroppings, or other advantageous features, and prehistorically, likely had minimal food resources. In addition, the records search results only show that historic resources, all of which are associated with the built environment, have been recorded within a one-mile radius. Given the known settlement of the region, the frequency and type of resources surrounding the project, and the developed nature of the parcel, there is a low potential for archaeological discoveries at the Project site and site-adjacent improvement areas. 2. Results of the Site Survey An archaeological survey was conducted by BFSA on March 31, 2020. The entire Project site and site- adjacent improvement areas along 4th Street and 6th street were accessible and included in the survey. An archaeological survey for the 6th Street at-grade crossing study area, which is located west of the Project site where 6th Street would cross the railroad track, was conducted on September 1, 2020. The surveys were accomplished by walking transects in 5- to 10-meter intervals across the property when not hindered by the existing structure and hardscape. Within the developed areas, the surveys primarily focused on landscaped areas where the exposed ground was visible. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.4 Cultural Resources Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.4-7 The survey areas have either been previously disturbed or subjected to some degree of grading and development. Due to the prior disturbance and/or development, visibility of the natural ground surface was limited. Vegetation within the Project site primarily consisted of maintained commercial landscaping, remnant grape vines, and non-native weeds and grasses dominated the vegetation found within the vineyard. This characterization of a disturbed landscape is relevant to the consideration of the presence of cultural resources within the Project site and site-adjacent improvement areas. The survey of the proposed 6th Street railroad crossing location resulted in the identification of a railroad spur alignment that is stamped “R.E.O COLORADO 1942”, further discussed under the “Historic Context”, below. The intensive archaeological survey did not result in the identification of any significant cultural resources. The previous disturbance may have contributed to the survey results; however, no evidence was detected during the survey or records search to suggest the prior existence of any archaeological sites at the Project site, site-adjacent improvement areas, or 6th Street at-grade crossing. B. Historic Context 1. Regional Context The historic background for the region began with the Spanish colonization of Alta California. The first Spanish colonizing expedition reached Southern California in 1769 with the intention of converting and civilizing the indigenous populations, as well as expanding the knowledge of and access to new resources in the region. In the late eighteenth century, the San Gabriel (Los Angeles County), San Juan Capistrano (Orange County), and San Luis Rey (San Diego County) missions began colonizing Southern California, and gradually expanded their use of the interior valley (presently western Riverside County) for raising grain and cattle to support the missions. The San Gabriel Mission claimed lands in what is presently Jurupa, Riverside, San Jacinto, and the San Gorgonio Pass, while the San Luis Rey Mission claimed land in what is presently Lake Elsinore, Temecula, and Murrieta (American Local History Network: Riverside County, California 1998). The indigenous groups who occupied these lands were recruited by missionaries, converted, and put to work in the missions. Throughout this period, the Native American populations were decimated by introduced diseases, a drastic shift in diet resulting in poor nutrition, and social conflicts due to the introduction of an entirely new social order. In the mid- to late 1770s, Juan Bautista de Anza passed through much of what is now Riverside County while searching for an overland route from Sonora, Mexico to San Gabriel and Los Angeles, describing fertile valleys, lakes, and sub-desert areas. Spanish missionaries formed Mission San Gabriel in the San Bernardino Valley in the early nineteenth century. The mission established Rancho San Bernardino in 1819, which included the present-day areas of San Bernardino, Fontana, Rialto, Redlands, and Colton. Since there was no reliable water source in the area, from 1819 to 1820, the missionaries developed a zanja through the use of Native American labor from the Guachama Rancheria. The creation of the zanja was implemented to divert waters from Mill Creek all the way through the city of Redlands, ending near the mission to assist with agricultural enterprises. The new water source allowed nearby ranching districts to develop during the nineteenth century. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.4 Cultural Resources Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.4-8 Mexico gained independence in 1822 and desecularized the missions in 1832, signifying the end of the Mission Period. By this time, the missions owned some of the best and most fertile land in Southern California. The new government began distributing the vast mission holdings to wealthy and politically connected Mexican citizens. The “grants” were called “ranchos,” and many of these ranchos have lent their names to modern-day locales. The treatment of Native Americans grew worse during the Rancho Period. Most of the Native Americans were forced off of their land or put to work on the now privately- owned ranchos, most often as slave labor. Native American culture had been disrupted to the point where they could no longer rely upon prehistoric subsistence and social patterns. The Mexican and American ranchers did not accept Native Americans into their social order and used them specifically for the extraction of labor, resources, and profit. Rather than being incorporated, they were either subjugated or exterminated. In 1846, war erupted between Mexico and the United States. In 1848, with the signing of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, the region was annexed as a territory of the United States, leading to California became a state in 1850. By the late 1880s and early 1890s, there was growing discontent between San Bernardino and Riverside, its neighbor 10 miles to the south, due to differences in opinion concerning religion, morality, the Civil War, politics, and fierce competition to attract settlers. After a series of instances in which charges were claimed about unfair use of tax monies to the benefit of only San Bernardino, several people from Riverside decided to investigate the possibility of a new county. In May 1893, voters living within portions of San Bernardino County (to the north) and San Diego County (to the south) approved the formation of Riverside County. 2. City of Rancho Cucamonga The word “Cucamonga” is Shoshone in origin, meaning “sandy place,” and was first documented in 1811 in records of Mission San Gabriel. The 13,000-acre Rancho Cucamonga was granted to Tiburcio Tapia, the President of the Los Angeles City Council, in 1839. Tapia lived on the land granted to him, on top of Red Hill, planted vineyards, and built a small winery (enlarged and called Thomas Winery in 1933 and Filippi Vineyards in 1967). These historic winery buildings are located at the northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue and are currently used for commercial purposes. Tapia’s daughter, Maria Merced Tapia de Prudhomme, inherited Rancho Cucamonga after Tapia died in 1845, and her husband, Leon Victor Prudhomme, took control until he sold it to John Rains in 1858. Rains expanded the vineyards on the rancho with the addition of roughly 125,000 to 150,000 new vines. When Rains was found murdered in 1862, his widow, Dona Maria Merced Williams de Rains, inherited the rancho, but encountered financial problems and lost it, effectively ending the rancho era in the Cucamonga area. The City of Rancho Cucamonga was incorporated in 1977, and included three towns: Cucamonga, Alta Loma, and Etiwanda. In the late nineteenth century, agriculture became the main industry in the area, including citrus fruits and wine-making grapes. Although the agriculture industry in Rancho Cucamonga has changed over time, it remains a recognizable feature of the city’s landscape. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.4 Cultural Resources Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.4-9 3. Project Site During preparation of the Cultural Resources Assessment, BFSA also reviewed the following sources for historic data: the NRHP Index; Office of Historic Preservation (OHP), Archaeological Determinations of Eligibility (ADOE); the Office of Historic Places Built Environment Resources Directory (BERD); historic U.S. Geological Survey’s (USGS) maps including the 1897 and 1944 15' Cucamonga and the 1953 7.5' Guasti quadrangle maps; and aerial photographs (1938 to 2016). None of these additional sources identified any resources within the Project site or site-adjacent improvement areas. Historic aerial photographs indicate the Project site did not historically contain structures, as it was primarily utilized for agriculture until the late-twentieth century. The agricultural use of the Project site for the growing of grapes during the early to mid-twentieth century, as visible in historic aerial photographs and represented by the remnant vineyard found within the north portion of the project. The National Register-eligible Guasti Historic District, which is comprised of over 50 buildings and features (many of which have been removed), is situated on Guasti Road between Archibald and Turner avenues, approximately 3.5 miles southwest of the Project site, and was named for Secundo Guasti, an Italian immigrant who planted vineyards in the area in 1902. Secundo Guasti purchased a town site called Zucker in 1900, which had begun to grow around the 1875 Southern Pacific Railroad’s South Cucamonga Station, and established the Italian Vineyard Company. By 1910, the Guasti vineyards consisted of 5,000 acres, which extended from the foothills of the San Gabriel Mountains into the valley floor, and Zucker was renamed Guasti. The vineyard cultivated a large variety of grapes specifically suited for wine, particularly for sherry and port varietals. In spite of Prohibition and two World Wars, the Guasti Winery remained in production until about 1962 when wine-making operations were relocated. In 1975, the Guasti Winery was designated a California Point of Historical Interest. Despite Guasti being one of the largest wine producers in the region, it should also be noted that other large wineries operated within the region during the same time period, including the Haven Vineyard Company/Cucamonga Pioneer Winery at Haven and Humboldt avenues; the Garrett and Company/Mission Winery at Foothill Boulevard and Haven Avenue; the Cucamonga Vintage Company near 8th and Turner streets; the Ellena Regina Winery at 12467 Baseline Road; the Aggazzotti Winery at 11929 Foothill Boulevard; the Etivista Winery at 12742 Foothill Boulevard; and numerous small wineries operating out of rural single-family properties. Therefore, the agricultural history noted within the Project site is a remnant of the historic fabric of the region. However, considering the breadth of the winery industry in the region during the twentieth century, what remains of the remnant vineyard within the project is not unique, nor can it be directly linked to any of the specific wineries that operated throughout the vicinity of the Project site. Based on the available aerial photographs, the Project site was partially developed between 1977 and 1985. Further, San Bernardino County parcel data lists the current development within the Project site with a construction date of 1984. The 1985 aerial photograph shows most of the current development, including the modern railroad spur associated with the distribution center, was constructed in the early 1980s. Although the 1985 aerial photograph shows the railroad spur along the northern boundary, it appears that the bulk of the northern half of the Project site remained in use as a vineyard while the Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.4 Cultural Resources Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.4-10 existing warehouse to the south appears to have only been about half of its current size. By 1994, the warehouse structure had been extended north, and additional parking, landscaping, and hardscape was added to the northern half of the project encroaching into the previous vineyard, similar to the current state of the Project site. The late 1970s and early 1990s buildings and infrastructure currently present within the Project site do not meet the minimum age threshold to be considered historic under CEQA. 4. 6th Street At-Grade Crossing According to aerial photographs, the railroad spur alignment within the 6th Street at-grade crossing study area was constructed between 1960 and 1966. When initially installed, the tracks consisted of a spur that extended along the alignment of a former agricultural access road (south from SBR-6847H, the historic late 1800s Atchison-Topeka & Santa Fe Railroad alignment) to the north and terminating at 4th Street. The spur appears to have been constructed to facilitate the shunting of railroad cars between the new industrial warehouses being constructed in the region north to the mainline. This railroad spur alignment is still active and utilized by the BNSF Railway. Additional sub-spurs have been constructed branching off this line to various warehouses constructed in the area throughout the late twentieth century. Since the 6th Street railroad spur meets the 50-year age threshold to be considered historic under CEQA, it was recorded as an update to SBR-6847H, which is the nearby tie-in for the railroad spur and which was previously determined to be ineligible for the NRHP and the CRHR. The 6th Street at-grade crossing study area has been subjected to maintenance and improvement activities since its construction, including modern electrical poles, sidewalks, and the westward extension of 6th Street between 2004 and 2009. Therefore, the railroad spur crossing at 6th Street does not possess historic integrity, is not associated with any significant events or people, does not embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, does not represent the work of a master, does not possess high artistic values, and is not likely to yield important information in prehistory or history. The Project-specific Cultural Resources Assessment concurs with the previous evaluation of SBR-6847H and the addition of the 1960s railroad spur alignment at 6th Street to the site record for Site SBR-6847H does not change the significance assessment for the site (ineligible for the NRHP and the CRHR). 4.4.3 THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE According to Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, a project will normally have a significant adverse environmental impact on cultural resources if it will:  Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5.  Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5.  Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.4 Cultural Resources Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.4-11 4.4.4 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS A. Regulatory Requirement The Project is required to adhere to the following Regulatory Requirement (RR). RR 4-1 If human remains are encountered during the conduct of ground-disturbing activities, Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code states that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition of the materials pursuant to Section 5097.98 of the California Public Resources Code. The provisions of Section 15064.5 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines shall also be followed. The County Coroner must be notified of the find immediately. If the remains are determined to be prehistoric, the Coroner shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). The NAHC will determine and notify a Most Likely Descendent (MLD). With the permission of the landowner or his/her authorized representative, the MLD may inspect the site of the discovery. The descendent must complete the inspection within 24 hours of notification by the NAHC. The MLD may recommend scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American burials. These requirements shall be included as notes on the contractor specification and verified by the Community Development Department, prior to issuance of grading permits. B. Impact Analysis Threshold 4.1 Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5? As previously discussed, the records search results indicate that historic resources have been recorded within one-mile of the Project site, which are primarily associated with the built environment. However, historic aerial photographs indicate the Project site and site-adjacent improvement areas did not historically contain structures. Redevelopment of the Project site would require the demolition of all structures (i.e., a retail building and a warehouse building) that are located on the Project site under existing conditions. As all buildings and infrastructure currently present within the Project site was developed between the late 1970s and early 1990s, the current development is modern and not does not meet the minimum age threshold to be considered a historic resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. As previously identified, the BNSF railroad north of the Project site is identified as a historic transportation route in the General Plan Resource Conservation Chapter; however, the Project does not involve any activities that would encroach in the railroad right-of-way. Further, the 6th Street railroad spur alignment within the proposed 6th Street at-grade crossing location recorded as part of SBR-6847H is not CEQA-significant. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not impact a known significant historic resource and no mitigation is required. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.4 Cultural Resources Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.4-12 Impact 4.1 The Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines. Threshold 4.2 Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5? As previously discussed, site survey, records search, and literature review conducted for the Project, most of the Project site and site-adjacent improvement areas, and the 6th Street at-grade crossing study area have been previously graded and developed or have been historically utilized for agriculture. No archaeological resources were identified. Prehistorically, the Project site and surrounding area was not commonly used for habitation or resource gathering, as demonstrated by the minimal archaeological evidence in the area. As a result of previous ground-disturbing activities associated with the agricultural uses and current development of the Project site, site-adjacent improvement areas, and 6th Street at- grade crossing, there is little potential for archaeological resources to be present or disturbed by the construction activities associated with implementation of the Project. Therefore, no further archaeological study or construction monitoring for archaeological resources is recommended in the Cultural Resources Assessment. Notwithstanding, there is a possibility that archaeological resources may be present beneath the surface, and may be impacted by deeper ground-disturbing activities associated with Project construction. Notably, as further described in Section 3.0, Project Description, of this Draft EIR, excavation for installation of the Project’s infiltration vaults would extent to depths of up to approximately 26-feet below the ground surface. Therefore, there is a potential that previously undiscovered archaeological resources would be encountered during excavation activities in native soils, resulting in a potentially significant impact prior to mitigation. Mitigation measure (MM) 4-1 requires that prior to the commencement of grading, a qualified archaeologist be retained to conduct contractor training so all personnel are aware of the potential for the presence of resources at the site and understand the protocols to follow in the event of a discovery. In the unlikely event that archaeological resources are unearthed, resulting in a potential loss of a previously unknown resource, MM 4-2 requires a qualified archaeologist must be retained to evaluate the find and make decisions on its disposition. With implementation of these mitigation measures, impacts to archaeological resources would be less than significant. Impact 4.2 The Project has a low potential to impact unknown archaeological resources; however, there is a potential to encounter subsurface archaeological resources during construction resulting in a potentially significant impact prior to mitigation. Implementation of MM 4-1 and MM 4-2 would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.4 Cultural Resources Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.4-13 Threshold 4.3 Would the Project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? According to a Sacred Lands Files (SLF) search conducted during preparation of the Cultural Resources Assessment, no sacred sites or locations of religious or ceremonial importance were found on the Project site or within a one-mile radius of the Project site. As identified in Section 4.14, Tribal Cultural Resources, of this Draft EIR, the lack of sacred sites or locations was validated during the Native American consultation conducted by the City pursuant to AB 52 and SB 18. As discussed previously, the Project site and site-adjacent improvement areas have been previously graded and developed or has been historically used for agricultural purposes. No conditions exist that suggest human remains are likely to be found. Additionally, due to previous grading and development on the Project site, site-adjacent improvement areas, and proposed 6th Street at-grade crossing, it is not expected that human remains, including those interred outside formal cemeteries, would be encountered during ground-disturbing activities associated with the Project. If human remains were found, those remains would require proper treatment, in accordance with applicable laws. Sections 7050.5–7055 of the California Health and Safety Code describe the general provisions for human remains. Specifically, Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code describes the protocols to be followed in the event that human remains are accidentally discovered during excavation of a site. In addition, the requirements and procedures set forth in PRC Section 5097.98 would be implemented. If human remains are found during excavation, construction activities must stop in the vicinity of the find and in any area that is reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains until the County Coroner has been notified; the remains have been investigated; and appropriate recommendations have been made for the treatment and disposition of the remains. Following compliance with State regulations, which detail the appropriate actions necessary in the event human remains are encountered (refer to RR 4-1), potential impacts would be less than significant. Impact 4.3 Construction activities would not disturb known human remains. However, if human remains are encountered in subsurface soils, implementation of RR 4-1 would ensure potential impacts are less than significant. 4.4.5 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS The cumulative area for cultural resources is the City of Rancho Cucamonga. As discussed above under Threshold a, there are five historical resources located within one-mile of the Project site; however, none are located on the Project site. As identified in the General Plan EIR, there are 18 archaeological sites identified within the City; however, none are located on the Project site. One archaeological site in the City included cremated prehistoric human remains; however, that site is not located within the Project area. Direct impacts to on-site cultural resources and human remains are site-specific and would not result in significant cumulative impacts. The Project, in conjunction with cumulative development, including projects implementing the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan, could lead to accelerated degradation of previously unknown archaeological resource sites. However, each development proposal received by Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.4 Cultural Resources Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.4-14 the City undergoes environmental review and would be subject to the same resource protection requirements as the Project as outlined in the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan and General Plan EIR. If there is a potential for significant impacts on cultural resources, an investigation will be required to determine the nature and extent of the resources and to identify appropriate mitigation measures, including requirements such as those identified in this section. The Project includes measures to identify, recover, and/or record any cultural resources that may occur within the Project limits resulting in less-than-significant impacts. Although unlikely to occur, potential impacts associated with human remains would be reduced to a less than significant level with adherence to existing State law. To the extent that the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan EIR concludes that implementation of development pursuant to the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan would not have a significant effect on cultural resources, it can be concluded that there are no projects that would, in combination with the Project, result in any significant cumulative impacts on historical or archaeological resources or on impacts to human remains. Therefore, the Project would have no significant cumulative impacts associated with cultural resources. 4.4.6 MITIGATION MEASURES MM 4-1 Prior to site preparation or grading activities, construction personnel shall be instructed by a qualified Archaeologist of the potential for encountering unique archaeological resources and instructed on steps to take in the event such resources are encountered. This shall include the provision of written materials to familiarize personnel with the range of resources that might be expected, the type of activities that may result in impacts, and the legal framework of cultural resources protection. All construction personnel shall be instructed to stop work in the vicinity of a potential discovery until a qualified Archaeologist assesses the significance of the find and implements appropriate measures to protect or scientifically remove the find. Construction personnel shall also be informed that unauthorized collection of archaeological resources is prohibited. MM 4-2 In the event that cultural resources are inadvertently unearthed during excavation and grading activities, the Contractor shall immediately cease all earth-disturbing activities within a 100-foot radius of the area of discovery. The Property Owner/Developer shall retain a qualified Archaeologist (Project Archaeologist), subject to approval by the City of Rancho Cucamonga, to evaluate the significance of the find and to determine an appropriate course of action. All artifacts except for human remains and related grave goods or sacred objects belong to the Property Owner. All artifacts discovered at the development site shall be inventoried and analyzed by the Project Archaeologist. Non-Native American artifacts shall be inventoried, assessed, and analyzed for cultural affiliation, personal affiliation (prior ownership), function, and temporal placement. Subsequent to analysis and reporting, these artifacts shall be subjected to curation or returned to the Property Owner, as deemed appropriate. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.4 Cultural Resources Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.4-15 If any artifacts of Native American origin are discovered, the Property Owner/Developer and Project Archaeologist shall notify the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department and the appropriate local Native American tribe identified by the Native American Heritage Commission. The significance of Native American resources shall be evaluated in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and shall consider the religious beliefs, customs, and practices of the tribe (refer to MM 14- 1 through MM 14-6 in Section 4.14, Tribal Cultural Resources). All items found in association with Native American human remains shall be considered grave goods or sacred in origin and subject to special handling (see RR 4-1). Once ground-altering activities have ceased or the Project Archaeologist determines that monitoring activities are no longer necessary, monitoring activities may be discontinued following notification to the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department. A report of findings, including an itemized inventory of recovered artifacts, shall be prepared upon completion of the steps outlined above. The report shall include a discussion of the significance of all recovered artifacts. The report and inventory, when submitted to the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department, shall signify completion of the program to mitigate impacts to archaeological and/or cultural resources. A copy of the report shall also be filed with the Archaeological Information Center (AIC) at the San Bernardino County Museum and the Native American tribe, as appropriate. 4.4.7 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION Project impacts to related to cultural resources would be less than significant after mitigation. 4.4.8 REFERENCES Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. (BFSA). 2020 (December 17). A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Rancho Cucamonga, California. (Included in Appendix D of this Draft EIR). Rancho Cucamonga, City of. 2010a (May). Rancho Cucamonga General Plan. Available at: https://www.cityofrc.us/community-development/planning ———. 2010b (February). Rancho Cucamonga 2010 General Plan Update Program Environmental Impact Report. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.5 Energy Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.5-1 4.5 ENERGY This section evaluates the Project's potential impacts to energy. This analysis addresses the Project's energy consumption during construction and operation. Information presented in this section is primarily based on the Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Energy Analysis (Energy Analysis) prepared by Urban Crossroads (April 15, 2021) and included in Appendix E of this Draft EIR (Urban Crossroads, 2021a). References used in preparation of this section are listed under Section 4.5.8, References. There were no Notice of Preparation (NOP) comment letters received related to energy. 4.5.1 RELEVANT POLICIES AND REGULATIONS A. Federal Policies and Regulations 1. Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act Of 1991 (ISTEA) The ISTEA promoted the development of inter‐modal transportation systems to maximize mobility and address national and local interests in air quality and energy. ISTEA contained factors that Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) were to address in developing transportation plans and programs, including some energy‐related factors. To meet the new ISTEA requirements, MPOs adopted explicit policies defining the social, economic, energy, and environmental values guiding transportation decisions. 2. The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (Tea-21) TEA‐21 was signed into law in 1998 and built upon the initiatives established in the ISTEA legislation, discussed above. TEA‐21 authorized highway, highway safety, transit, and other efficient surface transportation programs. TEA‐21 continues the program structure established for highways and transit under ISTEA, such as flexibility in the use of funds, emphasis on measures to improve the environment, and focus on a strong planning process as the foundation of good transportation decisions. TEA‐21 also provides for investment in research and its application to maximize the performance of the transportation system through, for example, deployment of Intelligent Transportation Systems, to help improve operations and management of transportation systems and vehicle safety. B. State Policies and Regulations 1. Integrated Energy Policy Report (IEPR) Senate Bill 1389 (Bowen, Chapter 568, Statutes of 2002) requires the California Energy Commission (CEC) to prepare a biennial integrated energy policy report that assesses major energy trends and issues facing the State's electricity, natural gas, and transportation fuel sectors and provides policy recommendations to conserve resources; protect the environment; ensure reliable, secure, and diverse energy supplies; enhance the State's economy; and protect public health and safety (Public Resources Code Section 25301a]). The Energy Commission prepares these assessments and associated policy recommendations every two years, with updates in alternate years, as part of the IEPR. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.5 Energy Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.5-2 The 2019 IEPR was adopted on January 31, 2020, and continues to work towards improving electricity, natural gas, and transportation fuel energy use in California. The 2019 IEPR focuses on a variety of topics such as including the environmental performance of the electricity generation system, landscape-scale planning, the response to the gas leak at the Aliso Canyon natural gas storage facility, transportation fuel supply reliability issues, updates on Southern California electricity reliability, methane leakage, climate adaptation activities for the energy sector, climate and sea-level rise scenarios, and the California Energy Demand Forecast. The 2020 IEPR Update was adopted on March 17, 2021. The latest 2020 IEPR Update builds on the 2019 IEPR. Similar to the 2019 IEPR, the 2020 IEPR shows that fuel efficiencies are getting better within on and off-road vehicle engines due to more stringent government requirements. 2. State of California Energy Plan The CEC is responsible for preparing the State Energy Plan, which identifies emerging trends related to energy supply, demand, conservation, public health and safety, and the maintenance of a healthy economy. The Plan calls for the State to assist in the transformation of the transportation system to improve air quality, reduce congestion, and increase the efficient use of fuel supplies with the least environmental and energy costs. The plan identifies several strategies to further this policy, including assistance to public agencies and fleet operators and encouragement of urban designs that reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and accommodate pedestrian and bicycle access. 3. Title 24, Part 6, Energy Efficiency Standards and California Green Building Standards California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 24 Part 6: California's Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings, was first adopted in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to reduce California's energy consumption. The standards are updated periodically to allow consideration and possible incorporation of new energy-efficient technologies and methods. Energy- efficient buildings require less electricity; therefore, increased energy efficiency reduces fossil fuel consumption and decreases greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The CEC adopted the 2019 version of Title 24, which became effective on January 1, 2020. The 2019 Title 24 requirements apply to building permit applications submitted on or after January 1, 2020. The 2019 Title 24 standards require solar photovoltaic (PV) systems for new homes, establish requirements for newly constructed healthcare facilities, encourage demand-responsive technologies for residential buildings, and update indoor and outdoor lighting standards for nonresidential buildings. The CEC anticipates that single-family homes built with the 2019 standards will use approximately 7% less energy than the residential homes built under the 2016 standards. Additionally, after the implementation of solar PV systems, homes built under the 2019 standards will use approximately 53% less energy than homes built under the 2016 standards. Nonresidential buildings will use approximately 30% less energy due to lighting upgrades compared to the prior code. CCR, Title 24, Part 11: California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen), is a comprehensive and uniform regulatory code for all residential, commercial, and school buildings that went into effect on January 1, 2009, and is administered by the California Building Standards Commission. CALGreen is updated on a regular basis, with the most recent approved update consisting of the 2019 California Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.5 Energy Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.5-3 Green Building Code Standards that became effective January 1, 2020. Provisions of the CalGreen standards applicable to the Project are outlined in Section 4.2, Air Quality, of this Draft EIR. 4. AB 1493 Pavley Regulations and Fuel Efficiency Standards California AB 1493, enacted on July 22, 2002, required CARB to develop and adopt regulations that reduce GHGs emitted by passenger vehicles and light-duty trucks. Under this legislation, CARB adopted regulations to reduce GHG emissions from non-commercial passenger vehicles (cars and light- duty trucks). Although aimed at reducing GHG emissions, specifically, a co-benefit of the Pavley standards is an improvement in fuel efficiency and consequently, a reduction in fuel consumption. 5. California's Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) First established in 2002 under Senate Bill (SB) 1078, California's Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) requires retail sellers of electric services to increase procurement from eligible renewable resources to 33% of total retail sales by 2020. 6. Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act of 2015 (SB 350) In October 2015, the legislature approved, and the Governor signed SB 350, which reaffirms California's commitment to reducing its GHG emissions and addressing climate change. Key provisions include an increase in the renewables portfolio standard (RPS), higher energy efficiency requirements for buildings, initial strategies towards a regional electricity grid, and improved infrastructure for electric vehicle charging stations. Specifically, SB 350 requires the following to reduce statewide GHG emissions: • Increase the amount of electricity procured from renewable energy sources from 33% to 50% by 2030, with interim targets of 40% by 2024, and 25% by 2027. • Double the energy efficiency in existing buildings by 2030. This target will be achieved through the California Public Utility Commission (CPUC), the CEC, and local publicly owned utilities. • Reorganize the Independent System Operator (ISO) to develop more regional electrify transmission markets and to improve accessibility in these markets, which will facilitate the growth of renewable energy markets in the western United States (U.S.). C. Local Policies and Regulations 1. Rancho Cucamonga General Plan The City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan is discussed in detail in Section 4.10, Land Use and Planning, of this Draft EIR. Relevant to energy, the Managing Land Use, Community Design, and Historic Resources Chapter; Resource Conservation Chapter; and Public Health and Safety Chapter, include goals and policies that address the reduction of energy consumption through implementation of sustainable development, implementation of energy conservation and efficiency measures, adherence to State mandates regarding energy consumption. Further, Section 4.13, Transportation, addresses goals and policies included in the Community Mobility Chapter applicable to industrial land Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.5 Energy Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.5-4 uses, including goals and policies to reduce dependency on automobiles, reducing transportation- related energy demand. 2. City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Code Chapter 17.78, Transportation Demand Management (TDM), of the City's Development Code, encourages employers to implement programs to help reduce the use of single-occupancy vehicles. Relevant to the Project, developments subject to the TDM Ordinance include light industrial uses with 250,000 square feet or more. The ordinance requires the provision of passenger loading areas, preferential parking for carpool and vanpool vehicles, shower and locker facilities; video conferencing; and any two of the following: ridesharing program, leasing of vans, company fleet cars, subsidized transit passes, and modified work hours. 4.5.2 EXISTING SETTING A. Overview The most recent data for California's estimated total energy consumption and natural gas consumption is from 2018, released by the U.S. Energy Information Administration's (EIA) California State Profile and Energy Estimates in 2020 and included: • Approximately 7,967 trillion British Thermal Unit (BTU) of energy was consumed • Approximately 681 million barrels of petroleum • Approximately 2,137 billion cubic feet of natural gas • Approximately 1 million short tons of coal The CEC's released the Transportation Energy Demand Forecast 2018-2030 to support the 2017 Integrated Energy Policy Report. The Transportation Energy Demand Forecast 2018-2030 lays out graphs and data supporting their projections of California's future transportation energy demand. The projected inputs consider expected variable changes in fuel prices, income, population, and other variables. Predictions regarding fuel demand included: • Gasoline demand in the transportation sector is expected to decline from approximately 15.8 billion gallons in 2017 to between 12.3 billion and 12.7 billion gallons in 2030. • Diesel demand in the transportation sector is expected to rise, increasing from approximately 3.7 billion diesel gallons in 2015 to approximately 4.7 billion in 2030. • Data from the Department of Energy states that approximately 3.9 billion gallons of diesel fuel were consumed in 2017. The most recent data provided by the EIA for energy use in California by the demand sector is from 2017 and is reported as follows: • Approximately 40.3% transportation; • Approximately 23.1% industrial; Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.5 Energy Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.5-5 • Approximately 18.0% residential; and • Approximately 18.7% commercial. In 2019, the total system electric generation for California was 277,704-gigawatt hours (GWh). California's massive electricity in-state generation system generated approximately 200,475 GWh, which accounted for approximately 72% of the electricity it uses; the rest was imported from the Pacific Northwest (9%), and the U.S. Southwest (19%). Natural gas is the main source for electricity generation at 47% of the total in-state electric generation system power, as shown in Table 4.5-1, Total Electricity System Power (California 2019). Table 4.5-1 Total Electricity System Power (California 2019) Fuel Type California In-State Generation (GWh) % of California In-State Generation Northwest Imports (GWh) Southwest Imports (GWh) Total Imports (GWh) % of Imports Total California Energy Mix (GWh) Total California Power Mix Coal 248 0.12% 219 7,765 7,985 10.34% 8,233 2.96% Natural Gas 86,136 42.97% 46 8,859 8,906 11.53% 95,042 34.22% Oil 36 0.02% 0 0 0 0.00% 36 0.01% Other (Waste Heat/ Petroleum Coke) 411 0.20% 0 11 11 0.01% 422 0.15% Nuclear 16,163 8.06% 0 8,743 8,743 11.32% 24,906 8.97% Large Hydro 33,145 16.53% 5,071 1,071 6,142 7.95% 39,287 14.15% Unspecified 0 0.00% 7,979 13,767 21,746 28.16% 21,746 7.83% Non-Renewable and Unspecified Totals 136,139 67.91% 13,315 40,218 53,533 69.32% 189,672 68.30% Biomass 5,851 2.92% 903 33 936 1.21% 6,787 2.44% Geothermal 10,943 5.46% 99 2,218 2,318 3.00% 13,260 4.77% Small Hydro 5,349 2.67% 292 4 296 0.38% 5,646 2.03% Solar 28,513 14.22% 282 5,295 5,577 7.22% 34,090 12.28% Wind 13,680 6.82% 9,038 5,531 14,569 18.87% 28,249 10.17% Renewable Totals 64,336 32.09% 10,615 13,081 23,696 30.68% 88,032 31.70% System Totals 200,475 100.00% 23,930 53,299 77,229 100.00% 277,704 100.00% (Urban Crossroads, 2021a, Table 2-1) An updated summary of, and context for energy consumption and energy demands within the State is presented in "U.S. Energy Information Administration, California State Profile and Energy Estimates, Quick Facts" excerpted below: • California was the seventh-largest producer of crude oil among the 50 states in 2018, and, as of January 2019, it ranked third in oil refining capacity. • California is the largest consumer of jet fuel among the 50 states and accounted for one- fifth of the nation's jet fuel consumption in 2018. • California's total energy consumption is second highest in the nation, but, in 2018, the State's per capita energy consumption was the fourth-lowest due to its mild climate and its energy efficiency programs. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.5 Energy Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.5-6 • In 2018, California ranked first in the nation as an electricity producer from solar, geothermal, and biomass resources and fourth in the nation in conventional hydroelectric power generation. • In 2018, large- and small-scale solar photovoltaic (PV) and solar thermal installations provided 19% of California's net electricity generation. As indicated above, California is one of the nation's leading energy‐producing states, and California's per capita energy use is among the nation's most efficient. Given the nature of the Project, the remainder of this discussion will focus on the three sources of energy that are most relevant to the Project – namely, electricity, natural gas, and transportation fuel for vehicle trips associated with the uses planned for the Project. B. Electricity The Southern California region's electricity reliability has been of concern for the past several years due to the planned retirement of aging facilities that depend upon once-through cooling technologies and the June 2013 retirement of the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (San Onofre). While the once-through cooling phase-out has been ongoing since the May 2010 adoption of the State Water Resources Control Board's once-through cooling policy, the retirement of San Onofre complicated the situation. California ISO studies revealed the extent to which the South California Air Basin (SoCAB) and the San Diego Air Basin (SDAB) region were vulnerable to low-voltage and post-transient voltage instability concerns. The 2013 IEPR detailed a preliminary plan to address these issues after a collaborative process with other energy agencies, utilities, and air districts. Similarly, the subsequent 2018 and 2019 IEPR's identify broad strategies to maintain electricity system reliability. Electricity is currently provided to the Project by Southern California Edison (SCE). SCE provides electric power to more than 15 million persons in 15 counties and in 180 incorporated cities, within a service area encompassing approximately 50,000 square miles. Based on SCE's 2018 Power Content Label Mix, SCE derives electricity from varied energy resources including fossil fuels, hydroelectric generators, nuclear power plants, geothermal power plants, solar power generation, and wind farms. SCE also purchases from independent power producers and utilities, including out‐of‐state suppliers. Though SCE currently provides electricity, the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Utility (RCMU) may provide electricity in the future. RCMU provides economic and reliable electricity to over 1,200 metered businesses and residents in a selected area within the City of Rancho Cucamonga's southeastern proximity. Since 2004, RCMU has continued to serve our customers with reliable electricity while maintaining lower rates than those charged by the local investor-owned utility. California's electricity industry is an organization of traditional utilities, private generating companies, and State agencies, each with various roles and responsibilities to ensure that electrical power is provided to consumers. The California Independent Service Operator (ISO) is a nonprofit public benefit corporation and is the impartial operator of the State's wholesale power grid. It is charged with maintaining grid reliability and direct uninterrupted electrical energy supplies to California's homes and communities. While utilities still own transmission assets, the ISO routes electrical power along Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.5 Energy Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.5-7 these assets, maximizing the transmission system's use and power generation resources. The ISO matches buyers and sellers of electricity to ensure that enough power is available to meet demand. To these ends, every five minutes the ISO forecasts electrical demands, accounts for operating reserves, and assigns the lowest cost power plant unit to meet demands while ensuring adequate system transmission capacities and capabilities. Part of the ISO's charge is to plan and coordinate grid enhancements to ensure that electrical power is provided to California consumers. To this end, transmission file annual transmission expansion/ modification plans to accommodate the State's growing electrical needs. The ISO reviews and either approves or denies the proposed additions. In addition, and perhaps most importantly, the ISO works with other areas in the western United States electrical grid to ensure that adequate power supplies are available to the State. In this manner, continuing reliable and affordable electrical power is assured to existing and new consumers throughout the State. Table 4.5-2, SCE 2019 Power Content Mix, and Table 4.5-3, RCMU 2019 Power Content Mix, identify SCE's and RCMU's specific proportional shares of electricity sources in 2019. As indicated in Table 4.5-2, the 2019 SCE Power Mix has renewable energy at 35.1% of the overall energy resources. Geothermal resources are at 5.9%, wind power is at 11.5%, large hydroelectric sources are at 7.9%, solar energy is at 16%, and coal is at 0.0%. For RCMU, and as summarized in Table 4.5-3, the 2019 RCMU Power Mix has renewable energy at 23.7% of the overall energy resources. Geothermal, biomass and biowaste, eligible hydroelectric, wind, coal, natural gas, and nuclear at 0%. Solar energy is at 23.7% and large hydroelectric is at 6.3%. Table 4.5-2 SCE 2019 Power Content Mix Energy Resources 2019 SCE Power Mix Eligible Renewable 35.1% Biomass & Waste 0.6% Geothermal 5.9% Eligible Hydroelectric 1.0% Solar 16% Wind 11.5% Coal 0.0% Large Hydroelectric 7.9% Natural Gas 16.1% Nuclear 8.2% Other 0.1% Unspecified Sources of power* 32.6% Total 100% * "Unspecified sources of power" means electricity from transactions that are not traceable to specific generation sources (Urban Crossroads, 2021a, Table 2-2) Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.5 Energy Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.5-8 Table 4.5-3 RCMU 2019 Power Content Mix Energy Resources 2019 RCMU Power Mix Eligible Renewable 2.7% Biomass & waste 0% Geothermal 0% Small Hydroelectric 0% Solar 23.7% Wind 0% Coal 0% Large Hydroelectric 6.3% Natural Gas 0% Nuclear 0% Other 0% Unspecified Sources of power* 70.0% Total 100% * "Unspecified sources of power" means electricity from transactions that are not traceable to specific generation sources (Urban Crossroads, 2021a, Table 2-3) C. Natural Gas As further described in Section 2.3 of the Energy Analysis included in Appendix E of this Draft EIR, the CPUC regulates natural gas utility service for approximately 10.8 million customers that receive natural gas from Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E), Southern California Gas (SoCalGas), San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E), Southwest Gas, and several smaller natural gas utilities. The CPUC also regulates independent storage operators. California's natural gas utilities provide service to over 11 million gas meters, with the overwhelming majority of natural gas utility customers being residential and small commercials customers, referred to as "core" customers. Natural gas is available from various in‐state and out‐of‐state sources and is provided throughout the state in response to market supply and demand. The gas transported to California gas utilities via the interstate pipelines, as well as some of the California-produced gas, is delivered into the PG&E and SoCalGas intrastate natural gas transmission pipelines systems (commonly referred to as California's "backbone" pipeline system). Natural gas on the utilities' backbone pipeline systems is then delivered to the local transmission and distribution pipeline systems, or to natural gas storage fields. Some large volume noncore customers take natural gas delivery directly off the high-pressure backbone and local transmission pipeline systems, while core customers and other noncore customers take delivery off the utilities' distribution pipeline systems. In order properly operate their natural gas transmission pipeline and storage systems, PG&E and SoCalGas must balance the amount of gas received into the pipeline system and delivered to customers or to storage fields. Some of these utilities' storage capacity is dedicated to this service, and under most circumstances, customers do not need to precisely match their deliveries with their consumption. If the utilities find that they are unable to deliver all the gas that is expected to be consumed, they may call for a curtailment of some gas deliveries. These curtailments are typically required for just the largest, noncore customers. It has been many years since there has been a significant curtailment of core customers in California." Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.5 Energy Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.5-9 Complementing available natural gas resources, biogas may soon be available via existing delivery systems, thereby increasing the availability and reliability of resources in total. The CPUC oversees utility purchases and natural gas transmission to ensure reliable and affordable natural gas deliveries to existing and new consumers throughout the State. D. Transportation Energy Resources The Project would generate additional vehicle trips with resulting energy resources consumption, predominantly gasoline and diesel fuel. In March 2019, the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) identified 36.4 million registered vehicles in California, and those vehicles consume an estimated 17.8 billion gallons of fuel each year. Gasoline (and other vehicle fuels) are commercially provided commodities and would be available to the Project patrons and employees via commercial outlets. California's on-road transportation system includes 394,383 land miles, more than 27.5 million passenger vehicles and light trucks, and almost 8.1 million medium- and heavy-duty vehicles. While gasoline consumption has been declining since 2008 it is still by far the dominant fuel. Petroleum comprises about 91% of all transportation energy use, excluding fuel consumed for aviation and most marine vessels. Nearly 17.8 billion gallons of on-highway fuel are burned each year, including 14.6 billion gallons of gasoline (including ethanol) and 3.2 billion gallons of diesel fuel (including biodiesel and renewable diesel). In 2019, Californians also used 194 million cubic feet of natural gas as a transportation fuel, or the equivalent of 183 billion gallons of gasoline. E. Existing Energy Demands at the Project Site Existing Facility Energy Demands The Project site is currently occupied by a 1,431,000 square feet (sf) warehouse building and a 23,240 sf retail building. For analysis purposes, the energy usage for the existing buildings was based on utility bills provided by the Project Applicant from SCE and the Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas). Refer to specific detailed modeling inputs/outputs contained in Appendix 4.4 of the Project's Energy Analysis (included in Appendix E of this Draft EIR). The estimated facility energy demands from the Project's existing development are summarized in Table 4.5-4, Existing Annual Operational Energy Demand Summary. As shown, existing operational energy demands are estimated at 6,195,062 kWh/year of electricity and 99,237,300 kBTU/yr of natural gas. Table 4.5-4 Existing Annual Operational Energy Demand Summary Natural Gas Demand kBTU/year Free-Standing Discount Store 1,585,900 Unrefrigerated Warehouse - No Rail 97,651,400 TOTAL EXISTING NATURAL GAS DEMAND 99,237,300 Electricity Demand kWh/year Free-Standing Discount Store 99,002 Unrefrigerated Warehouse - No Rail 6,096,060 TOTAL EXISTING ELECTRICITY DEMAND 6,195,062 kBTU – kilo-British Thermal Units (Urban Crossroads, 2021a, Table 4-22) Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.5 Energy Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.5-10 Existing Transportation Energy Demands The estimated transportation energy demands from the existing development on-site are summarized in Table 4.5-5, Existing Traffic Annual Fuel Consumption (All Vehicles) and are based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) trip generation information provided in the Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga High-Cube Fulfillment Center Traffic Memo for operation of the warehouse building as a high-cube transload short-term storage warehouse use (without cold storage) and operation of the retail building as a free-standing discount store use (Urban Crossroads, 2021c). Table 4.5-5 Existing Traffic Annual Fuel Consumption (All Vehicles) Vehicle Type Annual VMT Estimated Annual Fuel Consumption (gallons) Existing (All Vehicles) 17,577,630 1,167,387 (Urban Crossroads, 2021a, Table 4-13) 4.5.3 THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE According to Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, a project will normally have a significant adverse environmental impact on energy if it will: • Result in a potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation. • Conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. In addition, Appendix F of the CEQA Guidelines states that the means of achieving the goal of energy conservation includes the following: • Decreasing overall per capita energy consumption; • Decreasing reliance on fossil fuels such as coal, natural gas, and oil; and • Increasing reliance on renewable energy sources. 4.5.4 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS A. Regulatory Requirement In addition to adhering to the state-mandated provisions of Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards and the CalGreen Code, and the Rancho Cucamonga Development Code, the Project is required to adhere to the following Regulatory Requirement (RR), RR 5-1 Construction activities shall be conducted in compliance with Section 2449, General Requirements for In-Use Off-Road Diesel-Fueled Fleets, of the California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 13, Motor Vehicles. Section 2449(d)(2) limits idling times of off-road diesel-fueled vehicles and engines to no more than five consecutive minutes. Adherence to idling limitations shall be confirmed through periodic site inspections conducted by City building officials. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.5 Energy Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.5-11 B. Impact Analysis Threshold 5.1 Would the Project result in a potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? The Project would result in the demand for energy resources during construction and long-term operation, as discussed below. Information from the California Emissions Estimator Model™ (CalEEMod) Version 2016.3.2 outputs used in the Project's Air Quality Impact Analysis (Urban Crossroads, 2021b) (included in Appendix B1 of this Draft EIR) were utilized in the analysis, detailing Project-related construction equipment, transportation energy demands, and facility energy demands. Refer to the Project's Air Quality Impact Analysis for a discussion of modeling inputs used in the analysis. A description of the anticipated construction schedule and a list of expected construction equipment is provided under the discussion of "Construction Activities" in Section 3.0, Project Description, of this Draft EIR. With respect to the 6th Street at-grade crossing of the railroad spur, due to the limited construction area and limited scope of construction activities for this roadway improvement, use of heavy construction equipment would not be required. Further, if the at-grade crossing is constructed concurrently with the Project no additional equipment beyond that anticipated for the Project would be required and the estimated energy use presented below would not be exceeded. If the 6th Street at-grade crossing is constructed after completion of the Project's construction activities, energy use associated with construction of the at-grade crossing is anticipated to be nominal and would not exceed the energy use identified for Project-related construction activities. Therefore, energy use associated with the construction of the 6th Street is within the envelope of impacts analyzed for the Project, and impacts would also be less than significant. 1. Construction Energy Demands Construction Equipment Electricity Usage Estimates The 2020 National Construction Estimator identifies a typical power cost per 1,000 sf of construction per month of $2.38, which was used to calculate the Project’s total construction power cost. The Project includes the development of two high-cube warehouse buildings with a total building area of 2,175,000 sf, surface parking lots (standard and trailer parking spaces), 363.900 sf of landscaped area, and 1,540 sf of other asphalt surfaces. Based on the information provided in the Air Quality Impact Analysis (included in Appendix B1 of this Draft EIR), construction activities are anticipated to occur between July 2021 and November 2022. Based on Table 4-3 of the Project's Energy Analysis (Appendix E of this Draft EIR), the total power cost of the on-site electricity usage during the Project's construction is estimated to be approximately $141,068. The SCE's general service rate schedule was used to determine the Project's electrical usage. As of October 1, 2020, SCE's general service rate is $0.10 per kilowatt hours (kWh) of electricity for industrial services. As shown in Table 4.5-6, Construction Electricity Usage, the total electricity usage from on-site Project construction-related activities is estimated to be approximately 1,472,759 kWh. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.5 Energy Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.5-12 Table 4.5-6 Construction Electricity Usage Land Use Cost per kWh Project Construction Electricity Usage (kWh) High-Cube Fulfillment Center (Non-Sort) $0.10 778,218 High-Cube Cold Storage Warehouse $0.10 86,469 Parking Lot $0.10 460,126 Landscape $0.10 147,335 Other Asphalt Surfaces $0.10 612 CONSTRUCTION ELECTRICITY USAGE (kWh) 1,472,759 (Urban Crossroads, 2021a, Table 4-4) Construction Equipment Fuel Estimates Fuel consumed by construction equipment would be the primary energy resource expended throughout Project construction. Table 4.5-7, Construction Equipment Fuel Consumption Estimates presents the Project construction activity timeline estimates, construction equipment schedules, equipment power ratings, load factors, and associated fuel consumption estimates. Eight‐hour daily use of all equipment is assumed. The aggregate fuel consumption rate for all equipment is estimated at 18.5 horsepower- hour per gallon (hp‐hr‐gal.), obtained from CARB 2018 Emissions Factors Tables, and cited fuel consumption rate factors presented in Table D‐24 of the Moyer guidelines. For the purposes of analysis, the calculations are based on all construction equipment being diesel‐powered, which is consistent with industry standards. Diesel fuel would be supplied by existing commercial fuel providers serving the City and region. As presented in Table 4.5-7, Project construction activities would consume an estimated 244,417 gallons of diesel fuel. Project construction would represent a "single‐event" diesel fuel demand and would not require ongoing or permanent commitment of diesel fuel resources for this purpose. On-Road Trips The Trip and VMT are the number and length (in terms VMT) of on-road vehicle trips for workers, vendors, and hauling for each construction phase. The trips are identified in Table 4.5-8, Construction Trips and Vehicle Miles Traveled. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.5 Energy Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.5-13 Table 4.5-7 Construction Equipment Fuel Consumption Estimates Construction Phase Type Equipment HP Rating Quantity Usage Hours Load Factor HP-hrs/day Total Fuel Consumption Overall Site Construction Demolition/Crushing Aerial Lifts 63 4 8 0.31 625 2,297 Concrete/Industrial Saws 81 1 8 0.73 473 1,739 Crushing/Proc. Equipment 85 1 8 0.78 530 1,950 Excavators 158 3 8 0.38 1,441 5,297 Generator Sets 1050 2 8 0.74 12,432 45,696 Other Construction Equipment 172 1 8 0.42 578 2,124 Rubber Tired Dozers 247 2 8 0.40 1,581 5,811 Skid Steer Loaders 65 4 8 0.37 770 2,829 Grading Crawler Tractors 212 3 8 0.43 2,188 8,042 Excavators 158 3 8 0.38 1,441 5,297 Graders 187 3 8 0.41 1,840 6,764 Rubber Tired Dozers 247 3 8 0.40 2,371 8,716 Scrapers 367 3 8 0.48 4,228 15,540 Building 1 Construction Utilities/ Infrastructure Excavators 158 1 8 0.38 480 2,077 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 97 3 8 0.37 861 3,725 Trenchers 78 1 8 0.50 312 1,349 Paving Pavers 130 1 8 0.42 437 472 Paving Equipment 132 1 8 0.36 380 411 Rollers 80 1 8 0.38 243 263 Building Construction Aerial Lifts 63 8 8 0.31 1,250 13,513 Cranes 231 1 8 0.29 536 5,794 Crawler Tractors 212 1 8 0.43 729 7,884 Forklifts 89 2 8 0.20 285 3,079 Generator Sets 84 1 8 0.74 497 5,376 Other Construction Equipment 172 1 8 0.42 578 6,248 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 97 3 8 0.37 861 9,312 Welders 46 2 8 0.45 331 3,581 Architectural Coating Air Compressors 78 1 8 0.48 300 3,076 Building 2 Construction Utilities/ Infrastructure Excavators 158 1 8 0.38 480 2,077 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 97 3 8 0.37 861 3,725 Trenchers 78 1 8 0.50 312 1,349 Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.5 Energy Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.5-14 Construction Phase Type Equipment HP Rating Quantity Usage Hours Load Factor HP-hrs/day Total Fuel Consumption Paving Pavers 130 1 8 0.42 437 472 Paving Equipment 132 1 8 0.36 380 411 Rollers 80 1 8 0.38 243 263 Building Construction Aerial Lifts 63 8 8 0.31 1,250 13,513 Cranes 231 1 8 0.29 536 5,794 Crawler Tractors 212 1 8 0.43 729 7,884 Forklifts 89 2 8 0.20 285 3,079 Generator Sets 84 1 8 0.74 497 5,376 Other Construction Equipment 172 1 8 0.42 578 6,248 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 97 3 8 0.37 861 9,312 Welders 46 2 8 0.45 331 3,581 Architectural Coating Air Compressors 78 1 8 0.48 300 3,076 CONSTRUCTION FUEL DEMAND (GALLONS DIESEL FUEL) 244,417 (Urban Crossroads, 2021a, Table 4-5) Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.5 Energy Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.5-15 Table 4.5-8 Construction Trips and Vehicle Miles Traveled Construction Phase Type Worker Trips / Day Vendor Trips / Day Total Hauling Trips Worker Trip Length Vendor Trip Length Hauling Trip Length Overall Site Construction Demolition/Crushing 40 33 306 14.7 6.9 20 Grading 13 33 680 14.7 6.9 20 Building 1 Construction Utilities/Infrastructure 15 92 0 14.7 6.9 20 Paving 8 23 0 14.7 6.9 20 Building Construction/ Architectural Coating 1,168 230 0 14.7 6.9 20 Building 2 Construction Utilities/Infrastructure 15 79 0 14.7 6.9 20 Paving 8 20 0 14.7 6.9 20 Building Construction/ Architectural Coating 1,008 198 0 14.7 6.9 20 (Urban Crossroads, 2021a, Table 4-6) Construction Worker Fuel Estimates The construction worker trips would generate an estimated 6,474,056 VMT during the 16 months of construction. Based on CalEEMod methodology, it is assumed that 50% of all vendor trips are from light-duty-auto vehicles (LDA), 25% are from light-duty-trucks (LDT11), and 25% are from light- duty- trucks (LDT2 2). Data regarding Project-related construction worker trips was based on CalEEMod defaults utilized within the Project's Air Quality Impact Analysis (included in Appendix B1 of this Draft EIR). Vehicle fuel efficiencies for LDA, LDT1, and LDT2 were estimated using information generated within the 2017 version of the EMFAC developed by CARB. EMFAC2017 is a mathematical model that was designed to calculate emission rates, fuel consumption, and VMT from motor vehicles that operate on highways, freeways, and local roads in California and is commonly used by the CARB to project changes in future emissions from on-road mobile sources. EMFAC2017 was run for the LDA, LDT1, and LDT2 vehicle class within the California sub-area for the 2021 and 2022 calendar years. Data from EMFAC2017 is shown in Appendix 4.5 of the Project's Energy Analysis (included in Appendix E of this Draft EIR). As generated by EMFAC2017, an aggregated fuel economy of LDAs ranging from model year 1974 to model years 2021 and 2022 are estimated to have fuel efficiencies of 31.01 miles per gallon (mpg) and 31.93 mpg, respectively. Table 4.5-9, Construction Worker Fuel Consumption Estimates (LDA), provides an estimated annual fuel consumption resulting from LDAs related to the Project construction 1 Vehicles under the LDT1 category have a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of less than 6,000 lbs. and equivalent test weight (ETW) of less than or equal to 3,750 lbs. 2 Vehicles under the LDT2 category have a GVWR of less than 6,000 lbs. and ETW between 3,751 lbs. and 5,750 lbs. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.5 Energy Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.5-16 worker trips. Based on Table 4.5-9, it is estimated that 101,367 gallons of fuel would be consumed related to construction worker trips during the full construction of the Project. Table 4.5-9 Construction Worker Fuel Consumption Estimates (LDA) Area Construction Phase Type Worker Trips / Day Trip Length (miles) VMT Average Vehicle Fuel Economy (mpg) Estimated Fuel Consumption (gallons) 2021 Overall Site Construction Demolition/Crushing 20 14.7 19,992 31.01 645 Grading 19 14.7 18,992 31.01 612 Building 1 Utilities/Infrastructure 8 14.7 7,526 31.01 243 Building 2 Utilities/Infrastructure 8 14.7 7,526 31.01 243 2022 Building 1 Utilities/Infrastructure 8 14.7 1,882 31.93 59 Paving 4 14.7 1,176 31.93 37 Building Construction/ Architectural Coating 585 14.7 1,705,494 31.93 53,413 Building 2 Utilities/Infrastructure 278 14.7 1,882 31.93 59 Paving 4 14.7 1,176 31.93 37 Building Construction/ Architectural Coating 504 14.7 1,469,412 31.93 46,020 PROJECT CONSTRUCTION WORKER (LDA) FUEL CONSUMPTION 101,367 (Urban Crossroads, 2021a, Table 4-7) The EMFAC2017 aggregated fuel economy of LDT1s ranging from model year 1974 to model years 2021 and 2022 are estimated to have fuel efficiencies of 26.03 mpg and 26.79 mpg, respectively. Table 4.5-10, Construction Worker Fuel Consumption Estimates (LDT1), provides an estimated annual fuel consumption resulting from LDT1s related to the Project construction worker trips. Based on Table 4.5-10, 60,483 gallons of fuel would be consumed related to construction worker trips during the Project's full construction. The EMFAC2017 aggregated fuel economy of LDT2s ranging from model year 1974 to model years 2021 and 2022 is estimated to have fuel efficiencies of 24.23 mpg and 25.15 mpg. Table 4.5-11, Construction Worker Fuel Consumption Estimates (LDT2), provides an estimated annual fuel consumption resulting from LDT2s related to the Project construction worker trips. Based on Table 4.5-11, it is estimated that 64,448 gallons of fuel would be consumed related to construction worker trips during the project's full construction. It should be noted that construction worker trips would represent a "single‐event" gasoline fuel demand and would not require the ongoing or permanent commitment of fuel resources for this purpose. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.5 Energy Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.5-17 Table 4.5-10 Construction Worker Fuel Consumption Estimates (LDT1) Area Construction Phase Type Worker Trips / Day Trip Length (miles) VMT Average Vehicle Fuel Economy (mpg) Estimated Fuel Consumption (gallons) 2021 Overall Site Construction Demolition/Crushing 10 14.7 9,996 26.03 384 Grading 10 14.7 9,996 26.03 384 Building 1 Utilities/Infrastructure 4 14.7 3,763 26.03 145 Building 2 Utilities/Infrastructure 4 14.7 3,763 26.03 145 2022 Building 1 Utilities/Infrastructure 4 14.7 941 26.79 35 Paving 2 14.7 588 26.79 22 Building Construction/ Architectural Coating 293 14.7 854,217 26.79 31,886 Building 2 Utilities/Infrastructure 4 14.7 941 26.79 35 Paving 2 14.7 588 26.79 22 Building Construction/ Architectural Coating 252 14.7 734,706 26.79 27,425 PROJECT CONSTRUCTION WORKER (LDT1) FUEL CONSUMPTION 60,483 (Urban Crossroads, 2021a, Table 4-8) Table 4.5-11 Construction Worker Fuel Consumption Estimates (LDT2) Area Construction Phase Type Worker Trips / Day Trip Length (miles) VMT Average Vehicle Fuel Economy (mpg) Estimated Fuel Consumption (gallons) 2021 Overall Site Construction Demolition/Crushing 10 14.7 9,996 24.23 413 Grading 10 14.7 9,996 24.23 413 Building 1 Utilities/Infrastructure 4 14.7 3,763 24.23 155 Building 2 Utilities/Infrastructure 4 14.7 3,763 24.23 155 2022 Building 1 Utilities/Infrastructure 4 14.7 941 25.15 37 Paving 2 14.7 588 25.15 23 Building Construction/ Architectural Coating 293 14.7 854,217 25.15 33,972 Building 2 Utilities/Infrastructure 4 14.7 941 25.15 137 Paving 2 14.7 588 25.15 23 Building Construction/ Architectural Coating 252 14.7 734,706 25.15 29,219 PROJECT CONSTRUCTION WORKER (LDT2) FUEL CONSUMPTION 64,448 (Urban Crossroads, 2021a, Table 4-9) Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.5 Energy Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.5-18 Construction Vendor and Hauling Fuel Estimates The construction vendor and hauling trips (vehicles that deliver materials to the site during construction) would generate an estimated 2,052,792 VMT along area roadways for the Project throughout construction activity. It is assumed that 50% of all vendor trips are from medium-heavy duty trucks (MHDT), 50% are from heavy-heavy duty trucks (HHDT), and 100% of hauling trips are HHDTs. These assumptions are consistent with the CalEEMod defaults utilized within the Project's Air Quality Impact Analysis (included in Appendix B1 of this Draft EIR). Vehicle fuel efficiencies for MHDTs and HHDTs were estimated using information generated within EMFAC2017. EMFAC2017 was run for the MHDT and HHDT vehicle classes within the California sub-area for the 2021 and 2022 calendar years. Data from EMFAC2017 is shown in Appendix 4.5 to the Project's Energy Analysis (included in Appendix E of this Draft EIR). As generated by EMFAC2017, an aggregated fuel economy of MHDTs ranging from model year 1974 to model years 2021 and 2022 are estimated to have fuel efficiencies of 9.73 mpg and 10.04 mpg, respectively. Based on Table 4.5-12, Construction Vendor Fuel Consumption Estimates (MHDT), it is estimated that 35,608 gallons of fuel would be consumed related to construction vendor trips (MHDTs) during full construction of the Project. Table 4.5-12 Construction Vendor Fuel Consumption Estimates (MHDT) Area Phase Type Vendor Trips / Day Trip Length (miles) VMT Average Vehicle Fuel Economy (mpg) Estimated Fuel Consumption (gallons) 2021 Overall Site Constructio Demolition/Crushing 17 6.9 7,976 9.73 820 Grading 17 6.9 7,976 9.73 820 Building 1 Utilities/Infrastructure 46 6.9 20,314 9.73 2,088 Building 2 Utilities/Infrastructure 40 6.9 17,664 9.73 1,816 2022 Building 1 Utilities/Infrastructure 46 6.9 5,078 10.04 506 Paving 12 6.9 1,656 10.04 165 Building Construction/ Architectural Coating 115 6.9 154,836 10.04 15,415 Building 2 Utilities/Infrastructure 40 6.9 4,416 10.04 440 Paving 10 6.9 1,380 10.04 137 Building Construction/ Architectural Coating 100 6.9 134,619 10.04 13,402 PROJECT CONSTRUCTION VENDOR (MHDT) FUEL CONSUMPTION 35,608 (Urban Crossroads, 2021a, Table 4-10) Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.5 Energy Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.5-19 Table 4.5-13, Construction Vendor Fuel Consumption Estimates (HHDT), and Table 4.5-14, Construction Hauling Fuel Consumption Estimates (HHDT), show the estimated fuel economy of HHDTs accessing the Project site. As generated by EMFAC2017, an aggregated fuel economy of HHDTs ranging from model year 1974 to model years 2021 and 2022 are estimated to have fuel efficiencies of 6.16 mpg and 6.33 mpg, respectively. Based on Table 4.5-13 and Table 4.5-14, fuel consumption from construction vendor and hauling trips (HHDTs) would total approximately 274,263 gallons. It should be noted that Project construction vendor and hauling trips would represent a "single‐ event" diesel fuel demand and would not require ongoing or permanent commitment of diesel fuel resources for this purpose. Table 4.5-13 Construction Vendor Fuel Consumption Estimates (HHDT) Area Phase Type Vendor Trips / Day Trip Length (miles) VMT Average Vehicle Fuel Economy (mpg) Estimated Fuel Consumption (gallons) 2021 Overall Site Construction Demolition/Crushing 17 6.9 7,976 6.16 1,295 Grading 17 6.9 7,976 6.16 1,295 Building 1 Utilities/Infrastructure 46 6.9 20,314 6.16 3,299 Building 2 Utilities/Infrastructure 40 6.9 17,664 6.16 2,869 2022 Building 1 Utilities/Infrastructure 46 6.9 5,078 6.33 802 Paving 12 6.9 1,656 6.33 262 Building Construction/ Architectural Coating 115 6.9 154,836 6.33 24,463 Building 2 Utilities/Infrastructure 40 6.9 4,416 6.33 698 Paving 10 6.9 1,380 6.33 218 Building Construction/ Architectural Coating 100 6.9 134,619 6.33 21,268 PROJECT CONSTRUCTION VENDOR (HHDT) FUEL CONSUMPTION 56,470 (Urban Crossroads, 2021a, Table 4-11) Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.5 Energy Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.5-20 Table 4.5-14 Construction Hauling Fuel Consumption Estimates (HHDT) Area Construction Phase Type Hauling Trips / Day Trip Length (miles) VMT Average Vehicle Fuel Economy (mpg) Estimated Fuel Consumption (gallons) 2021 Overall Site Construction Demolition/Crushing 306 20 416,160 6.16 67,591 Grading 680 20 924,800 6.16 150,202 PROJECT CONSTRUCTION HAULING (HHDT) FUEL CONSUMPTION 217,793 (Urban Crossroads, 2021a, Table 4-12) Construction Energy Efficiency/Conservation Measures Starting in 2014, CARB adopted the nation's first regulation to clean up off-road construction equipment such as bulldozers, graders, and backhoes. These requirements ensure fleets gradually turnover the oldest and dirtiest equipment to newer, cleaner models and prevent fleets from adding older, dirtier equipment. As such, the equipment used for Project construction would conform to CARB regulations and California emissions standards. It should also be noted that there are no unusual Project characteristics or construction processes that would require the use of equipment that would be more energy intensive than is used for comparable activities, or equipment that would not conform to current emissions standards (and related fuel efficiencies). Equipment employed in construction of the Project would not result in inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary fuel consumption. Construction contractors would be required to comply with applicable CARB regulation regarding retrofitting, repowering, or replacement of diesel off-road construction equipment. Additionally, CARB has adopted the Airborne Toxic Control Measure to limit heavy-duty diesel motor vehicle idling to reduce public exposure to diesel particulate matter and other Toxic Air Contaminants. Compliance with anti-idling and emissions regulations would result in a more efficient use of construction-related energy and the minimization or elimination of wasteful or unnecessary energy consumption. Idling restrictions and the use of newer engines and equipment would result in less fuel combustion and energy consumption. Additional construction‐source energy efficiencies would occur due to compliance with California regulations and best available control measures (BACM). For example, CCR Title 13, Motor Vehicles, Section 2449(d)(2), limits idling times of construction vehicles to no more than five consecutive minutes, thereby precluding unnecessary and wasteful consumption of fuel due to unproductive idling of construction equipment. Construction equipment operators are required to be informed that engines are to be turned off at or prior to five minutes of idling. Adherence to idling limitations is required (refer to RR 5-1), and would be confirmed through periodic site inspections conducted by City building officials. A full analysis of the energy needed to form construction materials is not included in this analysis because it would be speculative due to a lack of detailed Project-specific information on construction materials. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.5 Energy Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.5-21 In general, the construction processes promote conservation and efficient energy use by reducing raw materials demands, with a related reduction in energy demands associated with raw materials extraction, transportation, processing, and refinement. The use of materials in bulk reduces energy demands associated with preparation and transport of construction materials and the transport and disposal of construction waste and solid waste in general, with corollary reduced demands on area landfill capacities and energy consumed by waste transport landfill operations. 2. Operational Energy Demands Energy consumption in support of or related to Project operations would include transportation energy demands (energy consumed by passenger car and truck vehicles accessing the Project site) and facilities energy demands (energy consumed by building operations and site maintenance activities). As discussed in Section 3.4.3.B of the Project Description, the Project is proposed to consist of two high-cube warehouse buildings with a total building area of 2,175,000 sf. As discussed in Section 3.4.3.B of the Project Description, based on the currently proposed building design/site plan, it is anticipated that 90% of the proposed building area (Building 1 and Building 2) would be operated as high-cube non-sort fulfillment center warehouse uses (1,957,500 sf), and the remaining 10% of the building area (Building 1 and Building 2) would be occupied by high-cube cold storage warehouse uses (217,500 sf). Transportation Energy Demands The energy that would be consumed by Project‐generated traffic is a function of total VMT and estimated fuel economies of vehicles accessing the Project site. The following is a description of anticipated transportation energy demands based on the trip frequency and trip length methodologies cited in the Project's Air Quality Impact Analysis (included in Appendix B1 of this Draft EIR). • Light-Duty Autos. With respect to estimated VMT, the Project would generate an estimated 13,092,84 annual VMT along area roadways for all LDAs with full build-out of the Project. Table 4‐14 of the Project's Energy Analysis (included in Appendix E of this Draft EIR) provides an estimated range of annual fuel consumption resulting from Project generated LDAs. Based on Energy Analysis Table 4-14, it is estimated that 410,038 gallons of fuel would be consumed from Project-generated LDA trips. • Light-Duty Trucks. With respect to estimated VMT, the Project would generate an estimated 862,072 annual VMT along area roadways for all LDT1 vehicles with full build- out of the Project. Table 4‐15 of the Project's Energy Analysis (included in Appendix E of this Draft EIR) provides an estimated range of annual fuel consumption resulting from Project generated LDT1s. Based on Energy Analysis Table 4-15, it is estimated that 32,179 gallons of fuel would be consumed from Project-generated LDT1 trips. Additionally, the Project would generate an estimated 4,268,409 annual VMT along area roadways for all LDT2 vehicles with full build-out of the Project. Table 4‐16 of the Project's Energy Analysis provides an estimated range of annual fuel consumption resulting from Project- generated LDT2s. Based on Energy Analysis Table 4-16, it is estimated that 169,751 gallons of fuel would be consumed from Project-generated LDT2 trips. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.5 Energy Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.5-22 • Medium-Duty Trucks. With respect to estimated VMT, the Project would generate an estimated 2,751,918 annual VMT along area roadways for all Medium-Duty Trucks (MDV) vehicles with full build-out of the Project. Table 4‐17 of the Project's Energy Analysis (included in Appendix E of this Draft EIR) provides an estimated range of annual fuel consumption resulting from Project-generated MDVs. Based on Energy Analysis Table 4-17, it is estimated that 135,161 gallons of fuel would be consumed from Project- generated MDV trips. • Light-Heavy Duty Trucks. With respect to estimated VMT, the Project would generate an estimated 1,707,969 annual VMT along area roadways for all Light-Heavy-Duty Trucks (LHDT1) vehicles with full build-out of the Project. Table 4‐18 of the Project's Energy Analysis (included in Appendix E of this Draft EIR) provides an estimated range of annual fuel consumption resulting from Project generated LHDT1s. Based on Energy Analysis Table 4-18, it is estimated that 124,238 gallons of fuel would be consumed from Project- generated LHDT1 trips. • Medium-Heavy Duty Trucks. With respect to estimated VMT, the Project would generate an estimated 1,389,972 annual VMT along area roadways for all MHDTs with full build- out of the Project. Table 4‐19 of the Project's Energy Analysis (included in Appendix E of this Draft EIR) provides an estimated range of annual fuel consumption resulting from Project generated MHDTs. Based on Energy Analysis Table 4-19, it is estimated that 138,383 gallons of fuel would be consumed from Project-generated MHDT trips. • Heavy-Heavy Duty Trucks. With respect to estimated VMT, the Project would generate an estimated 4,660,719 annual VMT along area roadways for all HHDTs with full build- out of the Project. Table 4‐20 of the Project's Energy Analysis (included in Appendix E of this Draft EIR) provides an estimated range of annual fuel consumption resulting from Project generated HHDTs. Based on Energy Analysis Table 4-20, it is estimated that 736,348 gallons of fuel would be consumed from Project-generated HHDT trips. • Transportation Refrigeration Units (TRUs). In order to account for the possibility of refrigerated uses, trucks accessing the Project are assumed to also have TRUs. Therefore, for modeling purposes, 81 total daily trucks (one-way) are assumed to be trucks with TRUs (total of 29,565 units per year) operating at 4 hours per day. The TRU calculations are based on the 2017 Off-road Emissions model, version 1.0.1 (Orion), developed by the CARB. Based on Energy Analysis Table 4-21, it is estimated that 229 gallons of fuel would be consumed from Project generated TRUs. Table 4.5-15, Total Net Project-Generated Traffic Annual Fuel Consumption (All Vehicles) summarizes the estimated transportation energy demands. It should be noted that the existing development demands were subtracted from the Project demands to determine the net transportation energy demands from the Project. As summarized in Table 4.5-15, the Project would result in a net Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.5 Energy Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.5-23 Table 4.5-15 Total Net Project-Generated Traffic Annual Fuel Consumption (All Vehicles) Vehicle Type Annual VMT Estimated Annual Fuel Consumption (gallons) LDA 13,092,584 410,038 LDT1 862,072 32,179 LDT2 4,268,409 169,751 MDV 2,751,918 135,161 LHDT 1,707,969 124,238 MHDT 1,389,972 138,383 HHDT 4,660,719 736,348 TRUs - 229 TOTAL (ALL VEHICLES) 28,733,643 1,746,328 EXISTING (ALL VEHICLES) 17,577,630 1,167,387 NET (PROPOSED – EXISTING) 11,156,013 578,941 (Urban Crossroads, 2021a, Table 4-21) increase of 11,156,013 annual VMT and an estimated annual fuel consumption of 578,941 gallons of fuel. Project annual fuel consumption estimates presented in Table 4.5-15 represent likely potential maximums that would occur for the Project. Under subsequent future conditions, average fuel economies of vehicles accessing the Project site can be expected to improve as older, less fuel-efficient vehicles are removed from circulation, and in response to fuel economy and emissions standards imposed on newer vehicles entering the circulation system. Enhanced fuel economies realized pursuant to federal and State regulatory actions and related transition of vehicles to alternative energy sources (e.g., electricity, natural gas, biofuels, hydrogen cells) would likely decrease future gasoline fuel demands per VMT. The Project's location proximate to regional and local roadway systems tends to reduce VMT within the region, acting to reduce regional vehicle energy demands. It should also be noted that Project Applicants would be required to comply with the City's transportation demand management (TDM) ordinance (Chapter 17.78 of the Development Code; refer to Regulatory Requirement [RR] 13-3 in Section 4.13 of this Draft EIR). However, the calculation of the Project's transportation energy demands, above, does not take credit for trips reductions associated with adherence to the City's TDM requirements. Facility Energy Demands The Project would not use natural gas. Project building operations and Project site maintenance activities would result in electricity consumption, which would be supplied to the Project by SCE or Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.5 Energy Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.5-24 RCMU. The Project would result in similar energy demands regardless of whether the Project is served by SCR or RCMU. As previously stated, the analysis herein assumes compliance with the 2019 Title 24 Standards. As such, the CalEEMod defaults for "Title 24 – Electricity and Lighting Energy" were reduced by 30% in order to reflect consistency with the 2019 Title 24 standards. Electricity demands of the Project are summarized in Table 4.5-16, Project Net Annual Operational Energy Demand Summary, and provided in Appendices 4.2 and 4.3 to the Project's Energy Analysis (included in Appendix E of this Draft EIR). Existing development demands were subtracted from the Project demands to determine the net facility energy demands from the Project. Energy efficiency/energy conservation attributes of the Project would be complemented by increasingly stringent State and federal regulatory actions addressing vehicle fuel economies and vehicle emissions standards, and enhanced building/utilities energy efficiencies mandated under California building codes (e.g., Title 24, California Green Building Standards Code). Table 4.5-16 Project Net Annual Operational Energy Demand Summary Natural Gas Demand kBTU/year High-Cube Fulfillment Center (Non-Sort) Warehouse 0 High-Cube Cold Storage Warehouse 0 Parking Lot 0 Landscape 0 Other Asphalt Surfaces 0 TOTAL PROPOSED PROJECT NATURAL GAS DEMAND a 0 TOTAL EXISTING NATURAL GAS DEMAND 99,237,300 NET (PROPOSED PROJECT – EXISTING) -99,237,300 Electricity Demand kWh/year High-Cube Fulfillment Center (Non-Sort) Warehouse 3,719,250 High-Cube Cold Storage Warehouse 8,465,100 Parking Lot 405,084 Landscape b 0 Other Asphalt Surfaces b 0 TOTAL PROPOSED PROJECT ELECTRICITY DEMAND 12,589,434 TOTAL EXISTING ELECTRICITY DEMAND 6,096,060 NET (PROPOSED PROJECT – EXISTING) 6,493,374 a As noted above, the Project would not utilize natural gas, therefore no natural gas demand would occur. b CalEEMod does not identify or calculate any electricity demand associated with landscape and other asphalt surfaces. Any additional lighting or energy demand associated with these spaces is presumed to be covered through building energy demand or parking lot energy demand. (Urban Crossroads, 2021a, Table 4-23) As summarized in Table 4.5-16, the Project would result in a net decrease of 99,237,300 kBTU/year of natural gas and a net increase of 6,493,374 kWh/year of electricity. The increase in electricity use is attributed to the high-cube cold storage warehouse use proposed as part of the Project (10% of the total building area). Overall, energy use associated with the Project (total natural gas + total electricity) is expected to be less than the existing uses since the Project would not utilize natural gas. Although the Project would result in a net increase in electricity usage, the Project would be required to comply with the applicable Title 24 standards which would ensure that the Project energy demands would not be inefficient, wasteful, or otherwise unnecessary as compared to the existing buildings which were built in 1984 and do not meet the current energy standards. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.5 Energy Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.5-25 A high-cube sort fulfillment center warehouse use is not proposed as part of the Project, and the site plan as currently proposed does not support this on-site use. Nevertheless, for the purpose of providing a conservative analysis, the potential energy impacts associated with an increase in net trip generation that could occur if the proposed buildings operated as 90% high-cube sort fulfillment center warehouse and 10% high-cube cold storage warehouse uses have been evaluated. The Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga High-Cube Sort Fulfillment Center Supplemental Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, Health Risk, and Energy Assessment (Sort Use Supplemental Assessment) prepared by Urban Crossroads (April 2021) (Urban Crossroads, 2021d) is provided in Appendix B4 of this Draft EIR. The increased trip generation and associated increase in transportation energy demand is based on an estimate of trips presented in Section 4.13 of this Draft EIR. As presented in Table 4 of the Sort Use Supplemental Assessment, the net increase in annual fuel consumption from operation of the proposed buildings as high-cube sort fulfillment center warehouse and high-cube cold storage warehouse uses would be approximately 1,274,733 gallons. As shown in Table 5 of the Sort Use Supplemental Assessment, the net increase in annual energy demand would not change compared to operation with a high-cube non- sort fulfillment center warehouse use (6,493,374 kWh/year). The proposed buildings would be operated in compliance with applicable regulations addressing transportation energy sources and building standards and would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy, or wasteful use of energy resources. Therefore, potential energy impacts of the proposed buildings operated as 90% high-cube sort fulfillment center warehouse and 10% high-cube cold storage warehouse uses would be less than significant. Impact 5.1 The Project would adhere to the state-mandated provisions of Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards and the CalGreen Code, and the Rancho Cucamonga Development Code, and RR 5-1 (limits idling). The Project would not engage in wasteful or inefficient uses of energy and aims to achieve energy conservation goals within the State of California. As such, the Project would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy, or wasteful use of energy resources, during Project construction or operation. Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. Threshold 5.2 Would the Project conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? As discussed below, the Project would be consistent with or otherwise would not conflict with State or local plans related to energy conservation. Federal plans are also discussed for informational purposes. Consistency with goals and policies in the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan addressing renewable energy and energy efficiency is addressed in Section 4.10 and Section 4.13 of this Draft EIR. As discussed, the Project would not conflict with applicable General Plan goals and policies. • Consistency with ISTEA. Transportation and access to the Project site is provided by the local and regional roadway systems. The Project would not interfere with, nor otherwise obstruct intermodal transportation plans or projects that may be realized pursuant to the ISTEA because SCAG is not planning for intermodal facilities on or through the Project site. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.5 Energy Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.5-26 • Consistency with TEA-21. As previously discussed, TEA‐21 builds upon the initiatives established in the ISTEA legislation, and authorizes highway, highway safety, transit, and other efficient surface transportation programs. While TEA-21 is not applicable to individual development projects, the Project site is located along major transportation corridors with proximate access to the Interstate freeway system, and the Project's location facilitates access, acts to reduce vehicle miles traveled, takes advantage of existing infrastructure systems, and promotes land use compatibilities through collocation of similar uses. The Project would not interfere with nor obstruct implementation of TEA‐21. • Consistency with IEPR. IEPR requirements are not directly applicable to development project; however, electricity may be provided to the Project by SCE, if not provided by RCMU. SCE's Clean Power and Electrification Pathway (CPEP) white paper builds on existing state programs and policies. The Project would purchase energy through either SCE or RCMU, each of these entities would be required to comply with applicable regulations associated with the IEPR. As such, the Project is consistent with, and would not otherwise interfere with, nor obstruct implementation the goals presented in the 2020 IEPR. Based on input from the City, electricity service may be provided to the Project by RCMU. RCMU's Energy Efficiency in California's Public Power Section 12th Edition - 2018 reflects the public power's response to a number of State programs and policies. Since the Project would purchase electricity from either RCMU or SCE, and these entities would be required to comply with applicable regulations, the Project is consistent with, and would not otherwise interfere with, nor obstruct implementation the goals presented in the 2020 IEPR. The Project's energy demand was compared to the energy usage of the existing use. As previously discussed, operation of the Project would not involve the use of natural gas and therefore would result in less natural gas demand as compared to the existing uses. It should be noted that though the Project would result in a net increase in electricity usage, the Project would be required to comply with the applicable Title 24 standards which would ensure that the Project energy demands would not be inefficient, wasteful, or otherwise unnecessary. As such, development of the Project would support the goals presented in the 2020 IEPR. • Consistency with State of California Energy Plan. The Project site is located along major transportation corridors with proximate access to the Interstate freeway system. The site selected for the Project facilitates access, takes advantage of existing infrastructure systems, and promotes land use compatibilities through the introduction of high-cube warehouse uses on a site designated for industrial uses. The Project therefore supports urban design and planning processes identified under the State of California Energy Plan, is consistent with, and would not otherwise interfere with, nor obstruct implementation of the State of California Energy Plan. • Consistency with California Code, Title 24, Part 6, Energy Efficiency Standards. The 2019 version of Title 24 was adopted by the CEC and became effective on January 1, 2020. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.5 Energy Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.5-27 The analysis herein assumes compliance with the 2019 Title 24 Standards. The CEC anticipates that nonresidential buildings will use approximately 30% less energy compared to the prior code. As such, the CalEEMod defaults for Title 24 – Electricity and Lighting Energy were reduced by 30% in order to reflect consistency with the 2019 Title 24 standard. The Project also would be implemented in compliance with provisions of the CalGreen Code, which serve to promote energy efficiency as outlined in Section 4.2 of this Draft EIR. • Consistency with AB 1493. AB 1493 is not applicable to the Project as it is a statewide measure establishing vehicle emissions standards. No feature of the Project would interfere with implementation of the requirements under AB 1493. • Consistency with California's RPS. California's RPS is not applicable to the Project as it is a Statewide measure that establishes a renewable energy mix. No feature of the Project would interfere with implementation of the requirements under RPS. • Consistency with SB 350 – Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act of 2015. SB 350 is not directly applicable to development projects, but the Project would use energy from SCE or RCMU, which have committed to diversify their portfolio of energy sources by increasing energy from wind and solar sources. No feature of the Project would interfere with implementation of SB 350. Additionally, the Project would be designed and constructed to implement the energy efficiency measures for new industrial developments and would include several measures designed to reduce energy consumption. • Appendix F of the CEQA Guidelines. As previously identified, Appendix F of the CEQA Guidelines states that the means of achieving the goal of energy conservation includes the following: decreasing overall per capita energy consumption, decreasing reliance on fossil fuels such as coal, natural gas, and oil; and increasing reliance on renewable energy sources. As previously stated, the Project is subject to CBC requirements. New buildings must achieve compliance with 2019 Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards and the 2019 CalGreen Code requirements. The CEC anticipates that nonresidential buildings will use approximately 30% less energy due to lighting upgrades compared to the prior code. Although the Project would result in a net increase in electricity usage, the Project's adherence to the applicable Title 24 standards which would ensure that the Project energy demands would not be inefficient, wasteful, or otherwise unnecessary, as compared to the existing buildings which were built in 1984 and do not meet the current energy standards. Additionally, the Project would not use natural gas, and on this basis, the Project would decrease overall reliance natural gas and increases reliance on renewable energy sources compared to the energy demands of the existing use. • Chapter 17.78 of the Rancho Cucamonga Development Code. The Project would operate in compliance with the City's transportation demand management ordinance (Chapter 17.78 of the Development Code which requires the provision of amenities or programs to encourage the use of alternative modes of travel by employees; patrons; and visitors of commercial, industrial, Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.5 Energy Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.5-28 office, and mixed-use developments to discourage single-occupancy vehicle trips (refer to RR 13-3 in Section 4.13 of this Draft EIR). In addition to the provision of preferred parking and bicycle storage, and new sidewalks and bicycle lanes to assist employees in using alternative modes of travel, incentives to encourage employee usage would be provided. These may include, but are limited to shower facilities, video conference facilities, transit improvements, and other measures to reduce vehicle trips in the City. Impact 5.2 The Project would not conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. 4.5.5 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Project construction and operations would not result in the inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary consumption of energy. The Project would not engage in wasteful or inefficient uses of energy and aims to achieve energy conservation goals within California. Other cumulative developments within the region would be required to demonstrate that the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary energy consumption would not occur. Additionally, other cumulative developments would be subject to the same regulatory requirements as the Project, including compliance with the 2019 Title 24 Building and Energy Efficiency Standards, the California Green Building Standards Code, and the City of Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code, which would ensure that cumulative development does not result in the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy. The Project and other cumulative developments also inherently would be consistent with the IEPR, State of California Energy Plan, AB 1493 (Pavley), and SB 350, as discussed herein. As such, there is a less than significant cumulative impact related to energy. 4.5.6 MITIGATION MEASURES With adherence to energy conservation regulations, and other regulatory requirements (refer to RR 5- 1), impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. 4.5.7 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION Project impacts related to energy would be less than significant. 4.5.8 REFERENCES Urban Crossroads, Inc. 2021a (April 15). Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Energy Analysis, City of Rancho Cucamonga. (Included in Appendix E of this Draft EIR). ———. 2021b (April 15). Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Air Quality Impact Analysis, City of Rancho Cucamonga. (Included in Appendix B1 of this Draft EIR). ———. 2021c (April 15). Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga High-Cube Fulfillment Center Traffic Memo, City of Rancho Cucamonga. (Included in Appendix L2 of this Draft EIR). Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.5 Energy Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.5-29 ———. 2021d (April 15). Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga High-Cube Sort Fulfillment Center Supplemental Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, Health Risk, and Energy Assessment. (Included in Appendix B4 of this Draft EIR). Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.6 Geology and Soils Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.6-1 4.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS This section describes the existing geology and soils on the Project site and analyzes the potential impacts of existing geotechnical hazards that may adversely affect the Project or may be exacerbated by Project implementation, and potential impacts to paleontological resources. Information presented in this section is derived primarily from two site-specific reports: Geotechnical Investigation Two Proposed Warehouses 12434 4th Street Rancho Cucamonga, California for Bridge Development Partners (Geotechnical Investigation), dated January 12, 2021, and prepared by Southern California Geotechnical (SCG), which is included Appendix F of this Draft EIR. Paleontological Assessment for the Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project, Project Rancho Cucamonga, California (Paleontological Assessment) dated September 16, 2020, and prepared by Brian F. Smith and Associates (BFSA, which is included in Appendix G of this Draft EIR. There were no Notice of Preparation (NOP) comment letters received related to geology and soils, including paleontological resources. 4.6.1 RELEVANT POLICIES AND REGULATIONS A.State 1.Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act The 1971 San Fernando Earthquake in Southern California resulted in the enactment of the Alquist- Priolo Special Studies Zones Act of 1972. The Act was renamed in 1994 to the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning (A-P) Act. Land subdivisions and habitable structures consisting of four units or more that are proposed within A-P zones are required to have detailed fault investigations performed so that engineering geologists can mitigate the hazards associated with active faults. The boundary of the fault zone is approximately 500 feet from major active faults and 200 to 300 feet from well-defined minor faults. The State Geologist defines an active fault as a fault that has previously had surface displacement within the Holocene Period (i.e., the last 11,000 years). A potentially active fault is defined as any fault that has had surface displacement during Quaternary time (last 1,600,000 years) but not within the Holocene period. There are no active faults on the Project site and the Project site is not located within any Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone (SCG, 2021). 2.Seismic Hazards Mapping Act The Seismic Hazards Mapping Act of 1990 (California Public Resources Code, Sections 2690-2699.6) directs the State of California Department of Conservation to identify and map areas subject to earthquake hazards (such as liquefaction, earthquake-induced landslides, and amplified ground shaking). A product of the resultant Seismic Hazards Mapping Program, Seismic Zone Hazard Maps identify Zones of Required Investigation, which are those areas prone to liquefaction and earthquake- induced landslides. The Seismic Hazards Mapping Act requires site-specific geotechnical investigations be conducted within the Zones of Required Investigation to identify and evaluate seismic hazards and formulate mitigation measures prior to permitting most developments designed for human Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.6 Geology and Soils Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.6-2 occupancy. Cities and counties are then required to use the Seismic Hazard Zone Maps in their land use planning and building permit processes. The USGS quadrangle that includes the Project site has not yet been mapped pursuant to the Seismic Hazard Mapping Act; as further discussed below, the Project site is not located within an area subject to liquefaction or a landslide hazard area. 3.California Building Code The California Building Code (CBC) is promulgated under the California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 24. Title 24 is reserved for State regulations that govern the design and construction of buildings, associated facilities, and equipment. These regulations are also known as building standards (reference California Health and Safety Code Section18909). Health and Safety Code (State law) Section 18902 gives CCR Title 24 the name California Building Standards Code (CBSC). The CBSC in CCR Title 24 is published by the California Building Standards Commission and it applies to all building occupancies (see Health and Safety Code Sections 18908 and 18938) throughout the State of California. Cities and counties are required by state law to enforce CCR Title 24 (reference Health and Safety Code Sections 17958, 17960, 18938(b), and 18948). Cities and counties may adopt ordinances making more restrictive requirements than provided by CCR Title 24, because of local climatic, geological, or topographical conditions. Such adoptions and a finding of need statement must be filed with the California Building Standards Commission (Reference Health and Safety Code Sections 17958.7 and 18941.5). The Project would be subject to the 2019 CBC, which became effective on January 1, 2020. B.Local 1.Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Chapter 8, Public Health and Safety, of the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan provides a proactive approach to public health and safety planning. Specifically, it identifies potential known hazards, including seismic and geologic hazards. Based on review of Figure PS-2, Fault Hazards, and Figure PS-3, Geotechnical Hazards, of the General Plan, the Project site is not located in a fault hazard area or within a liquefaction or landslide hazard area, but is located in an area subject to the potential for regional seismic settlement (Rancho Cucamonga, 2010a). From the center point of the Project site, the nearest fault hazard area is 4.1 miles northwest, the nearest liquefaction hazard area is 4.8 miles northwest, and the nearest landslide hazard area is 6.1 miles north. Additionally, the Project site is in an area with slopes less than 10% and no special hillside recommendations are required (refer to Figure PS-4, Slopes, of the General Plan). Chapter 6, Resource Conservation, of the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan guides the preservation, protection, conservation, re-use, replenishment, and efficient use of Rancho Cucamonga’s limited natural resources, including, but not limited to paleontological resources. The Resource Conservation Chapter identifies that soils and geologic formations within the City have a low potential to contain significant paleontological resources; however, the City will continue to screen development proposals, including the Project, in accordance with the requirements of CEQA, and will require the research of any site that may be determined to have potential resources. Should any resources be discovered, the City will take appropriate measures in accordance with existing laws to ensure the Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.6 Geology and Soils Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.6-3 proper handling and preservation of artifacts. The Paleontological Assessment prepared for the Project provides the required screening and the results are summarized in this Section. 2.Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code Building regulations in Rancho Cucamonga are specified in Title 15, Buildings and Construction Code, of the Municipal Code, which adopts the 2019 CBC. Building construction is governed by the CBC; however, the City has amended and provided exemptions to the CBC that address specific geologic considerations in the City. This title is enforced by the Building and Safety Division; it requires site- specific investigation, and it establishes construction standards and inspection procedures to ensure that development does not pose a threat to public safety. Grading review procedures in Rancho Cucamonga are specified in Chapter 19.04, Grading Standards, of the Municipal Code. This chapter establishes regulations for submittal and review of conceptual grading plans in connection with proposed development, establishes a grading committee for review of grading plans, and provides for establishment of standards and guidelines to be utilized by the grading committee and other city agencies in review of such plans. At the time of submittal of a tentative tract map, tentative parcel map, or site plan for development review, the applicant is required to submit, among other items, a conceptual grading plan; conceptual drainage and flood control facility plans; and a geological and soils report. 3.Rancho Cucamonga Development Code Chapter 17.56, Landscaping Standards, of the Municipal Code, establishes minimum landscape requirements to control soil erosion, among other purposes. Preliminary and final landscape plans are required and review of such plans is conducted as part of the design review process. Section 17.66.060, Odor, Particulate Matter, and Air Contaminant Standards, of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Code requires that sources of particulate matter comply with the rules and regulations of the Air Pollution Control District and the State Health and Safety Code. Further, no dust or particulate matter shall be emitted that is detectable by a reasonable person without instruments. 4.6.2 EXISTING SETTING A.Regional and Local Geology The City is located at the north-central section of the Chino Valley, which is bound by the San Gabriel Mountains to the north, the San Bernardino Mountains to the northeast, the Puente Hills to the southwest, and the Jurupa Hills to the southeast. The Project site is located near the northern end of the Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic Province, which is characterized by numerous small, northwestern- trending mountain ranges with intervening plains and valleys (Rancho Cucamonga, 2010b). The Peninsular Ranges province abuts to the north against a series of east-west-trending mountain ranges, which are collectively referred to as “the Transverse Ranges”. The Project site is located at the western margin and near the distal southern end of the broad Lytle Creek alluvial fan that emanates from the San Gabriel Mountains approximately 7 to 8 miles to the Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.6 Geology and Soils Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.6-4 north as a result of uplift and dissection of the eastern San Gabriel Mountains. The main source of these sediments is from the Lytle Creek drainage, near where the northwest-southeast trending San Andreas fault zone cuts across and separates the San Gabriel and San Bernardino mountain ranges. (BFSA, 2020) The Geotechnical Investigation for the Project conducted by SCG included a visual site reconnaissance, subsurface exploration, field and laboratory testing, and geotechnical engineering analysis to provide criteria for preparing the design of the building foundations, building floor slabs, and parking lot pavements along with site preparation recommendations and construction considerations. Boring locations are presented on Figure 4.6-1, Subsurface Boring Locations, which also depicts the existing site conditions. Based on the results of the Geotechnical Investigation and associated subsurface exploration (soil borings) and testing, the Project site consists of 3 to 5 inches of asphaltic concrete with zero to 18 inches of underlying aggregate base at Boring Numbers B-2, B-15 and B-18 (asphaltic concrete pavements exist at the ground level). Portland cement concrete was encountered at the ground surface of Boring Nos. B-6 through B-8, and B-10 through B-17; the pavements at these locations consist of approximately 5.5 to 12 inches of Portland cement concrete. Beneath the pavements and at ground surface at Boring Nos. B-2, B-3, B-4, B-6, and B-9 through B-14, artificial fill soils were encountered, which extend to depths of 1.5 to 5.5 feet and generally consist of medium dense to dense silty fine sands and fine sand with various amounts of medium to coarse sand, fine to coarse gravel, and occasional calcareous veining. The fill soils possess a highly disturbed appearance, resulting in their classification as artificial fill. Lastly, native alluvial soils were encountered at ground surface of Boring Nos. B-1, B-5, B-9, B-19, and B-20, and beneath the pavements and fill soils on the Project site. The alluvial soils extend to at least the maximum depth explored of approximately 25 feet and generally consist of loose to very dense fine sands with variable amounts of medium to coarse sands and gravel, and loose to very dense silty fine to coarse sands with variable amounts of clay, gravel, and occasional calcareous veining. Occasional loose to medium dense fine sandy silt layers with trace amounts of iron oxide staining and calcareous veining were encountered within the upper 2.5 to 8 feet and between 12 to 20 feet below the ground surface. Boring No. B-10 encountered a clayey silt layer from approximately 17 to 19. 5 feet. (SCG, 2021) B.Faulting and Seismicity No active or potentially active faults are known to exist on or within the Project site, and as previously identified, the Project site is not in a current State of California Earthquake Fault Zone. However, as with all of Southern California, the Project site lies in a seismically active region. The geologic structure of Southern California is dominated mainly by northwest-trending faults associated with the San Andreas system. As shown on Figure PS-2, Fault Hazards, of the General Plan (Rancho Cucamonga, 2010b), the closest active fault to the site is the Red Hill Fault, which is located approximately 4.1 miles to the northwest. The Red Hill Fault is known as the geologic divide between the Cucamonga and Chino groundwater basins, as it curves around the southern portion of Red Hill in the northern section of the City. A large number of small earthquakes (magnitudes [M] 1 to 3) have historically occurred beneath the City of Rancho Cucamonga, some which have epicenters on or near Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report Source(s): City of Rancho Cucamonga, ESRI, Nearmap Imagery (2020), SB County (2019) •� � 0 150 300 600 �� tu� ---Feet �� Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga 4.6 Geology and Soils Figure 4.6-l Subsurface Boring Locations SCH No. 2020 l 00056 Page 4.6-5 Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.6 Geology and Soils Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.6-6 the trace of the Red Hill Fault. A maximum credible magnitude of 6.5 is possible on this fault. Another active fault in the region is include the Cucamonga Fault at the base of the San Gabriel Mountains, approximately 6.3 miles to the north. The Cucamonga Fault is considered to be part of the Sierra Madre Fault System, which marks the southern boundary of the San Gabriel Mountains. It is believed that the Cucamonga Fault is capable of producing an earthquake magnitude on the order of 7.0 or greater. C.Topography The Project site is relatively flat and does not contain, nor is it adjacent to, any steep natural or manufactured slopes. The site topography ranges from approximately 1090 feet mean sea level (msl) in the northwestern area of the site to approximately 1048 feet msl in the southeastern area of the site. The site topography in the southern parcel generally slopes downward to the south at a gradient of less than approximately 1%, and to the south at a gradient of approximately 2% in the northern parcel. (SCG, 2021) D.Groundwater Groundwater was not encountered at any of the borings conducted during preparation of the Geotechnical Investigation, which extended to depths of up to 25 feet below the ground surface. According to data from the nearest monitoring well located approximately 8,484 feet south of the Project site, groundwater is estimated to occur approximately 283 feet below the ground surface of the Project site. (SCG, 2021) E.Paleontological Resources Paleontological resources are the remains of prehistoric life that have been preserved in geologic strata. These remains are called fossils and include bones, shells, teeth, and plant remains (including their impressions, casts, and molds) in the sedimentary matrix, as well as trace fossils such as footprints and burrows. Fossils are considered older than 5,000 years of age, but may include younger remains (subfossils) when viewed in the context of local extinction of the organism or habitat, for example. Late Quaternary (Holocene, or “modern”) alluvium is generally considered to be geologically too young to contain significant nonrenewable paleontological resources (i.e., fossils) and is thus typically assigned a low paleontological sensitivity. Older, Pleistocene (greater than 11,700 years old), alluvial and alluvial fan deposits in the Inland Empire, however, often yield important Ice Age terrestrial vertebrate fossils. These Pleistocene sediments are thus accorded a High paleontological resource sensitivity. (BFSA, 2020) The City of Rancho Cucamonga is underlain by a variety of bedrock types, including exposures of gneissic metamorphic rocks; exposures of younger Quaternary alluvium derived as fan deposits from the San Bernardino Mountains with some fluvial deposits in drainages; younger Quaternary alluvium exposed across the entire northeastern portion of the City with some fluvial deposits in the intermittent drainages; and exposures of older fan deposits around Red Hill in the southwestern portion of the City. The bulk of the City consists of surficial sedimentary or metamorphic rocks that are unlikely to contain significant vertebrate fossils; however, there may be sedimentary deposits at a greater depth. Although shallow excavations within the younger Quaternary alluvium are unlikely to expose significant Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.6 Geology and Soils Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.6-7 vertebrate fossils, deeper excavations that extend into older Quaternary deposits may encounter significant fossils. Alluvial deposits extend throughout the City. (Rancho Cucamonga, 2010b) As shown on Figure 4.6-2, Geologic Map, the Project site and adjacent areas subsurface is mostly underlain by late Pleistocene and early Holocene young alluvial fan deposits (Qyf1) that occur as slightly raised areas protruding through the surrounding surficial Quaternary (late Holocene) very young alluvial-fan sediments (Qf2). The 6 th Street at-grade crossing is also underlain by late Pleistocene and early Holocene young alluvial fan deposits. The late Pleistocene and early Holocene young alluvial fan deposits have a High paleontological resource sensitivity. Areas to the west of the Project site also consist of geologically young sediments, represented by young (Holocene and late Pleistocene) eolian sediments (Qye). Young alluvial fan deposits may exceed 100 feet thick in some areas, but are approximately 15 feet thick for a broad area in the Fontana Plain approximately 5.0 miles east-northeast of the Project site. (BFSA, 2020) The Paleontological Assessment for the Project included a review of available information to determine the paleontological sensitivity of the Project site and to identify any known paleontological localities in the Project area or in the general vicinity. A paleontological literature review and collections and records search was conducted by the Division of Geological Sciences at the San Bernardino County Museum (SBCM) in Redlands for another project approximately 1.0 mile southeast of the Project site (the Slover Avenue Distribution Center) (included in the Paleontological Assessment provided in Appendix G of this Draft EIR). The report did not identify any previously recorded fossil localities from within the boundaries of that project, but did discuss the presence of Ice Age vertebrate fossils, mainly larger terrestrial mammals, recovered from sediments to the south and southeast of the Project site, probably from the late Pleistocene to early Holocene old alluvial-fan deposits. The Pleistocene fossils recorded from approximately 2.0 miles southeast of the Project site included extinct species of mastodon, bison, and camel at depths as shallow as approximately 5 feet below the surface. Another locality a little over 2 miles south of the Project site property consisted of mammoth remains at a depth of about 20 feet below the surface. Additionally, the remains of a saber-toothed cat were recovered from Pleistocene sediments about 5 feet deep from a Fontana neighborhood on the north side of the Jurupa Hills. This locality is approximately 4 miles southeast of the Project site. (BFSA, 2020) Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report . . . .. ··a· · __ : .· .. _··._ .... .. . ye ...... . • I • • .- • I . . . .: .. . : ·. . . . f' .-. . . . . ..... . I _, • 0 o o I•..... .. . .. . Source(s): Brion F. Smith & Associates (04-06-2020) Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga 4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials I' Qaf Figure 4.6-2 Geologic Map SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.6-8 Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.6 Geology and Soils Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.6-9 4.6.3 THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE According to Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, a project will normally have a significant adverse environmental impact on geology and soils if it will:  Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42; ii. Strong seismic ground shaking; iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction; or iv. Landslides;  Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil;  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;  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;  Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater; or  Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature. 4.6.4 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS A. Regulatory Requirements The Project is required to adhere to the following Regulatory Requirement (RRs). RR 6-1 In accordance with the City’s Building Regulations, as contained in Title 15, Buildings and Construction, of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code, which includes adoption of the 2019 California Building Code (CBC), all construction on the Project site 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. RR 6-2 All grading operations and construction on the Project site shall be conducted in conformance with the applicable City of Rancho Cucamonga Grading Standards Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.6 Geology and Soils Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.6-10 (Municipal Code Chapter 19.04). Grading operations shall also be consistent with the recommendations included in the Project-specific Geotechnical Investigation prepared by SCG for the Project. RR 6-3 Development on the Project site shall comply with Section 17.66.060 of the Rancho Cucamonga Development Code, with regard to dust control. Specifically, “no dust or particulate matter shall be emitted that is detectable by a reasonable person without instruments”. RR 6-4 In accordance with Chapter 17.56, Landscaping Standards, of the Rancho Cucamonga Development Code, which establishes minimum landscape requirements to control soil erosion, among other purposes, development on the Project site shall submit preliminary and final landscape and irrigation plans as part of the design review process (Section 17.20.040 of the Rancho Cucamonga Development Code). B. Impact Analysis Threshold 6.1 Would the Project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: (i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42? (ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? (iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? (iv) Landslides? 1. Rupture of Known Earthquake Fault Fault rupture can occur along pre-existing, known active fault traces; however, fault rupture also can splay from known active faults or rupture along unidentified fault traces. Based on review of Figure PS-2, Fault Hazards, of the General Plan, the Project site is not located in a fault hazard area (Rancho Cucamonga, 2010a). This is consistent with the conclusions of the Geotechnical Investigation, which identifies that there are no known active or potentially active faults on or trending toward the Project site and the Project site is not located within a mapped Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone (SCG, 2021). As previously identified, the closest active fault to the site is the Red Hill Fault, which is located approximately 4.1 miles to the northwest. The Project would not directly or indirectly expose people or structures to substantial adverse effects related to ground rupture. No impact would occur. Impact 6.1 (i) The Project would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault. No mitigation is required. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.6 Geology and Soils Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.6-11 2. Strong Seismic Ground Shaking As discussed above, the Project site is situated in a seismically active region. Based on consideration of the major active faults in the area and on historical seismicity, the proposed uses at the Project site may be subject to moderate to large seismic events, resulting in strong seismic ground shaking. The primary geologic hazard in the Project area is seismic ground shaking. The Geotechnical Investigation concludes that the Project site is classified as Site Class D, corresponding to a “Stiff Soil” Profile, according to the 2019 CBC. This classification is used as the basis for soils and seismic design criteria to be implemented for the Project. The Geotechnical Investigation finds that the use of a conventional shallow foundation supported in newly placed compacted fill would provide adequate support for the proposed structures, assuming the recommendations for site preparation identified in the Geotechnical Investigation are adhered to (as required by RR 6-2). The compacted fill would involve the removal of all fill materials and a portion of the near-surface alluvium. The soils present within the proposed building areas would be overexcavated. Grading of the Project site would be performed in accordance with the recommendations outlined in the Geotechnical Investigation (refer to RR 6-2), and applicable portions of the CBC, and/or applicable City ordinances (refer to RRs 6-1 and 6-2). Compliance with applicable regulatory requirements and incorporation of recommendations from the Geotechnical Investigation would ensure that people and/or structures would not be exposed to potential substantial adverse effects from strong seismic ground shaking. This impact would be less than significant. Impact 6.1 (ii) With adherence to the City’s Building Regulations/2019 CBC and the City’s Grading Standards (RRs 6-1 and 6-2) and all recommendations presented in the Geotechnical Investigation (RR 6-2), there would be a less than significant impact related to strong ground shaking. No mitigation is required. 3. Seismic-Related Ground Failure Secondary seismic hazards addressed in the Geotechnical Investigation and relevant to this threshold include liquefaction. Liquefaction is the loss of strength in generally cohesionless, saturated soils when the pore-water pressure induced in the soil by a seismic event becomes equal to or exceeds the overburden pressure. The primary factors which influence the potential for liquefaction include groundwater table elevation, soil type and plasticity characteristics, relative density of the soil, initial confining pressure, and intensity and duration of ground shaking. Based on information in the General Plan (refer Figure to PS-3, Geotechnical Hazards) (Rancho Cucamonga, 2010a), and the site-specific Geotechnical Investigation, the Project site is not located within an area subject to liquefaction. The depth within which the occurrence of liquefaction may impact surface improvements is generally identified as the upper 50 feet below the existing ground surface. As previously discussed, in the Project area, groundwater depths are 283 feet or more below the ground surface; therefore, the Project is not located within an area of liquefaction susceptibility. Liquefaction is not considered to be a design concern for this project. (SCG, 2021). Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.6 Geology and Soils Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.6-12 Impact 6.1 (iii) The Project is not located within an area of liquefaction susceptibility. The Project would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction. No mitigation is required. 4. Landslides The Project site is relatively flat, as is the immediately surrounding area. Based on review of Figure PS-4, Slopes, of the General Plan, the Project site is in an area with slopes less than 10% and no special hillside recommendations are required (Rancho Cucamonga, 2010a). Accordingly, the Project would not be exposed to landslide risks, and implementation of the Project would not pose a substantial direct or indirect landslide risk to surrounding properties. No impact would result. Impact 6.1 (iv) The Project site and surrounding areas are relatively flat. The Project would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving landslides. No mitigation is required. Threshold 6.2 Would the Project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Previous grading activities and placement of fill disturbed the topsoil at the majority of the Project site (topsoil is the layer of the soil containing nutrients and is particularly valuable for agricultural operations). Existing topsoil would be disturbed with implementation of the Project; however, since no agricultural operations currently exist or are planned for the site, the disturbance would have less than significant effect on the loss of productive topsoil. Erosion is the process by which the upper layers of the surface (such as soils) are worn and removed by the movement of water or wind. Soils with characteristics such as low permeability and/or low cohesive strength are more susceptible to erosion than those soils having higher permeability and cohesive strength. Additionally, the slope gradient on which a given soil is located also contributes to the soil’s resistance to erosive forces. Because water is able to flow faster down steeper gradients, the steeper the slope on which a given soil is located, the more readily it will erode. Wind erosion can damage land and natural vegetation by removing soil from one place and depositing it in another. It mostly affects dry, sandy soils in flat, bare areas, but wind erosion may occur wherever soil is loose, dry, and finely granulated. The Project site is located in a soil erosion hazard area, where underlying soils have a moderate to high erosion hazard and soil blowing hazard (Rancho Cucamonga, 2010a). However, under existing conditions, the majority of Project site is paved, developed, or landscaped, limiting the potential for erosion or windblown soil or sand. During construction activities, soil would be exposed and there would be an increased potential for localized soil erosion compared to the existing conditions, as wind and water could carry loose soils off site. Additionally, during a storm event, soil erosion could occur at an accelerated rate. Project site grading, the storm drain system, and landscape cover would be designed to City standards to minimize long-term erosion potential. City requirements to limit soil erosion are implemented via the Development Code and include control of particulate matter (i.e., fugitive dust) emissions and landscaping requirements. Construction and development activities would Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.6 Geology and Soils Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.6-13 comply with all applicable requirements of these regulations, per RR 6-3 and RR 6-4. Further, Chapter 17.66.060 of the City’s Development Code requires development projects adhere to South Coast Air Quality Management District requirements for control of fugitive dust (refer to Section 4.2, Air Quality, of this Draft EIR). Construction activities would also be conducted in compliance with the following regulations related to surface water quality during construction and operation of a project: the Clean Water Act; the State Water Resources Control Board and associated National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting requirements; and Chapter 19.20, Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System, of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code. Specifically, to control erosion during construction of the Project, the Project would be required to implement erosion-control Best Management Practices (BMPs) outlined in the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and in compliance with the NPDES (refer to additional discussion provided in Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, of this Draft EIR). Once the Project is operational, the potential for soil erosion via wind and water would be minimized through the introduction of development, including roads, buildings, paved areas, and landscaping in accordance with the City’s regulations. Therefore, with adherence to existing regulations and requirements, there would be a less than significant impact related to erosion during construction and operation of the Project. Impact 6.2 With adherence to City, regional, and State regulations related to management of windblown dust and other sources of soil erosion (RR 6-3 and RR 6-4), there would be a less than significant impact related to soil erosion during construction and operation of the Project. No mitigation is required. Threshold 6.3 Would the Project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in onsite or offsite landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? Seismic-related ground failure, including landslides and liquefaction is addressed under Thresholds 6.1(iii) and 6.1(iv). Lateral spreading is a liquefaction-related phenomenon; as there is no risk of liquefaction, there would be no risk of lateral spreading. As previously discussed, the near-surface soils encountered at the on-site boring locations consist of artificial fill soils and native alluvium. The fill soils possess variable strengths and densities. Based on these considerations, and a lack of documentation of the placement and compaction of these soils, the existing fill materials are considered to consist of undocumented fill, unsuitable for the support of the proposed structures. The near-surface alluvium also possesses variable strengths, densities, and composition. Additionally, it is anticipated that demolition of the existing structures and associated improvements would cause disturbance of the upper 3 to 5 feet of soil. Therefore, the Geotechnical Investigation recommends remedial grading within the proposed building areas in order to remove all of the undocumented fill soils in their entirety, the upper portion of the near-surface native alluvial soils, and any soils disturbed during the demolition process, and replace (reuse) these materials as compacted structural fill soils on-site. Grading of the Project site would be performed in accordance Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.6 Geology and Soils Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.6-14 with the City’s building and grading standards and recommendations outlined in the Geotechnical Investigation (refer to RR 6-2). Ground subsidence is the gradual settling or sinking of the ground, usually associated with the extraction of oil, gas, or ground water from below the ground surface, or the organic decomposition of peat deposits, with a resultant loss in volume. Subsidence has not been observed in the City of Rancho Cucamonga (Rancho Cucamonga, 2010a) and is therefore not considered a significant source of unstable soil for the Project. However, based on the results of the laboratory testing conducted during preparation of the Geotechnical Investigation, removal and recompaction of the loose to medium dense near-surface soils, extending to depths of approximately 3 to 6 feet, is estimated to result in an average shrinkage of 7 to 13%. Minor ground subsidence is expected to occur in the soils below the zone of removal, due to settlement and machinery working. The subsidence is estimated to be approximately 0.1 feet. The native soils that would remain in place below the recommended depth of overexcavation would not be subject to significant stress increases from the foundations of the new structures. Therefore, following completion of the recommended grading, post-construction settlements are expected to be within tolerable limits. Grading of the Project site would be performed in accordance with the City’s building and grading standards and recommendations outlined in the Geotechnical Investigation (refer to RR 6-1 and RR 6-2). Based on recommendations in the Geotechnical Investigation, measures related to grading would include, but not be limited to, initial site preparation; treatment of existing soils relative to building pads, retaining walls and site walls, flatwork, and parking and drive areas (e.g., removal of surficial vegetation, unsuitable soil removal, overexcavation); fill placement and compaction; use of imported structural fill; and, utility trench backfill. Other recommendations in the Geotechnical Investigation are related to excavation and slope stability, foundation design and construction, floor slab design and construction, retaining wall design and construction, including wall pressure, and pavement design. In summary, impacts related to instability of the site’s geologic materials would be less than significant for the Project with adherence to the City’s building and grading standards and implementation of the recommendations of the Geotechnical Investigation (refer to RR 6-1 and RR 6-2). Impact 6.3 With adherence to the City’s building and grading standards (RR 6-1 and RR 6-2), and recommendations presented in the Geotechnical Investigation (RR 6-2), there would be a less than significant impact related to unstable soils if encountered on the site. No mitigation is required. Threshold 6.4 Would the Project 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? According to the Geotechnical Investigation, the near-surface soils encountered at the boring locations consist of silty sands, sandy silts and sands. The results of expansion index testing performed on soils from the upper approximately 5 feet at Boring Nos. B-9 and B-19 indicate that these soils possess a very low expansion potential (Expansion Index = 0 for both). Therefore, no design considerations related to expansive soils are considered warranted for the Project site. (SCG, 2021). Further, because Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.6 Geology and Soils Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.6-15 existing soils would be reused on-site as compacted structural fill soils, the Project would not require the import of soil; therefore, therefore soils with expansion potential would not be introduced to the Project site. The Project would not create a substantial direct or indirect risk to life or property related to expansive soils. No impact would result. Impact 6.4 The Project site soils have low expansion potential and no soils would be imported to the Project site. No impact would occur related to expansive soils and no mitigation is required. Threshold 6.5 Would the Project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? Consistent with the existing development at the Project site, the Project would connect to the City- owned municipal wastewater conveyance system; therefore, septic tanks or an alternative wastewater disposal system would not be permitted or utilized. Accordingly, implementation of the Project would result in no impact related to the use of or performance of septic tanks and/or alternative waste water systems. Impact 6.5 The Project would have no impact related to the use of or performance of septic tanks and/or alternative wastewater systems. No mitigation is required. Threshold 6.6 Would the Project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? As previously discussed, the Geotechnical Investigation identifies that the Project site is underlain by native alluvial soils. This is consistent with the Paleontological Assessment conducted by BFSA, which concludes that the Project site and surrounding areas, including the 6th Street at-grade crossing study area, are underlain with late Pleistocene and early Holocene young alluvial fan deposits, which have a High paleontological sensitivity. In addition, based on a paleontological literature review and records search, fossils were recovered from similar sediments located approximately two miles from the Project site. The depth of the proposed excavation for the construction of the Project is up to 26 feet, specifically for the installation of stormwater runoff infiltration vaults. Therefore, there is a potential for significant paleontological resources to be unearthed during ground-disturbing activities. Without mitigation, construction of the Project would result in a potentially significant impact to paleontological resources. MM 6-1 requires that full-time paleontological monitoring be required starting at a depth of 12 feet below the surface during grading, excavation, or utility trenching activities at the Project site. No paleontological monitoring is necessary at the 6th Street at-grade crossing improvement, as construction activities would be conducted at-grade. For grading and other earth disturbance activities at depths between five and 12 feet below the surface, periodic “spot checks” for potential paleontological resources is warranted and also required by MM Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.6 Geology and Soils Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.6-16 6-1. If significant fossils are discovered during a spot check, full-time monitoring is required. Monitoring of the Holocene very young alluvial fan deposits is not warranted, but the older alluvial- fan deposits that underlie these deposits, at an unknown depth, should be monitored as specified above, when they are identified by the monitor. MM 6-1 further identifies steps to be taken in the event paleontological resources are encountered, including temporary halting construction activities or diverting equipment to allow for the removal of fossils in a timely manner; depositing fossils in an accredit institution, if warranted; and, preparation of a final monitoring and mitigation report. With implementation of MM 6-1, potential impacts to paleontological resources would be less than significant. Impact 6.6 Construction at the Project has the potential to impact non-renewable paleontological resources, resulting in a potentially significant impact. Implementation of MM 6-1 would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. 4.6.5 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Geology and soils impacts are generally site-specific and there is typically little, if any, cumulative relationship between the development of a project and development within a larger cumulative area (e.g., city-wide development). For example, development at the Project site would not alter geologic events or soil features/characteristics (such as ground shaking, seismic intensity, or settlement) at other locations; therefore, the Project would not directly affect the level of intensity at which a seismic event or geologic hazard on an adjacent site is experienced. However, development of the Project and future development in the City may expose more persons to seismic hazards. The Project and any future development projects would be required to comply with applicable State and local requirements, such as the City’s Building Regulations, the 2019 CBC, the City’s Grading Standards, and requirements for erosion control (refer to RR 6-1 through RR 6-4). As with the Project, future development would be required to have site-specific geotechnical investigations prepared to identify the geologic and seismic characteristics on a site and to provide recommendations for engineering design and construction to ensure the structural integrity of proposed development; these recommendations would be incorporated into Project design (refer to RR 6-2). Compliance of individual projects with the recommendations of the applicable geotechnical investigation would prevent hazards associated with unstable soils, landslide potential, lateral spreading, liquefaction, soil collapse, expansive soil, soil erosion, and other geologic issues. The Project, in conjunction with cumulative development, including projects implementing the City’s General Plan, could lead to accelerated degradation of previously unknown paleontological resources. However, each development proposal received by the City undergoes environmental review and would be subject to the same resource protection requirements as the Project as outlined in the City’s General Plan and General Plan EIR. If there is a potential for significant impacts on paleontological resources, an investigation would be required to determine the nature and extent of the resources and to identify appropriate mitigation measures, including requirements such as those identified in this section (refer to MM 6-1). The Project includes measures to identify, recover, and/or record any paleontological resource that may occur within the Project limits resulting in less than significant impacts. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.6 Geology and Soils Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.6-17 Based on the foregoing, the Project’s contribution to cumulative geology and soils impacts would be less than significant, with mitigation. 4.6.6 MITIGATION MEASURES MM 6-1 Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the Project Applicant shall submit to and receive approval from the City, a Paleontological Resource Impact Mitigation Monitoring Program (PRIMMP). The PRIMMP shall include the provision of a qualified professional paleontologist (or his or her trained paleontological monitor representative) during on-site subsurface excavation of Quaternary (i.e., early Holocene and late Pleistocene) alluvial-fan deposits, as outlined below. Selection of the paleontologist shall be subject to approval of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Director, or designee, and no grading activities shall occur at the site until the paleontologist has been approved by the City. The PRIMMP shall include the requirements below.  Monitoring of mass grading and excavation activities in areas identified as likely to contain paleontological resources shall be performed by a qualified paleontologist or paleontological monitor. Monitoring shall be conducted full time in areas of grading or excavation activities that occur in undisturbed exposures of Quaternary (i.e., early Holocene and late Pleistocene) alluvial-fan deposits at a depth of 12 feet and below in order to mitigate any adverse impacts (loss or destruction) to potential nonrenewable paleontological resources. For grading and other earth disturbance activities at depths between 5 and 12 feet below the surface, periodic spot checks for potential paleontological resources shall be conducted. Periodic monitoring shall consist of approximately 1 to 3 scheduled site visits per week by a paleontological monitor during construction ground disturbance. If significant fossils are discovered during a spot check, full-time monitoring should be initiated  Paleontological monitors shall be equipped to salvage fossils as they are unearthed to avoid construction delays and to remove samples of sediment that are likely to contain the remains of small fossil invertebrates and vertebrates. The monitor shall be empowered to temporarily halt or divert equipment to allow for the removal of abundant or large specimens in a timely manner. Monitoring may be reduced if the potentially fossiliferous units are not present in the subsurface, or if they are present, are determined upon exposure and examination by qualified paleontological personnel to have low potential to contain fossil resources.  Recovered specimens shall be prepared to a point of identification and permanent preservation, including screen-washing sediments to recover small invertebrates and vertebrates, if indicated by the results of test sampling. Preparation of individual vertebrate fossils is often more time-consuming than for accumulations of invertebrate fossils. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.6 Geology and Soils Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.6-18 • All fossils shall be deposited in an accredited institution, such as the San Bernardino County Museum, that maintains collections of paleontological materials. All costs of the paleontological monitoring and mitigation program, including any one-time charges by the receiving institution, are the responsibility of the Project Applicant. • The Project Paleontologist shall prepare of a final monitoring and mitigation report of findings and significance, including lists of all fossils recovered and necessary maps and graphics to accurately record their original location(s). A letter documenting receipt and acceptance of all fossil collections by the receiving institution must be included in the final report. The report, when submitted to (and accepted by) the City of Rancho Cucamonga, shall signify satisfactory completion of the project program to mitigate impacts to any nonrenewable paleontological resources. 4.6.7 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION Project impacts related to geology and soils would be less than after mitigation. 4.6.8 REFERENCES Brian F. Smith and Associates (BFSA). 2020 (September 16). Paleontological Assessment for the 12434 4th Street Project Rancho Cucamonga, California. (Included in Appendix G of this Draft EIR). Southern California Geotechnical (SCG). 2021 (January 12). Geotechnical Investigation Two Proposed Warehouses, 12434 4th Street, Rancho Cucamonga, California. (Included in Appendix F of this Draft EIR). Rancho Cucamonga, City of. 2010a (May 19). Rancho Cucamonga General Plan. Available at: https://www.cityofrc.us/community-development/planning. ———. 2010b (February). Rancho Cucamonga 2010 General Plan Update Program Environmental Impact Report. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.7-1 4.7 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS This section evaluates the Project's potential to have adverse effects on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions during construction and operation. The analysis in this section is based on the Project- specific Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Greenhouse Gas Analysis, City of Rancho Cucamonga (GHG Analysis), prepared by Urban Crossroads (April 15, 2021) (Urban Crossroads, 2021a), and included in Appendix H of this Draft EIR. Refer to Section 4.7.8, References, for a complete list of references. In response to the Notice of Preparation (NOP), the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) provided recommendations for the method of analysis, including modeling. 4.7.1 RELEVANT POLICIES AND REGULATIONS Subsection 2.7, Regulatory Setting, of the Project's GHG Analysis included as Appendix H of this Draft EIR provides a discussion of the existing regulatory setting related to GHGs. The following is a summary of the regulations particularly relevant to the Project. A. Federal Policies and Regulations 1. Greenhouse Gases Endangerment In Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 549 U.S. 497 (2007), decided on April 2, 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court (Supreme Court) found that four GHGs, including CO2, are air pollutants subject to regulation under Section 202(a)(1) of the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA). The Court held that the EPA Administrator must determine whether emissions of GHGs from new motor vehicles cause or contribute to air pollution, which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare, or whether the science is too uncertain to make a reasoned decision. On December 7, 2009, the EPA Administrator signed two distinct findings regarding GHGs under section 202(a) of the CAA (Endangered Finding and Cause of Contribute Finding). These findings do not impose requirements on industry or other entities. However, this was a prerequisite for implementing GHG emissions standards for vehicles, as discussed in the section "Clean Vehicles" below. After a lengthy legal challenge, the Supreme Court declined to review an Appeals Court ruling that upheld the EPA Administrator's findings. 2. Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards Congress first passed the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) law in 1975 to increase the fuel economy of cars and light duty trucks. The law has become more stringent over time. On April 1, 2010, the EPA, and the Department of Transportation's National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) announced a joint final rule establishing a national program that would reduce GHG emissions and improve fuel economy for new cars and trucks sold in the U.S. The national program's first phase applies to passenger cars, light-duty trucks, and medium-duty (MD) passenger vehicles, covering model years 2012 through 2016. The EPA and the NHTSA issued final rules on a second- Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.7-2 phase joint rulemaking establishing national standards for light-duty vehicles for model years 2017 through 2025 in August 2012. The new standards for model years 2017 through 2025 apply to passenger cars, light-duty trucks, and MD passenger vehicles. The final standards are projected to result in an average industry fleetwide level of 163 grams/mile of CO2 in model year 2025, equivalent to 54.5 mpg if achieved exclusively through fuel economy improvements. The EPA and the U.S. Department of Transportation issued final rules for the first national standards to reduce GHG emissions and improve fuel efficiency of heavy-duty trucks (HDT) and buses on September 15, 2011, effective November 14, 2011 addressing model years through 2018. On August 2, 2018, the NHTSA in conjunction with the EPA, released a notice of proposed rulemaking, the Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule for Model Years 2021-2026 Passenger Cars and Light Trucks (SAFE Vehicles Rule). The SAFE Vehicles Rule was proposed to amend existing CAFE and tailpipe CO2 standards for passenger cars and light trucks and to establish new standards covering model years 2021 through 2026. As of March 31, 2020, the NHTSA and EPA finalized the SAFE Vehicle Rule, which increased the stringency of CAFE and CO2 emissions standards by 1.5% each year through model year 2026. 3. SmartWay Program The SmartWay Program is a public‐private initiative between the EPA, large and small trucking companies, rail carriers, logistics companies, commercial manufacturers, retailers, and other federal and state agencies. Its purpose is to improve fuel efficiency and the environmental performance (reduction of both GHG emissions and air pollution) of the goods movement supply chains. Most large trucking fleets driving newer vehicles are compliant with SmartWay design requirements. Moreover, over time, all HDTs would have to comply with the California Air Resources Board (CARB) GHG Regulations designed with the SmartWay Program in mind to reduce GHG emissions by making them more fuel‐efficient. Through the SmartWay Technology Program, the EPA has evaluated the fuel- saving benefits of various devices through grants, cooperative agreements, emissions and fuel economy testing, demonstration projects, and technical literature review. As a result, the EPA has determined the following types of technologies provide fuel saving and/or emission reducing benefits when appropriately used in their designed applications, and has verified certain products: idle reduction technologies, aerodynamic technologies, low rolling resistance tires, retrofit technologies, and federal excise tax exemptions. B. State Policies and Regulations CARB, a part of the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA), is responsible for coordinating and administering both federal and State air pollution control programs in California. The California Global Warming Solutions Act (commonly referred to as Assembly Bill [AB] 32), Senate Bill (SB) 32, and other State policies, regulations, and laws addressing GHG emissions are discussed in Section 2.7, Regulatory Setting, of the GHG Analysis included in Appendix H of this Draft EIR. A summary of regulations particularly relevant to the Project is provided below. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.7-3 1. Title 24 California Code of Regulations CCR Title 24 Part 6: The California Energy Code is updated periodically to allow consideration and possible incorporation of new energy-efficient technologies and methods. Energy-efficient buildings require less electricity; therefore, increased energy efficiency reduces fossil fuel consumption and decreases GHG emissions. The California Energy Commission (CEC) adopted the 2019 version of Title 24 that became effective on January 1, 2020. CCR, Title 24, Part 11: California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen) is a comprehensive and uniform regulatory code administered by the California Building Standards Commission. The most recent approved update consisting of the 2019 California Green Building Code Standards that became effective January 1, 2020. The State Building Code provides the minimum standard that buildings must meet in order to be certified for occupancy, which is generally enforced by the local building official. Local jurisdictions are permitted to adopt more stringent requirements, as State law provides methods for local enhancements. The 2019 Title 24 standards will result in less energy use, thereby reducing GHG emissions associated with energy consumption in the South Coast Air Basin (SoCAB) and across the State of California. 2019 CALGreen standards that are applicable to the Project as further described in the Project's GHG Analysis are related to parking, EV charging stations, lighting, and waste management, water conservation, and commissioning. 2. Executive Order S-3-05 Former California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger announced on June 1, 2005, through Executive Order S-3-05, the following reduction targets for GHG emissions: by 2010, reduce GHG emissions to 2000 levels; by 2020, reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels; and by 2050, reduce GHG emissions to 80% below 1990 levels. The Executive Order S-3-05 target for 2010 of reducing GHG emissions to 2000 levels has been achieved. The 2020 goal was established to be a mid-term target. The 2050 reduction goal represents what some scientists believe is necessary to reach levels that will stabilize the climate. Because this is an executive order, the goals are not legally enforceable for local governments or the private sector. 3. Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32) The California State Legislature enacted AB 32, which requires that GHGs emitted in California be reduced to 1990 levels by the year 2020. Pursuant to AB 32, CARB adopted regulations to achieve the maximum technologically feasible and cost-effective GHG emission reductions. The State has made steady progress in implementing AB 32 CARB has also made substantial progress in achieving its goal of achieving 1990 emissions levels by 2020. 4. Assembly Bill 1493 (AB 1493) AB 1493, enacted on July 22, 2002, required CARB to develop and adopt regulations that reduce GHGs emitted by passenger vehicles and light duty trucks. The second phase of the bill's implementation is currently in effect and was incorporated into Amendments to the Low-Emission Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.7-4 Vehicle Program (LEV III) or the Advanced Clean Cars program. The Advanced Clean Car program combines the control of smog-causing pollutants and GHG emissions into a single coordinated package of requirements for model years 2017 through 2025. 5. Senate Bill 97 (SB 97) and the CEQA Guidelines Update Passed in August 2007, SB 97 added Section 21083.05 to the Public Resources Code addressing analysis of GHG emissions pursuant to CEQA. On December 28, 2018, the Natural Resources Agency announced the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) approved the amendments to the CEQA Guidelines for implementing CEQA. The CEQA Amendments provide guidance to public agencies regarding the analysis and mitigation of the effects of GHG emissions in CEQA documents. The CEQA Amendments fit within the existing CEQA framework by amending existing CEQA Guidelines to reference climate change. Section 15064.4 was amended to state that in determining the significance of a project's GHG emissions, the lead agency should focus its analysis on the reasonably foreseeable incremental contribution of the project's emissions to the effects of climate change. 6. Executive Order S-01-07 – Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) The Governor signed Executive Order S-01-07 on January 18, 2007. The order mandates that a statewide goal shall be established to reduce California's transportation fuels' carbon intensity by at least 10% by 2020. In particular, the Executive Order established a low carbon fuel standard (LCFS) and directed the Secretary for Environmental Protection to coordinate the actions of the CEC, CARB, the University of California, and other agencies to develop and propose protocols for measuring the "life-cycle carbon intensity" of transportation fuels. The Board approved the LCFS regulation in 2009, which has subsequently been revised. In 2018, the Board approved amendments to the regulation, which included strengthening and smoothing the carbon intensity benchmarks through 2030 in-line with California's 2030 GHG emission reduction target enacted through SB 32, adding new crediting opportunities to promote zero emission vehicle adoption, alternative jet fuel, carbon capture and sequestration, and advanced technologies to achieve deep decarbonization in the transportation sector. 7. Senate Bill 375 (SB 375) SB 375 was signed by the Governor on September 30, 2008, and: (1) requires metropolitan planning organizations (MPO) to include sustainable community strategies in their regional transportation plans for reducing GHG emissions, (2) aligns planning for transportation and housing, and (3) creates specified incentives for the implementation of the strategies. SB 375 also requires Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) to prepare a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) within the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) that guides growth while taking into account the transportation, housing, environmental, and economic needs of the region. 8. Assembly Bill 1881 (AB 1881) – Water Conservation Act The Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MWELO) was required by AB 1881, the Water Conservation Act. The bill required local agencies to adopt a local landscape ordinance at least as Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.7-5 effective in conserving water as the Model Ordinance by January 1, 2010. Reductions in water use of 20% consistent with Senate Bill X7-7 (SB X7-7) 2020 mandate are expected upon compliance with the ordinance. New development projects that include landscape areas of 500 sf or more are subject to the 9. Senate Bill 32 (SB 32) and AB 197 SB 32 requires the State to reduce statewide GHG emissions to 40% below 1990 levels by 2030, a reduction target that was first introduced in Executive Order B-30-15. The new legislation builds upon the AB 32 goal of 1990 levels by 2020 and provides an intermediate goal to achieving S-3-05, which sets a statewide GHG reduction target of 80% below 1990 levels by 2050. AB 197 creates a legislative committee to oversee regulators to ensure that CARB responds to the Governor and the Legislature. 10. CARB Climate Change Scoping Plan and 2017 Scoping Plan Update CARB's Climate Change Scoping Plan (Scoping Plan) contained measures designed to reduce the State's emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2020 to comply with AB 32. In compliance with AB 32 and the 2008 Scoping Plan, the target year 2020 has been fulfilled. In November 2017, CARB released the 2017 Scoping Plan Update, which identifies the State's post-2020 reduction strategy. The 2017 Scoping Plan Update reflects the 2030 target of a 40% reduction below 1990 levels, set by Executive Order B-30-15 and codified by SB 32. Key programs that the proposed Second Update builds upon include the Cap-and-Trade Regulation, the LCFS, and much cleaner cars, trucks, and freight movement, utilizing cleaner, renewable energy, and strategies to reduce CH4 emissions from agricultural and other wastes. The 2017 Scoping Plan Update establishes a new emissions limit of 260 MMTCO2e for the year 2030, which corresponds to a 40% decrease in 1990 levels by 2030. California's climate strategy will require contributions from all sectors of the economy, including the land base, and will include enhanced focus on zero- and near-zero-emission (ZE/NZE) vehicle technologies; continued investment in renewables, including solar roofs, wind, and other distributed generation; greater use of low carbon fuels; integrated land conservation and development strategies; coordinated efforts to reduce emissions of short-lived climate pollutants (CH4, black carbon, and fluorinated gases); and an increased focus on integrated land use planning to support livable, transit- connected communities and conservation of agricultural and other lands. Requirements for direct GHG reductions at refineries will further support air quality co-benefits in neighborhoods, including in disadvantaged communities historically located adjacent to these large stationary sources, as well as efforts with California's local air pollution control and air quality management districts (air districts) to tighten emission limits on a broad spectrum of industrial sources. Major elements of the Final 2017 Scoping Plan Update framework are addressed under the analysis presented under Threshold b in Section 4.7.4, Environmental Impacts, of this Draft EIR. Note, however, that the 2017 Scoping Plan acknowledges that: "[a]chieving net zero increases in GHG emissions, resulting in no contribution to GHG impacts, may not be feasible or appropriate for every project, however, and the inability of a project to mitigate its GHG emissions to net zero does not imply the project results in a Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.7-6 substantial contribution to the cumulatively significant environmental impact of climate change under CEQA." 11. CARB Refrigerant Management Program CARB adopted a regulation in 2009 to reduce refrigerant GHG emissions from stationary sources through refrigerant leak detection and monitoring, leak repair, system retirement and retrofitting, reporting and recordkeeping, and proper refrigerant cylinder use, sale, and disposal. The regulation is set forth in sections 95380 to 95398 of Title 17, CCR. The rules implementing the regulation establish a limit on statewide GHG emissions from stationary facilities with refrigeration systems with more than 50 pounds of a high GWP refrigerant. The refrigerant management program is designed to (1) reduce emissions of high-GWP GHG refrigerants from leaky stationary, nonresidential refrigeration equipment; (2) reduce emissions from the installation and servicing of refrigeration and air- conditioning appliances using high-GWP refrigerants; and (3) verify GHG emission reductions. 12. Tractor-Trailer GHG Regulation The tractors and trailers subject to this regulation must either use EPA SmartWay certified tractors and trailers or retrofit their existing fleet with SmartWay-verified technologies. 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. These owners are responsible for replacing or retrofitting their affected vehicles with compliant aerodynamic technologies and low rolling resistance tires. Sleeper cab tractors model year 2011 and later must be SmartWay certified. All other tractors must use SmartWay verified low rolling resistance tires. There are also requirements for trailers to have low rolling resistance tires and aerodynamic devices. 13. Phase I and 2 Heavy-Duty Vehicle GHG Standards CARB has adopted a regulation for GHG emissions from HDTs and engines sold in California. It establishes GHG emission limits on truck and engine manufacturers and harmonizes with the EPA rule for new trucks and engines nationally. Existing heavy-duty vehicle regulations in California include engine criteria emission standards, tractor-trailer GHG requirements to implement SmartWay strategies (i.e., the Heavy-Duty Tractor-Trailer GHG Regulation), and in-use fleet retrofit requirements such as the Truck and Bus Regulation. CARB staff has worked jointly with the EPA and the NHTSA on the next phase of federal GHG emission standards for medium-duty trucks (MDT) and HDT vehicles, called federal Phase 2. In February 2019, the OAL approved the Phase 2 Heavy-Duty Vehicle GHG Standards, which became effective April 1, 2019. The Phase 2 GHG standards are needed to offset projected vehicle miles travelled (VMT) growth and keep heavy-duty truck CO2 emissions declining. The federal Phase 2 standards establish for the first time, federal emissions requirements for trailers hauled by heavy-duty tractors. The federal Phase 2 standards are more technology-forcing than the federal Phase 1 standards, requiring manufacturers to improve existing technologies or develop new technologies to meet the standards. The federal Phase 2 standards for tractors, vocational vehicles, and heavy-duty pick-up trucks and vans (PUVs) will be phased-in from 2021-2027 additionally, for trailers, the standards are phased-in from 2018 (2020 in California) through 2027. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.7-7 C. Regional Policies and Regulations 1. South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) SCAQMD is the agency responsible for air quality planning and regulation in the South Coast Air Basin (SoCAB) and serves as the Lead Agency or Responsible Agency for projects. The SCAQMD acts as an expert commenting agency for impacts to air quality and GHG emissions. The SCAQMD also helps local land use agencies develop models and emission thresholds that can be used to address GHG emissions. In 2008, SCAQMD formed a Working Group to identify GHG emissions thresholds for land use projects used by local lead agencies in the SoCAB. The Working Group developed several different options in the SCAQMD Draft Guidance Document – Interim CEQA GHG Significance Threshold, which could be applied by lead agencies. The working group has not provided additional guidance since the release of the interim guidance in 2008. The SCAQMD Board has not approved the thresholds; however, the Guidance Document provides substantial evidence supporting the approaches to the significance of GHG emissions that can be considered by the lead agency in adopting its own threshold. The current interim threshold is 10,000 MTCO2e/yr for industrial projects where the SCAQMD is the lead agency. SCAQMD Regulation XXVII, adopted in 2009 includes Rule 2700 (defines terms and post-global warming potentials); Rule 2701(establishes a voluntary program to encourage, quantify, and certify voluntary, high quality certified GHG emission reductions in the SCAQMD); and Rule 2702 (created a program to produce GHG emission reductions within the SCAQMD). 2. Connect SoCal 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) is a Joint Powers Authority (JPA) under California State law, established as an association of local governments and agencies that voluntarily convene as a forum to address regional issues. Under federal law, SCAG is designated as a MPO and under State law as a Regional Transportation Planning Agency and a Council of Governments. The SCAG region encompasses six counties (Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura) and 191 cities in an area covering more than 38,000 square miles. SCAG's 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan / Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS), also referred to as Connect SoCal, develops long-range regional transportation plans including a sustainable communities strategy and growth forecast components, regional transportation improvement programs, regional housing needs allocations and other plans for the region. The RTP/SCS provides objectives for meeting air pollution emissions reduction targets set forth by the CARB; these objectives were provided in direct response to SB 375), discussed above. The Subregional Sustainable Communities Strategies identifies the Project site as being located in an area with a "Standard Suburban" land use pattern, which is defined as auto-oriented development with a minimal mix of land uses. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.7-8 The Goods Movement Technical Report of Connect SoCal recognizes that the SCAG region is the premier trade gateway for the United States. Connect SoCal acknowledges that the SCAG region has witnessed continued growth for warehousing, distribution, cold storage, and truck terminal facilities, with a majority of the growth for national and regional distribution facilities occurring in the Inland Empire. Through Connect SoCal, SCAG is working on various regional strategies to maintain the SCAG region as an important trade gateway while addressing regional transportation efficiency and environmental sustainability. D. Rancho Cucamonga 1. City of Rancho Cucamonga Sustainable Community Action Plan The City of Rancho Cucamonga released the Sustainable Community Action Plan (Plan) on April 5, 2017. To align with the State's long-term GHG reduction goals, the Plan identifies steps that the City can take to contribute towards a GHG reduction target that reduces emissions to 15% below 2008 levels by 2020. Policies and actions to achieve long-term GHG reduction targets beyond 2020 that are further out in the future will be considered as the City identifies updates or revises the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan. It should be noted that the Plan does not authorize or mandate any given activity or initiative on the environment in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. 2. Greenhouse Case Emissions and Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment The City of Rancho Cucamonga released the Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment (Assessment) report in May 2020. The Assessment discusses climate change science and existing guidance for setting communitywide reduction targets and developing plans for GHG reduction. The Assessment also summarizes current and potential future climate-related impacts that may affect the City, evaluates how these impacts would potentially affect the community’s populations, assets, and functions, and prioritizes how the City should address each vulnerability through the General Plan Update and Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. 4.7.2 EXISTING SETTING A. Global Climate Change and Greenhouse Gases As further described in the GHG Analysis included in Appendix H of this Draft EIR, Global Climate Change (GCC) is defined as the change in average meteorological conditions on the earth concerning temperature, precipitation, and storms. Scientific evidence suggests that GCC is the result of increased concentrations of GHGs in the earth's atmosphere, including carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and fluorinated gases. The majority of scientists believe that this increased rate of climate change is the result of GHGs from human activity and industrialization over the past 200 years. Global temperatures are regulated by naturally occurring atmospheric gases such as water vapor, CO2, N2O, CH4, hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) are described in detail in the GHG Analysis, along with their potential health effects. These particular gases are important due to their residence time (duration they stay) in the atmosphere, ranging from 10 years to more than 100 years. These gases allow solar radiation into the earth's atmosphere, but prevent Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.7-9 radioactive heat from escaping, thus warming the earth's atmosphere. GCC can occur naturally as it has in the past with the previous ice ages. Gases that trap heat in the atmosphere are often referred to as GHGs. GHGs are released into the atmosphere by both natural and anthropogenic activity. The cumulative accumulation of these gases in the earth's atmosphere is considered to be the cause for the observed increase in the earth's temperature. The effects of climate change in California related to public health, water resources, agriculture, forests, and landscapes, rising sea levels, and human health are described in Subsection 2.6 of the GHG Analysis included in Appendix H of this Draft EIR. For the purposes of this analysis, emissions of CO2, CH4, and N2O were evaluated because these gases are the primary contributors to GCC from development projects. Although there are other substances such as fluorinated gases that also contribute to GCC, these fluorinated gases were not evaluated as their sources are not well-defined and do not contain accepted emissions factors or methodology to accurately calculate these gases. Provided below is a description of GHGs, their sources, and their health effects. 1. Global Warming Potential GHGs have varying Global Warming Potential (GWP) values. GWP of a GHG indicates the amount of warming a gas causes over a given period of time and represents a gas's potential to trap heat in the atmosphere. CO2 is utilized as the reference gas for GWP, and thus has a GWP of 1. CO2 equivalent (CO2e) is a term used for describing the difference GHGs in a common unit. CO2e signifies the amount of CO2 which would have the equivalent GWP. Table 4.7-1, GWP and Atmospheric Lifetime of Select GHGs. summarizes the atmospheric lifetime and GWP of selected GHGs. As shown, GWP for the 2nd Assessment Report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 's scientific and socio- economic assessment on climate change, range from 1 for CO2 to 23,900 for SF6 and GWP for the IPCC's 5th Assessment Report range from 1 for CO2 to 23,500 for SF6. Table 4.7-1 GWP and Atmospheric Lifetime of Select GHGs Gas Atmospheric lifetime (years) GWP (100-year time horizon) 2nd Assessment Report 5th Assessment Report CO2 See* 1 1 CH4 12 .4 21 28 N2O 121 310 265 HFC-23 222 11,700 12,400 HFC-134a 13.4 1,300 1,300 HFC-152a 1.5 140 138 SF6 3,200 23,900 23,500 *As per Appendix 8.A. of IPCC's 5th Assessment Report, no single lifetime can be given. Source: Table 2.14 of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, 2007 (Urban Crossroads, 2021a, Table 2-2) B. Global, National, and State Contributions to GHG Emissions Worldwide anthropogenic GHG emissions are tracked by the IPCC for industrialized nations (referred to as Annex I) and developing nations (referred to as Non-Annex I). Human GHG emissions data for Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.7-10 Annex I nations are available through 2018. Based on the latest available data, the sum of these emissions totaled approximately 28,768,439 gigagram (Gg) CO2e, as summarized in Table 4.7-2, Top GHG Producing Countries and the European Union. As noted in Table 4.7-2, the United States (U.S.), as a single country, was the number two producer of GHG emissions in 2018. California has significantly slowed the rate of growth of GHG emissions due to the implementation of energy efficiency programs as well as adoption of strict emission controls. However, it is still a substantial contributor to the U.S. emissions inventory total. The CARB compiles GHG inventories for the State of California. Based on the 2019 GHG inventory data (i.e., the latest year for which data are available) for the 2000-2017 GHG emissions period, California emitted an average 424.1 million metric tons of CO2e year (MMTCO2e/yr). Table 4.7-2 Top GHG Producing Countries and the European Union Emitting Countries GHG Emissions (Gg CO2e) China 12,300,200 United States 6,676,650 European Union (28-member countries) 4,232,274 Russian Federation 2,220,123 India 2,100,850 Japan 1,238,343 Total 28,768,439 (Urban Crossroads, 2021a, Table 2-3) C. Existing Site GHG Emissions The Project site is currently occupied by a 1,431,000-sf warehouse building and a 23,240-sf retail building. For purposes of analysis, area source emissions associated with the existing land use were calculated based on assumptions provided in CalEEMod. Energy usage for the existing use was based on bills provided by the Project Applicant. Water usage was based on information provided in the WSA which identified a 10,184 gpd water demand for the existing use. Lastly, mobile source emissions were based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) trip generation information provided in the Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga High-Cube Fulfillment Center Traffic Memo for operation of the warehouse building as a high-cube transload short-term storage warehouse use (without cold storage) and operation of the retail building as a free-standing discount store use (Urban Crossroads, 2021b). The estimated GHG emissions from the existing development on the Project site are summarized in Table 4.7-3, Existing Site GHG Emissions. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.7-11 Table 4.7-3 Existing Site GHG Emissions Emission Source Emissions (MT/yr) CO2 CH4 N2O Total CO2e Area Source 0.04 1.00E-04 0.00 0.04 Energy Source 7,269.56 0.18 0.11 7,308.09 Mobile Source (Passenger Car) 4,174.72 0.17 0.00 4,178.87 Mobile Source (Truck) 6,561.38 0.46 0.00 6,572.79 Waste 293.34 17.34 0.00 726.74 Water Usage 16.60 0.12 2.99E-03 20.54 Total CO2e (All Sources) 18,807.07 CalEEMod output, See Appendices 3.4 through 3.5 of the Project's GHG Analysis (Appendix H of this Draft EIR) for detailed model outputs. (Urban Crossroads, 2021a, Table 3-7) 4.7.3 THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE According to Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, a project will normally have a significant adverse environmental impact due to GHG emissions if it would:  Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment; or  Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. The City of Rancho Cucamonga does not have an adopted threshold of significance for GHG emissions. For CEQA purposes, the City has discretion to select an appropriate significance criterion, based on substantial evidence. The SCAQMD's adopted numerical threshold of 10,000 MTCO2e/yr for industrial stationary source emissions is selected as the appropriate significance criterion. The Project would entail the development of the site with warehouse buildings, which are a common characteristic of an industrial operation, the Project is analogous to an industrial use. Further, as further discussed in Section 4.13, Transportation, the estimate of the Project's traffic generation is based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition & 10th Edition Supplement, 2020. Also, 10,000 MTCO2e has been used as the significance threshold by many local government lead agencies for logistics projects throughout the SCAG region since the SCAQMD adopted this threshold for its own use. Accordingly, the City selected the SCAQMD-adopted industrial threshold to analyze this Project in this Draft EIR. Further, to ensure that the threshold is conservative in its application, although the SCAQMD uses their adopted 10,000 MTCO2e threshold to determine the significance of stationary source emissions for industrial projects, the 10,000 MTCO2e threshold used in the analysis in this Subsection is applied cumulatively to all sources of Project-related GHG emissions whether stationary source, mobile source, area source, or other. Use of this threshold is also consistent with guidance provided in the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) CEQA and Climate Change handbook. As such the City has opted to use a non-zero threshold approach based on Approach 2 of the handbook. Threshold 2.5 (Unit-Based Thresholds Based on Market Capture) establishes a numerical threshold based on capture of approximately 90% of emissions from future development. The latest threshold developed by Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.7-12 SCAQMD using this method is 10,000 MTCO2e/yr for industrial projects. This threshold is based on the review of 711 CEQA projects. The SCAQMD found that use of the 10,000 MTCO2e threshold would result in a capture rate of 90% for all new or modified projects. A 90% emission capture rate means that 90% of total emissions from all new or modified stationary source projects would be subject to some type of CEQA analysis. As such, the SCAQMD's recommended GHG threshold was established to achieve an emission capture rate of 90% of all new or modified stationary source projects. A GHG significance threshold based on a 90% emission capture rate is appropriate for addressing the long-term adverse potential impacts of GHG emissions. Further, a 90% emission capture rate sets the emission threshold low enough to capture a substantial fraction of future projects constructed to accommodate future Statewide population and economic growth, while setting the emission threshold high enough to exclude small projects that would in aggregate contribute a relatively small fraction of the cumulative statewide GHG emissions. This assertion is based on SCAQMD estimates that these GHG emissions would account for less than 1% of future 2050 statewide GHG emissions target (85 MMTCO2e/yr). In addition, these small projects would be subject to future applicable GHG control regulations that would further reduce their overall future contribution to the statewide GHG inventory (Urban Crossroads, 2021a) . 4.7.4 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Threshold 7.1 Would the Project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? Please refer to Section 4.2, Air Quality, of this Draft EIR, and the Project's Air Quality Impact Analysis included in Appendix B1 of this Draft EIR (Urban Crossroads, 2021c), for a discussion of the models used to estimate the Project's GHG emissions, and a description of construction and operational modeling assumptions. Modeling and Project-related input assumptions used to evaluate the Project's GHG impacts are based on the same modeling methodology conducted to assess the Project's air quality impacts. An individual project like the Project cannot generate enough GHG emissions to affect a discernible global climate change. However, the Project may participate in GCC's potential by its incremental contribution of GHGs combined with the cumulative increase of all other sources of GHGs, which, when taken together, constitute potential influences on GCC. A. Construction Activities Project construction activities would generate CO2, CH4, and N2O emissions. The Project's Air Quality Impact Analysis (Appendix B1 of this Draft EIR) contains detailed information regarding Project construction activities. As discussed in the Air Quality Impact Analysis, construction-related emissions are expected from the construction activities presented in Table 4.7-4, Construction Activities. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.7-13 Table 4.7-4 Construction Activities Area Phase Name Phase Type Overall Site Site Work Demolition/Crushing Grading Building 1 Site Work Utilities/Infrastructure Construction Paving Vertical Construction Building Construction Architectural Coating Building 2 Site Work Utilities/Infrastructure Construction Paving Vertical Construction Building Construction Architectural Coating (Urban Crossroads, 2021a, Table 3-1) The proposed construction activities also include the at-grade crossing of the railroad spur to complete 6th Street between Santa Anita Avenue and Etiwanda Avenue; the anticipated scope of the construction area for this at-grade crossing is shown on Figure 3-13, 6th Street At-Grade Crossing, and described in Section 3.0, Project Description, of this Draft EIR. For purposes of analysis, construction is expected to commence in July 2021 and last through November 2022. Section 3.0, provides the summary of construction equipment assumptions by construction phase. For construction phase Project emissions, GHGs are quantified and amortized over the life of the Project. To amortize the emissions over the life of the Project, the SCAQMD recommends calculating the total GHG emissions for the construction activities, dividing it by a 30-year Project life, then adding that number to the annual operational phase GHG emissions. As such, mitigated construction emissions were amortized over 30 years and added to GHG emissions' annual operational phase. The amortized construction emissions are presented in Table 4.7-5, Amortized Annual Construction Emissions. As shown, the Project's construction would result in GHG emissions of approximately 5,545.72 MTCO2e, or annual GHG emissions of 184.86 MTCO2e when amortized over 30 years following the SCAQMD- recommended methodology. Because construction emissions are amortized over a 30-year project lifetime and are included in evaluating operational emissions, there is no significance finding for construction emissions. Table 4.7-5 Amortized Annual Construction Emissions Year Emissions (MT/yr) CO2 CH4 N2O Total CO2e1 2021 1,433.91 0.24 0.00 1,440.03 2022 4,095.34 0.41 0.00 4,105.69 Total 5,529.25 0.66 0.00 5,545.72 Amortized Construction Emissions (MTCO2e) 184.31 0.02 0.00 184.86 CalEEMod annual construction-source emissions are presented in Appendix 3.1 of the Project's GHG Analysis (Appendix H of this Draft EIR). 1 CalEEMod reports the most common GHGs emitted which include CO2, CH4, and N2O. These GHGs are then converted into the CO2e by multiplying the individual GHG by the GWP. (Urban Crossroads, 2021a, Table 3-4) Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.7-14 B. Operational Activities As discussed in Section 3.4.3.B of the Project Description, based on the currently proposed building design/site plan, it is anticipated that 90% of the proposed building area (Building 1 and Building 2) would be operated as high-cube non-sort fulfillment center warehouse uses (1,957,500 sf), and the remaining 10% of the building area (Building 1 and Building 2) would be operated as high-cube cold storage warehouse uses (217,500 sf). Operational activities associated with the Project would result in emissions of CO2, CH4, and N2O from area source emissions; energy source emissions; mobile source emissions; on-site cargo handling equipment emissions; water supply, treatment, and distribution; and solid waste. A detailed description of the operational emissions sources is presented in Section 3.5 of the Project's GHG Analysis included as Appendix H of this Draft EIR. C. Estimated Annual GHG Emissions Table 4.7-6, Project GHG Emissions, summarizes the annual GHG emissions associated with the operation of the proposed Project. The existing development emissions (previously presented in Table 4.7-3) were subtracted from the Project GHG emissions to determine the net new emissions generated by the Project. As shown in Table 4.7-6, construction and operation of the Project would generate a Table 4.7-6 Project GHG Emissions Emission Source Emissions (MT/yr) CO2 CH4 N2O Total CO2e Annual construction-related emissions amortized over 30 years 184.31 0.02 0.00 184.86 Area Source 0.10 2.60E-04 0.00 0.10 Energy Source 4,011.26 0.17 0.03 4,025.61 Mobile Source (Passenger Car) 6,388.45 0.15 0.00 6,392.19 Mobile Source (Truck) 9,509.89 0.65 0.00 9,526.21 On-Site Equipment Source 49.02 0.02 0.00 49.41 TRUs - - - 49.21 Waste 415.02 24.53 0.00 1,028.18 Water Usage 24.11 0.18 4.34E-03 29.82 Total CO2e (All Sources) 21,285.60 Existing Emissions -18,807.07 Net Emissions (Project – Existing) 2,478.53 Screening Threshold (CO2e) 10,000 Threshold Exceeded? NO “- “= Emissions not calculated CalEEMod output, See Appendices 3.1 through 3.3 of the Project's GHG Analysis (Appendix H of this Draft EIR) for detailed model outputs. (Urban Crossroads, 2021a, Table 3-8) Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.7-15 net total of approximately 2,478.53 MTCO2e/yr. The net GHG emissions generated by the Project would not exceed the SCAQMD/City of Rancho Cucamonga screening threshold of 10,000 MTCO2e/yr. Thus, the Project, operated as high-cube non-sort fulfillment center warehouse and high- cube cold storage warehouse uses, would not have the potential to result in a cumulatively-considerable impact concerning GHG emissions, and impacts would be less than significant. A high-cube sort fulfillment center warehouse use is not proposed as part of the Project, and the site plan as currently proposed does not support this on-site use. Nevertheless, for the purpose of providing a conservative analysis, the potential operational impacts associated with an increase in net trip generation that could occur if the proposed buildings operated as 90% high-cube sort fulfillment center warehouse and 10% high-cube cold storage warehouse uses have been evaluated. The Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga High-Cube Sort Fulfillment Center Supplemental Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, Health Risk, and Energy Assessment (Sort Use Supplemental Assessment) prepared by Urban Crossroads (April 2021) (Urban Crossroads, 2021e) is provided in Appendix B4 of this Draft EIR. The increased trip generation and associated increase in GHG emissions is based on an estimate of trips presented in Section 4.13 of this Draft EIR. As presented in Table 3 of the Sort Use Supplemental Assessment, the net annual increase in GHG emissions from operation of the proposed buildings as high-cube sort fulfillment center warehouse and high-cube cold storage warehouse uses (approximately 8,504 MTCO2e/yr) would not exceed the SCAQMD/City of Rancho Cucamonga screening threshold of 10,000 MTCO2e/yr and would result in a less than significant impact. Impact 7.1 The Project would not exceed the screening threshold for GHG emissions and would not generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may significantly impact the environment. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. Threshold 7.2 Would the Project conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? The Project's consistency with SB 32 (2017 Scoping Plan), the City's Sustainability Community Action Plan, and Connect SoCal, is discussed below. Consistency with AB 32 and the 2008 Scoping Plan is not necessary, since the target year for AB 32 and the 2008 Scoping Plan was 2020, and the Project's buildout year is 2022. As such the 2008 Scoping Plan does not apply and consistency with the 2017 Scoping Plan is relevant. A. SB 32/2017 Scoping Plan Consistency The 2017 Scoping Plan Update reflects the 2030 target of a 40% reduction below 1990 levels, set by Executive Order B-30-15 and codified by SB 32. Table 4.7-7, 2017 Scoping Plan Consistency Summary, summarizes the Project's consistency with the 2017 Scoping Plan. As indicated in Table 4.7-7, the Project would not conflict with any of the Scoping Plan provisions and supports seven of the action categories. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.7-16 Table 4.7-7 2017 Scoping Plan Consistency Summary Action Responsible Parties Consistency Implement SB 350 by 2030 Increase the Renewables Portfolio Standard to 50% of retail sales by 2030 and ensure grid reliability. CPUC, CEC, CARB No Conflict. The Project would use energy from Southern California Edison (SCE) or Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Utility, which have committed to diversify their portfolio of energy sources by increasing energy from wind and solar sources. The Project would not interfere with or obstruct SCE or RCMU energy source diversification efforts. Establish annual targets for statewide energy efficiency savings and demand reduction that will achieve a cumulative doubling of statewide energy efficiency savings in electricity and natural gas end uses by 2030. No Conflict. The Project would replace the existing 1,431,000 s.f. warehouse building and 23,240 s.f. retail building, which do not meet current energy efficiency standards. The Project would be constructed in compliance with current California Building Code requirements. Specifically, new buildings must achieve compliance with 2019 Building and Energy Efficiency Standards and the 2019 California Green Building Standards requirements. The Project includes energy efficient field lighting and fixtures that meet the current Title 24 Standards throughout the Project site and would be a modern development with energy efficient boilers, heaters, and air conditioning systems. Reduce GHG emissions in the electricity sector through the implementation of the above measures and other actions as modeled in Integrated Resource Planning (IRP) to meet GHG emissions reductions planning targets in the IRP process. Load- serving entities and publicly- owned utilities meet GHG emissions reductions planning targets through a combination of measures as described in IRPs. Implement Mobile Source Strategy (Cleaner Technology and Fuels) At least 1.5 million zero emission and plug- in hybrid light-duty EVs by 2025. CARB, California State Transportation Agency (CalSTA), Strategic Growth Council (SGC), California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), CEC, OPR, Local Agencies No Conflict. This is a CARB Mobile Source Strategy. The Project would not obstruct or interfere with CARB zero emission and plug-in hybrid light-duty EV 2025 targets. As this is a CARB enforced standard, vehicles that access the Project must comply with the standards and therefore comply with the strategy. At least 4.2 million zero emission and plug- in hybrid light-duty EVs by 2030. No Conflict. This is a CARB Mobile Source Strategy. The Project would not obstruct or interfere with CARB zero emission and plug-in hybrid light-duty EV 2030 targets. As this is a CARB enforced standard, vehicles that access the Project must comply with the standards and therefore comply with the strategy. Further increase GHG stringency on all light-duty vehicles beyond existing Advanced Clean cars regulations. No Conflict. This is a CARB Mobile Source Strategy. The Project would not obstruct or interfere with CARB efforts to further increase GHG stringency on all light-duty vehicles beyond existing Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.7-17 Action Responsible Parties Consistency Advanced Clean cars regulations. As this is a CARB enforced standard, vehicles that access the Project must comply with the standards and therefore comply with the strategy. Medium- and Heavy-Duty GHG Phase 2. No Conflict. This is a CARB Mobile Source Strategy. The Project would not obstruct or interfere with CARB efforts to implement Medium- and Heavy-Duty GHG Phase 2. As this is a CARB enforced standard, vehicles that access the Project are required to comply with the standards and would therefore comply with the strategy. Innovative Clean Transit: Transition to a suite of to-be-determined innovative clean transit options. Assumed 20% of new urban buses purchased beginning in 2018 will be zero emission buses with the penetration of zero-emission technology ramped up to 100% of new sales in 2030. Also, new natural gas buses, starting in 2018, and diesel buses, starting in 2020, meet the optional heavy-duty low-NOX standard. Not applicable. This measure is not within the purview of this Project. Last Mile Delivery: New regulation that would result in the use of low NOX or cleaner engines and the deployment of increasing numbers of zero-emission trucks primarily for class 3-7 last mile delivery trucks in California. This measure assumes ZEVs comprise 2.5% of new Class 3–7 truck sales in local fleets starting in 2020, increasing to 10% in 2025 and remaining flat through 2030. No Conflict. This is a CARB Mobile Source Strategy. The Project would not obstruct or interfere with CARB efforts to improve last mile delivery emissions. Further reduce VMT through continued implementation of SB 375 and regional Sustainable Communities Strategies; forthcoming statewide implementation of SB 743; and potential additional VMT reduction strategies not specified in the Mobile Source Strategy but included in the document "Potential VMT Reduction Strategies for Discussion." No Conflict. Based on the Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis (included in Appendix L1 and summarized in Section 4.13, Transportation, of this Draft EIR) (Urban Crossroads, 2021d), the Project’s VMT impact would be considered less than significant based on the City’s Low VMT Area screening threshold. Further, the Project’s VMT impact would be considered less than significant based on the comparison of baseline Project- generated VMT per service population to the City’s baseline condition. Increase stringency of SB 375 Sustainable Communities Strategy (2035 targets). CARB No Conflict. This is a CARB Mobile Source Strategy. The Project would not obstruct or interfere with CARB efforts to improve last mile delivery emissions. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.7-18 Action Responsible Parties Consistency Harmonize project performance with emissions reductions and increase competitiveness of transit and active transportation modes (e.g., via guideline documents, funding programs, project selection, etc.). CalSTA, SGC, OPR, CARB, Governor's Office of Business and Economic Development (GO- Biz), California Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank (IBank), Department of Finance (DOF), California Transportation Commission (CTC), Caltrans No Conflict. Although this is directed towards CARB and Caltrans, the Project would be designed to promote and support pedestrian activity on-site and in the Project area. The Project includes the construction of sidewalks and incorporates bicycle facilities that would facilitate pedestrian and bicycle travel. Additionally, the study area is currently served by Omnitrans, a public transit agency serving various jurisdictions within San Bernardino County, with bus service along 4th Street/San Bernardino Avenue via Route 61, Foothill Boulevard (SR-66) via route 66, and the I-10 Freeway via route 290. The existing Omnitrans Route 61 would likely serve the Project as it provides service along 4th Street/San Bernardino Avenue to the east and west of the Project which would further facilitate use of transit. By 2019, develop pricing policies to support low-GHG transportation (e.g., low- emission vehicle zones for heavy duty, road user, parking pricing, transit discounts). CalSTA, Caltrans, CTC, OPR, SGC, CARB Not applicable. This measure is not within the purview of this Project. Implement California Sustainable Freight Action Plan Improve freight system efficiency. CalSTA, CalEPA, CNRA, CARB, Caltrans, CEC, GO-Biz No Conflict. This measure would apply to all trucks accessing the Project site, this may include existing trucks or new trucks that are part of the statewide goods movement sector. Access to the Project site would be provided from 4th Street and 6th Street adjacent to the Project site, which are designated truck routes in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The roadways provide efficient access to I-15 approximately 0.5 mile west of the Project site and I-10 approximately 0.7 mile south of the Project site. The Project includes various roadway improvements, including, but not limited to, constructing Street A at its ultimate full‐section width as an Industrial Collector (66‐foot right‐of-way) from 6th Street to 4th Street consistent with the City's standards; constructing a traffic signal at the intersection of Street A & 4th Street; and constructing all proposed Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.7-19 Action Responsible Parties Consistency driveways to accommodate full access (no turn restrictions) and would be controlled with a stop control for exiting traffic, with the exception of Street A & 4th Street (which would be signalized). Deploy over 100,000 freight vehicles and equipment capable of zero emission operation and maximize both zero and near- zero emission freight vehicles and equipment powered by renewable energy by 2030. Not applicable. This measure is not within the purview of this Project. Adopt a Low Carbon Fuel Standard with a Carbon Intensity reduction of 18%. CARB No Conflict. When adopted, this measure would apply to all fuel purchased and used by the Project in the State. The Project would not obstruct or interfere with agency efforts to adopt a Low Carbon Fuel Standard with a Carbon Intensity reduction of 18%. Implement the Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Strategy (SLPS) by 2030 40% reduction in methane and hydrofluorocarbon emissions below 2013 levels. CARB, CalRecycle, CDFA, California State Water Resource Control Board (SWRCB), Local Air Districts No Conflict. The Project would be required to comply with this measure and reduce any Project-source SLPS emissions accordingly. The Project would not obstruct or interfere with agency efforts to reduce SLPS emissions. 50% reduction in black carbon emissions below 2013 levels. Not applicable. This measure is not within the purview of this Project. By 2019, develop regulations and programs to support organic waste landfill reduction goals in the SLCP and SB 1383. CARB, CalRecycle, CDFA, SWRCB, Local Air Districts Not applicable. This measure is not within the purview of this Project. Implement the post-2020 Cap-and-Trade Program with declining annual caps. CARB No Conflict. The Project would be required to comply with any applicable Cap-and-Trade Program provisions. The Project would not obstruct or interfere agency efforts to implement the post-2020 Cap-and-Trade Program. By 2018, develop Integrated Natural and Working Lands Implementation Plan to secure California's land base as a net carbon sink: Protect land from conversion through conservation easements and other incentives. CNRA, Departments Within CDFA, CalEPA, CARB Not applicable. This measure is not within the Project site's purview as the Project site is not an identified property that needs to be conserved. Increase the long-term resilience of carbon storage in the land base and enhance sequestration capacity Not applicable. This measure is not within the purview of this Project. The majority of the site is already currently developed. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.7-20 Action Responsible Parties Consistency Utilize wood and agricultural products to increase the amount of carbon stored in the natural and built environments No Conflict. To the extent appropriate for the proposed industrial buildings, wood products would be used in construction, including roof structure. Additionally, the Project includes landscaping. Establish scenario projections to serve as the foundation for the Implementation Plan Not applicable. This measure is not within the purview of this Project. Implement Forest Carbon Plan CNRA, California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE), CalEPA and Departments Within Not applicable. This measure is not within the purview of this Project. Identify and expand funding and financing mechanisms to support GHG reductions across all sectors. State Agencies & Local Agencies Not applicable. This measure is not within the purview of this Project. (Urban Crossroads, 2021a, Table 3-9) B. Connect SoCal 2020-2045 RTP/SCS Consistency Connect SoCal is supported by a combination of transportation and land use strategies that outline how the region can achieve California's GHG emission reduction goals and federal Clean Air Act requirements. The Project would be consistent with the plan for integrating the transportation network and related strategies with an overall land use pattern that responds to projected growth, housing needs, changing demographics, and transportation demands. Table 4.10-1, RTP/SCS Consistency Analysis, in Section 4.10, Land Use and Planning, of this Draft EIR presents the Project's consistency with the Connect SoCal 2020-2045 RTP/SCS strategies. As indicated in Table 4.10-1, the Project would be consistent with or otherwise would not conflict with any of the goals identified in Connect SoCal. C. City of Rancho Cucamonga Sustainable Community Action Plan Consistency The Project is required to comply with the City of Rancho Cucamonga's Sustainable Community Action Plan (Plan) and would incorporate measures from the Plan to meet the City's GHG reduction goals. It should be noted that the Plan does not authorize or mandate any specific activity or initiative on the environment in the City of Rancho Cucamonga and is therefore not a qualified GHG reduction plan pursuant to CEQA. As indicated in Table 4.7-8, Project Consistency with the City of Rancho Cucamonga Sustainable Community Action Plan, the Project would be consistent with or otherwise would not conflict with the City's Sustainable Community Action Plan policies. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.7-21 Table 4.7-8 Project Consistency with the City of Rancho Cucamonga Sustainable Community Action Plan Policy Consistency Transportation + Mobility (TM) TM Policy 1: Promote active transportation choices. No Conflict. The Project includes the construction of sidewalks and incorporates bicycle facilities that would facilitate pedestrian and bicycle travel. Additionally, the study area is currently served by Omnitrans, a public transit agency serving various jurisdictions within San Bernardino County, with bus service along 4th Street/San Bernardino Avenue via Route 61, Foothill Boulevard (SR-66) via route 66, and the I-10 Freeway via route 290. The existing Omnitrans Route 61 would likely serve the Project as it provides service along 4th Street/San Bernardino Avenue to the east and west of the Project which would further facilitate use of transit. TM Policy 2: Utilize Transportation Demand Management strategies citywide. No Conflict. In an effort to promote alternative modes of transportation, the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan also includes a bike plan. Within the study area, there are proposed Class II bike paths along 4th Street, 6th Street (shown as a through street on the City's General Plan Circulation Element), Etiwanda Avenue, Arrow Route, and Foothill Boulevard (SR-66). As further discussed in Section 4.13 of this Draft EIR, the Project would comply with the City’s Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Ordinance (Section 17.78 of the City’s Development Code), which is required to reduce trip generation from the Project (refer to RR 13-3) and includes requirements to encourage use of transit, ridesharing, bicycling and walking. Energy Efficiency + Renewables (EE) EE Policy 1: Reduce energy demand by improved efficiency and building design. No Conflict. The Project would replace existing industrial and retail buildings and facilities that were constructed in the early 1980s and do not meet current energy efficiency standards. The Project would be constructed in compliance with current California Building Code requirements. Specifically, new buildings must achieve compliance with 2019 Building and Energy Efficiency Standards and the 2019 California Green Building Standards requirements. The proposed Project would include energy-efficient field lighting and fixtures that meet the current Title 24 Standards throughout the Project Site and would be a modern development with energy-efficient boilers, heaters, and air conditioning systems. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.7-22 Policy Consistency Green Building Performance (GB) GB Policy 1: Facilitate the use of green building practices. No Conflict. The Project would be constructed in compliance with current California Building Code requirements. Specifically, new buildings must achieve compliance with 2019 Building and Energy Efficiency Standards and the 2019 California Green Building Standards requirements. The proposed Project would include energy-efficient field lighting and fixtures that meet the current Title 24 Standards throughout the Project Site and would be a modern development with energy-efficient boilers, heaters, and air conditioning systems. Additionally, the roof of the proposed buildings would be designed to support a photovoltaic (solar) electrical energy system. (Urban Crossroads, 2021a, Table 3-11) Impact 7.2 As indicated in Table 4.7-7 through Table 4.7-8 above, and in Table 4.10-1 in Section 4.10, Land Use and Planning, the Project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. This impact is less than significant and no mitigation is required. 4.7.5 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS As discussed above, the assessment of GHG emissions is inherently cumulative because climate change is a global phenomenon. Because the Project's GHG emissions would be below the SCAQMD's recommended 10,000 MTCO2e/yr screening threshold, the Project's cumulative impact on GHG emissions would be less than significant. Additionally, Project impacts due to a conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted to reduce the emissions of GHGs (e.g., SB 32) also would be less than significant on a cumulatively-considerable basis. 4.7.6 MITIGATION MEASURES The Project would not result in significant impacts related to GHG emissions, and no mitigation is required. 4.7.7 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION Project impacts related to GHG emissions would be less than significant. 4.7.8 REFERENCES Urban Crossroads, Inc. 2021a (April 15). Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Greenhouse Gas Analysis, City of Rancho Cucamonga. (Included in Appendix H of this Draft EIR). ———. 2021b (April 15). Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga High-Cube Fulfillment Center Traffic Memo, City of Rancho Cucamonga. (Included in Appendix L2 of this Draft EIR). Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.7-23 ———. 2021c (April 15). Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Air Quality Impact Analysis, City of Rancho Cucamonga. (Included in Appendix B1of this Draft EIR). ———. 2021d (March 23). Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis. (Included in Appendix L1 of this Draft EIR). ———. 2021e (April 15). Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga High-Cube Sort Fulfillment Center Supplemental Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, Health Risk, and Energy Assessment. (Included in Appendix B4 of this Draft EIR). Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.8-1 4.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS This section analyzes the potential impacts of existing hazards that may adversely affect the Project and hazards and hazardous materials that may be introduced by the Project. Information presented in this section is derived in part from the following site-specific reports investigations. Additional references are identified in Section 4.8.8, References, at the end of this section.  Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Big Lots Warehouse 12322 and 12434 East 4th Street, Rancho Cucamonga, California (Phase I ESA) (October 8, 2019), prepared by Ardent Environmental Group, Inc. (Ardent), which is included in Appendix I1 of this Draft EIR.  Results of a Subsurface Investigation Big Lots Warehouse 12322 and 12434 East 4th Street, Rancho Cucamonga, California (Subsurface Investigation) (October 8, 2019), prepared by Ardent, which is included in Appendix I2 of this Draft EIR.  Clarification Letter Regarding Historical Agricultural Chemicals, Big Lots Warehouse, 12322 & 12434 East 4th Street, Rancho Cucamonga, California (June 17, 2020), prepared by Ardent, which is also included in Appendix I2 of this Draft EIR.  Asbestos Sampling Report, 12322 & 12434 East 4th Street, Rancho Cucamonga, California (Asbestos Sampling Report) (October 23, 2019), prepared by Ardent, which is included in Appendix I3 of this Draft EIR. For the purposes of this Draft EIR, the term “toxic substance” is defined as a substance that, because of its quantity, concentration, or physical, chemical, or infectious characteristics, may present an unreasonable risk of injury to human health or the environment. Toxic substances include chemical, biological, flammable, explosive, and radioactive substances. The term “hazardous material” is defined as a substance that, because of its quantity, concentration, or physical, chemical, or infectious characteristics, may: 1) pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health or the environment when improperly treated, stored, disposed of, or otherwise mismanaged; or 2) cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or an increase in irreversible or incapacitating illness. Hazardous waste is defined in the California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Section 66261.3. The defining characteristics of hazardous waste are: ignitability (oxidizers, compressed gases, and extremely flammable liquids and solids), corrosivity (strong acids and bases), reactivity (explosives or generates toxic fumes when exposed to air or water), and toxicity (materials listed by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) as capable of inducing systemic damage to humans or animals). Certain wastes are called “Listed Wastes” and are found in the California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Sections 66261.30 through 66261.35. Wastes appear on the lists because of their known hazardous nature or because the processes that generate them are known to produce hazardous wastes (which are often complex mixtures). There were no Notice of Preparation (NOP) comment letters received related to hazards or hazards materials. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.8-2 4.8.1 RELEVANT POLICIES AND REGULATIONS A. Federal 1. Federal Aviation Regulation Part 77 Federal Regulation Title 14 Part 77 establishes standards and notification requirements for objects affecting navigable airspace. This notification serves as the basis for:  Evaluating the effect of the construction or alteration on operating procedures;  Determining the potential hazardous effect of the proposed construction on air navigation;  Identifying mitigating measures to enhance safe air navigation; and  Charting of new objects. Notification allows the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to identify potential aeronautical hazards in advance to prevent or minimize the adverse impacts to the safe and efficient use of navigable airspace. Any person/organization who intends to sponsor any of the following construction or alterations must notify the Administrator of the FAA:  Any construction or alteration exceeding 200 feet above ground level.  Any construction or alteration: o within 20,000 feet of a public use or military airport which exceeds a 100:1 surface from any point on the runway of each airport with at least one runway more than 3,200 feet. o within 10,000 feet of a public use or military airport which exceeds a 50:1 surface from any point on the runway of each airport with its longest runway no more than 3,200 feet. o within 5,000 feet of a public use heliport which exceeds a 25:1 surface.  Any highway, railroad, or other traverse way whose prescribed adjusted height would exceed that above noted standards.  When requested by the FAA.  Any construction or alteration located on a public use airport or heliport regardless of height or location. Persons failing to comply with the provisions of Federal Air Regulations (FAR) Part 77 are subject to Civil Penalty under Section 902 of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958, as amended and pursuant to 49 U.S.C. Section 46301(a). 2. Hazardous Materials Transportation Act The Hazardous Materials Transportation Act of 1975 (HMTA) empowered the Secretary of Transportation to designate as hazardous material any "particular quantity or form" of a material that Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.8-3 "may pose an unreasonable risk to health and safety or property." Hazardous materials regulations are subdivided by function into four basic areas:  Procedures and/or Policies 49 CFR Parts 101, 106, and 107  Material Designations 49 CFR Part 172  Packaging Requirements 49 CFR Parts 173, 178, 179, and 180  Operational Rules 49 CFR Parts 171, 173, 174, 175, 176, and 177 The HMTA is enforced by use of compliance orders [49 U.S.C. 1808(a)], civil penalties [49 U.S.C. 1809(b)], and injunctive relief (49 U.S.C. 1810). The HMTA (Section 112, 40 U.S.C. 1811) preempts state and local governmental requirements that are inconsistent with the statute, unless that requirement affords an equal or greater level of protection to the public than the HMTA requirement. 3. Hazardous Materials Transportation Uniform Safety Act of 1990 In 1990, Congress enacted the Hazardous Materials Transportation Uniform Safety Act (HMTUSA) to clarify the maze of conflicting state, local, and federal regulations. Like the HMTA, the HMTUSA requires the Secretary of Transportation to promulgate regulations for the safe transport of hazardous material in intrastate, interstate, and foreign commerce. The Secretary also retains authority to designate materials as hazardous when they pose unreasonable risks to health, safety, or property. The statute includes provisions to encourage uniformity among different state and local highway routing regulations, to develop criteria for the issuance of federal permits to motor carriers of hazardous materials, and to regulate the transport of radioactive materials. 4. Occupational Safety and Health Act Congress passed the Occupational and Safety Health Act (OSHA) to ensure worker and workplace safety. Their goal was to make sure employers provide their workers a place of employment free from recognized hazards to safety and health, such as exposure to toxic chemicals, excessive noise levels, mechanical dangers, heat or cold stress, or unsanitary conditions. In order to establish standards for workplace health and safety, the Act also created the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) as the research institution for OSHA. OSHA is a division of the U.S. Department of Labor that oversees the administration of the Act and enforces standards in all 50 states. 5. Resource Conservation and Recovery Act The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) serves as the basis for the proper management of hazardous and non-hazardous solid wastes. The RCRA amended the Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1965 and is implemented through the following programs:  The Solid Waste Program encourages States to develop comprehensive plans to manage non- hazardous industrial solid wastes and municipal solid wastes; sets criteria for municipal solid waste landfills and other solid waste disposal facilities; and prohibits the open dumping of solid wastes. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.8-4  The Hazardous Waste Program establishes a system for controlling hazardous waste from the time it is generated until its ultimate disposal, in effect from “cradle to grave”.  The Underground Storage Tank (UST) Program regulates USTs containing hazardous substances and petroleum products. In November 1984, the RCRA was amended with the passing of the Federal Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) to phase out the land disposal of hazardous wastes; to increase the USEPA’s enforcement authority; to set more stringent hazardous waste management standards; and to develop a comprehensive UST program. The RCRA has been further amended by the Federal Facility Compliance Act of 1992 (which strengthened the enforcement of RCRA at federal facilities) and the Land Disposal Program Flexibility Act of 1996 (which provided regulatory flexibility for land disposal of certain wastes). 6. Toxic Substances Control Act The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) of 1976 provides EPA with authority to require reporting, record-keeping and testing requirements, and restrictions relating to chemical substances and/or mixtures. Certain substances are generally excluded from TSCA, including, among others, food, drugs, cosmetics, and pesticides. TSCA addresses the production, importation, use, and disposal of specific chemicals including polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), asbestos, radon, and lead-based paint. Various sections of TSCA provide authority to:  Require, under Section 5, pre-manufacture notification for "new chemical substances" before manufacture  Require, under Section 4, testing of chemicals by manufacturers, importers, and processors where risks or exposures of concern are found  Issue Significant New Use Rules (SNURs), under Section 5, when it identifies a "significant new use" that could result in exposures to, or releases of, a substance of concern.  Maintain the TSCA Inventory, under Section 8, which contains more than 83,000 chemicals. As new chemicals are commercially manufactured or imported, they are placed on the list.  Require those importing or exporting chemicals, under Sections 12(b) and 13, to comply with certification reporting and/or other requirements.  Require, under Section 8, reporting and record-keeping by persons who manufacture, import, process, and/or distribute chemical substances in commerce.  Require, under Section 8(e), that any person who manufactures (including imports), processes, or distributes in commerce a chemical substance or mixture and who obtains information which reasonably supports the conclusion that such substance or mixture presents a substantial risk of injury to health or the environment to immediately inform EPA, except where EPA has been adequately informed of such information. EPA screens all TSCA b§8(e) submissions as well as voluntary "For Your Information" (FYI) submissions. The latter are not required by law, but are submitted by industry and public interest groups for a variety of reasons. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.8-5 B. State 1. California Accidental Release Prevention Program The California Accidental Release Prevention Program (CalARP), managed by the Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA), discussed below, is a merging of the Federal Accidental Release Prevention Program and State programs for the prevention of accidental release of regulated toxic and flammable substances. It replaced the California Risk Management and Prevention Program and was created to eliminate the need for two separate and distinct risk management programs. Stationary sources exceeding a threshold quantity of regulated substances are evaluated under this program to determine the potential for and impacts of accidental releases from the source. Depending on the potential hazards, the owner or occupant of a stationary source may be required to develop and submit a risk management plan. 2. Cal/OSHA and the California State Plan Since 1973 California has operated an occupational safety and health program in accordance with Section 18 of the federal OSHA. The State of California’s Department of Industrial Relations administers the California Occupational Safety and Health Program, commonly referred to as Cal/OSHA. The State of California’s Division of Occupational Safety and Health (DOSH) is the principal agency that oversees plan enforcement and consultation. In addition, the California State program has an independent Standards Board responsible for promulgating State safety and health standards, and reviewing variances. It also has an Appeals Board to adjudicate contested citations and the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement to investigate complaints of discriminatory retaliation in the workplace. Pursuant to 29 CFR 1952.172, the California State Plan applies to all public and private sector places of employment in the State, with the exception of federal employees, the United States Postal Service, private sector employers on Native American lands, maritime activities on the navigable waterways of the United States, private contractors working on land designated as exclusively under federal jurisdiction and employers that require federal security clearances. Cal/OSHA is the only agency in the State authorized to adopt, amend, or repeal occupational safety and health standards or orders. The Cal/OSHA enforcement unit conducts inspections of California workplaces in response to a report of an industrial accident, a complaint about an occupational safety and health hazard, or as part of an inspection program targeting industries with high rates of occupational hazards, fatalities, injuries or illnesses. Cal/OSHA has regulations to protect worker safety during potential exposure to lead and asbestos under Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations (Section 1529, Asbestos and Section 1532.1, Lead). Demolition that could result in the release of asbestos and lead must be conducted according to Cal/OSHA standards. These standards were developed to protect the general population and construction workers from respiratory and other hazards associated with exposure to these materials. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.8-6 3. California Hazardous Waste Control Law The responsibility for implementing the RCRA was given to California Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) in August 1992. The DTSC is also responsible for implementing and enforcing California’s own hazardous waste laws; the Hazardous Waste Control Law (HWCL) (Health and Safety Code [HSC], Division 20, Chapter 6.5, Article 2, Section 25100, et seq.) is the primary hazardous waste statute in California. The HWCL implements RCRA as a “cradle-to-grave” waste management system in the State. It specifies that generators have the primary duty to determine whether their wastes are hazardous and to ensure its proper management. The HWCL also establishes criteria for the reuse and recycling of hazardous wastes used or reuse as raw materials. The HWCL exceeds federal requirements by mandating source reduction planning and broadening requirements for permitting facilities that treat hazardous waste. It also regulates a number of waste types and waste management activities not covered by federal law (RCRA). 4. California Code of Regulations, Titles 5, 17, 22, and 26 A variety of California Code of Regulation (CCR) titles address regulations and requirements related to hazardous materials and hazardous waste. Title 5 contains the California Plumbing Code which, in Appendix H, establishes detailed standards for the capping, removal, fill, and disposal of cesspools, septic tanks, and seepage pits (see H 1101.0). CCR Title 17, Division 1, Chapter 8, defines and regulates handling and disposal of lead-based paint. Any detectable amount of lead is regulated. Title 22 contains detailed compliance requirements for hazardous waste generators, transporters, and facilities for treatment, storage, and disposal. Because California is a fully-authorized state according to RCRA, most regulations (i.e., 40 CFR 260, et seq.) have been duplicated and integrated into Title 22. However, because the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) regulates hazardous waste more stringently than the EPA, the integration of State and federal hazardous waste regulations that make up Title 22 does not contain as many exemptions or exclusions as does 40 CFR 260. As with the HSC, Title 22 also regulates a wider range of waste types and waste management activities than does RCRA. To aid the regulated community, California has compiled hazardous materials, waste, and toxics-related regulations from CCR, Titles 3, 8, 13, 17, 19, 22, 23, 24 and 27 into one consolidated listing: CCR Title 26 (Toxics). However, the hazardous waste regulations are still commonly referred to collectively as “Title 22.” 5. Certified Unified Program Agency In 1993, Senate Bill 1082 created the Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) program to foster effective partnerships between local, State, and federal agencies. The CUPA for the City of Rancho Cucamonga is the San Bernardino County Fire Department. The CUPA program consolidated the administrative, permits, inspections, and enforcement activities of the following environmental and emergency management programs:  Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans and Inventories (Business Plans)  California Accidental Release Prevention Program  Underground Storage Tank Program Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.8-7  Aboveground Petroleum Storage Act Program/Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure Plan (SPCC Plan)  Hazardous Waste Generator and Onsite Hazardous Waste Treatment Programs  California Fire Code – Hazardous Material Management Plans and Hazardous Material Inventory Statements C. Regional 1. LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan The basic function of the LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ONT ALUCP) is to promote compatibility between Ontario International Airport and the land uses that surround it. As required by State law, the ONT ALUCP provides guidance to affected local jurisdictions with regard to land use compatibility matters involving the airport. The geographic scope for the ONT ALUCP is the Airport Influence Area (AIA), the area in which current or future airport- related noise, safety, airspace protection, and/or overflight factors may affect land uses or impose restrictions on those uses. The AIA includes portions of the counties of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino, and portions of various cities within these counties, including Rancho Cucamonga. The Project site, in its entirety, is within the AIA established by the ONT ALUCP (Ontario, 2011, Map 2-1). The ONT ALUCP includes compatibility criteria, which provides the foundation for compatibility policies. Affected agencies use the compatibility policies and criteria to evaluate future airport and land use plans, as well as individual development proposals, for consistency with the ONT ALUCP. The compatibility policies address four types of airport land use impacts: safety, noise, airspace protection, and overflight. The geographic extent of each compatibility factor is depicted in compatibility policy maps in Chapter 2, Procedural and Compatibility Policies, of the ONT ALUCP. In addition to the AIA, these maps include Safety Zones, Noise Impact Zones, Airspace Protection Zones, and Overflight Notification Zones. The Project site is located outside the Safety Zones and Noise Impact zones, but is within an Airspace Protection Zone (refer to Figure 4.8-1, Compatibility Policy Map: Airspace Protection Zones, which presents Map 2-4 of the ONT ALUCP) and an Overflight Notification Zone (refer to Figure 4.8-2, Compatibility Policy Map: Overflight Notification Zones, which presents Map 2-5 of the ONT ALUCP). As shown on Figure 4.8-1, the entire Project site is located within the FAA Height Notification Surface Zone and the southern Project site boundary is located within the Airspace Obstruction Surfaces Zone. Airspace Protection Zones are areas subject to FAR Part 77, United States Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS), and applicable obstruction clearance standards published by the FAA. As identified on Figure 4.8-2, the Project site is also within the Overflight Notification Zone, specifically within the Real Estate Transaction Disclosure Zone. The Real Estate Disclosure Zone requires the disclosure of Project’s proximity to the LA/Ontario International Airport in real estate transactions. This disclosure informs future property owners and occupants that the property is in the vicinity of an airport, but does not represent a safety hazard. (Ontario, 2011) Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report Source(s): LA/Ontario lnternotionol Airport land Use Compatibility Plan (04-19-2011) Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga I. _(� 4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials LEGEND Boundary Lines --------Airport Property Line -------County Line ------City Limits -------Street Existing Runways � Runway 8L-26R -- - - -- - - - -Future Runways 5 Runway 8R-26L Policy Boundaries 1 Airport Influence Area (portions extend beyond map view) Airspace Protection Zones FM Height Notification Surface Airspace Obstruction Surfaces A:tffHJ High Terrain Zone Airspace Avigation Easement Area Allowable Heights in AGL (Composite) NOTES Less than 70' 70' in the High Terrain Zone 70' to 100' 100' to 150' 150' to 200' Greater than 200' 1.See Section 6.3 for airspace protection policies. 2.Existing airport elevation is 944.0' above mean sea level (MSL). Future airport elevation assumed at 944.0' MSL. Actual to be determined. 3.Projects with Jurupa Hills are not subject to the ONT Inter-Agency Notification Process but may require FM notification (see Section 6.3.5b). Adopted by 0.11ta1rio City Counc:1 Ap 'I 1'9, 2011 Figure 4.8-l Compatibility Policy Map: Airspace Protection Zones SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.8-8 Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report Source(s): LA/Ontario lnternotionol Airport land Use Compatibility Plan (04-19-2011) Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga Footh1/f Blvd Up and' Riverside Dr. Chino Ave. Schaefer Ave. Edison Ave. Eucalyptus Ave. 4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials LEGEND Boundary Lines --------Airport Property Line -------county Line - - - - - -City Limits -------Street Existing Runways ( Runway 8L-26R -- - - - - - - - - Future Runways 5 Runway 8R-26L Policy Boundaries Airport Influence Area4 .-1 Z..,,.....Z-,--7.,.,1 Advisory Area (outside San Bernardino County ffiW±R High Terrain Zone Overflight Notification Zones1 Avigation Easement Dedication �composite)2 Recorded Overflight Notification Real Estate Transaction Disclosure4 NOTES 1.See Section 6.4 for overflight policies. 2.Avigation easement dedication required for new development within all safety zones, the 65 dB contour, inner portions of the airspace protection zones and high terrain zone. See Policy SP1. 3.Recorded Overflight Notification required for new development within 60 dB contour, except where Avigation Easement Dedication applies. 4.Real Estate Transaction Disclosure policy applies within entire Airport Influence Area (AIA) including areas requiring Avigation Easement Dedication and Recorded Overflight Notification. 5.Overflight policies are informational outside of San Bernardino County. Adopted by Ontario C ty Co mci I Apr 119 1 2011 Figure 4.8-2 Compatibility Policy Map -Overflight Notification Zones SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.8-9 Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.8-10 2. SCAQMD Rule 1403 – Asbestos Emissions from Demolition/Renovation Activities South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 1403 requires the implementation of specific work practices to limit asbestos emissions from building demolition and renovation activities, including the removal and associated disturbance of asbestos-containing materials (ACM). The requirements for demolition and renovation activities include asbestos surveying, notification, ACM removal procedures and time schedules, ACM handling and clean-up procedures, and storage, disposal, and landfilling requirements for asbestos-containing waste materials (ACWM). D. Local 1. Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Chapter 8, Public Health and Safety, of the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan, provides a proactive approach to public health and safety planning. Relevant to this Hazards and Hazardous Materials section, it addresses fire hazards and aviation hazards. Figure PS-1 (Fire Hazard Severity Zones, of the General Plan) shows that the Project site is located outside all designated fire hazard areas. Figure PS- 7 (Airspace Protection Areas, of the General Plan) shows that the Project site is located within the airspace protection area for the LA/Ontario International Airport, as discussed above and presented on Figure 4.8-1. As also discussed above, and as shown on Figure 4.8-1, the FAA must be notified of construction or alterations at the Project site as required by FAR Part 77 and applicable obstruction clearance standards published by the FAA. The consistency of the Project with goals and policies related to hazards is discussed in Section 4.10, Land Use and Planning, of this Draft EIR. 2. Rancho Cucamonga Development Code Section 17.66.040, Hazardous Materials, of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Code, provides standards to ensure that the use, handling, storage, and transportation of hazardous materials comply with all applicable State laws (including but not limited to, Section 65850.2 of the California Government Code and Section 25505 et seq. of the California Health and Safety Code) and that appropriate information is reported to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, as the regulatory authority. This section of the Development Code includes reporting requirements; standards regarding underground and aboveground storage of hazardous materials; and standards for new development near commercial supply bulk transfer delivery systems (e.g., oil and gas). Most relevant to the Project, businesses required by State law to prepare Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans and Hazardous Materials Inventory Statements shall, upon request, submit copies of these plans, including any revisions, to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District. 3. Emergency Operations Plan and Local Hazard Mitigation Plan The City of Rancho Cucamonga adopted its current Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) in September 2016 (City of Rancho Cucamonga, 2016). The EOP provides information for individuals to effectively prepare, respond to, and recover from emergency situations associated with natural and man-made disasters, technological incidents, and national security emergencies in both war and peacetime. Additionally, in March 2014, the City adopted the City of Rancho Cucamonga Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, January 2013, to assess natural and manmade hazards with the potential to impact Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.8-11 the City and its inhabitants and to establish measures to mitigate or reduce future losses associated with these hazards through preparedness, response and recovery provisions (City of Rancho Cucamonga, 2014). The Local Hazard Mitigation Plan is currently being updated by the City. 4.8.2 EXISTING SETTING The site-specific Phase I ESA was prepared in accordance with the Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessment: Phase I ESA Process, American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) E 1527-13, and All Appropriate Inquiries (AAI) set forth in the Code of Federal Regulations (specifically, 40 CFR 312). The objective of a Phase I ESA is to identify recognized environmental conditions (RECs), historical recognized environmental conditions (HRECs), and/or controlled recognized environmental conditions (CRECs) that may be associated with the Project site.1 As further outlined in the Phase I ESA, which is included in Appendix I1 of this Draft EIR, the scope of the Phase I ESA included a reconnaissance of the site and immediate vicinity on August 22, 2019, which involved a walking tour of the site and visual observations of adjoining properties; Environmental Data Resources (EDR) review of the data available from various regulatory agencies; interview with the maintenance supervisor and property manager; and review of historical aerial photographs, building records, city directory information, and Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps. Additionally, a Subsurface Investigation was conducted on September 4, 2019, which is included in Appendix I2 of this Draft EIR. The subsurface investigation was conducted to assess whether elevated concentrations of selected chemicals are present in the vicinity of an on-site REC identified by the Phase I ESA (discussed in further detail below), and to assess whether elevated concentrations of agricultural chemicals are present. A. Previous and Current Uses of the Project Site Prior to development of the on-site retail and warehouse buildings and associated facilities (described below), the Project site was used for agricultural purposes (i.e., vineyard) (from at least 1938 through 1975). 1. Agricultural Operations From at least 1938 through 1975, the Project site and surrounding area were used for agricultural purposes. In 1983, the southern and central portion of the site was redeveloped with the existing commercial buildings and associated parking lot. The northern portion of the Project site (approximately 10 acres) continued to be used for agricultural purposes. During completion of the Phase I ESA, there was no indication of large quantities of pesticides being used, stored, or mixed on 1 A REC is defined as the presence or likely presence of any hazardous substance or petroleum products in, on, or at a property: (1) due to any release to the environment; (2) under conditions indicative of a release to the environment; or (3) under conditions that pose a material threat of a future release to the environment. An HREC is defined as a past release of any hazardous substances or petroleum product that has occurred in connection with the property and has been addressed to the satisfaction of the applicable regulatory authority or that meets the unrestricted use criteria established by a regulatory authority without subjecting the property to any required controls (i.e., property use restrictions, activity and use limitations, institutional controls, or engineering controls, which would fall under a controlled recognized environmental condition or CREC). Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.8-12 the Project site. Based on the longevity of agricultural land use in the northern portion of the Project site, as part of the Subsurface Investigation soil samples were analyzed for both organochlorine pesticides (OCPs) (banned in the United States in 1972), and organophosphorus pesticides (OPPs), which were used after OCPs. Laboratory results of soil samples from the northern portion of the Project site indicated no detectable concentrations of OPPs. With the exception of Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene (DDE, a breakdown product of dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane [DDT]), no detectable concentrations of OCPs were reported. DDE was reported in each composite sample at concentrations ranging from 0.004 to 0.024 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg). The detectable concentrations are well below the established EPA Regional Screening Levels for soil for industrial/commercial properties of 9.3 mg/kg. Based on these results, no human health risk is present. (Ardent, 2019b) Arsenic, in the form of arsenical herbicides, has also been applied to agricultural lands on-site, and soils were also tested for arsenic as part of the Subsurface Investigation. Background metals in soil can prove problematic for risk assessment purposes because metals detected at a site may be comprised of naturally occurring metals, regional anthropogenic contributions, or a site-specific release. Arsenic is especially problematic since the risk-based soils concentration is 100-times below typical ambient concentrations. Therefore, the DTSC established a regional background arsenic concentration in soil that can be used as a screening tool for sites throughout Southern California. Specifically, the DTSC completed a study of naturally occurring concentrations of arsenic for school sites for the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD). Based on this study, the DTSC concluded that arsenic would be considered elevated at concentrations exceeding 12 mg/kg. (DTSC, 2018) Based on laboratory results reported in the Subsurface Investigation, concentrations of arsenic ranging from 0.441 to 0.595 mg/kg occur at the Project site. Therefore, the detectable concentrations do not exceed the federal screening levels, or the screening level established by DTSC for sites in Southern California. Based on these results, arsenic levels on-site are low and would not pose a risk to human health. (Ardent, 2019b) When applied as aerially deposited sprays, the chemicals described above that were detected on-site might affect shallow soils surrounding the plants. Since these chemicals do not migrate rapidly through soil, there is a low likelihood that these chemicals, if present, would pose a potential risk to groundwater, occurring in the site vicinity at depths of approximately 370 to 420 feet below the ground surface (bgs). With respect to the southern and central portions of the Project site, Ardent reports that following normal grading activities and reworking of soils for geotechnical purposes, residual chemicals, if present, become diluted to concentrations well below state and federal screening levels for industrial/commercial land use. Therefore, these soils would not pose a human health risk. Since the southern and central property had been redeveloped for commercial land use, there was a low likelihood of human exposure to possible residual contaminates. Based on this information, Ardent did not identify this former activity as a REC in the Phase I ESA. Additionally, since elevated concentrations of agricultural chemicals were not discovered in the northern portion of the site with historical and active agricultural use, it is anticipated that similar, if not lower, concentrations of pesticides exist in the southern and central portion of the Project site. (Ardent, 2020) In summary, based on the results of the Phase I ESA and Subsurface Investigation, there is a low likelihood that elevated concentrations of agricultural pesticides are present in shallow soil, and Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.8-13 therefore, possible agricultural land use would not be considered a REC, and would not pose a risk to human health. 2. Retail and Warehouse Uses The southern portion of the Project site is currently occupied by a 23,240-sf retail building and a 1,431,000-sf warehouse building. The southern portion of the existing warehouse building and retail store were constructed in approximately 1983. Over the years, the warehouse building expanded to the north. Since construction, the site buildings have been occupied by Pic-N-Save and Big Lots for warehouse, distribution, and retail purposes. The warehouse building was used as a distribution center. Big Lots was the last occupant of the on-site buildings, and vacated the site in February 2020. A truck trailer parking area surrounds the warehouse building, and loading docks are located on the east and south sides of the building. Automobile parking is provided in the southeast portion of the Project area, and east of the existing retail building. There is ornamental landscaping throughout the site, primarily along 4th Street. There are existing surface parking lots (auto and truck trailer) and vacant land (previously a vineyard) in the northern portion of the Project site. During preparation of the Phase I ESA, a site reconnaissance was performed to visually observe the site and any structure(s) located on the site (to the extent not obstructed by bodies of water, adjacent buildings, or other obstacles). The purpose of the site reconnaissance was to obtain information indicating the likelihood of identifying RECs in connection with the site, including the general site setting, site usage, use and storage of hazardous materials and petroleum products, disposal of waste products and materials, sources of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and evidence of releases and possible risks of contamination from activities at adjacent properties. The results of the site reconnaissance are summarized below and onsite uses/facilities relevant to the Phase I ESA are shown on Figure 4.8-3, Existing and Previous On-Site Uses. As part of the previous distribution activities, fleet vehicles were maintained and fueled in the southwestern portion of the site (refer to Figure 4.8-3). Two clustered 10,000-gallon diesel underground storage tanks (USTs) and two clustered 1,000-gallon oil USTs (one waste oil and one virgin oil) were installed in 1984 and removed in 1998, under the direction and oversight of the San Bernardino County Fire Protection District (SBCFPD). During removal, diesel-impacted soil was noted beneath one of the fuel dispensers. These materials were subsequently remediated by excavation and off-site disposal. Laboratory results of confirmation soil samples indicated no detectable to low concentrations of petroleum hydrocarbons beneath the USTs and dispenser islands. Based on these results, the SBCFPD issued a no further action (NFA) letter in August 6, 1999. Ardent reviewed these data and concurs with the SBCFPD that no further investigations are necessary. These features would be considered a HREC. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report l Pad-Mounted Transformer I I � Former Truck Maintenance Area Former Location of Oil USTs Former Location of Diesel USTs Former Truck Wash Forklift Maintenance Area .-------7 I I I I I I I I I I C Clartfier 1. Base Map Source: AL TA/ASCM Land Title Survey, Prepared by Williamson and Schmid, Tustin, California, dated April 1991. 2. Dimensions, directions, and locations are approxim ate. Source(s): Ardent Environmental Group, Inc. (October 2019) r, u Warehouse Building Forklift Battery Rack I I l_ ____ J Area of Two l_J Pad-Mounted Transformer and Emergency Generator 4TH STREET Gate Block Wall 4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Parking Lot I 0 □ 300,000-Gallon Water AST Pump House LEGEND ----Approximate Site Boundary UST AST Underground Storage Tank Aboveground Storage Tank Figure 4.8-3 Existing and Previous On-Site Uses Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.8-14 Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.8-15 The predecessor to Big Lots (Pic-N-Save) formerly used the southwestern portion of the Project site to fuel, maintain, and wash trucks. The former truck maintenance area was located immediately southwest of the warehouse building and was used during the 1980s and 1990s. This area included a maintenance pit for accessing the underside of vehicle; no underground hydraulic lifts were reported to have been used. Generated waste oil was stored in the USTs discussed above and/or 55-gallon drums stored on the concrete pad. A former truck wash was used to clean vehicles. An underground clarifier was used to separate oils and solvents used in the truck washing activities. Currently, the truck wash is not used, the USTs were removed, and the former truck maintenance area is used for miscellaneous storage. Due to the integrity of the concrete flooring and types of chemicals used (i.e., heavy oils), the former truck maintenance area and former truck wash is not considered an environmental concern. However, since the clarifier is an underground feature, and releases from these types of structures are typically not detected, the clarifier is identified as a REC in the Phase I ESA. Soil sampling and testing were conducted as part of the Subsurface Investigation to determine if elevated concentrations of petroleum hydrocarbons or volatile organic compounds (VOCs) were present in the vicinity of the clarifier. Two soil borings were drilled next to this feature and soil samples were obtained. No soil staining or odors were noted, and no elevated photoionization detector (PID)2 readings were measured. Laboratory results indicated no detectable concentrations of petroleum hydrocarbons and VOCs. Based on this information, there is a low likelihood that elevated concentrations of petroleum hydrocarbons or VOCs are present in the vicinity of the clarifier (Ardent, 2019b). During the site investigation conducted as part of the Subsurface Investigation, a forklift maintenance and forklift battery rack were located in the southwest portion of the warehouse building. The rack is still in place; however, since Big Lots vacated the site, there are no batteries in the rack. Batteries from the forklifts were cleaned in a self-contained battery washer and charged on the Battery Rack. Wastewater was neutralized and discharged to the municipal sewer. When the site investigation for the Phase I ESA was conducted, waste oil was stored in an approximately 100-gallon aboveground storage tank (AST) and three 55-gallon drums stored within secondary containment in the forklift maintenance area. Virgin gear oil, motor oil, and hydraulic oil were stored in three mobile ASTs ranging in size from 100 to 250-gallons. These ASTs are no longer present. Wastes from accidental spillage were also stored in the hazardous waste storage area in the forklift maintenance area. This area consisted of eighteen 55-gallon drums on secondary containment pallets. No staining was noted during the site investigation. Diesel fuel was observed being stored in one 500-gallon aboveground day tank associated with an emergency generator (located immediately south of the warehouse building), and a 290-gallon AST associated with an internal combustion engine associated with a water pump in the pump house (located immediately east of the warehouse building). The pump house is associated with a 300,000-gallon water AST used for emergency fire suppression. Water is obtained from a municipal source. Three pad-mounted electrical transformers were found immediately south and north of the warehouse building. No evidence of leaks was noted. No visual indications of water damage or visible mold 2 A photoionization detector is a type of gas detector. Typical photoionization detectors measure volatile organic compounds and other gases Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.8-16 growth were noted on the structures present on-site. No groundwater wells (i.e., supply wells, monitoring wells, etc.) were found on the site. Historically, PCBs (a group of hazardous substances and suspected human carcinogens) were widely used as an additive in cooling oils for electrical components. Typical sources of PCBs can include electrical transformers. Three pad-mounted electrical transformers were noted immediately south and north of the warehouse building. No evidence of leaks was noted. The manufacture of most ACMs was phased out in the 1970s, ending in 1980. Previously manufactured ACMs that were in stock continued to be used through approximately 1981. Some non-friable ACMs are still manufactured (e.g., roofing mastics). In general, buildings constructed after 1981 have a negligible potential to contain friable ACMs and a low potential for most non-friable ACMs, with the exception of roofing materials. Based on the site-specific Asbestos Sampling Report included in Appendix I3 of this Draft EIR, which presents the results of a comprehensive survey and analytical testing of suspect ACMs, ACMs are not present on-site (Ardent, 2019c). The manufacture of lead- based paint (LBP) was phased out in approximately 1978; therefore, LBP is not likely present at the site (Ardent, 2019a). B. Surrounding Land Uses As previously shown in the aerial photograph presented in Section 4.0.2, Environmental Setting Overview, of this Draft EIR, the Project site is surrounded by roadways and various industrial uses. The former Etiwanda Generating Station and existing SCE Etiwanda Substation are located to the north (across 6th Street), the San Bernardino West Valley Detention Center and industrial uses are located to the east, and industrial/warehouse uses are located to the south (across 4th Street) and to the west. C. Environmental Database Review EDR conducted an environmental database review to support the Phase I ESA. Following is a summary of the results of the EDR review of the data available from various regulatory agencies (federal, tribal, State, and local agency databases). 1. Project Site The Project site is listed on the following databases:  Federal RCRA Generators List identifies the Project site as a small quantity generator of hazardous waste. No violations were noted. Inclusion in this list is for permitting purposes and is not indicative of a release.  State Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) database notes that the Project site contained two former 10,000-gallon diesel USTs and four dispensers, and two clustered 1,000- gallon oil USTs (one waste oil and one virgin oil), all of which were removed in 1998, as discussed above. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.8-17  State UST database identifies the Project site due to the historical USTs (detailed above) formerly located on the property.  California Environmental Report System (CERS) Hazardous Waste database identifies the Project site for a violation in 2015 due to failing to electronically update a business plan outlining particular hazardous wastes noted at the site by an inspector. The database notes that the compliance issue was subsequently fixed.  Enforcement & Compliance History Online (ECHO) database identifies the Project site as Pic-N-Save Distributors. No other information was provided.  Facility Index System Identification Program Summary Report (FINDS) database identifies the Project site as Pic-N-Save Distributors, Sergio’s Pallet Repair, Big Lots Distributor, and West Coast Liquidation. These listings were due to listings on other regulatory databases.  Hazardous Waste Information System (HAZNET) database listed the Project site as Pic- N-Save Distributors and American Pacific Forwarder Inc. in 1985 and 1986, respectively, for oil water separator sludge and unspecified oil-containing wastes. The site was listed as West Coast Liquidation from 1989 to 2017 for wastes such as unspecified aqueous solutions, aqueous solutions with metals, oxygenated solvents, other organic solids, hydrocarbon solvents, and waste oil and mixed oil. Based on the types of wastes listed, most appear to be associated with the former on-site vehicle maintenance and repair, or associated with accidental spillage of damaged goods. Only one event, identified in 2004 indicated wastes containing halogenated solvents (i.e., chlorinated solvents); however, the Phase I ESA concludes that due to this one-time event and type of on-site activities, significant use, handling, or storage of chlorinated solvents is unlikely. The SBCFPD maintained a file for the Project site that mostly contained information regarding fire prevention systems, permits to operate and remove the former USTs, and a list of chemicals used as part of the forklift battery charging station. No information obtained in the file was considered an environmental issue. As discussed previously, former fuel and oil USTs located at the site were removed in 1998 under the direction and oversight of the SBCFPD. Ardent reviewed the UST Closure Report dated November 5, 1998, and concurred with the SBCFPD that no further action is necessary. 2. Surrounding Uses Based on the EDR review of the data available from various regulatory agencies, there were multiple sites identified within the respective search radii (0.25 –-1.0 mile depending on the database). A detailed discussion of these listings is provided in the Phase I ESA provided in Appendix I1 and a summary is provided below. Five facilities were identified in the Calsites database, which is maintained by the California DTSC. Three of the facilities are located over 0.6-mile northwest, east, or southeast of and cross gradient from the site. One of the listed facilities is the Etiwanda Generating Station, located 0.32 mile from the Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.8-18 Project site. This facility was investigated by the DTSC as part of a Corrective Action and issued a NFA letter in December 2011. Another listed facility is located 0.64 mile from the site and is associated with a voluntary cleanup PCBs, lead, cadmium, and motor oil. Based on the distance, type of chemicals, and depth to groundwater, there is a low likelihood that either of these facilities has significantly impacted groundwater beneath the Project site. One adjacent facility is listed twice in the State Solid Waste Landfill Sites (SWIS) database within a one-mile radius of the Project site. The property listed immediately east of the site at 12645 6th Street is listed as an active bio-solid composting facility and is reported to accept 150,000 tons of green materials and sludge per year. Two facilities within the vicinity of the Project site (Ryder Truck Rentals located at 9366 and 9608 Santa Ana Avenue) were listed in the LUST database. The closest listed sites are located approximately 0.31- and 0.37-mile west to northwest of, and southwest of the Project site. Both listings are considered closed cases. 4.8.3 THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE According to Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, a project will normally have a significant adverse environmental impact on hazards and hazardous materials if it will:  Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials.  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.  Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school;  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.  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, result in a safety hazard or people residing or working in the project area.  Impair implementation of, or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.  Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.8-19 4.8.4 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS A. Regulatory Requirements The Project is required to adhere to the following Regulatory Requirements (RRs). RR 8-1 The Project Applicant shall comply with the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, as administered by the U.S. Department of Transportation, which governs the transport of hazardous materials and wastes. Vehicles transporting hazardous materials are required to comply with the regulations, as implemented by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). RR 8-2 The Project Applicant shall comply with the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), the California Hazardous Waste Control Act, and the California Accidental Release Prevention Program, where applicable, which collectively manage the transport, storage, use, and disposal of hazardous materials and wastes. RR 8-3 The Project Applicant shall comply with Section 17.66.040, Hazardous Materials, of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Code to ensure that required information is reported to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, as the regulatory authority. Businesses required by State law to prepare hazardous materials release response plans and Hazardous Materials Inventory Statements shall, upon request, submit copies of these plans, including any revisions, to the Fire Protection District. Underground storage of hazardous materials shall comply with all applicable requirements and shall comply with the procedures for notification outlined in this section. RR 8-4 The Project site is within the Airport Influence Area (AIA) established by the LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ONT ALUCP). Construction activities and future development shall be implemented in compliance with the following applicable requirement identified in the ONT ALUCP:  Real Estate Transaction Disclosure. In compliance with Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for LA/Ontario Airport’s (ONT ALUCP’s) Overflight Policy O2, a Real Estate Transaction Disclosure is required for all development within the Project site. State Law (Business and Professions Code Section 11010) provides the following disclosure language: NOTICE OF AIRPORT IN VICINITY: This property is presently located in the vicinity of an airport, within what is known as an airport influence area. For that reason, the property may be subject to some of the annoyances or inconveniences associated with proximity to airport operations (for example, noise, vibration, or odors). Individual sensitivities to those annoyances can vary from person to person. You may wish to consider what airport annoyances, if any, are associated Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.8-20 with the property before you complete your purchase and determine whether they are acceptable to you. B. Impact Analysis Threshold 8.1 Would the Project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Threshold 8.2 Would the Project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? Implementation of the Project would involve the demolition and removal of existing structures and associated improvements from the Project site and would result in the construction and long-term operation of two high-cube warehouse buildings on the Project site. Were any hazards or hazardous materials to be present on the Project site or any hazardous materials transported to/from, used, or stored on the Project site during construction or long-term operation, the Project would have the potential to expose workers on-site, the public, and/or the environment to a substantial hazard, as discussed below. A. Impact Analysis for RECs and HRECs As previously described, the Project site was historically used for agricultural purposes. However, based on the laboratory results of the soil testing conducted as part of the Subsurface Investigation for soils in the northern portion of the Project site, there are no detectable concentrations of OPPs, and the detectable concentrations of DDE are well below the established EPA Regional Screening Levels for soil for industrial/commercial properties. Based on these results, no human health risk is present. Additionally, since elevated concentrations of agricultural chemicals were not discovered in the northern portion of the site with historical and active agricultural use, it is anticipated that similar, if not lower, concentrations of pesticides exist in the southern and central portion of the Project site. Thus, the on-site agricultural land use would not pose a significant hazard to the public or the environment resulting in a less than significant impact. (Ardent, 2019b; Ardent, 2020) As previously described in subsection 4.8.2, the Project site contained four HRECs – four former USTs, which were removed from the Project in 1998 and do not pose a significant hazard to the public or the environment. Additionally, the Project site contains a former truck maintenance area and former truck wash. Due to the integrity of the concrete flooring, lack of floor drains, and type of chemicals formerly used in this area (i.e., heavy oils), with the exception of the clarifier in the former truck wash area, these facilities would not be considered an environmental concern to the Project site. A small, concrete lined floor drain was identified in the former truck wash, which diverted wastewater to a three-stage clarifier located immediately east of the former truck maintenance area. Since the clarifier is an underground feature, and releases from these types of structures are typically not detected, the clarifier is considered a REC (Ardent, 2019a). The Phase I ESA recommended a limited subsurface investigation be completed. In accordance with the recommendation of the Phase I ESA, soil sampling was conducted as part of a Subsurface Investigation to determine if elevated concentrations of petroleum hydrocarbons or VOCs were present in the vicinity of the clarifier. The laboratory results of Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.8-21 the soil sampling indicated no detectable concentrations of petroleum hydrocarbons and VOCs (Ardent, 2019b). Therefore, the on-site clarifier would not pose a significant hazard to the public or the environment resulting in a less than significant impact. As previously described, the Project site contains a forklift maintenance area and forklift battery rack from the previous use; however, since Big Lots vacated the site, the battery rack does not contain any batteries. Wastewater is neutralized and discharged to the municipal sewer. Waste oil; wastes from accidental spillage; and virgin gear oil, motor oil, and hydraulic oil were stored in ASTs and 55-gallon drums with secondary containment. Diesel fuel was being stored in one 500-gallon aboveground day tank associated with an emergency generator, and ASTs were used in association with facilities in the pump house. Due to the lack of staining or evidence of a release, these areas would not be considered an environmental concern to the site (Ardent, 2019a). Any ASTs would be removed in accordance with State and local regulations (refer to RR 8-1 and RR 8-2) and would not pose a significant hazard to the public or the environment resulting in a less than significant impact. The three pad-mounted electrical transformers located south and north of the warehouse building are also not considered an environmental concern to the site as there was no evidence of leaks during the field investigation (Ardent, 2019a). The on-site electrical transformers would not pose a significant hazard to the public or the environment resulting in a less than significant impact. LBP is not likely present at the site because the on-site buildings were construction in or after 1983; LBP was common in building construction prior to 1978. The manufacture of most ACMs was phased out in the 1970s, ending in 1980; however, previously manufactured ACMs that were in stock continued to be used through approximately 1981 (Ardent, 2019a). Ardent conducted a survey of suspected ACMs on the Project site. Based on the asbestos inspection and analytical testing results, asbestos is not present in suspect materials sampled on the Project site (Ardent, 2019c). Thus, there would be no impacts related to ACMs or LBP. A Vapor Encroachment Condition (VEC) assessment was performed during the Phase I ESA to determine if a vapor intrusion or encroachment conditions exists on or adjoining the Project site based on current or past land uses. The VEC, comprised of Tier 1 Screening, was conducted in accordance with the Standard Guide for Vapor Encroachment Screening on Property Involved in Real Estate Transactions, ASTM E2600-10. Based on the information obtained during the VEC assessment, there is a low likelihood that a VEC exists at the Project site (Ardent, 2019a). Additionally, listed off-site hazardous materials sites identified during the EDR database search would not be considered environmental concerns to the site due to distance, direction, depth to groundwater, type of facility, and/or regulatory status. No impacts would result and no mitigation is required relative to these off-site conditions. B. Impact Analysis for Temporary Construction-Related Activities Heavy equipment (e.g., dozers, excavators, tractors) would be operated on the Project site during construction. This heavy equipment likely would be fueled and maintained by petroleum‐based substances such as diesel fuel, gasoline, oil, and hydraulic fluid, which are considered hazardous if Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.8-22 improperly stored or handled. In addition, materials such as paints, adhesives, solvents, and other substances typically used in building construction would be located on the Project site during construction. Improper use, storage, or transportation of hazardous materials can result in accidental releases or spills, potentially posing health risks to workers, the public, and the environment. This is a standard risk on all construction sites, and there would be no greater risk for improper handling, transportation, or spills associated with the Project than would occur on any other similar construction site. Construction contractors would be required to comply with all applicable federal, State, and local laws and regulations regarding the transport, use, and storage of hazardous construction‐related materials, including but not limited requirements imposed by the EPA, DTSC, and the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). With mandatory compliance with applicable hazardous materials regulations (RR 8-1 and RR 8-2), the Project would not create significant hazard to the public or the environment through routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials during the construction phase. A less than significant impact would occur. Additionally, construction activities would be completed in compliance with applicable regulatory requirements, including the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activity (Construction General Permit). As required, best management practices (BMPs) identified in the Project’s Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to control potential construction-related pollutants would be implemented, as further discussed in Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, of this Draft EIR. C. Impact Analysis for Long-Term Operation Exposure of people or the environment to hazardous materials during operation may result from (1) the improper handling or use of hazardous substances; (2) transportation accidents; or (3) an unforeseen event (e.g., fire, flood, or earthquake). The severity of any such exposure is dependent upon the type and amount of the hazardous material involved; the timing, location, and nature of the event; and the sensitivity of the individuals or environment affected. Operation of the proposed high-cube warehouses would involve the use of materials common to all urban development that are labeled hazardous (e.g., solvents and commercial cleansers; petroleum products; and pesticides, fertilizers, and other landscape maintenance materials). There is the potential for routine use, storage, or transport of other hazardous materials; however, the precise materials are not known, as the tenants of the proposed high-cube warehouses are not yet defined. In the event that hazardous materials, other than those common materials described above, are associated with future high-cube warehouse operations, the hazardous materials would only be stored and transported to and from the building sites. Manufacturing and other chemical processing would not occur within the proposed high-cube warehouse uses. Federal and State Community-Right-to-Know laws allow the public access to information about the amounts and types of chemicals that may be used by businesses on the Project site. Laws also are in place that require businesses to plan and prepare for possible chemical emergencies. Any business that occupies a building on the Project site and that handles/stores substantial quantities hazardous materials (as defined in § 25500 of California Health and Safety Code, Division 20, Chapter 6.95) would require Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.8-23 a permit from the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District and/or SBCFPD, Hazardous Materials Division in order to register the business as a hazardous materials handler. Such businesses also are required to comply with California’s Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans and Inventory Law, which requires immediate reporting to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, SBCFPD, and the State Office of Emergency Services regarding any release or threatened release of a hazardous material, regardless of the amount handled by the business, and prepare a Hazardous Materials Business Emergency Plan (HMBEP). An HMBEP is a written set of procedures and information created to help minimize the effects and extent of a release or threatened release of a hazardous material. A number of existing regulations ensure that hazardous materials/waste users, generators, and transporters provide operational safety and emergency response measures so that no significant threats to public health and safety are created. These include the Hazardous Material Transportation Act, the RCRA, the California Hazardous Waste Control Act, and the California Accidental Release Prevention Program, as previously discussed in subsection 4.8.1, Relevant Policies and Regulations, of this Draft EIR, and included as RR 8-1 and RR 8-2. Also, the City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Code provides standards to ensure that the use, handling, storage, and transportation of hazardous materials comply with all applicable state laws and that appropriate information is reported to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District (refer to RR 8-3). With mandatory regulatory compliance, the Project would not pose a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, storage, emission, or disposal of hazardous materials, nor would the Project increase the potential for accident conditions which could result in the release of hazardous materials into the environment. Based on the foregoing information, potential hazardous materials impacts associated with construction and operation of the Project are regarded as less than significant and no mitigation is required. Impacts 8.1 & 8.2 Due to the lack of contaminants that exceed established standards for commercial/industrial uses, construction of the Project would not result in the exposure of the public to hazardous materials associated with potential RECs. Further, no ACMs or LBP occurs on-site. Construction and operation of the Project would involve handling of hazardous materials in limited quantities and typical to urban environments. Through compliance with existing regulations applicable to the Project (RR 8-1 through RR 8-3) the Project would not pose a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, storage, emission, or disposal of hazardous materials, nor would the Project increase the potential for accident conditions which could result in the release of hazardous materials into the environment. Impacts would be less than significant. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.8-24 Threshold 8.3 Would the Project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? No existing or proposed schools are located within one-quarter mile of the Project site. The nearest school to the Project site is Sacred Heart Parish School, located at 12676 Foothill Boulevard, approximately 1.5 miles north of the Project site. Accordingly, the Project would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, and/or wastes within one- quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. However, Sacred Heart Parish School is located along Foothill Boulevard, which is a City approved truck route, and is anticipated to be used as one of the truck routes for the Project. As described above under the analysis for Thresholds 8.1 and 8.2, the transport of hazardous substances or materials to- and-from the Project site during construction and long-term operational activities, and on-site use of hazardous substance or materials during operations, would be required to comply with applicable federal, State, and local regulations to preclude substantial public safety hazards, resulting in a less than significant impact. Thus, no mitigation is required. Refer to Section 4.2, Air Quality, of this Draft EIR, for analysis pertaining to human health risks associated with air pollutant emissions associated with the Project. As noted in Section 4.2, a Project- specific Health Risk Assessment (HRA) as prepared for the Project, and the Project would not cause a significant human health or cancer risk to school children at the nearest school to the Project site (Sacred Heart Parish School) (Urban Crossroads, 2021). Impact 8.3 The Project would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. Additionally, the Project would not cause a significant human health or cancer risk to school children at the nearest school to the Project site (Sacred Heart Parish School). Threshold 8.4 Would the Project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? Government Code Section 65962.5 requires that the California Department of Toxic Substances Control and the California Water Resources Control Board compile and update a list of hazardous materials sites, including all USTs for which an unauthorized release report is filed. As previously described in Section 4.8.2, Existing Setting, the Project site is located on the State list of UST and LUSTs due to the previous presence of USTs on-site; the USTs were removed in 1998. During removal, no petroleum hydrocarbon staining or odors were noted beneath the USTs, although some petroleum hydrocarbon staining and odors were noted beneath the fuel dispensers. Based on the results of soil sampling and laboratory analysis, the SBCFPD issued an NFA letter (August 6, 1999). Therefore, the former USTs would not be considered an environmental concern to the site (Ardent, 2019a). There would not be a hazard to the public or the environment due to the previous USTs on- site. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.8-25 Impact 8.4 The Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. No impact would occur and no mitigation is required. Threshold 8.5 For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or people residing or working in the project area? The LA/Ontario International Airport is located in the City of Ontario approximately 3.0 miles southwest of the Project site, which is in the AIA established by the ONT ALUCP. The designated Safety Zones include areas surrounding the runways where land use restrictions are established to protect the safety of the public from potential aircraft accidents. As shown on Map 2-2, Compatibility Map: Safety Zones, of the ONT ALUCP, the Project site is located outside these Safety Zones. The Noise Impact Zones are areas where aircraft and airport operations are projected to lead to noise levels of 60 dB CNEL or higher. As shown on Map 2-3, Compatibility Policy Map: Noise Impact Zones, the Project site is located outside the Noise Impact Zones. (Ontario, 2011) Based on review of Figure 4.8-1, which presents Map 2-4, Compatibility Policy Map: Airspace Protection Zones, of the ONT ALUCP, the Project site is within the FAA Height Notification Surface Zone and the southern Project site boundary is very close to the Airspace Obstruction Surface Zone. FAR Part 77, Subpart B, requires that the FAA be notified of any proposed construction or alteration having a height greater than an imaginary surface extending 100 feet outward and 1 foot upward (slope of 100 to 1) for a distance of 20,000 feet from nearest point of any runway. (Ontario, 2011) The Project site is approximately 15,900 feet from the nearest runway resulting in a height limit of approximately 159 feet. The proposed buildings would have a maximum height of 50-feet and would not require FAA notification and would not cause an obstruction for aircraft operations. As shown on Figure 4.8-2, which presents Map 2-5, Compatibility Policy Map: Overflight Notification Zone, of the ONT ALUCP, the Project site is located within the Overflight Notification Zone requiring real estate transaction disclosure. The Real Estate Disclosure Policy (Overflight Policy O2 of the ONT ALUCP) applies to all development within the Project site (refer to RR 8-4). This disclosure informs future property owners and occupants that the property is in the vicinity of an airport, but does not represent a safety hazard. The Project would not result in safety hazards for people residing or working in the Project area. Impacts would be less than significant and mitigation is not required. Impact 8.5 The Project site is within the AIA for the LA/Ontario International Airport and specifically within the FAA Height Notification Surface Zone and near the Airspace Obstruction Surface Zone. The proposed buildings would have a maximum height of 50-feet, would not require FAA notification, and would not cause an obstruction for aircraft operations. The Project site is also with the Overflight Notification Zone. Although no safety hazard would result, the Project would adhere to the requirements of the LA/Ontario International ALUCP related to Real Estate Disclosure Policy. The Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.8-26 Project would not result in safety hazards for people residing or working in the Project area. Impacts would be less than significant and mitigation is not required. Threshold 8.6 Would the Project impair implementation of, or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Emergency response services are provided as a coordinated effort at the federal, State, and local level. The State of California Emergency Plan, which implements emergency response efforts at the State level, requires that all local jurisdictions develop an emergency plan that meets State and federal requirements. As previously discussed, the City EOP was adopted in September 2016 and provides information for individuals to effectively prepare, respond to, and recover from emergency situations associated with natural and man-made disasters, technological incidents, and national security emergencies in both war and peacetime (City of Rancho Cucamonga, 2016). The Project site does not contain any emergency facilities nor does it serve as an emergency evacuation route. During construction and long-term operation, the Project would be required to maintain adequate emergency access for emergency vehicles. As part of the City’s discretionary review process, the City of Rancho Cucamonga reviewed the Project’s application materials to ensure that appropriate emergency ingress and egress would be available to-and-from the Project site and that the Project would not substantially impede emergency response times in the local area. Further, the Project involves construction of a new north-south public roadway connecting 4th Street and 6 th Street along the site’s eastern boundary, which would improve emergency access to and near the Project site. The City’s current Local Hazard Mitigation Plan addresses natural and manmade hazards with the potential to impact the City and its inhabitants and to establish measures to mitigate or reduce future losses associated with these hazards through preparedness, response and recovery provisions (City of Rancho Cucamonga, 2014). As discussed under Thresholds 8.1 and 8.2, the Project would not exacerbate existing hazardous conditions nor would it expose people or structures to areas of known natural or manmade hazards, with the exception of seismic hazards, which is discussed in Section 4.6, Geology and Soils, of this Draft EIR. Therefore, the Project would not interfere with implementation of the Plan. No mitigation is required. Impact 8.6 The Project would not impair implementation of, or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan. No impact would result and no mitigation is required. Threshold 8.7 Would the Project expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires? As shown on Figure PS-1 of the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan, the Project site is located outside all designated fire hazard areas (Rancho Cucamonga, 2010). In addition, according to information published by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CalFire), the Project site is not located in a “Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone” within a Local Responsibility Area (LRA) (CalFire, 2020). The Project site is largely surrounded by development, with no wildland areas in the immediate vicinity. Additionally, the Project site is relatively flat, and is not surrounded by natural vegetation; therefore, the Project site would be not be substantially prone to wildfires. Therefore, the Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.8-27 Project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk associated with wildland fires. No impacts would result and no mitigation is required. Impact 8.7 The Project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires. No impact would occur and no mitigation is required. 4.8.5 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS The cumulative study area associated with hazardous materials is typically site-specific except where past, present, and/or proposed land uses would impact off-site land uses and persons or where past, present, or foreseeable future development in the surrounding area would cumulatively expose a greater number of persons to hazards (e.g., hazardous materials and/or waste contamination). Exposure of the public, including construction workers, to chemical concentrations in on-site soils or building materials is site-specific and not considered in the context of cumulative impacts. However, as discussed under Thresholds 8.1 and 8.2, soil samples were taken and analyzed to determine if previous uses at the Project site, including the on-site clarifier and agricultural operations, pose a hazard to the public. Based on the laboratory testing results, there were no concentrations of chemicals detected that exceed established regulatory standards or that would otherwise pose a hazard to the public. Additionally, there were no ACMs or LBP detected in sample taken from on-site building materials. Although the future occupants of the Project’s proposed buildings are not presently known, if businesses that use or store hazardous materials occupy the Project site, the business owners and operators would be required to comply with all applicable federal, state, and local regulations to ensure proper use, storage, and disposal of hazardous substances. Such uses also would be subject to review and permitting requirements by the City of Rancho Cucamonga or other oversight agencies, as appropriate, as identified in RRs 8-1 through 8-3. Similarly, any other developments in the area proposing the construction of uses with the potential for use, storage, or transport of hazardous materials also would be required to comply with applicable federal, state, and local regulations, and such uses would also be subject to review and permitting requirements by the City of Rancho Cucamonga, City of Ontario, or other oversight agencies, as appropriate. Further, contractors would be required to comply with applicable regulations during construction. Therefore, the potential for release of toxic substances or hazardous materials into the environment, either through accidents or due to routine transport, use, or disposal of such materials, would be less than significant for the Project and development in the surrounding area. Accordingly, the Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact related to hazardous materials. The Project site is not located within one-quarter mile of an existing or planned school. Additionally, as identified in the Project-specific HRA, the Project would not cause a significant human health or cancer risk to school children (Urban Crossroads, 2021). Therefore, the Project would not contribute to a cumulatively significant hazards/hazardous materials impact on any public or private schools located within one-quarter mile of the site. The Project site is located on the State list of LUSTs and USTs due to previous USTs on the site that were removed in 1998 and no further action is required. Additionally, in the unlikely event that, hazardous materials are encountered beneath the surface of the site during grading or construction, the Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.8-28 materials would be handled and disposed of in accordance with regulatory requirements. Therefore, the Project would not contribute to a cumulatively significant hazardous materials impact associated with a listed hazardous materials site. The cumulative study area for aviation hazards is defined as the Airport Influence Area for the LA/Ontario International Airport, as established in the ONT ALUCP (Ontario, 2011). As discussed under Threshold 8.5, the Project would not exceed established height restrictions requiring FAA notification or obstructing aircraft operation, and would be implemented in compliance with the ONT ALUCP (refer to RR 8-4). The Project would not result in impacts related to aviation hazards. Any proposed development within the AIA would also be required to comply with the ONT ALUCP, including but not limited to compliance with FAR 77, Subpart C, which discusses aviation easements, height limitations, and notification of future development near the airport. Therefore, the Project would not result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the Project area and would not contribute to a cumulatively considerable impact associated with airport hazards. The Project site does not contain any emergency facilities nor does it serve as an emergency evacuation route. Further, the Project would involve implementation of roadway and site access improvements and would not impair implementation of, or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan area. Similarly, cumulative development in proximity to the Project area would be required to adhere to emergency access requirements. The Project would not contribute to any cumulative impacts associated with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. As discussed above under Threshold 8.7, the Project site is not located within or in close proximity to areas identified as being subject to wildland fire hazards and would have no potential to contribute to adverse, cumulative wildland fire hazards 4.8.6 MITIGATION MEASURES With adherence to the regulations outlined in RR 8-1 though RR 8-4, impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. 4.8.7 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION Impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials would be less than significant. 4.8.8 REFERENCES Ardent Environmental Group, Inc. (Ardent). 2019a (October 8). Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Big Lots Warehouse 12322 and 12434 East 4th Street Rancho Cucamonga, California. (Included in Appendix I1 of this Draft EIR). ———. 2019b (October 8). Results of a Subsurface Investigation Big Lots Warehouse 12322 and 12434 East 4th Street Rancho Cucamonga, California. (Included in Appendix I2 of this Draft EIR). Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.8-29 ———. 2019c (October 23). Asbestos Sampling Report 12322 and 12434 East 4th Street Rancho Cucamonga, California. (Included in Appendix I3 of this Draft EIR). ———. 2020 (June 17). Clarification Letter Regarding Historical Agricultural Chemicals Big Lots Warehouse 12322 and 12434 East 4th Street Rancho Cucamonga, California. (Included in Appendix I2 of this Draft EIR). California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CalFire). 2020. Fire and Resource Assessment Program (FRAP) Interactive Fire Hazard Severity Zone Viewer. Web. Accessed June 14, 2020. https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/. California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). 2018. Determination of a Southern California Regional Background Arsenic Concentration in Soil. Available at: https://dtsc.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/31/2018/01/Background-Arsenic.pdf Ontario, City of. 2011 (April, adopted). LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. Available at: http://www.ontarioplan.org/alucp-for-ontario-international-airport/ City of Rancho Cucamonga (Rancho Cucamonga). 2010. Rancho Cucamonga General Plan. Web. Available: https://www.cityofrc.us/community-development/planning ———. 2014. City of Rancho Cucamonga Local Hazard Mitigation Plan ———. 2016. Rancho Cucamonga Emergency Operations Plan, Part I – Basic Plan. Urban Crossroads, Inc. 2021a (April 15). Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Mobile Source Health Risk Assessment. (Included in Appendix B2 of this Draft EIR). Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.9-1 4.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY This section identifies and evaluates the Project’s potential to result in adverse hydrology and water quality effects. Information presented in this section is primarily based on the following technical reports. Refer to 4.9.8, References, for a complete list of references. Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan for Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga – 2 Buildings 4th Street Ranch Cucamonga, CA 91730, (Preliminary WQMP) prepared by Thienes Engineering, Inc. (January 8, 2021) and included in Appendix J1 of this Draft EIR. Preliminary Hydrology Calculations for Bridge Point Big Lots, 12434 4th Street Ranch Cucamonga, CA, (Preliminary Hydrology Report) prepared by Thienes Engineering, Inc. (January 20, 2021) and included in Appendix J2 of this Draft EIR. The Preliminary WQMP and Preliminary Hydrology Report are specific to the proposed development site. However, the potential hydrology and water quality impacts associated with construction of the 6th Street at-grade crossing of the BNSF railroad tracks are also addressed in this section, as appropriate. There were no Notice of Preparation (NOP) comment letters received related to hydrology and water quality. 4.9.1 RELEVANT POLICIES AND REGULATIONS A.Federal 1.Clean Water Act The Clean Water Act (CWA) establishes the basic structure for regulating discharges of pollutants into the waters of the United States and regulating quality standards for surface waters. The basis of the CWA was enacted in 1948 and was called the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, but the Act was substantially reorganized and expanded in 1972. "Clean Water Act" became the Act's common name with amendments in 1972. Under the CWA, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has implemented pollution control programs such as setting wastewater standards for the industry and has set water quality standards for all contaminants in surface waters. The CWA made it unlawful to discharge any pollutant from a point source into navigable waters unless a permit was obtained. EPA's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program controls discharges. Point sources are discrete conveyances such as pipes or man-made ditches. Individual homes that are connected to a municipal system, use a septic system, or do not have a surface discharge do not need an NPDES permit; however, industrial, municipal, and other facilities must obtain permits if their discharges go directly to surface waters. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.9-2 B.State 1.Porter-Cologne Water Control Act The Porter-Cologne Act is the principal law governing water quality regulation in California. It establishes a comprehensive program to protect water quality and the beneficial uses of water. The Porter-Cologne Act applies to surface waters, wetlands, and groundwater and both point and nonpoint sources of pollution. The Porter-Cologne Act established nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCB) (based on hydrogeologic barriers) and the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), which are charged with implementing its provisions and which have primary responsibility for protecting water quality in California. The RWQCBs have primary responsibility for individual permitting, inspection, and enforcement actions within each of the nine hydrologic regions. Under the Porter-Cologne Act, the SWRCB and the RWQCBs (1) adopt plans and policies for water quality control; (2) regulate discharges to surface water and groundwater; (3) regulate waste disposal sites; and (4) require the cleanup of discharges of hazardous materials and other pollutants. The Porter- Cologne Act also establishes reporting requirements for unintended discharges of any hazardous substance, sewage, and oil or petroleum products. The Regional Water Boards regulate discharges under the Porter-Cologne Act primarily through the issuance of NPDES permits for point source discharges and waste discharge requirements (WDRs) for NPS discharges. Anyone discharging or proposing to discharge materials that could affect water quality (other than to a community sanitary sewer system regulated by an NPDES permit) must file a report of waste discharge. Each RWQCB has adopted a water quality control plan for its region (known as a Basin Plan) to reflect the policies in the Porter-Cologne Act and other State policies for water quality control. The Basin Plan must conform to the policies set forth in the Porter-Cologne Act and established by the SWRCB in its State Water Policy. The Basin Plan establishes beneficial uses for surface and groundwater in the region and sets forth narrative and numeric water quality standards to protect those beneficial uses. The Basin Plans also include water discharge prohibitions applicable to particular conditions, areas, or types of wastes within the region. The RWQCBs implement the plans by (1) enforcing set discharge limitations; (2) preventing violations of the limitations; and (3) conducting investigations to determine the quality of any “waters of the State”. Civil and criminal penalties are imposed on persons who violate the requirements of the Porter-Cologne Act or any SWRCB/RWQCB order. The Project site is located in the Santa Ana River Basin, which is within the purview of Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). Santa Ana’s RWQCB’s Santa Ana River Basin Water Quality Control Plan is the governing water quality plan for the region, and is further discussed below. 2.California Toxics Rule (CTR) The California Toxics Rule (CTR) fills gaps in California’s water quality standards necessary to protect human health and aquatic life beneficial uses. The CTR criteria are similar to those published in the National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. The CTR supplements, and does not change or supersede, the criteria that EPA promulgated for California waters in the National Toxics Rule (NTR). The human health NTR and CTR criteria that apply to drinking water sources (those water bodies Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.9-3 designated in the Basin Plans as municipal and domestic supply) consider chemical exposure through consumption of both water and aquatic organisms (fish and shellfish) harvested from the water. For waters that are not drinking water sources (e.g., enclosed bays and estuaries), human health NTR and CTR criteria only consider the consumption of contaminated aquatic organisms. The CTR and NTR criteria, along with the beneficial use designations in the Basin Plans and the related implementation policies, are the directly applicable water quality standards for toxic priority pollutants in California waters. 3. Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) On September 16, 2014, Governor Jerry Brown signed into law the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA). The 2014 SGMA requires local public agencies and Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs) in “high-” and “medium”-priority basins to develop and implement Groundwater Sustainability Plans (GSPs) or Alternatives to GSPs (DWR, 2020a). GSPs are detailed road maps for how groundwater basins will reach long-term sustainability. 4. Senate Bill 610 In 2001, Senate Bill (SB) 610 amended the California Public Resources Code to improve the link between information on water supply availability and certain land use decisions made by Cities and Counties. Under SB 610 (codified in the California Water Code beginning at Section 10910), unless the project is otherwise exempt, a Water Supply Assessment (WSA) must be furnished to cities and counties for inclusion in the environmental documentation of certain projects (as defined in the California Water Code), and these WSAs are subject to CEQA. SB 610 requires land use planning entities when evaluating certain large development projects, to request a water supply availability assessment from the entity that would provide water to the project. A WSA must be prepared in conjunction with the land use approval process associated with a project. In summary, a WSA must include an evaluation of the sufficiency of the water supplies available to the water supplier to meet existing and anticipated future demands (including the demand associated with the project) over a 20- year horizon that includes normal, single-dry, and multiple-dry years. A WSA is required for any “project” that is subject to CEQA and meets certain criteria relative to size (e.g., a proposed industrial, manufacturing, or processing plant or industrial park planned to house more than 1,000 persons, occupying more than 40 acres of land, or having more than 650,000 square feet of floor area). As required a Project-specific WSA has been prepared for the Project and is included in Appendix M of this Draft EIR. SB 610 also requires information to be included as part of a UWMP if groundwater is identified as a source of water available to the supplier. The information must include a description of all water supply projects and programs that may be undertaken to meet total projected water use. SB 610 prohibits eligibility for funds from specified bond acts until the plan is submitted to the State. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.9-4 C.Regional 1.National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Program As discussed above, the NPDES permit program stems from the federal Clean Water Act. In the State of California, this program is administered by the nine RWQCBs, which have the mandate to develop and enforce water quality objectives and implementation plans within their regions. If discharges from industrial, municipal, and other facilities go directly to surface waters, those project applicants must obtain permits from the applicable RWQCB. An individual NPDES permit is specifically tailored to a facility. A general NPDES permit covers multiple facilities within a specific activity category such as construction activities. As previously identified, the City of Rancho Cucamonga, including the Project site, is located within the jurisdiction of the Santa Ana RWQCB (Region 8). Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System Permit In 2002, the Santa Ana RWQCB issued an NPDES Stormwater Permit and Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) (Order No. R8-2002-0012) under the CWA and the Porter-Cologne Act for discharges of stormwater runoff, snowmelt runoff, surface runoff, and drainage in the Upper Santa Ana River Watershed in San Bernardino and Riverside Counties. This permit expired on April 27, 2007, and was administratively extended. On January 29, 2010, the RWQCB adopted Order No. R8-2010- 0036 (NPDES No. CAS618036), which renewed the NPDES Permit for San Bernardino County. This permit expired on January 29, 2015. On August 1, 2014, the San Bernardino County Flood Control District submitted a Report of Waste Discharge (ROWD) on behalf of San Bernardino County and 16 incorporated cities within San Bernardino County, which serves as the permit renewal for the NPDES permit. The City of Rancho Cucamonga is subject to the waste discharge requirements of the NPDES Permit for San Bernardino County. The County and incorporated Cities in the County are co-permittees under the NPDES permit and have legal authority to enforce the terms of the permit in their jurisdictions. The ultimate goal of the NPDES Permit and the related urban stormwater management program is to protect the beneficial uses of the receiving waters. To implement the requirements of the permit, the County developed guidelines to control and mitigate stormwater quality and quantity impacts to receiving waters as a result of new development and redevelopment. The guidelines require individual development projects to prepare and implement Water Quality Management Plans (WQMPs) that identify post-construction BMPs to reduce discharges of pollutants into stormwater. The MS4 Permit also requires priority projects to identify Hydrologic Conditions of Concern (HCOCs) associated with a Project. 2.Stormwater Quality Requirements In compliance with the NDPES permit, the San Bernardino County Department of Public Works’ Stormwater Program contains guidelines for the preparation of Water Quality Management Plans (WQMPs) by new development and major redevelopment projects of specific land uses and sizes. The Technical Guidance Document for Water Quality Management Plans (TGD) became effective in September 2013 (CDM Smith, 2013). A WQMP is required as part of the permit process and commits the developer to the implementation of long-term BMPs. Individual WQMPs need to identify Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.9-5 pollutants of concern based on the proposed land use and site activities, and select applicable site design, source control, and treatment control BMPs that would effectively prohibit non-stormwater discharges from entering the storm drain system and that would reduce the discharge of pollutants from stormwater conveyance systems to the maximum extent possible. The WQMP also calls for the on-site retention of stormwater to prevent HCOC—including flooding, erosion, scour, sedimentation, natural habitats, vegetation stress, slope stability, water quality degradation, and altered flow regime at downstream water channels/bodies—if the facilities have not been engineered to their ultimate capacities or if natural conditions are present. 3.Construction General Permit Pursuant to CWA Section 402(p), which requires regulations for permitting of certain stormwater discharges, the SWRCB issued a statewide general NPDES Permit for stormwater discharges from construction-sites1, herein referred to as the “Construction General Permit”. Under the Construction General Permit, stormwater discharges from construction-sites with a disturbed area of one or more acres are required to either obtain individual NPDES permits for stormwater discharges or to be covered by the Construction General Permit. Coverage under the Construction General Permit is accomplished by filing the Permit Registration Documents, which include a Notice of Intent (NOI), Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), and other compliance-related documents required by the General Permit. All these documents must be electronically submitted to the SWRCB for General Permit coverage. The primary objectives of the SWPPP are (1) to help identify the sources of sediment and other pollutants that affect the quality of stormwater discharges and (2) to describe and ensure the implementation of BMPs to reduce or eliminate sediment and other pollutants in stormwater discharges and authorized non-stormwater discharges from the construction-site. The SWPPP also outlines the monitoring and sampling program required for the construction-site to verify compliance with discharge Numeric Action Levels (NALs) set by the Construction General Permit. 4.Industrial General Permit The Industrial General Permit (Order No. 2014-0057 DWQ) became effective on July 1, 2015, and is an NPDES permit regulating discharges of stormwater associated with industrial activities, including those generated by the following: Facilities subject to stormwater effluent limitations guidelines, new source performance standards, or toxic pollutant effluent standards Manufacturing facilities 1 NPDES No. CAS000002, Water Quality Order 2009-0009-DWQ, SWRCB NPDES General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction Activity (adopted by the SWRCB on September 2, 2009, and effective on July 1, 2010). This order was amended by 2010-0014-DWQ, which became effective on February 14, 2011, and 2012-0006-DWQ, which became effective on July 17, 2012. In accordance with the language set forth in Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ, this permit has been administratively extended indefinitely. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.9-6 Oil and gas/mining facilities Landfills and open dumps that receive industrial waste and land application-sites Hazardous waste treatment, storage, or disposal facilities Recycling facilities Steam electric generating facilities Transportation facilities Sewage or wastewater treatment works This permit does not cover discharges from construction activities (which are covered under the Construction General Permit) but includes authorized non-stormwater discharges, such as fire hydrant and fire prevention or response system flushing; potable water sources (including potable water related to the operation, maintenance, or testing of potable water systems); drinking fountain water (including atmospheric condensates such as refrigeration, air conditioning, and compressor condensate); irrigation drainage and landscape watering; uncontaminated natural springs; seawater infiltration where the sea waters are discharged back into the seawater source; and incidental windblown mist from cooling towers. Other industrial discharges that are not covered by separate NPDES permits require individual NPDES permits or Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs); WDRs are discussed below. To obtain coverage under the Industrial General Permit, the facility operator must submit an NOI for each industrial facility, along with a site-specific SWPPP that identifies BMPs to reduce pollutants in the stormwater per the provisions of the General Industrial Permit. The permit identifies conditional exclusions for certain facilities that may obtain No Exposure Certification (NEC) coverage; requires electronic reporting via the Stormwater Multiple Application and Report Tracking System (SMARTS); sets training qualifications for dischargers; includes requirements for the design storm standards for treatment-control BMPs, and establishes stormwater monitoring and sampling protocols. Also, it requires compliance with NAL; preparation of Exceedance Response Actions when a NAL is exceeded; and monitoring for 303(d) impairments when the facility contributes runoff to the impaired water body. Annual evaluation of the facility and regular monitoring of BMPs are also required and must be submitted/reported to the SWRCB. On November 6, 2018 the State Water Board amended the Industrial General Permit Order 2014-0057- DWQ (as amended by Order 2015-0122-DWQ) to incorporate the following requirements: (1) federal sufficiently sensitive test method ruling; TMDL implementation requirements; and, Statewide compliance options incentivizing on-site or regional stormwater capture and use. The new requirements became effective on July 1, 2020. 5.Basin Plans As further discussed in Section 4.9.2, stormwater runoff from the Project site would enter Day Creek, and then flow to Cucamonga Creek Reach 1; Mill Creek (Prado Area); Chino Creek, Reach 1A; Santa Ana River, Reach 3; Prado Dam; Santa Ana River, Reach 2; Santa Ana River, Reach 1; and ultimately the Pacific Ocean. The Water Quality Control Plan for the Santa Ana River Basin (Santa Ana Basin Plan) identifies the beneficial uses and water quality objectives for the Project site’s receiving water bodies. Water bodies that do not meet established water quality standards are considered “impaired” Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.9-7 under Section 303(d) of the federal Clean Water Act, and responsible RWQCBs are required to develop Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for the impairing pollutant(s). A TMDL is an estimate of the total load of pollutants from point, nonpoint, and natural sources that a water body may receive without exceeding applicable water quality standards (with a “factor of safety”). Once established, the TMDL is allocated among current and future pollutant sources that discharge to the water body. TMDLs must consider and include allocations to both point sources and nonpoint sources of listed pollutants. The receiving waters for runoff from the Project site and their associated beneficial uses and 303(d) impairments are identified in Table 4.9-1, Receiving Water for Urban Runoff from the Project Site. As shown, Cucamonga Creek, Reach 1; Mill Creek (Prado Area); Chino Creek, Reach 1A; Santa Ana River, Reach 3; and Prado Dam are impaired for a number of pollutants. Table 4.9-1 Receiving Water for Urban Runoff from the Project Site Receiving Water Beneficial Uses 303(d) Impairment Applicable TMDL Day Creek MUN, PROC, GWR, REC1, REC2, COLD, WILD – – Cucamonga Creek Reach 1 GWR, REC2, LWRM, WILD Cadmium, Copper, Lead, and Zinc High Coliform Count Mill Creek (Prado Area) REC1, REC2, WARM, WILD, RARE Indicator Bacteria, Nutrients and Total Suspended Solids (TSS) Pathogens Chino Creek Reach 1A REC1, REC2, WARM, WILD, RARE Indicator Bacteria and Nutrients Pathogens Santa Ana River Reach 3 AGR, GWR, REC1, REC2, WARM, WILD, RARE, SPWN Copper, Indicator Bacteria and Lead Pathogens and Nitrate Prado Dam – pH Pathogens Santa Ana River Reach 2 AGR, GWR, REC1, REC2, WARM, WILD, RARE, SPWN1 – – Santa Ana River Reach 1 REC1, REC2, WARM2, WILD2 –– TMDL: Total Maximum Daily Load; GWR: Groundwater Recharge; REC1: Water Contact Recreation; REC2: Non-Contact Water Recreation; LWRM: Limited Warm Freshwater Habitat; WILD: Wildlife Habitat; WARM: Warm Freshwater Habitat; RARE: Rare, Threatened, or Endangered Species; AGR: Agricultural Supply; TSS: total suspended solids, SPWN: Spawning 1. SPWN only from Prado Dam to 0.6 miles downstream of the State Route 90 (Imperial Highway) Bridge 2. Intermittent Beneficial Use Source: (Thienes, 2021a), (RWQCB, 2019) The definitions of the beneficial uses applicable to the receiving water bodies identified in Table 4.9- 1 are as follows: Agricultural Supply (AGR) waters are used for farming, horticulture, or ranching. These uses may include, but are not limited to, irrigation, stock watering, and support of vegetation for range grazing. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.9-8 Groundwater Recharge (GWR) waters are used for natural or artificial recharge of groundwater for purposes that may include, but are not limited to, future extraction, maintaining water quality, or halting saltwater intrusion into freshwater aquifers. Water Contact Recreation (REC1) waters are used for recreational activities involving bodily contact with water where ingestion of water is reasonably possible. These uses may include, but are not limited to, swimming, wading, water-skiing, skin and scuba diving, surfing, whitewater activities, fishing, and use of natural hot springs. Non-Contact Water Recreation (REC2) waters are used for recreational activities involving proximity to water, but not normally involving bodily contact with water where ingestion of water would be reasonably possible. These uses may include, but are not limited to, picnicking, sunbathing, hiking, beachcombing, camping, boating, tide pool and marine life study, hunting, sightseeing and aesthetic enjoyment in conjunction with the above activities. Warm Freshwater Habitat (WARM) waters support warm water ecosystems that may include, but are not limited to, preservation and enhancement of aquatic habitats, vegetation, fish, and wildlife (including invertebrates). Limited Warm Freshwater Habitat (LWRM) waters support warm water ecosystems that are severely limited in diversity and abundance as the result of concrete-lined watercourses and low, shallow, dry weather flows that result in extreme temperature, pH levels (hydrogen potential), and/or dissolved oxygen conditions. Naturally reproducing fish populations are not expected to occur in LWRM waters. Wildlife Habitat (WILD) waters support wildlife habitats that may include, but are not limited to, the preservation and enhancement of vegetation and prey species used by waterfowl and other wildlife. Spawning (SPWN) waters support high quality aquatic habitats necessary for reproduction and early development of fish and wildlife. Rare, Threatened, or Endangered Species (RARE) waters support the habitats necessary for the survival and successful maintenance of plant or animal species designated under State or federal law as Rare, Threatened, or Endangered. D.Local 1.Rancho Cucamonga General Plan The Resource Conservation Chapter guides the preservation, protection, conservation, re-use, replenishment, and efficient use of Rancho Cucamonga’s limited natural resources, including water. The Water Resources section of this Chapter of the General Plan addresses water supply and water conservation (discussed in Section 4.15, Utilities and Services Systems, of this Draft EIR), and watershed quality (addressed in this section). Based on review of Figure RC-3, Water Resources, of Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.9-9 the General Plan, the Project site is located in the Chino Groundwater Basin but is not in a recharge basin or spreading grounds, and does not include any waterways. The Etiwanda Creek Recharge Basin is located west of the Project site (east of I-15), and Etiwanda Creek is located east of the Project site, east of Etiwanda Avenue (Rancho Cucamonga, 2010a). The consistency of the Project with General Plan goals and policies related to hydrology and water quality is discussed in Section 4.10, Land Use and Planning, of this Draft EIR. 2. NPDES Location Implementation Plan (LIP) The framework that provides the foundation for implementation of the MS4 Permit requirements is described in the Municipal Stormwater Management Plan (MSWMP). The City of Rancho Cucamonga LIP was adopted in July 2011 and last updated in February 2019, as required by the MS4 Permit (Sections III.A.2.a; III.B1). The LIP describes how the City implements the requirements of the MS4 Permit within its own jurisdiction. Accordingly, the MSWMP and the LIP are the principal documents that comprehensively translate the MS4 Permit requirements into actions that manage water quality in the local MS4 (Rancho Cucamonga, 2019). 3. Stormwater and Urban Runoff Management and Discharge Control Ordinance The City’s Stormwater and Urban Runoff Management and Discharge Control Ordinance (Chapter 19.20 of the Municipal Code) was adopted to comply with the CWA, the Porter-Cologne Act, and the City’s NPDES MS4 Permit. The ordinance sets regulations to protect and enhance the water quality in water bodies, water courses, and wetlands in the City. The regulations address connections to the City’s MS4 system, protection of the MS4 system, prohibited discharges, compliance with NPDES permits, implementation of BMPs, spill containment, required notification of accidental discharges, and property owner responsibility for illegal discharges. This ordinance also includes requirements for the protection of the storm drainage system, non- stormwater and stormwater discharges from construction activities, and the preparation of WQMPs that identify permanent BMPs in new development and major redevelopment projects. With respect to the preparation of WQMPs, prior to the issuance of any grading or building permit, all qualifying land development/redevelopment projects are required to submit a WQMP to the City Engineer, on a form provided by the city, for City review and approval. 4.9.2 EXISTING SETTING A. Regional Watershed Runoff from the City drains into the San Sevaine Creek, Etiwanda Creek, Day Creek, Deer Creek and Cucamonga Creek before entering Reach 3 of the Upper Santa Ana River, which is the segment located between Prado Dam and Mission Boulevard in Riverside County (RWQCB, 2019). The Project site is located at the eastern boundary of the San Sevaine Watershed, which is part of the larger Santa Ana River Watershed; however, as noted above, stormwater flows from the Project site enter the Day Creek Watershed to the east. The Santa Ana River Watershed covers 2,650 square miles of portions of San Bernardino, Orange, Los Angeles, and Riverside counties. The Santa Ana River flows for over 100 Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.9-10 miles southwesterly from the ridgeline of the San Bernardino Mountains toward the Pacific Ocean. Figure 4.9-1, Santa Ana River Watershed Map, shows the site’s location in the watershed. B.Project Site and Local Drainage Figure 4.9-2, Existing Conditions Hydrology Map, depicts the existing drainage conditions within and surrounding the Project site. Under existing conditions, the Project site consists of approximately 70 percent impervious surfaces. There is an undeveloped area (former vineyard) in the northern portion of the Project site, and an existing gravel lot used for trailer parking south of the undeveloped area. These areas (nodes 100 and 111 on Figure 4.9-2) drain southerly to a gutter and ultimately to a corrugated metal pipe (CMP) riser located near the southeast corner of the gravel parking lot (at node 112). Here, an existing storm drain system conveys runoff southerly through the easterly portion of the existing commercial development to the south (Thienes, 2021b). Flow from the land northeast of the railroad spur and the easterly half of the existing warehouse building, parking lots and truck yard drain to several catch basins along the easterly portion of the Project site (nodes 120-128). Runoff to these catch basins drain to the previously mentioned storm drain. The storm drain system continues south then west around the existing building. Here, portions of the southerly parking lot are tributary to the storm drain system (at node 129). The storm drain continues westerly and confluences with another existing storm drain (described below). Runoff from existing parking lots north of the warehouse building, the westerly half of the building and existing westerly drive aisle (nodes 140-149) are collected in catch basins north and west of the existing building. An existing storm drain system conveys this runoff southerly to the previously mentioned storm drain system (at node 149). An additional parking area is tributary at an existing catch basin at this location. The storm drain continues southerly and collects runoff from the smaller building located at the southwest corner of the Project site. The total 100-year existing condition 100-year peak flow rate in the existing on-site storm drain system is approximately 178.9 cubic feet per second (cfs) (Thienes, 2021b). The landscaped areas adjacent to 4th Street, an existing parking lot and the easterly drive aisle (nodes 160-161, 170-171 and 180-181) discharge to 4th Street via sheet flow or a parkway culvert to 4 th Street. The total 100-year peak flow rate for these individual areas is approximately 18.5 cfs (Thienes, 2021b). The existing on-site storm drain system connects to the back of an existing catch basin on 4th Street. Runoff continues southerly under 4th Street in a double 7-foot wide by 3-foot high reinforced concrete box (RCB) to the existing City of Ontario storm drain system. The overall 100-year peak flow rate from the Project site to the double box culvert is approximately 197.4 cfs (direct sum of 178.9 cfs and 18.5 cfs.) (Thienes, 2021b) With respect to the 6th Street/railroad area, flows east of the railroad continue southerly towards 4th Street and runoff from the west of the railroad reaches 6th Street and flows westerly in 6th Street. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report Source(s): ESRI, RCTLMA (2019) 0 1.75 3.5 7 ---Miles Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga 4. 9 Hydrology and Water Quality Figure 4. 9-l Santa Ana River Watershed Map SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.9-11 Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report Source(s): Thienes Engineering, Inc. (01-20-2021) Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga I 3.15 AC. �c:::rt.e��� ..,.._�1-t--_L _ --- I 5.35 AC. I I 2.70 AC. I I 2.50 AC. I LEGEND ---PROJECT BOUNDARY SUBAREA BOUNDARY FLOW LINE I 9. 7 O AC. I SUBAREA AREA G NOOE NUMBER ,, I I I I I 2.95 AC. I I 5.10 AC. I 4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality Figure 4. 9-2 Existing Conditions Hydrology Map SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.9-12 Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.9-13 C. Groundwater The Project site is located within the Chino Groundwater Basin (Basin). As further discussed in Section 4.15 of this Draft EIR, the Chino Basin Watermaster is a public agency that was created to monitor and sustainably manage the Chino Groundwater Basin, coordinating the quantity of water from the Chino Basin that each user pumps from the ground. Groundwater was not encountered at any of the borings conducted during preparation of the Geotechnical Investigation, which extended to depths of up to 25 feet below the ground surface. According to data from the nearest monitoring well located approximately 8,484 feet south of the Project site, groundwater is estimated to occur approximately 283 feet below the ground surface of the Project site. (SCG, 2020) D. Water Quality Under existing conditions, exposed soils at the Project site primarily include the undeveloped northern area, and landscaped areas throughout the site, including along 4th Street. As discussed above, existing runoff from the Project site is conveyed southerly to an existing public storm drain in 4th Street. Stormwater runoff from the Project site and the study area for the 6th Street at-grade crossing of the railroad tracks, is not subject to water quality treatment required by current regulations. Existing runoff can be expected to include typical urban pollutants such as oil, grease, metals, pathogens, trash, and sediment from paved areas as well as pesticides, herbicides, and nutrients from routine landscape maintenance activities. 4.9.3 THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE According to Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, a project will normally have a significant adverse environmental impact on hydrology and water quality if it will:  Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality.  Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin.  Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would: i) Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site; iii) Create or contribute runoff which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.9-14 iv) Impede or redirect flood flows.  In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation.  Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan. 4.9.4 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS A. Regulatory Requirements The Project is required to adhere to following regulatory requirements (RRs). RR 9-1 The Property Owner/Developer shall comply with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction Activity (Construction General Permit) applicable at the time a grading permit is issued. The Property Owner/Developer shall prepare and implement a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), which must include erosion- and sediment-control Best Management Practices (BMPs) that will meet or exceed measures required by the determined risk level of the Construction General Permit, as well as BMPs that control the other potential construction-related pollutants. A Construction-site Monitoring Program that identifies monitoring and sampling requirements during construction is a required component of the SWPPP. Evidence of compliance with the NPDES Construction General Permit shall be provided to the City’s Building and Safety Services Director prior to issuance of a grading permit. RR 9-2 The Property Owner/Developer shall comply with Section 19.20.260, Water Quality Management Plan, of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code, which requires that all qualifying land development/redevelopment projects submit and have approved a water quality management plan (WQMP) to the City Engineer on a form provided by the City. The WQMP shall identify all BMPs to be incorporated into the Project to control stormwater and non-stormwater pollutants during and after construction. RR 9-3 The Property Owner/Developer shall comply with Chapter 19.20 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code, which is the City’s Stormwater and Urban Runoff Management and Discharge Control Ordinance and which provides regulations to comply with the Clean Water Act (CWA), the California Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, and the NPDES permit for San Bernardino County. This ordinance prohibits the discharge of specific pollutants into the stormwater; regulates connections to the storm drain system; and requires development projects to implement permanent BMPs on individual sites to reduce pollutants in the stormwater. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.9-15 B. Impact Analysis Threshold 9.1 Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? 1. Construction-Related Water Quality Impacts Surface Water Quality Construction of the Project would involve demolition, clearing, grading, paving, utility installation, building construction, and landscaping activities, which have the potential to generate sediment/silt, debris, organic waste, chemicals, paints, and other solvents. As such, short-term water quality impacts have the potential to occur during Project construction in the absence of any protective or avoidance measures. Construction-related activities that are primarily responsible for sediment releases are related to exposing previously stabilized soils to potential mobilization by rainfall/runoff and wind. Such activities include removing vegetation from the site, grading the site, and trenching for infrastructure improvements. The Project could also result in temporary impacts to surface water quality from other construction-related activities (e.g., erosion, spills, and leaks due to construction equipment). Spills or leaks from heavy equipment and machinery, construction staging areas, or building sites can enter the runoff and typically include petroleum products such as fuel, oil and grease, and heavy metals. In addition, pollutants that are also of concern during construction relate to construction materials and non-stormwater flows and generally include construction materials (e.g., paint and stucco); chemicals and other liquid products used in building construction or the maintenance of heavy equipment; and concrete and related cutting or curing residues. As shown in Table 4.9-1, receiving waters for the Project site (Cucamonga Creek Reach 1, Mill Creek (Prado Area); Chino Creek Reach 1A; Santa Ana River Reach 3, and Prado Dam are impaired by various pollutants. Pollutants of concern from construction-sites could impact these downstream water bodies, and have the potential to contribute to the existing impairments. Without appropriate stormwater management, construction-site runoff would enter adjacent storm drain lines and would contribute to pollutants in the stormwater. The CWA establishes a framework for regulating potential water quality impacts from construction activities through the NPDES program. The Project would be required to comply with RR 9-1, which requires compliance with requirements and water quality standards outlined in the Construction General Permit. This permit requires the discharger to perform a risk assessment for the proposed development (with different requirements based upon the determined risk level for sediment transport and receiving water risk) and to prepare and implement an SWPPP, which must include erosion control and sediment control BMPs, wind and water tracking controls, hazardous material management practices, and other site-management BMPs that meet or exceed measures required by the determined risk level of the Construction General Permit. The BMPs that are most often used during construction include watering of exposed soils; covering soil stockpiles; stabilizing construction entrances; installing sandbag or gravel bag berms to minimize off-site runoff; creating temporary desilting basins, and timing grading to avoid the rainy season. A Construction-site Monitoring Program that identifies monitoring and sampling requirements implemented by a Qualified SWPPP Practitioner during construction is also a requirement of the SWPPP, for applicable projects, including the proposed Project. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.9-16 Erosion control BMPs are designed to prevent erosion, whereas sediment controls are designed to trap or filter sediment once it has been mobilized. In addition to erosion and sediment control BMPs, BMPs that would be implemented during construction of the Project include, but are not limited to: waste and materials management, non-stormwater management, training and education, inspections, maintenance, and visual monitoring and reporting. The BMPs would be implemented in compliance with the Construction General Permit Risk Level 1 requirements. The construction-phase BMPs would ensure effective control of not only sediment discharge, but also of pollutants associated with sediments (e.g., nutrients, heavy metals, and certain pesticides, including legacy pesticides). Also, compliance with Best Available Technology Economically Achievable and Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology (BAT/BCT) requires that BMPs used to control construction water quality impacts are updated over time as new water quality control technologies are developed and become available for use. Therefore, compliance with the BAT/BCT performance standard ensures mitigation of construction water quality impacts over time. It should be noted that construction activities for the 6th Street at-grade crossing would not involve construction activities on more than 1.0 acre (the study area for this off-site improvement is approximately 0.2-acre) and therefore would not be required to comply with requirements and water quality standards set forth in the current NPDES permit regulations (i.e., processing through the SWRCB is not required). However, it would comply with the MS4 permit, which requires the contractor to prepare a SWPPP, and implement identified erosion control BMPs during construction. Compliance with the requirements of the NPDES Construction General Permit (refer to RR 9-1), and/or Chapter 19.20 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code, (Stormwater and Urban Runoff Management and Discharge Control Ordinance) (refer to RR 9-3), including preparation of an SWPPP, would ensure impacts from the Project to receiving waters from stormwater and non-stormwater discharges during construction are less than significant. Groundwater Quality The Project site is located within the Chino Groundwater Basin (Basin). Construction of the Project may include excavation depths of up to 26-feet below the ground surface (bgs). As such, excavation activities associated with the Project would not extend to depths where groundwater could be encountered, and construction activities would not impact groundwater quality. 2. Post-Development Water Quality Impacts Surface Water Quality As previously discussed, under existing conditions the Project site consists of approximately 70 percent impervious surfaces associated with the existing retail and warehouse uses. The Project would include redevelopment of the site with two high-cube warehouse buildings, and impervious surfaces would be increased to approximately 95 percent (Thienes, 2021a). The Project would include impervious surfaces associated with buildings, parking areas, trash collection areas, and loading docks, and include outdoor activities associated with operations that may lead to release of pollutants (e.g., metals, oil and Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.9-17 grease, trash and debris and pathogens [bacteria/viruses]) into stormwater. In addition, maintenance of landscaped areas may potentially contribute to nutrients, noxious aquatic plans, sediment/TSS/pH, trash & debris, pesticides/herbicides, organic compounds (including solvents), and oxygen demanding compounds that may enter stormwater. These pollutants may lead to the degradation of stormwater quality in downstream water bodies. Pollutant concentrations in urban runoff are extremely variable and are dependent on storm intensity, land use, elapsed time since previous storms, and the volume of runoff generated in an area that reaches receiving waters. As such, potential water quality impacts are related to the increase in the peak runoff, new urban uses, and the sensitivity of the receiving water. The primary receiving waters for runoff from the Project site are identified in Table 4.9-1, and as noted above, some of the receiving waters are impaired. Stormwater runoff from the Project has the potential to add to these impairments during operation. The Pollutants of Concern (POCs) for the Project include pathogens, nutrients, and metals (Thienes, 2021a). The Project would be required to comply with the applicable MS4 Permit, which specifies requirements for managing runoff water quality from new development and significant redevelopment projects. The Project qualifies as a Priority Project; thus, a Project-specific WQMP must be prepared (refer to RR 9-2). A Preliminary WQMP has been prepared for the Project, including proposed Street A, and is included in Appendix J1 of this Draft EIR. The WQMP would be finalized based on the final design, before approval of future grading permits. It should be noted that there are no receiving waters with an HCOC; therefore, HCOC pre‐ and post‐development hydrologic calculations are not required in the WQMP. As described in Section 3.0, Project Description, and shown on the preliminary drainage and BMP map provided on Figure 3-17, Preliminary Drainage and BMP Map, the Preliminary WQMP identifies that prior to stormwater being discharged in the existing off-site public storm drain system, roof and surface stormwater runoff would be conveyed to on-site subsurface retention systems for water quality treatment. These systems would utilize infiltration as their primary form of treatment (the systems store stormwater runoff until it gradually exfiltrates into the underlying soil). Pollutant removal occurs through the infiltration of runoff and the adsorption of pollutants into the soil. This practice has high pollutant removal efficiency. The subsurface retention systems for each drainage management area (DMA) have been designed to meet runoff volume requirements established by the San Bernardino County Stormwater Program for water quality control (LID design capture volume [DCV]). No further site design source control BMPs are required (Thienes, 2021a). Additionally, non-structural BMPs that would be implemented as part of the Project include, but are not limited to, education for property owners, tenants, and employees; activity restrictions; landscape management; BMP maintenance; compliant with the local water ordinance; spill contingency plan; uniform fire code implementation; litter/debris control program; employee training; housekeeping of loading docks; catch basin inspection; vacuum sweeping of private streets and parking lots; and compliance with all other applicable NPDES permits. Structural source-control BMPs would include storm drain system stenciling and signage; design and construction of trash and waste storage to reduce Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.9-18 pollution introduction; and use of efficient irrigation systems and landscape design, water conservation, smart controllers, and source control. Under post-development conditions, approximately 1.30 acres from the southerly landscaped area fronting 4th Street and northerly landscaped area fronting 6th Street, would sheet flow off-site. This is less than the approximate 5.05 acres draining to 4th Street under existing conditions. These areas are considered self‐treating and would not be routed to the underground retention system for treatment. Additionally, the Project site would utilize the maximum extent practicable (MEP) principle in order to treat disturbed public right‐of‐way (ROW) impervious areas on-site. This area is approximately 0.18 acres (minor driveway/street improvements along 4th Street and 6th Street) and is included along with the on-site DCV. (Thienes, 2021a). Further, pursuant to the San Bernardino County TGD (Appendix A, Transportation Project BMP Guidance and Template), the 6th Street at-grade crossing of the railroad tracks does not require implementation of BMPs due to the limited scope of the Project (CDM Smith, 2013). With the implementation of structural and non-structural BMPs identified in the Preliminary WQMP for the Project (pursuant to RR 9-2), pollutants in stormwater runoff would be treated and removed prior to entering the City’s storm drainage system. Therefore, potential impacts on water quality from stormwater runoff would be less than significant. While the future tenants of the Project are unknown at this time, individual facilities that would result in non-stormwater discharges would have to comply with the NPDES Industrial General Permit, including obtaining coverage under the permit; preparing a SWPPP and implementing the BMPs outlined in the SWPPP; and annual evaluation and regular monitoring (e.g., visual observation and sampling and analysis) to prevent or reduce pollutants that enter the stormwater or that are discharged into the storm drainage system and to determine if the BMPs are adequate and properly implemented. If the facility is not covered under the Industrial General Permit, it would have to obtain an individual NPDES permit or WDR from the SWRCB. The minimum BMPs that must be included in the SWPPP include good housekeeping practices, preventative maintenance, spill and leak prevention and response, material handling and waste management, erosion and sediment controls, an employee training program, and quality assurance and record keeping. Advanced BMPs must be implemented to the extent feasible and include exposure minimization of industrial materials, stormwater containment and discharge reduction, treatment control, and other BMPs that are necessary to meet the effluent limitations of the Industrial General Permit. Implementation of these BMPs by individual tenants of the Project would prevent adverse impacts on stormwater quality during the long-term operations of the Project. Impacts would be less than significant and no additional mitigation is required. Development of the Project would also have to comply with the City of Rancho Cucamonga’s Stormwater and Urban Runoff Management and Discharge Control Ordinance (Section 19.20 of the City’s Municipal Code), which outlines regulations for allowable discharges into the storm drainage Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.9-19 system (refer to RR 9-3). This ordinance was developed in accordance with the NPDES Permit for San Bernardino County. Adherence to regulations addressing water quality during operation (refer to RR 9-2 through RR 9-3) would prevent violations of water quality standards and the degradation of stormwater quality. Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. Groundwater Quality The Project would not impact groundwater quality since no groundwater extraction activities are proposed. The Project also would implement structural and non-structural BMPs that would prevent pollutants from adversely impacting groundwater resources. Notably, pollutant removal would occur through the infiltration of roof and surface runoff and the absorption of pollutants into the soil. Groundwater is estimated to occur more than 280 feet bgs. Further, the recycled water used for irrigation is treated to a level that is safe in the unlikely event that water could percolate down 280 feet. Therefore, impacts to groundwater quality during operations would be less than significant. Impact 9.1 Short-term construction and long-term operation of development under the Project would generate pollutants that may enter stormwater. However, compliance with existing regulations, as identified in RR 9-1 through RR 9-3, would prevent the violation of water quality standards, ensure compliance with waste discharge requirements and prevent the degradation of stormwater quality and groundwater quality. Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. Threshold 9.2 Would the project substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the Project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? The Project would not involve direct or indirect withdrawals of groundwater and as previously discussed, excavations at the site would not encounter underlying groundwater resources. The CVWD would supply the Project with potable water. CVWD receives approximately 57 percent of its water from groundwater, with the remainder coming from surface and imported water supplies. As further discussed in Section 4.15 of this Draft EIR, there would be an overall increase in water demand generated at the Project site with implementation of the Project, compared to the water demand associated with the previous retail and warehouse uses on-site. The net increase in water demand for the site would be approximately 22.4 acre-feet per year (AFY), which represents a less than one percent increase in the total City-wide water use. A site-specific Water Supply Assessment (WSA) was prepared for the Project (included as Appendix M to this Draft EIR), which shows that CVWD has available water supplies to meet the water demands of the Project for the next twenty years through 2040, including demands during normal, single dry and multiple dry years (CMC, 2021). With approval of the WSA in January 2021, the CVWD concurred with the findings of the WSA that available water supplies would be adequate to serve the Project. Therefore, the Project would not deplete groundwater supplies. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.9-20 Recharge basins for the Chino Basin are not located within the vicinity of the Project site; however, the Project’s subsurface detention basins would allow for infiltration. This practice has high pollutant removal efficiency and can also help recharge groundwater. Also, the change in impervious area associated with the Project (an increase of approximately 22 acres), is relatively small compared to the overall basin area, and would not impact groundwater recharge. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not interfere with groundwater recharge. Based on the foregoing analysis, the Project would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies nor would the Project interfere with groundwater recharge such that the Project would impede sustainable groundwater management in the basin. Impacts would be less than significant. Impact 9.2 The Project would result in net increase in water demand as compared to existing conditions; however, the net increase would represent less than one percent of water demand for CVWD. Therefore, the Project would not deplete groundwater supplies. The Project site is not in an CVWD groundwater recharge area; therefore, implementation of the Project would not interfere with groundwater recharge. Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. Threshold 9.3 Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would: i. Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? ii. Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? iii. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? iv. Impede or redirect flood flows? 1. Overview of Proposed Drainage Pattern Changes As previously discussed, under existing conditions, the majority of the Project site (approximately 70 percent) consists of impervious surfaces, and the remaining area approximately 30 percent consists of pervious surfaces associated with the undeveloped northern portion of the site and other landscaped areas. The Project would include redevelopment of the Project site with two high-cube warehouse buildings and associated improvements. With implementation of the Project, impervious surfaces would cover approximately 95 percent of the Project site, and the remaining area would consist of pervious surfaces associated with landscape areas. The Preliminary Hydrology Report included in Appendix J2 of this Draft EIR addresses runoff from the Project site and its impact to the existing downstream storm drainage system. The Preliminary Hydrology Report includes calculations for the 100-year storm event for both the existing and proposed condition, and identifies the general project characteristics, design criteria, and methodology applied Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.9-21 to the analysis of the Project. The Hydrology Report provides a design analysis for the drainage facilities proposed as part of the Project, with drainage improvements designed to accommodate the 100-year storm event. Hydrology calculations were computed using San Bernardino County Rational Method program (by AES Software). Hydrographs and basin routing were calculated using AES Software’s FLOOD program. The soil type is “B” per the San Bernardino County Hydrology Manual. Figure 4.9-3, Proposed Condition Hydrology Map, depicts the proposed hydrology map and drainage conditions. As described in the Preliminary Hydrology Report, the Project would generally maintain existing drainage patterns. Runoff from the majority of the Project site (roofs, truck yards, parking lots, and private streets) would be collected in grate inlets and catch basins and directed to an on-site storm drain system that would connect to the existing RCB in 4th Street. The proposed landscaped area fronting 4th Street along the southerly property line would drain directly to the street (0.95 acres). The relocated catch basin adjacent to the southwesterly property line would intercept flows. The 100-year peak flow rate at this proposed connection is approximately 275.6 cfs. A proposed storm drain system with multiple public catch basins would be constructed along proposed Street A to collect the runoff from the roadway; this storm drain system would connect to the RCB in 4th Street southeast of the Project site. The 100-year peak flow rate from the site is approximately 20.6 cfs. The total 100-year peak flow rate from the Project site to the existing RCB in 4th Street under the developed condition is approximately 296.2 cfs (275.6 cfs + 20.6 cfs). Some runoff from areas along the northerly property line of the Project site would sheet flow to 6th Street (0.55 acres). The 100-year peak flow rate for the proposed condition is higher than that in the existing condition (197.4 cfs). This is primarily due to the increase in impervious surface associated with implementation of the Project. In addition, the proposed site plan has smaller drainage areas and more catch basins and storm drains, which yielded shorter times of concentration and thus higher peak flow rates. To mitigate the additional 100-year peak flow rates, detention would be utilized in the truck yard areas associated with each building. Hydrographs were established for drainage areas tributary to each truck yard. The discharge rates at different elevations varies with the amount of head above the truckyards respective storm drain outlets. Areas on-site that are not tributary to any of the truckyards would continue to drain un-detained. “A” Street would also drain un-detained. With implementation of the detention in each truck yard, total discharge from the Project site would be 190.4 cfs, which is less than the existing 100- year peak flow rates (197.4 cfs), and would not have a negative impact downstream (Thienes, 2021b). The proposed 6th Street at-grade crossing of the railroad is located at the high point of 6th Street, and 6th Street slopes west and east away from the railroad crossing. The at-grade crossing would include an inlet on the north side of 6th Street at each side of the railroad track and stormwater would flow to an existing 30-inch storm drain located in 6th Street approximately 250 feet west of the crossing. The railroad crossing would not create a significant diversion of drainage, and the proposed storm drain system would be a nuisance drainage system (the proposed storm drain would convey the nuisance water located within the right-of-way). Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report ""· I ■�-J--t-j t 1-+----71 -I I ■---+--+--1 �tlf , ______ 1---+----+- ---+-----+--� --I r--4--�------+-------,--------� -+-I}+-+ fil_I LEGEND PROJECT BOUNDARY - - -SUBAREA BOUNDARY FLOW LINE 9.10 AC. SUBAREA AREA 8 NODE NUMBER � PONDING llt.41TS U l 1P I � l l 4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality Source(s): Thienes Engineering, Inc. (01-20-2021) Figure 4. 9-3 Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga Proposed Condition Hydrology Map SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.9-22 Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.9-23 In summary, with implementation of the proposed drainage plan, including proposed detention basins, stormwater runoff from the Project site in the developed condition would reduce the peak flow rate compared to existing conditions. 2.Erosion and Siltation Impacts As described above, implementation of the Project would not result in a substantial change to the site’s existing drainage patterns. Under the existing condition, the majority of the Project site is developed and minimal erosion occurs on-site under existing conditions. Implementation of the Project has the potential to result in erosion and siltation impacts during the construction phase. The site’s existing structures would be demolished as part of the Project, which would expose soils to potential water- and wind-related erosion. As discussed under the analysis of Threshold 9.1, the Project would incorporate RR 9-1, which requires the Project to prepare and implement a SWPPP during construction activities to mitigate potential water quality impacts due to erosion and siltation. Impacts would be less than significant. Implementation of the Project would result in an increase in impervious surfaces at the site. The post- development TSS concentrations are anticipated to be lower than existing conditions due to the reduction in exposed soils, and installation of BMPs, which would reduce suspended sediment in runoff. Furthermore, the peak rate of runoff from the Project site would remain the same as compared to the existing condition, thereby ensuring the Project does not cause or contribute to increased erosion hazards downstream. Therefore, the Project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off-site, and impacts would be less than significant. 3.Flood Hazards According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) No. 06071C8633J (dated September 2, 2016), the Project is within FEMA Zone X, which is identified as an area of minimal flood hazard (FEMA, 2016). The Project site is not within a 100-year flood hazard area; therefore, implementation of the Project would not have the potential to impede or redirect flood flows. Storm flows discharging from the site would continue to flow to the storm drain in 4th Street. As such, the Project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area in a manner that would impede or redirect flood flows, and impacts would be less than significant. As previously stated, the Project would increase the overall impervious surface coverage contained within the Project site; however, implementation of the Project and associated storm drain facilities would result in the same peak flows to the 4th Street storm drain compared to existing conditions. Because peak runoff from the site would be the same as compared to existing conditions, and because runoff would be conveyed to existing drainage facilities, implementation of the Project would not result in flooding on- or off-site and impacts would be less than significant. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.9-24 4.Stormwater Drainage Capacity and Polluted Runoff Under existing and proposed conditions, runoff from the Project site would be conveyed to the existing 4th Street storm drain system south of the Project site. Because the 4th Street storm drainage system has adequate capacity to convey flows from the Project site under existing conditions, and because the peak rate of runoff would remain the same with implementation of the Project, the Project would not create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems, and impacts would therefore be less than significant. As discussed in detail under the analysis of Threshold 9.1, the Project would provide for infiltration and source-control BMPs to reduce pollutants entering the stormwater during operation of the Project. With compliance with existing regulations and implementation of RR 9-2, which ensures implementation of the Project’s proposed BMPs, pollutants in stormwater runoff would be treated and removed prior to entering the City’s storm drainage system. Therefore, the Project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area in a manner that would produce substantial additional sources of polluted runoff, and potential impacts on water quality would be less than significant. Impact 9.3 The Project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site, substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site, create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff, or impede or redirect flood flows. Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. Threshold 9.4 Would the project, in flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche hazard zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? As discussed under Threshold 9.3, the Project site is not within a 100-year flood zone, and, as such, the Project’s potential risk of release of pollutants due to site inundation from flooding would be less than significant. The Project site is located approximately 40 miles northeast of the Pacific Ocean; therefore, the Project is not within a tsunami zone and no impacts would occur. Additionally, the Project site is not within proximity to an enclosed body of water that has the potential to cause a seiche (a standing wave in an enclosed or partially enclosed body of water). Due to distance and topography, the Project site would not be subjected to seiches and no impacts would occur. According to Figure PS-6, Dam Inundation Hazards, of the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan, the Project site is in not located within a dam inundation area. Therefore, the Project would have a less than significant impact related to the risk of release of pollutants due to inundation from dam failure. Impact 9.4 The Project site is not within a 100-year flood zone, is not within a tsunami zone, and is not within proximity to an enclosed or partially enclosed body of water that is capable Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.9-25 of producing seiches. Therefore, there would be no impact related to risk of release of pollutants due to Project inundation from a flood, tsunami or seiche. The Project site is not located within a dam inundation area and there would be a less than significant impact related to the risk of pollutants due to dam inundation. Mitigation is not required. Threshold 9.5 Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? As discussed under Threshold 9.1, the Project site is within the Santa Ana River Basin; therefore, Project-related construction and operational activities would be required to comply with the Santa Ana RWQCB’s Santa Ana Basin Plan. The Santa Ana Basin Plan describes actions by the RWQCB and others that are necessary to achieve and maintain the water quality standards. The RWQCB regulates waste discharges to minimize and control their effects on the quality of the region’s groundwater and surface water. Permits are issued under several programs and authorities. The terms and conditions of these discharge permits are enforced through a variety of technical, administrative, and legal means. The RWQCB ensures compliance with the Santa Basin Plan through its issuance of NPDES Permits, issuance of Waste Discharge Requirements (WDR), and Water Quality Certifications pursuant to Section 401 of the CWA. As discussed under Threshold 9.1, with adherence to state and local water quality regulations outlined in RR 9-1 through RR 9-3 (e.g., compliance with the Construction General Permit, the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code, preparation and implementation of a SWPPP during construction, preparation and implementation of a WQMP for operation), the potential for the Project to generate pollutants and impact water quality during construction and operation would be less than significant. The Project would not degrade water quality, cause the receiving waters to exceed the water quality objectives, or impair the beneficial use of receiving waters. As such, the Project would not result in water quality impacts that would conflict with the Santa Ana Basin Plan. The 2014 SGMA requires local public agencies and GSAs in “high-” and “medium”-priority basins to develop and implement Groundwater Sustainability Plans (GSPs) or Alternatives to GSPs. The California Department of Water Resources (DWR) currently categorizes the Chino and Cucamonga Groundwater Basins, which supply groundwater to the CVWD, as “very low” priority. Therefore, the Chino and Cucamonga Groundwater Basins are not subject to the requirements of the SGMA (DWR, 2020b). Furthermore, Section 10720.8(a) of the SGMA exempts adjudicated basins from the SGMA’s requirement to prepare a GSP; the Chino and Cucamonga Groundwater Basins have been adjudicated (CLI, 2014). Therefore, preparation of Groundwater Sustainability Plans is not required. Impact 9.5 The Project would not conflict with the Santa Ana Basin Plan. No impact would result. 4.9.5 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Consistent with the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan EIR, which is incorporated by reference (refer to Section 4.9.7, Cumulative Impacts [Hydrology and Water Quality]), the cumulative study area for Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.9-26 the Project’s hydrology and water quality impacts is the Santa Ana River watershed, in which the City of Rancho Cucamonga is located (Rancho Cucamonga, 2010b). While this area extends beyond the County boundaries, areas downstream of the City and in other areas in San Bernardino County and in Orange County could be affected by stormwater volumes and pollutants that would be generated within the City. The General Plan EIR concludes that future development and redevelopment projects within the Santa Ana River watershed would be implemented in compliance with applicable water quality regulation and water quality impacts would be less than significant. The Rancho Cucamonga General Plan EIR concludes that continued management of the groundwater basins and compliance with the pertinent adjudication orders would prevent overdraft conditions, water quality problems, and other impacts on groundwater resources in the watershed. The regional channels have been designed to accommodate runoff from the entire watershed, and new developments are required to provide on-site improvements and other storm drainage system upgrades to prevent the creation of flood hazards at downstream areas. Further, it is concluded that cumulative impacts from dam inundation would be less than significant, and there would be no cumulative impacts associated with seiche or tsunamis. Thus, the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan EIR concludes that implementation of the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan would not result in cumulatively considerable hydrology, drainage, or water quality impacts. Consistent with the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan EIR, the Project’s cumulative impact analysis considers the construction and operation of the Project in conjunction with other development projects in the vicinity of the Project site and other developments within the Santa Ana River Basin. This area was selected for analysis because it encompasses the Project’s watershed, and because the Project does not have the potential to result in hydrology or water quality impacts outside of the Project’s watershed. Project construction and the construction of cumulative development would have the potential to contribute to waterborne pollution, including erosion and siltation, to the Santa Ana River Watershed. Pursuant to the requirements of the State Water Resources Control Board and the Santa Ana RWQCB, all construction projects that disturb one (1) or more acres of land area are required to obtain coverage for construction activities under the State’s General Construction NPDES Permit (refer to RR 9-1). To obtain coverage, an effective site-specific SWPPP is required to be developed and implemented. The SWPPP must identify potential on-site pollutants and identify an effective combination of erosion control and sediment control measures to reduce or eliminate the discharge of pollutants to surface waters. Compliance with these mandatory regulatory requirements would ensure that development projects within the Santa Ana River watershed, including the Project and cumulative projects, would have a less than significant cumulative water quality impact during construction. Construction of the Project would not contribute to cumulatively considerable water quality effects during construction. The Project and all cumulative developments in the Santa Ana River Basin would be required to comply with applicable regulations that enforce the Basin Plan, which establishes water quality standards for ground and surface waters of the region. Compliance with these mandatory regulatory requirements, which includes provisions of Rancho Cucamonga’s Stormwater and Urban Runoff Management and Discharge Control Ordinance for projects in Rancho Cucamonga (Chapter 19.20 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code (refer to RR 9-2 and RR 9-3), would ensure that development Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.9-27 projects within the Santa Ana River watershed, including the Project and cumulative projects, would have a less than significant cumulative water quality impact during operations. Operational activities on the Project site would be required to comply with the Project’s approved WQMP to minimize the amount of waterborne pollution, including erosion and sediment, discharged from the site, resulting in a less than significant impact. Other development projects within the watershed would similarly be required by law to prepare and implement site-specific WQMPs to ensure that runoff does not substantially contribute to water quality violations. Accordingly, the operation of the Project would not contribute to cumulatively considerable water quality effects. The CVWD provides potable water services to an approximately 47.0-square-mile service area and a portion of the City’s water comes from groundwater resources from the Chino Basin and the Cucamonga Basin. These adjudicated basins continued to be managed and compliance with the pertinent adjudication orders prevents overdraft conditions, water quality problems, and other impacts on groundwater resources in the watershed. The Project in conjunction with cumulative development would not result in significant impacts to groundwater supplies or groundwater quality and therefore would not result in a cumulative impact. Accordingly, the Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact associated with groundwater. Construction of the Project and other development projects within the Santa Ana River Basin would be required to comply with federal, State, and local regulations and applicable regional and local master drainage plans to mitigate flood hazards both on- and off-site. Compliance with federal, State, and local regulations and applicable drainage plans would require development sites to be protected from flooding during peak storm events (i.e., 100-year storm) and would not allow development projects to expose downstream properties to increased flooding risks during peak storm events. Also, future development proposals within the Santa Ana River Basin would be required to prepare hydrologic and hydraulic calculations, subject to review and approval by the City of Rancho Cucamonga and other jurisdictions, to demonstrate that substantial on- and/or off-site flood hazards would not occur. As discussed under the response to Threshold 9.3, the Project is designed to ensure that runoff from the Project site during the 100-year storm events with the Project is the same as compared to existing conditions, and the impact would be less than significant. Because the Project and all other developments throughout the Santa Ana River Basin, would need to comply with federal, State, and local regulations to ensure that stormwater discharges do not substantially exceed existing volumes or exceed the volume of available conveyance infrastructure, a cumulative impact related to flood hazards would not occur. Additionally, the Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact associated with flooding. The Project, combined with cumulative projects would not result in a risk for release of pollutants from flooding, seiche, a tsunami, or inundation from dam failure and would therefore not result in a cumulative impact. Additionally, the Project would have no impact related to the risk for release of pollutants from flooding, seiche, a tsunami, or inundation from dam failure. Therefore, the Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact associated with inundation. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.9-28 4.9.6 MITIGATION MEASURES With adherence to the regulations outlined in RR 9-1 through RR 9-3, the Project would not result in significant impacts related to hydrology and water quality and no mitigation is required. 4.9.7 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION Project impacts related to hydrology and water quality would be less than significant. 4.9.8 REFERENCES CLI, 2014. California Legislative Information. Section 10720.8 of the Water Code. Available at: http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=WAT&sectionN um=10720.8. California Department of Water Resources (DWR). 2020a (August 25, access date). Groundwater Sustainability Plans. Available at: https://water.ca.gov/Programs/Groundwater- Management/SGMA-Groundwater-Management/Groundwater-Sustainability-Plans ———. 2020b. Sustainable Groundwater Management Act 2019 Basin Prioritization Process and Results. Available at: https://data.cnra.ca.gov/dataset/13ebd2d3-4e62-4fee-9342- d7c3ef3e0079/resource/ffafd27b-5e7e-4db3-b846- e7b3cb5c614c/download/sgma_bp_process_document.pdf CDM Smith Inc. 2013 (June 7). Technical Guidance Document for Water Quality Management Plans, Appendix A - Transportation Project BMP Guidance San Bernardino County Municipal Stormwater Management Program. Prepared for and Submitted by the County of San Bernardino Areawide Stormwater Program NPDES No. CAS618036, Order No. R8-2010- 0036. Available at: https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/rwqcb8/water_issues/programs/stormwater/docs/sbpermit/w qmp/Appendix_A-_Transportation_Proj_BMP_Guidance_and_Template_(editable).pdf Charles Marr Consulting (CMC). 2021 (January 7). Cucamonga Valley Water District Water Supply Assessment for the Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Development Project. (Included in Appendix M of this Draft EIR). Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2016 (September 2). Flood Insurance Rate Map, Map No. 06071C8633J. Available at: https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search?AddressQuery=12434%204th%20street%2C%20Rancho %20Cucamonga%2C%20CA#searchresultsanchor Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). 2019. Water Quality Control Plan for the Santa Ana River Basin. Available at: https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/santaana/water_issues/programs/basin_plan/basin_plan_ma ps.html Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.9-29 Southern California Geotechnical (SCG). 2021 (January 12). Geotechnical Investigation Two Proposed Warehouses, 12434 4th Street, Rancho Cucamonga, California. (Included in Appendix F of this Draft EIR). Rancho Cucamonga, City of. 2010a (May 19). Rancho Cucamonga General Plan. Available at: https://www.cityofrc.us/community-development/planning ———. 2010b (February). Rancho Cucamonga 2010 General Plan Update Program Environmental Impact Report. ———. 2019 (February). City of Rancho Cucamonga NPDES Local Implementation Plan (LIP). Thienes Engineering, Inc. (Thienes). 2021a (January 8). Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan for Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga – 2 Buildings 4th Street Ranch Cucamonga, CA. (Included in Appendix J1 of this Draft EIR). ———. 2021b (January 20). Preliminary Hydrology Calculations for Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga – 2 Buildings 4th Street Ranch Cucamonga, CA. (Included in Appendix J2 of this Draft EIR). Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.10 Land Use and Planning Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.10-1 4.10 LAND USE AND PLANNING This section describes the Project site and surrounding land uses and evaluates the Project’s consistency with applicable planning programs and land use regulations. Information presented in this section is based on a review of relevant regional and local planning programs, including the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan and associated Environmental Impact Report (EIR), the Rancho Cucamonga Development Code, City of Ontario planning documents (i.e., The Ontario Plan and the Ontario Development Code and associated Crossroads Business Park Specific Plan), and site reconnaissance. Refer to Section 4.10.8, References, for a list of references. There were no Notice of Preparation (NOP) comment letters received related to land use and planning. 4.10.1 RELEVANT POLICIES AND REGULATIONS A. Regional Regional land use plans and policies that are applicable to the Project include SCAG’s Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) documents, and the LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ONT ALUCP). The RTP/SCS documents are discussed below, and the ONT ALUCP is discussed in Section 4.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of this Draft EIR. 1. Southern California Association of Governments The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) is a Joint Powers Authority (JPA) under California State law, established as an association of local governments and agencies that voluntarily convene as a forum to address regional issues. Under federal law, SCAG is designated as a Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) and under State law as a Regional Transportation Planning Agency and a Council of Governments. The SCAG region encompasses six counties: Riverside, Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, Ventura, and Imperial. As the designated MPO, the federal government mandates SCAG to research and draw up plans for transportation, growth management, hazardous waste management, and air quality. Additionally, SCAG reviews environmental impact reports for projects having regional significance to ensure they are in line with approved regional plans (SCAG, 2020a). As identified in Section 15206 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, regionally significant industrial projects include “A proposed industrial, manufacturing, or processing plant, or industrial park planned to house more than 1,000 persons, occupying more than 40 acres of land, or encompassing more than 650,000 square feet of floor area.” Therefore, this Project is considered regionally significant and subject to review by SCAG. SCAG adopted the 2016 RTP/SCS and certified the associated Program EIR in April 2016 to address the region’s future needs for “mobility, economy, and sustainability”. The 2016 RTP/SCS combines the need for mobility with a “sustainable future” through a reduction in the amount of emissions produced from transportation sources. This would be made through the operation of low or no emission transportation systems by 2040. The RTP/SCS also focuses on the economy, with expectations of shortening the gap between the regional transportation system and economic vitality. To address the mobility challenge of the region’s continuing roadway congestion, the RTP/SCS proposes Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.10 Land Use and Planning Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.10-2 transportation investments in transit; passenger and high-speed rail; active transportation; transportation demand management; transportation systems management; highways, arterials, and goods movement; aviation and airport ground access; and operations and maintenance projects. These are expected to indirectly create investment opportunities in the region. The 2016 RTP/SCS includes population, household, and employment projections for individual cities and counties, and identifies the regional housing needs allocations for the region. Further, the 2016 RTP/SCS provides objectives for meeting emissions reduction targets set forth by the California Air Resources Board (CARB); these objectives were provided in direct response to Senate Bill 375 (SB 375) which was enacted to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from automobiles and light trucks through integrated transportation, land use, housing, and environmental planning. (SCAG, 2016) In April 2018, SCAG published Industrial Warehousing in the SCAG Region. According to the document, the SCAG region is a vibrant hub for international and domestic trade because of its large transportation base and extensive multimodal transportation system. The SCAG region’s freight transportation system includes warehouses and distribution centers; the Ports of Los Angeles, Long Beach, and Hueneme; airports; rail intermodal terminals; rail lines, and local streets, state highways and interstates. Together the system enables the movement of goods from source to market, facilitating uninterrupted global commerce. The region is home to approximately 34,000 warehouses with 1.17 billion square feet of warehouse building space, and undeveloped land that could accommodate an additional 338 million square feet of new warehouse building space. These regions attract robust logistics activities, and are a major reason the region is a critical mode in the global supply chain. (SCAG, 2018) The RTP/SCS is updated periodically to allow for the consideration and inclusion of new transportation strategies and methods. SCAG’s Regional Council adopted the 2020 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) (referred to as Connect SoCal) and its associated Program EIR on May 7, 2020 for federal transportation conformity purposes only, in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. The Regional Council approved Connect SoCal in its entirety and for all other purposes on September 3, 2020. Connect SoCal, with a horizon year of 2045, is a long-range visioning plan that builds upon and expands land use and transportation strategies established over several planning cycles to increase mobility options and achieve a more sustainable growth pattern. Connect SoCal allows public agencies who implement transportation projects to do so in a coordinated manner, while qualifying for federal and state funding. The plan includes robust financial analysis that considers operations and maintenance costs to ensure our existing transportation system’s reliability, longevity, resilience and cost effectiveness. In addition, Connect SoCal is supported by a combination of transportation and land use strategies that outline how the region can achieve California’s greenhouse gas emission reduction goals and federal Clean Air Act requirements. The plan also strives to achieve broader regional objectives, such as the preservation of natural lands, improvement of public health, increased roadway safety, support for the region’s vital goods movement industries and more efficient use of resources. (SCAG, 2020b) Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.10 Land Use and Planning Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.10-3 With respect to goods movement, Connect SoCal discusses that since the 2016 RTP/SCS, several new paradigms have emerged that are reshaping the way the region addresses goods movement issues. E- commerce has been a core driver affecting all aspects of regional goods movement by facilitating increased cargo volumes, fostering both the development and turnover of industrial establishments, changing consumer habits, causing shifts in labor forces, and paving the way for new technologies in logistics. The region is also positioning itself to address the challenges that will be brought by new technologies like automation and its corollary impacts on the regional goods movement workforce. Balancing traditional goods movement concerns and opportunities with emerging challenges, SCAG has developed key strategies to realize a regional vison that maintains regional economic competitiveness, promotes job creation and retention, increases freight mobility and safety, and mitigates environmental impacts. Specific details of goods movement challenges and strategies are presented in the Goods Movement Technical Report of Connect SoCal. (SCAG, 2020b) B. Local 1. Rancho Cucamonga General Plan The Rancho Cucamonga General Plan is a long-range policy document that presents the City’s vision for the next 15 to 20 years. The General Plan embodies the Healthy RC Vision that promotes “a lifestyle that embraces a Healthy Mind, Body, and Earth, through lifelong learning and enrichment, active and healthy living, and environmental sustainability” (Rancho Cucamonga, 2010a). It regulates future development and community enhancement activities in the City and it addresses issues that are important to the community. The Project’s consistency with relevant goals and policies from the General Plan is evaluated in Table 4.10-2 in this section. The Rancho Cucamonga General Plan contains the following chapters, which are further discussed below:  Managing Land Use, Community Design, and Historic Resources  Economic Development  Community Services  Resource Conservation  Public Facilities and Infrastructure  Public Health and Safety The Community Mobility Chapter is discussed in Section 4.13, Transportation, of this Draft EIR. The General Plan also includes a Housing Chapter; however, it is not relevant to the Project and not further discussed. Managing Land Use, Community Design, and Historic Resources Chapter The Managing Land Use, Community Design, and Historic Resources Chapter defines the distribution and location of land uses to achieve economic efficiency, to balance aesthetic appeal and functionality, and to preserve historical resources in an effort to enhance the overall quality of community life. The land use goals and policies in the Land Use Element in this Chapter emphasize the protection of Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.10 Land Use and Planning Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.10-4 existing residential neighborhoods; target new residential, office, and commercial growth along major corridors; integrate land use and transportation planning; promote the revitalization of deteriorating areas; and protect hillside areas. The City’s Land Use Plan, as contained in this Chapter, sets allowable land uses and associated maximum development densities and intensities throughout the City and its Sphere of Influence (SOI). As shown previously in Section 3.0, Project Description (refer to Figure 3-2, Proposed General Plan Amendment), the Project site is designated Heavy Industrial and General Industrial. The area to the west of the Project site is designated “General Industrial”, the area to the north is designated as “Heavy Industrial”, and the area to the east is designated as “Civic/Regional” (Rancho Cucamonga, 2010a). The area to the south of the Project site is within the City of Ontario and discussed below. The General Industrial designation permits a wide range of industrial activities that include manufacturing, assembling, fabrication, wholesale supply, heavy commercial, green technology, and office uses. The Heavy Industrial designation permits heavy manufacturing, compounding, processing or fabrication, warehousing, storage, freight handling, and truck services and terminals, as well as supportive service commercial uses. Heavy Industrial areas are positioned to take advantage of rail lines and arterial roadway access, and to minimize impacts on surrounding land uses. The Civic/Regional designation applies to diverse public and quasi-public uses, including the San Bernardino County West Valley Detention Center, which is adjacent to and east of the Project site. The process of preparing the General Plan involved focusing on potential areas of change, both from a geographic standpoint and a strategic or policy standpoint. For each of these potential areas of change, or focus areas, existing conditions were evaluated, and alternative directions were developed and analyzed. Figure LU-5, Focus Areas, of the General Plan, indicates that the Project site is within the Southeast Focus Area (Southeast Focus Area). This area supports the only remaining land in Rancho Cucamonga devoted to heavy industrial uses; these businesses are a valuable source of employment and revenue. The focus area also benefits from proximity to the freeway, although the circulation system requires improvements to meet the needs of the intensive truck traffic generated by the industrial uses. For the health of residents as well as for the long-term economic viability of this part of Rancho Cucamonga, wherever possible, “green” development that provide a more efficient use of resources and businesses associated with green technology are strongly encouraged. Energy conservation and efficiency is further addressed in Section 4.5, Energy, of this Draft EIR. The vision for the Southeast Focus Area includes:  Concentrating heavy industrial uses  Supporting infrastructure improvements to attract industrial, manufacturing, and green technology uses  Preventing encroachment of conflicting uses that would diminish the utility of the area for heavy industry Figure LU-5, Adopted Specific Plans and Planned Communities, of the General Plan, indicates that the Project site is within the Industrial Area Specific Plan. However, in 1999, the Development Code was amended to incorporate the Industrial Area Specific Plan and Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.10 Land Use and Planning Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.10-5 These Specific Plans are no longer stand-alone documents. The Industrial Area Specific Plan was a particularly significant specific plan due to its successful role in the development of the City’s industrial base (which is a critical component of an overall long-term balance of uses). The Managing Land Use, Community Design, and Historic Resources Chapter also contains design guidelines for districts, neighborhoods, urban centers, corridors, streetscapes, special boulevards, gateways, public art, and signs. These community design features are shown on Figure LU-6, Community Design Framework, of the General Plan; no community design features are identified at the Project site. The Historic Resources Element of the Managing Land Use, Community Design, and Historic Resources Chapter addresses the City’s historical development, historic resources (sites and routes), and goals and policies for historic preservation. Figure LU-8, Historic Resources, of the General Plan, does not identify any designated historic sites in the Project site. (Rancho Cucamonga, 2010a) Economic Development Chapter The Economic Development Chapter sets forth a plan that capitalizes on the City’s economically diverse, relatively affluent, and well-educated community. This Chapter indicates that moving forward, Rancho Cucamonga needs to seek out commercial and industrial infill and revitalization opportunities, and attract professional and “green” technology employers to continue its economic expansion and diversification. The Project site is located in the identified “Redevelopment Project Area”; however, the Rancho Cucamonga Redevelopment Agency was dissolved in accordance with Assembly Bill (AB) 26, which dissolved all redevelopment agencies in the State. The Economic Development Chapter identifies that accessibility to major population centers in the Los Angeles region to be a significant advantage for warehousing and manufacturing users; warehousing users in particular take advantage of proximity to the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach via rail and freeways. While this locational advantage may be slightly compromised by rising land costs, increases in transportation costs boost Rancho Cucamonga’s competitiveness over lower-priced areas to the north and east. Also, competition for relatively less expensive industrial properties (relative to commercial lands) by large-scale churches and similar community service uses could begin to diminish the inventory of land for industrial enterprises. In addition, non-industrial uses in industrial districts give rise to complaints (by the non-industrial users) of traffic, noise, and odors. With growing competition for large industrial parcels, the Economic Development Chapter indicates the City will need to reevaluate its policies and regulations pertaining to land uses in industrial areas to avoid future land use conflicts. Community Services Chapter The Community Services Chapter identifies the anticipated need for community services based on the City’s anticipated growth patterns, and establishes goals and policies to support the continuation of community services that promote the well-being of the City’s population. There are no existing or planned parks at or near the Project site; the nearest community service facility is a planned regional multi-purpose trail along Day Creek, which is approximately 0.3-mile west of the Project site (Figure CS-3, Hiking and Riding Trails Master Plan, of the General Plan). Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.10 Land Use and Planning Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.10-6 In the General Plan, a healthy community has been defined as including three distinct components: Healthy Minds, Bodies, and Earth. Implementation of these components is addressed through various Community Service programs. The City is committed to reducing the negative health impacts from a lack of activity by creating a diverse palette of programs under the Healthy RC banner, adjusting the land use patterns, and enhancing the circulation system. This Plan provides residents, visitors, and people who work in the City with options that will allow them to walk more, eat healthier, and to travel within the City without using an automobile. Goals, policies, and implementation actions that help the City conserve resources, promote clean air and water, and generally further City efforts to move toward sustainability all promote a Healthy Earth. A key City goal is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions consistent with statewide objectives. The primary strategy involves integrating land use and transportation planning, particularly along major corridors. Resource Conservation Chapter The Resource Conservation Chapter guides the preservation, protection, conservation, re-use, replenishment, and efficient use of Rancho Cucamonga’s limited natural resources, including open space, mineral, agricultural, cultural, water, energy, and wildlife resources. These resources are discussed in other sections of this Draft EIR and in the NOP included in Appendix A, as appropriate. There are no natural resources within the Project site, site-adjacent improvement areas, or the 6th Street at-grade crossing study area. However, as further discussed in Section 4.3, Biological Resources, of this Draft EIR, there are numerous trees, includes trees that meet the criteria to be considered heritage trees. This Chapter also identifies that reductions in automobile usage and vehicle miles traveled (VMT) will lower energy consumption and GHG emissions, and will provide public health benefits. As a result, Rancho Cucamonga endorses land use and transportation policies and practices that take advantage of the nexus between land use, housing, economic development, and transportation. This Chapter also discusses energy efficiency, renewable energy resources, and the City efforts to promote the construction of green buildings. Public Facilities and Infrastructure Chapter The Public Facilities and Infrastructure Chapter addresses the needs for infrastructure and public facilities to support future growth and to maintain quality of life. Specifically, this Chapter focuses on the provision of high-quality City and County public facilities (including government, fire, police, and animal care services); support for educational opportunities (schools and libraries); and maintenance and expansion of public infrastructure (water, wastewater, storm drainage, solid waste and communications systems) to meet planned growth. There are no public facilities located on the Project site. Public services are further discussed in the NOP and Section 6.0, Other CEQA Considerations, of this Draft EIR, and utility and service systems are discussion in Section 4.15, Utilities and Service Systems. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.10 Land Use and Planning Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.10-7 Public Health and Safety Chapter The Public Health and Safety Chapter provides a proactive approach to public health and safety planning. Specifically, it identifies potential known hazards (e.g., seismic and geologic hazards, hazardous materials, and flood hazards) and provides methods for mitigating hazards through the planning process. This Chapter discusses the following issues, which are further discussed in the Draft EIR sections noted parenthetically:  Fire and Emergency Services (Section 6.0, Other CEQA Considerations)  Crime Prevention (Section 6.0, Other CEQA Considerations)  Seismic and Geologic Hazards (Section 4.6, Geology and Soils)  Flood Hazards and Inundation (Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality)  Wind Hazards (Section 4.2, Air Quality)  Aviation Hazards (Section 4.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials)  Air Quality, Atmosphere, and Climate (Section 4.2, Air Quality)  Noise (Section 4.11, Noise) 2. Rancho Cucamonga Development Code Title 17 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code is the City’s Development Code. The Development Code contains land use and development procedures and regulations that identify the permitted land uses on parcels in the City through assigned districts. It also identifies applicable use regulations, site development criteria (e.g., lot size, density/intensity, yard setbacks, open space, heights, parking, landscaped areas), performance standards, and general design regulations (e.g., site design, building orientation, access, parking areas, landscaping, fencing/screening, lighting, building design). Sections of the Development Code that are relevant to the environmental topics are addressed in the respective sections of this Draft EIR. Relevant to the land use and planning, Section 17.26, Establishment of Zoning Districts, of the Development Code establishes the framework of zoning districts in the city and their relationships to the City’s General Plan land use designations. Figure 3-3, Proposed Zoning Map Amendment, in Section 3.0 of this Draft EIR, shows the current zoning for the site and surrounding areas, based on the City of Rancho Cucamonga Zoning Map (Rancho Cucamonga, 2012). As shown in Figure 3-3, consistent with the General Plan land use designations, the northern portion of the Project site is zoned Heavy Industrial and the southern portion of the Project site is zoned General Industrial (GI)1. The area to the north of the Project site is zoned Heavy Industrial (HI), the area to west is zoned GI, and the area to the east is zoned HI and GI, similar to the Project site. C. City of Ontario As previously stated, the Project site is bordered by the City of Ontario to the south. Since the Project site is not located in the City of Ontario, the land use regulations of the City of Ontario do not apply 1 The City of Rancho Cucamonga interactive mapping program (My Community Map) identifies the zoning for the entire Project site to be General Industrial, which is not consistent with the City’s Zoning Map. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.10 Land Use and Planning Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.10-8 and the following information is provided for informational purposes to provide context for the discussion of land use and planning. 1. The Ontario Plan The Ontario Plan is the City’s policy document for regulating land use and development in the City. It articulates the City’s Vision for the future that is founded on dynamic balance, a prosperous economy, distinctive development, and recognized leadership. The Governance Manual includes a set of high- level governance principles with long-term value as well as Vision-driven goals and broad policies. The Policy Plan states the City’s long-term goals, principles, and policies for Land Use, Housing, Mobility, Safety (including Noise), Environmental Resources (including Conservation), Parks and Recreation (including Open Space), Community Economics, Community Design, and Social Resources. The City Council Priorities are clearly stated and actions to implement the City’s policies are identified. The area south of the Project site across 4th Street is designated in the Ontario Land Use Plan as Industrial (0.55 floor-to-area ratio [FAR]). 2. Ontario Development Code and Crossroads Business Park Specific Plan The Ontario Development Code contains the City of Ontario’s zoning, land use, and subdivision regulations. The Code provides development standards for all parcels in the City through zoning and overlay districts, including regulations for temporary uses, signs, parking, historic preservation, and environmental performance standards. It also outlines the City’s development review and permitting process. The area south of the Project site is zoned as Specific Plan (Crossroads Business Park [4043- SP]) (City of Ontario, 2015). The Specific Plan District enables the planning and development of coordinated and comprehensive projects in accordance with The Ontario Plan. The Crossroads Business Park Specific Plan, adopted in 1997, designates the Specific Plan area with Light Industrial land uses to provide for the development of one to two story light industrial buildings incorporating such use types as manufacturing, research and development, and multi-tenant industrial (City of Ontario, 1997). 4.10.2 EXISTING SETTING A. Existing Land Uses 1. Citywide According to the General Plan EIR, the area south of Foothill Boulevard is generally developed with industrial uses, which together with the mining operation in Day Creek, covers a total of 2,520 acres (9.4%). Most of these uses are located south of Arrow Highway in the western portion of the City and south of Foothill Boulevard in the eastern portion of the City. Approximately 25.58 million square feet (sf) of industrial development is present in the City. Various types of residential uses cover approximately 10,159 acres (37.8%) of the City and its Sphere of Influence (SOI). The majority of the higher density housing (such as townhomes, condominiums, and apartment complexes) are located in the central portion of the City. There are also multi-family Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.10 Land Use and Planning Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.10-9 residential uses in the Empire Lakes/IASP Sub-Area 18 Specific Plan area in the southern portion of the City. Commercial uses are found along Foothill Boulevard, several other major roadways, and at major street intersections, particularly along Base Line Road, Archibald Avenue, and 19th Street. A total of 1,307 acres (6.2%) is developed with commercial uses, consisting of office, commercial, retail, shopping center, restaurants, and automotive uses. Approximately 11.24 million square feet of commercial development is present in the City. Civic and other public facilities are found in the southern section of the City and include government buildings, City Hall, the post office, fire stations, and multi-purpose community facilities. The City is estimated to be 87% built out, with approximately 4,156 acres of land remaining vacant. The vacant lands are located on scattered sites and are surrounded by urban development, except for the larger undeveloped parcels along and near Etiwanda Creek at the northeastern section. 2. Project Site and Adjacent Land Uses The Project site and surrounding areas are depicted on the aerial photograph presented in Figure 4.0- 1, in Section 4.0, Environmental Setting and Impact Evaluation Overview. As shown on the aerial photograph provided in Figure 4.0-1 of this Draft EIR, the southern portion of the Project site is currently occupied by a 23,240-sf retail building and a 1,431,000-sf warehouse building (includes a 58,000-sf mezzanine), which were occupied by Big Lots until February 2020. Truck trailer parking surrounds the warehouse building, and loading docks are located on the east and south sides of the building. Automobile parking is provided in the southeast portion of the Project site, and east of the existing retail building. There is ornamental landscaping throughout the site, primarily along 4th Street. Existing surface parking lots (auto and truck trailer) and vacant land (previously a vineyard) are located in the northern portion of the Project site. The existing development was constructed in the early 1980s. As previously discussed, the Project site is largely surrounded by developed industrial areas. A Southern California Edison (SCE) facility is located north of the Project site (across 6th Street). The San Bernardino County West Valley Detention Center (a short-term County jail facility) is located to the east (west of Etiwanda Avenue). South of the Project site, across 4th Street, are light industrial/warehouse uses in the Crossroads Business Park Specific Plan area of the City of Ontario. There are no residential uses in the Project vicinity. 4.10.3 THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project will normally have a significant adverse environmental impact on land use and planning if it will:  Physically divide an established community.  Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.10 Land Use and Planning Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.10-10 4.10.4 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Threshold 10.1 Would the Project physically divide an established community? The Project site is developed with a retail building, and industrial warehouse and associated facilities, and includes an undeveloped area that was previously cultivated as a vineyard. The Project would involve redevelopment of the Project site and would not separate any established communities or land uses. The Project site is surrounded by non-residential development, including the West Valley Detention Center to the east. The nearest residential neighborhood to the Project site is located approximately 1.4-miles to the west (multi-family uses northwest of the 4th Street/Milliken Avenue). The Project involves the redevelopment of the Project site with non-residential uses, consistent with existing conditions and with the surrounding uses. Additionally, the construction of Street A, a new north-south oriented public roadway, would provide a direct connection between 4th Street and 6th Street. This connection is currently provided by existing on-site private roadways that are not accessible to the public. The Project would not disrupt the physical arrangement of an established community. No impacts would occur. Impact 10.1 The Project would not physically divide an established community and no impact would occur. Threshold 10.2 Would the Project cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? 1. Regional Southern California Association of Governments SCAG’s 2016 RTP/SCS and the recently adopted Connect SoCal seek to improve mobility, promote sustainability, facilitate economic development and preserve the quality of life for the residents in the region. These long-range visioning plans balance future mobility and housing needs with economic, environmental and public health goals. Table 4.10-1, RTP/SCS Consistency Analysis, presents the Project’s consistency with the 2016-2040 RTP/SCS and Connect SoCal. As demonstrated through this analysis, implementation of the Project would not conflict with the goals and policies of SCAG’s regional planning programs. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.10 Land Use and Planning Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.10-11 Table 4.10-1 RTP/SCS Consistency Analysis RTP/ SCS Goal Goal Statement Project Consistency Discussion 2016 RTP/SCS G1 Align the plan investments and policies with improving regional economic development and competitiveness. No Conflict. This policy would be implemented by cities and the counties within the SCAG region as part of comprehensive local and regional planning efforts. The Project implements development anticipated in the Southeast Focus Area of the City’s General Plan, and specifically includes redevelopment of the Project site with two Class A industrial buildings that are designed to meet contemporary industry standards and operational characteristics, that can accommodate a wide variety of users, and are economically competitive with similar industrial buildings in the local area and region. The Project would involve redevelopment of an underutilized site with existing vacant buildings and would implement infill and revitalization opportunities anticipated in the General Plan. Accordingly, the Project would not impede the economic development in the City of Rancho Cucamonga or the region. G2 Maximize mobility and accessibility for all people and goods in the region. No Conflict. Access to the Project site would be provided from 4th Street and 6th Street, which are designated truck routes adjacent to the Project site, and proposed Street A. These roadways provide efficient access to I-15 approximately 0.5 mile east of the Project site, and I-10 approximately 0.7 mile south of the Project site. The Circulation and Parking description provided in Section 3.0 of this Draft EIR identifies vehicular and non-vehicular circulation improvements in the public right-of-way that would be implemented as part of the Project. In addition to the construction of new public Street A, the Project would be required to remove and replace portions of the curb and gutter (e.g., for curb cuts and Street A), and grind and overlay the asphalt concrete pavement along 4th Street and 6 th Street along the frontage of the Project site. These improvements would comply with City standards for public roadways and would benefit persons of all social and economic groups who utilize these roadways. Additionally, the Project would include installation of access driveways and an internal network of drive aisles to serve each building, which would meet applicable standards for access, width, and turning radii. G3 Ensure travel safety and reliability for all people and goods in the region. No Conflict. As discussed in Section 4.13 of this Draft EIR, the Project would not result in a substantial safety hazard to motorists. Additionally, the proposed buildings would accommodate the movement of goods, which would shorten Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.10 Land Use and Planning Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.10-12 RTP/ SCS Goal Goal Statement Project Consistency Discussion the length of vehicular trips and increase the reliability of the movement of goods throughout the region. G4 Preserve and ensure a sustainable regional transportation system. No Conflict. The Project contributes to and would be consistent with planned land use and growth assumptions for the City of Rancho Cucamonga, as anticipated in the General Plan. In addition to the construction of roadway improvements, the Project developers would pay applicable traffic mitigation fees that would fund additional traffic improvements in the study area and maintenance of roadway infrastructure in the Project area. G5 Maximize the productivity of our transportation system. G6 Protect the environment and health for our residents by improving air quality and encouraging active transportation (e.g., bicycling and walking). No Conflict. An analysis of the Project’s environmental impacts is provided throughout this Draft EIR. Specifically, air quality is addressed in Section 4.2 of this Draft EIR and air quality impacts during construction and operation would be less than significant. The Project includes the installation of a sidewalk along Street A, replacement of sidewalks along 4th Street and 6th Street, as needed, and installation of Class II bikeways adjacent to the Project site on 4th Street and 6th Street. To facilitate bicycle travel and in compliance with Section 17.64.100 of the City’s Development Code, and the CALGreen Code, exterior short-term and long-term bicycle parking would be provided at each building near the office areas. G7 Actively encourage and create incentives for energy efficiency, where possible. No Conflict. This policy provides guidance to City staff to establish local incentive programs to encourage and promote energy efficient development. As described in Section 4.5and Section 4.7 of this Draft EIR, the Project would replace existing industrial and retail buildings and facilities that were constructed in the early 1980s and do not meet current energy efficiency standards. The Project would be constructed in compliance with current California Building Code requirements. Specifically, new buildings must achieve compliance with 2019 Building and Energy Efficiency Standards and the 2019 California Green Building Standards requirements. G8 Encourage land use and growth patterns that facilitate transit and active transportation. No Conflict. This policy provides guidance to establish a local land use plan that facilitates the use of transit and active (non-motorized) forms of transportation. The Project involves development of the Project site with contemporary high-cube warehouse buildings in an area designated for industrial development by the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan and would increase local employment opportunities. As discussed under the consistency analysis for the 2016 RTP/SCS Goal G6, the Project includes the replacement of existing sidewalks, as needed, and implementation of bikeways along 4th Street and 6th Street along the frontage of the Project site, Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.10 Land Use and Planning Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.10-13 RTP/ SCS Goal Goal Statement Project Consistency Discussion a new sidewalk along proposed Street A, and bicycle facilities that would facilitate pedestrian and bicycle travel. Additionally, the Project site is located in a Transit Priority Area (TPA). Omnitrans Transit Agency Route 61 extends along 4th Street, and there are bus stops in front of the Project site that would be easily accessible from the Project. Therefore, the Project would provide local job opportunities for existing and future residents of the City that would be accessible by transit and active transportation. G9 Maximize the security of the regional transportation system through improved system monitoring, rapid recovery planning, and coordination with other security agencies. No Conflict. This policy provides guidance to the City of Rancho Cucamonga to monitor the transportation network and to coordinate with other agencies as appropriate. The Project would not conflict with the City’s transportation network or the City’s coordination with other agencies. Connect SoCal 1 Encourage regional economic prosperity and global competitiveness. No Conflict. Refer to the consistency analysis for Goal G1 of the 2016 RTP/SCS. 2 Improve mobility, accessibility, reliability, and travel safety for people and goods. No Conflict. Refer to the consistency analysis for Goals G2 and G3 of the 2016 RTP/SCS. 3 Enhance the preservation, security, and resilience of the regional transportation system. No Conflict. Refer to the consistency analysis for Goals G4 and G9 of the 2016 RPT/SCS. 4 Increase person and goods movement and travel choices within the transportation system. No Conflict. The Project involves development of two contemporary high-cube warehouse buildings within an established industrial area, along designated truck routes, and in close proximity to the State highway system, which would avoid or shorten truck-trip lengths on other roadways. Also, refer to the consistency analysis for Goals G6 and G8 of the 2016 RTP/SCS, which addresses accommodations for alternative modes of transportation (e.g., transit, bicycle and walking). 5 Reduce greenhouse gas emission and improve air quality. No Conflict. Refer to the consistency analysis for goals G6 and G7 of the 2016 RTP/SCS. 6 Support healthy and equitable communities. No Conflict. This policy pertains to health and equitable communities, and these issues area addressed through goals and policies outlined in the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan. Relevant to the Project, the proposed building design would support the health of occupants and users by using non-toxic building materials and finishes, and by using windows and design features to maximize natural light and ventilation. 7 Adapt to a changing climate and support an integrated regional development. No Conflict. Connect SoCal indicates that since the adoption of the 2016 RTP/SCS, there have been significant drivers of change in the goods movement industry including emerging and new technologies, more complex supply chain strategies, evolving consumer demands and shifts in trade policies. E- Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.10 Land Use and Planning Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.10-14 RTP/ SCS Goal Goal Statement Project Consistency Discussion commerce continues to be one of the most influential factors shaping goods movement. As previously identified, the Project involves the redevelopment of a Project site historically used for industrial uses, with two high-cube Class A warehouse buildings that are designed to meet contemporary industry standards and operational characteristics. The Project would accommodate a wide variety of users, and would be economically competitive with similar industrial buildings in the local area and region. Further, the Project is located in an area designated for industrial development in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, which benefits from its proximity to key freeway infrastructure. 8 Leverage new transportation technologies and data-driven solutions that result in more efficient travel. No Conflict. Connect SoCal indicates that the advancement of automation is expected to have considerable impacts throughout regional supply chains. Notably, warehouses, such as those proposed with the Project, are increasingly integrating automation to improve operational efficiencies in response to the surge in direct-to-consumer e-commerce. Additionally, continued development and demonstration of automated truck technologies will alter the goods movement environment with far-reaching impacts ranging from employment to highway safety. The Project would meet contemporary industry standards and operational characteristics relative to transportation technologies and data-driven solutions. 9 Encourage development of diverse housing types in areas that are supported by multiple transportation options. No Conflict. The Project is located in an area designated for industrial uses and therefore would not interfere with the City’s ability to encourage the development of diverse housing types that are supported by multiple transportation options in other parts of the City. 10 Promote conservation of natural and agricultural lands and restoration of habitats. No Conflict. The Project site is located in a highly urbanized and developed area, and does not contain any natural lands, or suitable habitat for native wildlife or plant species. Implementation of the Project would not interfere with the City’s ability to promote the conservation of natural and agricultural lands and the restoration of habitats. Additionally, the Project site does not include any land designated for agricultural uses. The on-site area that was previously a vineyard is not zoned for agriculture; therefore, development of this area would not conflict with this policy. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.10 Land Use and Planning Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.10-15 2. City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan As described Section 3.4.1, General Plan Amendment and Zoning Map Amendment, of this Draft EIR, the Project would modify the land use designation from Heavy Industrial to General Industrial for approximately 55.2 acres comprising the northern portion of the Project site, consistent with the remaining approximately 36.2 acres of the Project site. The purpose of this General Plan Amendment is to provide a consistent land use designation across the Project site. The Project, which involves redevelopment of the Project site with two Class A high-cube warehouse buildings, is consistent with the General Industrial land use designation. Further, the Project site is within the Southeast Focus Area, which is comprised primarily of industrial land uses. The General Plan anticipates redevelopment and revitalization within this area. Activities undertaken by a planning agency must be substantially consistent with the goals and policies of the agency’s general plan. The Rancho Cucamonga General Plan was approved in 2010, and as subsequently amended, serves as the main land use policy document for the City. Therefore, all future development in the City must substantially comply with the General Plan’s goals and policies. The State’s general rule for a General Plan consistency determination is that “an action, program, or project is consistent with the General Plan if, considering all its aspects, it will further the objectives and policies of the General Plan and not obstruct their attainment” (OPR, 2017). Table 4.10-2 provides an analysis of the Project’s consistency with applicable goals and policies outlined in the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan, adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect, and that are subject to “project review” as outlined in Appendix A, Implementation Plan, of the General Plan. Other policies referred to as “special initiative” actions, are also addressed, if particularly relevant to the Project. An assessment of the Project’s consistency with goals and policies applicable to industrial land uses that govern scenic quality is presented in Table 4.1-2, General Plan Policy Consistency Analysis, in Section 4.1 of this Draft EIR. Goals and policies applicable to industrial land uses that address community mobility/circulation are presented in Section 4.13. As identified, the Project would not conflict with goals or policies addressing scenic quality or community mobility/circulation. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.10 Land Use and Planning Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.10-16 Table 4.10-2 General Plan Consistency Analysis GENERAL PLAN GOAL/POLICY CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT Goal LU-1: Ensure established residential neighborhoods are preserved and protected, and local and community- serving commercial and community facilities meet the needs of residents. Policy LU-1.1 Protect neighborhoods from the encroachment of incompatible activities or land uses that may have a negative impact on the residential living environment. No Conflict. The nearest residential neighborhood is approximately 1.4 miles to the west. The Project site is within the Southeast Focus Area identified in Figure LU- 4 of the General Plan. The Project would develop high- cube warehouse uses consistent with the existing use of the site, and the industrial uses in the vicinity. The Project includes a General Plan Amendment for a portion of the site from Heavy Industrial to Light Industrial so that the entire Project site has a single General Plan designation. Although the proposed General Plan Amendment is not related to the 2018 closure of the NRG energy plant to the north of the Project site, it is worth noting that there is no longer a need for the area surrounding the former energy plant to be designated Heavy Industrial. Furthermore, the Project would not impede or conflict with the development of other heavy industrial uses in the Southeast Focus Area, which would continue to include a concentration of industrial uses. The Project includes infrastructure improvements (construction of two new public streets) which would attract industrial uses to the area. The Project’s proposed high-cube warehouse uses are consistent with the vision for the Southeast Focus Area and would not diminish the utility of the area for heavy industry. The Project would not have a negative impact on the residential living environment. Policy LU-1.2 Designate appropriate land uses to serve local needs and be able to respond to regional market needs, as appropriate. No Conflict. Access to the Project site would be provided from 4th Street and 6th Street, which are adjacent to the Project site and designated truck routes, and proposed Street A. The roadways provide efficient access to I-15 approximately 0.5 mile east of the Project site, and I-10 approximately 0.7 mile south of the Project site, which would increase the reliability of the movement of goods throughout the region. Additionally, the proposed buildings are designed to meet contemporary industry standards and operational characteristics to accommodate the movement of goods throughout the region. Also refer to the discussion of the Project’s consistency with SCAG’s RTP/SCS programs in Table 4.10-1. Policy LU-1.5 Development of densities and intensities shall be implemented No Conflict. The General Industrial land use category allows for a maximum floor-area-ratio (FAR) of 0.6. The Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.10 Land Use and Planning Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.10-17 GENERAL PLAN GOAL/POLICY CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS within the ranges specified in the General Plan; neither higher nor lower than the limits of the range. FAR for Building 1 would be 0.57 and the FAR for Building 2 would be 0.50, with an overall FAR of .55. Therefore, the buildings would be within the allowable FAR range. Goal LU-2: Facilitate sustainable and attractive infill development that complements surrounding neighborhoods and is accessible to pedestrians, bicycles, transit, and automobiles. Policy LU-2.2 Require new infill development to be designed for pedestrians and automobiles equally, and to provide connections to transit and bicycle facilities. No Conflict. The Project involves an infill development, consisting of redevelopment of an underutilized site. Refer to the consistency analysis presented for the RTP/SCS Goals G2, G6 and G8. As discussed, in addition to improved vehicular circulation, the Project accommodates pedestrian and bicycle travel, and transit use. Policy LU-2.3 Provide direct pedestrian connections between development projects where possible. No Conflict. Existing sidewalks along 4th Street and 6th Street along the Project site frontage would be replaced and would continue to connect with pedestrian facilities to the east and west of the Project. On-site pedestrian facilities that provide direct connections to these sidewalks, and a sidewalk along proposed Street A, would also be implemented. Goal LU-3: Encourage sustainable development patterns that link transportation improvements and planned growth, create a healthy balance of jobs and housing, and protect the natural environment. Policy LU-3.1 Encourage the creation and maintenance of regional employment, cultural and retail destinations, as well as a full range of amenities and services to support residents of Rancho Cucamonga. No Conflict. The replacement of the existing retail and warehouse uses on an underutilized site with two new high-cube warehouse buildings that would result in a net increase in employment opportunities (estimated 277 jobs) in the region. Policy LU-3.3 Locate regionally serving land uses with immediate access to the regional transportation network that is designed to provide maximum access capabilities and permit maximum dispersal of traffic. No Conflict. Access to the Project site would be provided from designated truck routes 4th Street and 6th Street, which are adjacent to the Project site, and proposed Street A. The roadways provide efficient access to I-15 approximately 0.5 mile east of the Project site, and I-10 approximately 0.7 mile south of the Project site. Policy LU-3.4 Promote development that is sustainable in its use of land and that limits impacts to natural resources, energy, and air and water quality. No Conflict. The Project site is currently developed with a retail building, a warehouse, building and associated facilities, including surface parking. There is ornamental landscaping throughout the site (notably the southern portion of the Project site), and the northern portion of the Project site (a former vineyard site). While the Project site does include heritage trees, which would be replaced in accordance with the City’s Tree Preservation Ordinance, the Project site does not support sensitive biological resources (refer to Section 4.3). As discussed Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.10 Land Use and Planning Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.10-18 GENERAL PLAN GOAL/POLICY CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS in Section 4.5, the Project would not result in inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary consumption of energy. The Project would also have less than significant operational air quality pollutant emissions and GHG emissions based on the established thresholds of significance (refer to Section 4.2 and Section 4.7, respectively). Water quality impacts would be less than significant with adherence to applicable water quality regulations, including installation of on-site best management practices (BMPs). Policy LU-3.5 Work toward a sustainable jobs- housing balance by accommodating a range and balance of land uses within Rancho Cucamonga. No Conflict. The Project involves the development of industrial uses in an area designated for industrial development and would have a net increase in employment opportunities. San Bernardino County, which includes the City of Rancho Cucamonga, is a housing-rich area. Therefore, the Project would assist the City in balancing jobs and housing. Population and housing is further discussed in Section 4.12 of this Draft EIR. Policy LU-3.7 Encourage new development projects to build on vacant infill sites within a built-out area, and/or redevelop previously developed properties that are underutilized. No Conflict. As previously discussed under existing conditions, the approximately 91.4-gross-acre Project site includes large undeveloped area primarily consisting of the landscaped area in the southern portion of the Project site and a former vineyard area. The Project involves redevelopment of the Project site, which is currently underutilized, with two Class A high-cube warehouse buildings. Policy LU-3.8 Implement land use patterns and policies that incorporate smart growth practices, including placement of higher densities near transit centers and along transit corridors, allowing Mixed Use development, and encouraging and accommodating pedestrian movement. No Conflict. As previously discussed, the Project involves the redevelopment of the Project site, which is designated for industrial development, with two new Class A high-cube warehouse buildings. The Project site is located along truck routes and in proximity to I-15 and I-10. The Project also includes the construction of new Street A, which would provide connections to existing roadways adjacent to the Project site. These new streets would improve circulation in the area. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.10 Land Use and Planning Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.10-19 GENERAL PLAN GOAL/POLICY CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS Goal LU-7: Encourage diverse employment-generating land uses that are clean and modern, and that incorporate green technologies. Policy LU-7.1 Concentrate heavy industrial and utility-related use in the area immediately surrounding the electrical power plant. No Conflict. The Project does not involve heavy industrial or utility-related uses, and would involve a General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation for northern part the Project site from Heavy Industrial to General Industrial. However, as previously noted, in 2018, following the preparation of the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan (2010), the NRG Etiwanda Generating Station closed and there is no longer a need for the immediately surrounding areas to be developed with heavy industrial uses. The Project’s proposed high- cube warehouse uses are compatible with heavy industrial uses in the area and it would not preclude development of heavy industrial uses in the Southeast Focus Area, including at the NRG Etiwanda Generating Station site. COMMUNITY DESIGN Goal LU-10: Encourage sustainable landscaping and streetscape design. Policy LU-10.1 Continue to require implementation of the City’s Water Efficiency Ordinance, which should be reviewed and updated periodically. No Conflict. As discussed in Section 4.15 of this Draft EIR, the requirements of the City’s Water Efficiency Ordinance are required to be implemented with the Project. Policy LU-10.3 Promote low water usage, and emphasize fire-safe defensible space. No Conflict. The conceptual landscape plan for the Project is presented in Figure 3-13 and limits the use of high-water demand plants. In addition, the Project site is not within a high fire hazard area, and appropriate building separations would be provided consistent with the building code to promote defensible space. RESOURCE CONSERVATION Goal RC-3: Support the use of water that is both efficiently consumed and recycled to minimize waste and maximize supplies. Policy RC-3.1 Require the use of cost-effective methods to conserve water in new developments, and promote appropriate water conservation and efficiency measures for existing businesses and residences. No Conflict. As discussed in Section 4.15, the Project would be implemented in accordance with applicable regulations that require water conserving practices. This includes, but is not limited to, development of landscape plans in accordance with Chapter 17.82, Water Efficient Landscaping, of the Rancho Cucamonga Development Code. Additionally, as discussed in Section 4.7, the buildings would be designed in a compliance with the CALGreen Code, which includes requirements for water conserving plumbing fixtures (water closets and urinals) and fittings (faucets and showerheads). Policy RC-3.2 Encourage the conversion of water- intensive turf/landscape areas to landscaping that uses climate- No Conflict. Under existing conditions, the southeast portion of the Project site consists of a landscaped area consisting primarily of turf and trees. The conceptual Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.10 Land Use and Planning Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.10-20 GENERAL PLAN GOAL/POLICY CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS appropriate plants, efficient irrigation systems, and water efficient site maintenance. landscape plan for the Project is presented in Figure 3- 13 and limits the use of high-water demand plants. The final landscape plan for the Project would be developed in accordance with Chapter 17.82, Water Efficient Landscaping, of the Rancho Cucamonga Development Code, which requires efficient irrigation systems and water efficient site maintenance. Policy RC-3.3 Support efforts to expand the recycled water distribution system and actively promote the widespread use of recycled water in Rancho Cucamonga. No Conflict. As discussed in Section 4.15, there is an existing recycled water line in 6th Street. Recycled water would be used for on-site landscape irrigation. Goal RC-4: Encourage the use of energy resources that are efficiently expended and obtained from diverse and sustainable sources, in an effort to minimize greenhouse gas and other air emissions. Policy RC-4.1 Pursue efforts to reduce energy consumption through appropriate energy conservation and efficiency measures throughout all segments of the community. No Conflict. As discussed in Section 4.5, the Project would not result in inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary consumption of energy. The proposed buildings would replace existing buildings built in the 1980s that do not meet current energy standards. The proposed buildings would be designed in compliance with Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards and the CALGreen Code (which the City has adopted by reference), and would therefore be more energy efficient than the existing buildings. The proposed high-cube warehouse uses do not require the use of natural gas. Policy RC-4.3 Encourage the use of solar energy systems in homes and commercial businesses. No Conflict. The roof of the proposed buildings would be designed to support the use of a photovoltaic (solar) electrical energy system. Policy RC-4.4 Reduce operational energy requirements through sustainable and complementary land use and circulation planning. Support implementation of State mandates regarding energy consumption and greenhouse gas reduction, including AB 32 and SB 375. No Conflict. As discussed in Section 4.5, the Project would not result in inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary consumption of energy, including transportation energy. Refer to the consistency analysis presented for the RTP/SCS Goals G2, G6 and G8. As discussed above, in addition to improved vehicular circulation, the Project accommodates pedestrian and bicycle travel and transit use. Furthermore, buildings would be designed in a compliance with the CALGreen Code, which includes requirements for implementation of bicycle parking. Section 4.5 and Section 4.7 of this Draft EIR discuss these issues in greater detail. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.10 Land Use and Planning Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.10-21 GENERAL PLAN GOAL/POLICY CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS Goal RC-6: Encourage and support green buildings in Rancho Cucamonga. Policy RC-6.4 Promote green practices and the use of energy saving designs and devices for new and existing buildings throughout the community. Consult with energy providers such as Southern California Edison, Southern California Gas, the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Utility, and others to establish and coordinate energy efficiency programs that promote energy efficient design in all projects and assist residential, commercial, and industrial users. No Conflict. Refer to the consistency analysis provided for policies under Goal RC-4, above. It should also be noted that the mandatory energy conservation requirements included in the 2019 Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards and the CALGreen Code are more stringent than those in place when the General Plan was approved in 2010. Goal RC-8: Protect wildlife habitats that support various plants, mammals and other wildlife species. Policy RC-8.5 Continue to manage and care for all trees located on City property or within City rights-of-way. Provide information to the public on correct tree pruning practices. Encourage residents to properly care for and preserve large and beautiful trees on their private property. No Conflict. The Project would involve improvements to public streetscapes, including the planting of street trees along 4th Street and 6th Street and Street A. As discussed in Section 4.3, implementation of the Project would require the removal of most, if not all, of the trees on site, including trees that meet the requirements for heritage trees. As required, tree removal would be conducted in compliance with the City’s Tree Preservation Ordinance and any conditions imposed through the tree removal permit process. Adherence to the requirements would ensure that Project implementation does not conflict with the City’s tree protection policies/requirements. PUBLIC FACILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE Goal PF-6: Provide adequate and reliable wastewater collection and treatment facilities to meet current and future needs. Policy PF-6.1 Continue to ensure an adequate treatment and collection system capacity for Rancho Cucamonga’s wastewater that is conveyed to the Inland Empire Utilities Agency water reclamation facilities, while protecting water quality and public health and minimizing adverse impacts to the environment. No Conflict. As discussed in Section 4.15, consistent with existing conditions, wastewater generated by the Project would be collected by on-site sewer lines that would connect to the existing sewer line in 4th Street and be treated at Inland Empire Utilities Agency’s (IEUA) Regional Plant No. 4. In addition, the Project would comply with applicable regulations that govern water quality and discharges to municipal systems as discussed in Section 4.9. Policy PF-6.2 Consult with the Inland Empire Utilities Agency and the No Conflict. As discussed in Section 4.15, based on review of available information from IEUA and Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.10 Land Use and Planning Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.10-22 GENERAL PLAN GOAL/POLICY CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS Cucamonga Valley Water District to ensure that the treatment facility has sufficient capacity to meet future wastewater treatment needs. consultation with Cucamonga Valley Water District (CVWD), IEUA’s Regional Plant No. 4 has adequate wastewater treatment capacity to serve the Project. Goal PF-7: Minimize the volume of solid waste that enters regional landfills and encourage recycling. Policy PF-7.1 Continue to adopt programs and practices that minimize the amount of materials entering the waste stream. Encourage recycling and composting in all sectors of the community, including recycling of construction and demolition materials, in order to divert items from entering landfills. No Conflict. As discussed in Section 4.15, the City implements 40 programs to reduce solid waste generation and achieve the required amount of solid waste diversion. The Project would be served by the City’s waste hauler, and would participate in solid waste management programs applicable to industrial land uses. Policy PF-7.2 Consult with public agencies and private contractors to ensure adequate refuse collection and disposal facilities are available. No Conflict. Section 4.15 discusses solid waste generation, collection and disposal, as well as the availability of landfill capacity to serve the Project. There is sufficient capacity to serve the Project’s proposed industrial uses. PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY Goal PS-1: Plan, promote, and demonstrate a readiness to respond and reduce threats to life and property through traditional and innovative emergency services and programs. Policy PS-1.9 Require adequate water supply and fire flow throughout the City to meet fire demand during times of peak domestic water demand through a cooperative relationship with the Cucamonga Valley Water District. No Conflict. As discussed in Section 4.15, the Project- specific Water Supply Assessment prepared for the Project was approved by the CVWD on January 26, 2021, and concludes that there would be an adequate water supply to accommodate the proposed development. No new or expanded facilities are needed, beyond the on-site infrastructure, including fire pumps, required to serve the proposed buildings. GOAL PS-3: Protect City residents, businesses, and employees from the potential hazards associated with the use, storage, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials in and through Rancho Cucamonga. Policy PS-3.2 Identify and regulate businesses that handle hazardous materials in Rancho Cucamonga. No Conflict. As discussed in Section 4.8, operation of the proposed buildings would involve the use of materials common to all urban development that are labeled hazardous (e.g., solvents and commercial cleansers; petroleum products; and pesticides, fertilizers, and other landscape maintenance materials). There is the potential for routine use, storage, or transport of other hazardous materials; however, the precise materials are not known, as the tenants of the proposed high-cube warehouses are not yet defined. In the event that hazardous materials, other than those common materials described above, are associated with future high-cube warehouse operations, the hazardous materials would only be stored and transported to and from the building Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.10 Land Use and Planning Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.10-23 GENERAL PLAN GOAL/POLICY CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS sites. Manufacturing and other chemical processing would not occur within the proposed high-cube warehouse uses. The use and storage of hazardous materials would be conducted in compliance with existing hazardous material regulations. Goal PS-4: Provide a high level of public safety services throughout Rancho Cucamonga. Policy PS-4.4 Promote existing crime prevention program for commercial and industrial areas. No Conflict. It is anticipated that the proposed high-cube warehouse buildings would operate 24-hours per day, 7 days per week, minimizing opportunities for typical crimes associated with non-residential uses, which are typically occupied only during the day. As standard practice, the City’s Project design review process also considered CPTED principles. Further, steel gates would be provided at the truck court entrances to prevent unauthorized access, and proposed lighting would comply with the City’s minimum requirements for safety and security. Policy PS-4.6 Utilize the principles of Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) during the review of development projects. Goal PS-5: Minimize the potential damage to structures and loss of life that may result from earthquakes and other seismic hazards. Policy PS-5.1 Require geological and geotechnical investigations in areas of potential seismic or geologic hazards as part of the environmental and developmental review process for all structures proposed for human occupancy. No Conflict. As discussed in Section 4.6, a geotechnical investigation was conducted for the Project and recommendations are required to be incorporated into the final Project design. Goal PS-7: Provide adequate and appropriately designed storm drainage and flood control facilities to minimize the risk of flooding. Policy PS-7.1 Continue to upgrade and expand the flood control system so that the community is protected from flooding. No Conflict. As discussed in Section 4.9, the Project site is not located within any flood hazard areas. The Project would maintain existing drainage patterns, with stormwater runoff being directed to the storm drain system in 4th Street. The existing storm drain system has sufficient capacity to accommodate Project site post- development. Goal PS-8: Minimize the risks associated with wind hazards. Policy PS-8.4 Enforce contemporary dust control provisions in the City’s Development Code. No Conflict. As discussed in Section 4.2, of this Draft EIR, fugitive dust would be generated during construction. However, required dust control measures established by the City (pursuant to Section 17.66.060 of the Development Code), and the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) would be implemented during construction. Furthermore, there would be a reduction in vacant land subject to ongoing Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.10 Land Use and Planning Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.10-24 GENERAL PLAN GOAL/POLICY CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS wind erosion resulting from construction and implementation of the Project. Goal PS-9: Balance economic development and land use objectives in Rancho Cucamonga with the operational needs of LA/Ontario International Airport. Policy PS-9.3 Create an appropriate strategy to address proposed development where heights exceed FAR Part 77 standards. No Conflict. Section 4.8 includes a discussion of the provisions of the LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ONT ALUCP). As identified on Figure 4.8-1, the Project site is within the FAA Height Notification Surface Zone and the southern Project site boundary is very close to the Airspace Obstruction Surface Zone. Based on the location of the Project site in relation to the airport, there is a building height limit of 159 feet. The proposed buildings would have a maximum height of 50 feet. Therefore, the Project would not require FAA notification or obstruct aircraft operations. Policy PS-9.4 Create policies or procedures that provide flexibility regarding how prospective buyers and tenants of properties within the LA/Ontario International Airport Influence Area are informed of potential aircraft overflight impacts. As shown on Figure 4.8-2, the Project site is located within the Overflight Notification Zone requiring real estate transaction disclosure. The Real Estate Disclosure Policy (Overflight Policy O2 of the ONT ALUCP) would apply to all development within the Project site (refer to RR 8-4). Goal PS-10: Maintain good local air quality, and reduce the local contributions of airborne pollutants to the air basin. Policy PS-10.2 Integrate air quality planning with land use, economic development, and transportation planning. No Conflict. Pollutant emissions resulting from Project operations are analyzed in Section 4.2. As identified, implementation of the Project would not result in significant levels of air pollutant emissions and no mitigation is required. Policy PS-10.4 Require projects that generate potentially significant levels of air pollutants to incorporate the best available air quality mitigation into the project design, as appropriate. Policy PS-10.6 Implement the policies in the Resource Conservation Chapter that are related to energy resources, energy conservation, and green buildings. No Conflict. Refer to the consistency analysis for Policy RC-4.4. Goal PS-11: Reduce the volume of pollutants generated by motorized vehicles. Policy PS-11.1 Implement the policies in the Community Mobility Chapter to foster a healthy and sustainable community and promote No Conflict. As discussed in Section 4.13, the Project does not conflict with applicable policies in the Community Mobility Chapter of the General Plan. Also, refer to the consistency analysis presented for the RTP/SCS Goals G6 and G8. As discussed, in addition to Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.10 Land Use and Planning Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.10-25 GENERAL PLAN GOAL/POLICY CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS transportation choices other than the private automobile. improved vehicular circulation, the Project accommodates pedestrian and bicycle travel, and transit use. Policy PS-11.2 Minimize vehicle emissions by encouraging alternative land use patterns that reduce the need for automobile trips. No Conflict. The Project is located along 4th Street, within a TPA, and there are existing bus stops adjacent to the Project site, which would serve to encourage transit use by Project employees and visitors. It should also be noted that the Project would not result in significant impacts related vehicular emissions (refer to Section 4.2). Policy PS-11.3 Support programs that increase ridesharing, reduce pollutants generated by vehicle use, and meet the transportation control measures recommended by SCAQMD in the most recent Clean Air Plan. No Conflict. As discussed in Section 3.0and Section 4.13, Project operations would be conducted in compliance with Chapter 17.78, Transportation Demand Management, of the Rancho Cucamonga Development Code, which requires the provision of amenities or programs to encourage the use of alternative modes of travel by employees; patrons; and visitors of commercial, industrial, office, and mixed-use developments to discourage single-occupancy vehicle trips (refer to RR 13-3). In addition to the provision of preferred parking and bicycle storage, and new sidewalks and bicycle lanes to assist employees in using alternative modes of travel, incentives to encourage employee usage would be provided. This would include, but not limited to carpooling encouragement, ride- matching assistance, vanpool assistance, and new employee orientation of these options. Policy PS-11.4 Support regional and local transportation and housing programs that reduce vehicle emissions by decreasing vehicle miles traveled (VMT). No Conflict. Refer to the consistency analysis for Policies PS 11.1 through PS 11.3, above. Additionally, As discussed in Section 4.13, the Project would have a less than significant impact related to VMT. Goal PS-12: Mitigate against climate change. Policy PS-12.2 Encourage renewable energy installation, and facilitate green technology and business and a reduction in community-wide energy consumption. No Conflict. Refer to the consistency analysis provided for policies under Goal RC-4, above. Policy PS-12.3 Encourage development of transit- oriented and infill development, and encourage a mix of uses that foster walking and alternative transportation. No Conflict. The Project involves an infill development, consisting of redevelopment of an underutilized site. Refer to the consistency analysis for Policy PS-11.2 and for the RTP/SCS Goals G6 and G8. In addition to improved vehicular circulation, the Project accommodates pedestrian and bicycle travel, and transit use. Policy PS-12.4 Provide enhanced bicycling and walking infrastructure, and support Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.10 Land Use and Planning Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.10-26 GENERAL PLAN GOAL/POLICY CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS public transit, including public bus service, the Metrolink, and the potential for Bus Rapid Transit (BRT). Policy PS-12.6 Encourage efforts to reduce waste generation and re-use and support increased recycling and composting opportunities with a focus on large commercial and industrial waste producers. No Conflict. Refer to the consistency analysis for Policy PF-7.1 Policy PS-12.7 Support tree planting, planting more vegetation (including native and drought-resistant planting), and preservation of open space. No Conflict. As discussed in the consistency analysis for Policy RC-8.5, implementation of the Project would require the removal of on-site trees. A Tree Removal Permit is required and the conditions imposed as part of that permit, including but not limited to tree replacement, would be implemented as part of the Project. Trees would be planted on-site in parking areas and along the building perimeters and along existing and proposed streets. Goal PS-13: Minimize the impacts of excessive noise levels throughout the community, and adopt appropriate noise level requirements for all land uses. Policy PS-13.2 Consider noise impacts as part of the development review process, particularly the location of parking, ingress/egress/loading, and refuse collection areas relative to surrounding residential development and other noise- sensitive land uses. No Conflict. The noise analysis presented in Section 4.11 addresses the operational noise impacts of the Project, including potential impacts to the West Valley Detention Center to the east from outdoor loading dock activity, truck movements, roof-top air conditioning units, and trash enclosure activity. As identified, the Project would not generate noise levels in exceedance of applicable noise standards established by the City, and would not generate substantial noise level increases. Operational noise impacts would be less than significant. Policy PS-13.3 Consider the use of noise barriers or walls to reduce noise levels generated by ground transportation noise sources and industrial sources. No Conflict. Based on the noise analysis conducted for the Project, traffic-related noise level increases along off-site roadways would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. Additionally, although operational noise impacts would be less than significant, as described in Section 3.0 of this Draft EIR, screenwalls would be provided on-site for screening purposes. These walls would also serve to reduce operational noise levels. Policy PS-13.4 Require that acceptable noise levels are maintained near residences, schools, health care facilities, religious institutions, and other noise sensitive uses in accordance with the Development Code and No Conflict. As discussed under the consistency analysis for PS-13.2, the Project would not generate noise levels at nearby receptors, including the adjacent West Valley Detention Center, that would exceed applicable noise standards in the Rancho Cucamonga Development Code and General Plan. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.10 Land Use and Planning Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.10-27 GENERAL PLAN GOAL/POLICY CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS noise standards contained in the General Plan. Policy PS-13.5 Limit the hours of operation at noise generating sources that are adjacent to noise-sensitive uses, wherever practical. No Conflict. As discussed in Section 3.0, the specific tenants of the proposed buildings are not known; however, the buildings would be occupied by high-cube warehouse distribution operators, and the Project is assumed to be operational 24 hours per day, seven days per week. The buildings are designed such that business operations would be conducted within the enclosed buildings, with the exception of traffic movement and parking. These operational characteristics were taken into consideration as part of the noise analysis conducted for the Project. As identified previously, operational noise impacts would be less than significant. Policy PS-13.6 Implement appropriate standard construction noise controls for all construction projects. No Conflict. Based on the construction-related noise analysis presented in Section 4.11, construction noise levels at the noise sensitive West Valley Detention Center property line to the east would exceed the Rancho Cucamonga construction noise level standard 65 dBA Leq, representing a potentially significant impact for which mitigation is required. With implementation of identified mitigation measures, which require a temporary noise barrier along the Project site boundary with the West Valley Detention Center (MM 11-1), and use of mufflers on construction equipment and ensuring that noise emitted from construction equipment is directed away from sensitive receptors (MM 11-2), construction-relate noise impacts would be less than significant. Policy PS-13.7 Require all exterior noise sources (construction operations, air compressors, pumps, fans, and leaf blowers) to use available noise suppression devices and techniques to bring exterior noise levels down to acceptable levels. Development Code The Project involves a Zoning Map Amendment to change the zoning in the northern portion of the Project site from Heavy Industrial to General Industrial for consistent zoning across the Project site, and a uniform set of development standards to follow. The Project would retain the current zoning for the southern portion of the Project site. The City allows zoning map amendments when the amendment is consistent with the General Plan goals, policies, and implementation programs. As discussed above, the Project would not conflict with the General Plan goals, policies and implementation programs. As part of the Project approval, the site, architectural and landscape plans for the Project are subject to review by the City for compliance with applicable development standards in the Development Code. As assessment of the Project’s consistency with established development standards for industrial land uses is presented in Table 4.1-1, Development Standards Consistency Analysis, in Section 4.1 of this Draft EIR. As identified, the Project would not conflict with the established development standards. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.10 Land Use and Planning Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.10-28 With approval of the proposed Zoning Map Amendment, the Project would not conflict with the Rancho Cucamonga Development Code. 3. City of Ontario The Project site is not located in the City of Ontario, but it is located immediately north of the Ontario City limits (adjacent to the Project site, 4th Street forms the boundary between Rancho Cucamonga and Ontario). Since the goals, policies, and development standards of The Ontario Plan, the Ontario Development Code, and the Crossroads Business Park Specific Plan do not apply to the site, no conflict with these documents would occur with the Project. However, the Crossroads Business Park Specific Plan designates the Specific Plan area, which is south of the Project site, with Light Industrial land uses to provide for the development of one to two story light industrial buildings incorporating such use types as manufacturing, research and development, and multi-tenant industrial. The proposed high- cube warehouse buildings would not conflict with the Crossroads Business Park Specific Plan. Impact 10.2 Implementation of the Project would not result in conflicts with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. No impact would occur. 4.10.5 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Section 4.10.7, Cumulative Impacts (Land Use and Planning), of the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan EIR concludes that no significant cumulative adverse impacts on land use and planning are expected from the 2010 General Plan Update and/or from future development and redevelopment in San Bernardino County. The 2010 General Plan Update would not divide established communities or result in the introduction of incompatible uses in the area, provided compliance with the City’s development standards and applicable regulations. (Rancho Cucamonga, 2010b) Consistent with this conclusion and as discussed in this section, the Project would not conflict with local or regional land use plans, policies and regulations, and would not result in a significant impact on land use and planning. The land use character and overall density of the Project are consistent with that anticipated by the General Plan for the Southeast Focus Area, and would be compatible with surrounding industrial uses. Cumulative development projects would be reviewed for consistency with adopted land use plans, policies and regulations by the City of Rancho Cucamonga (including General Plan policies and City Development Code requirements), and adjacent jurisdictions, in accordance with the requirements of CEQA, the state Zoning and Planning Law, and the State Subdivision Map Act, all of which require findings of plan and policy consistency prior to approval of entitlements for development. Through these requirements, future development would be consistent with adopted goals and polices, would be in compliance with applicable regulations, and would be compatible with existing land uses. Even if the cumulative impact of these projects would be significant, the Project’s contribution to such cumulative land use impacts is less than significant and is thus not cumulatively considerable because (1) the proposed development would not change the type or amount of development anticipated by the Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.10 Land Use and Planning Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.10-29 Rancho Cucamonga General Plan; and, (2) the Project does not conflict with adopted goals and policies as identified through the analysis presented in this section. 4.10.6 MITIGATION MEASURES Project impacts are less than significant and no mitigation is required. 4.10.7 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION Project impacts related to land use and planning would be less than significant. 4.10.8 REFERENCES California Office of Planning and Research (OPR). 2017. State of California General Plan Guidelines. Available at: http://www.opr.ca.gov/docs/OPR_COMPLETE_7.31.17.pdf Ontario, City of. 2010 (approved January 2010). The Ontario Plan. Accessed August 24, 2020. Available: http://www.ontarioplan.org. ———. 1997 (November). Crossroads Business Park Specific Plan- Land Use Map. Accessed August 24, 2020. Available: https://www.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/Ontario- Files/Planning/Maps/crossroads_business_park-big.pdf. ———. 2015 (December). Zoning Map. Accessed August 24, 2020. Available at: https://www.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/Ontario- Files/Planning/zoning(c)36x48_10_3_1_03292019.pdf Rancho Cucamonga, City of. 2010a (May 19). Rancho Cucamonga General Plan. Available at: https://www.cityofrc.us/community-development/planning. ———. 2010b (February). Rancho Cucamonga 2010 General Plan Update Program Environmental Impact Report. ———. 2012 (July 18). City of Rancho Cucamonga Zoning Map. Available at: https://www.mightydevelopment.com/HillsideRd/Zoning_Map.pdf Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). 2016. SCAG 2016-2040 Regional Transportation Program and Sustainable Communities Strategy. Available: http://scagrtpscs.net/Documents/2016/final/f2016RTPSCS.pdf ———. 2018. Final – Industrial Warehousing in the SCAG Region. Available: http://www.freightworks.org/DocumentLibrary/Industrial%20Warehousing%20Report%20- %20Revised%202018.pdf Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.10 Land Use and Planning Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.10-30 ———. 2020a. About SCAG - Organizational Responsibilities. Available: http://www.scag.ca.gov/about/Pages/Home.aspx ———. 2020b. Connect SoCal (The 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy of the Southern California Association of Governments). Available: https://www.connectsocal.org/Documents/Adopted/fConnectSoCal-Plan.pdf Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.11 Noise Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.11-1 4.11 NOISE This section identifies and evaluates the Project’s potential to result in adverse effects associated with noise and vibration during construction and operation. Information in this section is primarily based on the following Noise Impact Analysis (Noise Impact Analysis) technical report. Refer to Section 4.11.9, References, for a complete list of references. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Noise Impact Analysis, City of Rancho Cucamonga, prepared by Urban Crossroads, Inc. (April 15, 2021), and included in Appendix K1 of this Draft EIR. (Urban Crossroads, 2021a) There were no Notice of Preparation (NOP) comment letters received related to noise. 4.11.1 NOISE AND VIBRATION FUNDAMENTALS AND TERMINOLOGY Detailed information about the fundamentals of noise and vibration, and associated terminology is presented in Section 2 of the Noise Impact Analysis included in Appendix K of this Draft EIR; this information is summarized herein. A.Noise Noise is simply defined as "unwanted sound." Sound becomes unwanted when it interferes with normal activities, when it causes actual physical harm or when it has adverse effects on health. Noise is measured on a logarithmic scale of sound pressure level known as a decibel (dB). A-weighted decibels (dBA) approximate the subjective response of the human ear to broad frequency noise source by discriminating against very low and very high frequencies of the audible spectrum. They are adjusted to reflect only those frequencies which are audible to the human ear. Since the range of intensities that the human ear can detect is so large, the scale frequently used to measure intensity is a scale based on multiples of 10, the logarithmic scale. The scale for measuring intensity is the decibel scale. Each interval of 10 decibels indicates a sound energy ten times greater than before, which is perceived by the human ear as being roughly twice as loud. The most common sounds vary between 40 dBA (very quiet) to 100 dBA (very loud). Normal conversation at three feet is roughly at 60 dBA, while loud jet engine noises equate to 110 dBA at approximately 100 feet, which can cause serious discomfort. Environmental noise descriptors are generally based on averages, rather than instantaneous, noise levels. The most used figure is the equivalent level (Leq). Equivalent sound levels are not measured directly but are calculated from sound pressure levels typically measured in dBA. The Leq represents a steady state sound level containing the same total energy as a time varying signal over a given sample period (typically one hour) and is commonly used to describe the “average” noise levels within the Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.11 Noise Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.11-2 environment. The City of Rancho Cucamonga relies on the percentile noise levels1 to describe the stationary source noise level limits with respect to residentially-zoned properties and sensitive uses (collectively termed “sensitive receivers”). Noise levels lower than peak hour may be disturbing if they occur during times when quiet is most desirable, namely evening and nighttime (sleeping) hours. To account for this, the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL), representing a composite 24-hour noise level, is utilized. The CNEL is the weighted average of the intensity of a sound, with corrections for time of day, and averaged over 24 hours. The time-of-day corrections require the addition of 5 decibels to dBA Leq sound levels in the evening from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m., and the addition of 10 decibels to dBA Leq sound levels at night between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. These additions are made to account for the noise sensitive time periods during the evening and night hours when sound appears louder. CNEL does not represent the actual sound level heard at any time, but rather represents the total sound exposure. The City of Rancho Cucamonga relies on the 24-hour CNEL level to assess land use compatibility with transportation- related noise sources. The sound level attenuates (or decreases) at a rate of 6 dB for each doubling of distance from a point source, and at a rate of 3 dB for each doubling of distance from a line source. A large object or barrier in the path between a noise source and a receiver can substantially attenuate noise levels at the receiver. The amount of attenuation provided by shielding depends on the size of the object and the frequency content of the noise source. To account for the ground-effect attenuation (absorption), two types of site conditions are commonly used in noise prediction: soft-site and hard-site conditions. Hard sites (i.e., sites with a reflective surface between the source and the receiver, such as parking lots or smooth bodies of water) receive no excess ground attenuation, and the changes in noise levels with distance (drop-off rate) are simply the geometric spreading of the source. Soft sites are sites that have an absorptive ground surface (e.g., soft dirt, grass, or scattered bushes and trees) and receive an excess ground attenuation value of 1.5 dBA per doubling of distance. Community responses to noise vary depending upon everyone’s susceptibility to noise and personal attitudes about noise. Despite this variability in behavior on an individual level, a change of 1 dBA is considered just perceptible, a change of 3 dBA is considered barely perceptible, a change of 5 dBA is considered readily perceptible, and a change of 10 dBA is considered twice as loud. B.Vibration The Federal Transit Administration (FTA), Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, provides technical guidance for predicting and assessing noise and vibration impacts. According to the FTA, vibration is the periodic oscillation of a medium or object. The rumbling sound caused by the vibration of room surfaces is called structure-borne noise. Sources of ground-borne vibrations include 1 The percentile noise descriptors are the noise levels equaled or exceeded during 50%, 25%, 8%, and 2% of a stated time. Sound levels associated with the L2 and L8 typically describe transient or short-term events, while levels associated with the L50 describe the steady state (or median) noise conditions. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.11 Noise Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.11-3 natural phenomena (e.g., earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, sea waves, landslides) or human-made causes (e.g., explosions, machinery, traffic, trains, construction equipment). As is the case with airborne sound, ground-borne vibrations may be described by amplitude and frequency. There are several different methods that are used to quantify vibration. The peak particle velocity (PPV) is defined as the maximum instantaneous peak of the vibration signal. The PPV is most frequently used to describe vibration impacts to buildings but is not always suitable for evaluating human response (annoyance) because it takes some time for the human body to respond to vibration signals. Decibel notation (VdB) is commonly used to measure root mean square (RMS)2. Typically, ground-borne vibration generated by man-made activities attenuates rapidly with distance from the source of the vibration. Ground-borne vibration is normally perceptible to humans at approximately 65 VdB. For most people, a vibration-velocity level of 75 VdB is the approximate dividing line between barely perceptible and distinctly perceptible levels. 4.11.2 RELEVANT POLICIES AND REGULATIONS A.State Regulations 1.Green Building Standards Code The State of California’s noise insulation standards are codified in the California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Building Standards Administrative Code, Part 2, and the California Building Standards Code. These noise standards are applied to new construction in California for the purpose of controlling interior noise levels resulting from exterior noise sources. The regulations specify that acoustical studies must be prepared when non-residential structures are developed in areas where the exterior noise levels exceed 65 dBA CNEL, such as within a noise contour of an airport, freeway, railroad, and other areas where noise contours are not readily available. If the development falls within an airport or freeway 65 dBA CNEL noise contour, the combined sound transmission class (STC) rating of the wall and roof-ceiling assemblies must be at least 50. For those developments in areas where noise contours are not readily available and the noise level exceeds 65 dBA Leq for any hour of operation, a wall and roof-ceiling combined STC rating of 45, and exterior windows with a minimum STC rating of 40 are required (Section 5.507.4.1). (BSC, n.d.) 2.OPR General Plan Guidelines Though not adopted by law, the 2017 California General Plan Guidelines, published by the California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR), provides guidance for local agencies in preparing or updating General Plans. The Guidelines provide direction on the required Noise Element portion of the General Plans. The purpose of the Noise Element is to limit the exposure of the community to excessive noise levels. Local governments must “analyze and quantify” noise levels and the extent of noise exposure through actual measurement or the use of noise modeling. Technical data relating to 2 The PPV is most frequently used to describe vibration impacts to buildings but is not always suitable for evaluating human response (annoyance) because it takes some time for the human body to respond to vibration signals. Instead, the human body responds to average vibration amplitude often described as the root mean square (RMS). Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.11 Noise Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.11-4 mobile and point sources must be collected and synthesized into a set of noise control policies and programs that “minimizes the exposure of community residents to excessive noise.” Noise level contours must be mapped and the conclusions of the element used as a basis for land use decisions. The element must include implementation measures and possible solutions to existing and foreseeable noise problems. Furthermore, the policies and standards must be sufficient to serve as a guideline for compliance with sound transmission control requirements. The noise element directly correlates to the Land Use, Circulation, and Housing Elements. The Noise Element must be used to guide decisions concerning land use and the location of new roads and transit facilities since these are common sources of excessive noise levels. The noise levels from existing land uses, including mining, agricultural, and industrial activities, must be closely analyzed to ensure compatibility, especially where residential and other sensitive receptors have encroached into areas previously occupied by these uses. (OPR, 2017) B.Regional Regulations 1.Airport Land Use Compatibility The Project site is located approximately 3 miles northeast of the Ontario International Airport (ONT). This places the Project site within the ONT Airport Influence Area (AIA) according to Policy Map 2- 1 of the Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ONT ALUCP). The ONT ALUCP was amended July 2018 to promote compatibility between the airport and the land uses that surround it. Since the Project site is located within the ONT Airport Influence Area, the Project is subject to the Noise Criteria established by Table 2-3 of the ONT ALUCP. As shown on Exhibit 3-B of the Project’s Noise Impact Analysis (Appendix K1 of this Draft EIR), the Project site is located within the ONT AIA but outside the 60 dBA CNEL airport noise impact zone consistent with Policy Map 2-3. According to Table 2-3 of the ONT ALUCP, industrial land uses located outside the 60 dBA CNEL noise level contours for the ONT, such as the Project, are considered normally compatible land use. For normally compatible land use, either the activities associated with the land use are inherently noisy or standard construction methods will sufficiently attenuate exterior noise to an acceptable indoor CNEL. C.Local Regulations 1.City of Rancho Cucamonga Public Health and Safety Element The City of Rancho Cucamonga has adopted a Public Health and Safety Element of the General Plan to, among other purposes, minimize noise impacts on the community and to coordinate with surrounding jurisdictions and other entities regarding noise control. The Public Health and Safety Element identifies noise-sensitive land uses and establishes compatibility guidelines for land use and noise. In addition, the Public Health and Safety Element identifies goals and policies to minimize the impacts of excessive noise levels throughout the community. The noise-related Public Health and Safety Element goals are as follows: PS-13: Minimize the impacts of excessive noise levels throughout the community and adopt appropriate noise level requirements for all land uses. PS-14: Minimize the impacts of transportation-related noise. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.11 Noise Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.11-5 The noise criteria identified in the City of Rancho Cucamonga Public Health and Safety Element (Figure PS-8) are guidelines to evaluate the land use compatibility of transportation-related noise. The compatibility criteria, which also are shown on Exhibit 3-A of the Project’s Noise Impact Analysis (Appendix K1 of this Draft EIR), provides the City with a planning tool to gauge the compatibility of land uses relative to existing and future exterior noise levels. The Noise Compatibility Matrix describes categories of compatibility and not specific noise standards. The Project entails an industrial (high- cube warehouse) land use which is considered normally acceptable with exterior noise levels of up to 75 dBA CNEL and considered conditionally acceptable with exterior noise levels approaching 80 dBA CNEL. For conditionally acceptable exterior noise levels, new construction or development should be undertaken only after a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements is made and the needed noise insulation features are included in the design. Conventional construction but with closed windows and fresh air supply systems or air conditioning will normally suffice. 2.City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Code Operational Noise Standards To analyze noise impacts originating from a designated fixed location or private property such as the Project, operational source noise such as the expected outdoor loading dock activity, truck movements, roof-top air conditioning units, and trash enclosure activity are evaluated against standards established in the Development Code (Chapter 17 of the City’s Municipal Code). The City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Code, Chapter 17.66, Performance Standards, Section 17.66.050, Noise Standards, contains the base exterior and interior noise level limits for residential (Noise Zone 1) and exterior noise level limits for all commercial (Noise Zone 2) land uses, as shown on Table 4.11-1, Operational Noise Standards. To control unnecessary, excessive, and annoying noise, the City of Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code, Section 17.66.050(C)(1) identifies the following operational exterior noise level limits. It shall be unlawful for any person at any location within the city to create any noise or allow the creation of any noise on the property owned, leased, occupied, or otherwise controlled by such person, which causes the noise level when measured on the property line of any other property to exceed the basic noise level as adjusted below: a.Basic noise level for a cumulative period of not more than 15 minutes in any one hour; or b.Basic noise level plus five dBA for a cumulative period of not more than ten minutes in any one hour; or c.Basic noise level plus 14 dBA for a cumulative period of not more than five minutes in any one hour; or d.Basic noise level plus 15 dBA at any time. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.11 Noise Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.11-6 Table 4.11-1 Operational Noise Standards Receiving Land Use Time Period Exterior Noise Standards (dBA)1 L25 (15 mins) L17 (10 mins) L8 (5 mins) Lmax (0 min) Residential (Noise Zone 1) Daytime 65 70 79 80 Nighttime 60 65 74 75 All Commercial (Noise Zone 2) Daytime 70 -2 -2 -2 Nighttime 65 -2 -2 -2 1 City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Code, Section 17.66.050 Noise Standards (Appendix 3.1 to the Project’s Noise Impact Analysis, included as Appendix K1 of this Draft EIR). 2 No base noise level adjustments are identified in Section 17.66.050[G] for commercial land use. The percent noise level is the level exceeded "n" percent of the time during the measurement period. L25 is the noise level exceeded 25% of the time. "Daytime" = 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.; "Nighttime" = 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. (Urban Crossroads, 2021a, Table 3-1) Table 17.66.050-1, Residential Noise Limits, of the Development Code identifies a daytime (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.) base exterior noise level standard of 65 dBA, and a nighttime (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) base exterior noise level standard of 60 dBA for residential land uses. In addition, Table 17.66.050-1 identifies a daytime base interior noise level standard of 50 dBA and a nighttime base interior noise level standard of 45 dBA for residential land uses. However, since typical building construction provides a minimum 25 dBA noise reduction with "windows closed," project-related noise levels that comply with the exterior noise level limits generally satisfy the interior noise level limits. Section 17.66.050(G) identifies a daytime (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.) base exterior noise level standard of 70 dBA, and a nighttime (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) base exterior noise level standard of 65 dBA for commercial and office properties. No base noise level adjustments or interior noise levels standards are identified in Section 17.66.050(G) for industrial properties. Section 17.66.110(A)(2) outlines the Class B performance standards for industrial activities within the General Industrial zoning district. The performance standards are designed to protect uses on adjoining sites from effects which could adversely affect their functional and economic viability. According to Table 17.66.110 of the Development Code, project-related exterior operational noise levels from Class B General Industrial uses shall not exceed 80 dBA anywhere on the lot or 65 dBA at the residential property line. Noise caused by motors vehicles and trains is exempted from this standard. The residential property line performance standard applies to the property line of any noise-sensitive land use. For purposes of the Project analysis, this includes the West Valley Detention Center east of the Project site. The City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Code Performance Standards for noise are shown on Table 4.11-1. The City of Rancho Cucamonga percentile noise descriptors are provided to ensure that the duration of the noise source is fully considered. However, due to the relatively constant intensity of the Project operational activities, the L25 (base exterior noise level limit) or the average Leq noise level metrics best describes the outdoor loading dock activity, truck movements, roof-top air conditioning units, and trash enclosure activity. The Leq noise level metric accounts for noise fluctuations over time by averaging the louder and quieter events and giving more weight to the louder events. In addition, a review of the Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.11 Noise Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.11-7 existing ambient noise level measurements shows that the Leq is generally greater than or equal to the L25. Therefore, the Project’s Noise Impact Analysis (Appendix K1 of this Draft EIR) conservatively relies on the average Leq sound level limits to describe the Project operational noise levels. Construction Noise Standards To control noise impacts associated with the construction of the proposed Project the City of Rancho Cucamonga has established limits to the hours of construction and noise levels. According to Section 17.66.050(D)(4) of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Code, noise sources associated with, or vibration created by, construction, repair, remodeling, or grading of any real property or during authorized seismic surveys are exempt from the provisions of the noise standards, provided said activities: a.When adjacent to a residential land use, school, church or similar type of use, the noise generating activity does not take place between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. on weekdays, including Saturday, or at any time on Sunday or a national holiday, and provided that noise levels created do not exceed the base noise level standard of 65 dBA when measured at the adjacent property line. 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 any day, including Saturday and Sunday, and provided noise levels created do not exceed the standards of 70 dBA at the adjacent property line. If a project demonstrates compliance with the standards for both types of uses, the construction noise level impacts are considered exempt from the noise standards. The City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Code Noise Standards for construction activities are shown on Table 4.11-2, Construction Noise Standards. Table 4.11-2 Construction Noise Standards City Receiving Land Use Permitted Hours of Construction Activity Construction Noise Level Standard (dBA Leq)2 Rancho Cucamonga1 Residential, School, & Church 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Monday to Saturday; no activity on Sundays or national holidays 65 Commercial or Industrial 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Monday to Saturday; no activity on Sundays or national holidays 70 1 City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Code, Section 17.66.050(D)(4), Special Exclusions. 2 When measured at the adjacent property line. (Urban Crossroads, 2021a, Table 3-2) Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.11 Noise Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.11-8 Construction Vibration Standards The City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Code, Section 17.66.070, identifies the City’s vibration standards. However, Section 17.66.070(D) indicates that vibrations from temporary construction/demolition and vehicles that leave the subject parcel (e.g., trucks, trains, and aircraft) are exempt from the provisions of this section. Therefore, according to Section 17.66.070(D) construction/demolition and vehicle vibration activity associated with construction activity is considered exempt from the vibration standards of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. In addition to Development Code Section 17.66.070(D), the City of Rancho Cucamonga has identified vibration performance standards for Class B industrial activities within Section 17.66.110(A)(2). According to Table 17.66.110, all uses shall be operated so as not to generate vibration discernible without instruments by the average persons beyond the lot upon which the source is located. Vibration caused by motor vehicles, trains, and temporary construction or demolition is exempted from this standard. Since the City of Rancho Cucamonga does not identify specific construction vibration level limits, the analysis herein relies on the FTA methodology for the purpose of analyzing construction vibration impacts from the proposed project. The FTA’s Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual general vibration assessment methodology provides guidelines for the maximum-acceptable infrequent event vibration criteria for different types of land uses. These guidelines allow 90 VdB for industrial use, 84 VdB for office use, and 78 VdB for daytime residential uses and 72 VdB for nighttime uses in buildings where people normally sleep. 4.11.3 EXISTING SETTING A.Existing Noise Levels To assess the existing noise level environment, 24-hour noise level measurements were taken at four locations in the Project vicinity on Wednesday, April 22, 2020 and Tuesday, September 29, 2020. The receiver locations were selected to describe and document the existing noise environment within the Project study area. Figure 4.11-1, Noise Measurement Locations, depicts the noise level measurement locations. Table 4.11-3, 24-Hour Ambient Noise Level Measurements, identifies the hourly daytime (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.) and nighttime (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) noise levels at each noise level measurement location. The noise measurements represent background ambient noise conditions during the mandatory State of California stay at home orders due to the Covid-19 pandemic. Based on a comparison of noise level measurements taken in December 2019, there was an estimated a 2.5 dBA Leq reduction in noise levels due to the stay-at-home order. Therefore, the noise levels presented in Table 4.11-3 conservatively overstate the relative project noise level increases to compensate for the lower ambient noise level measurements. As shown in Table 4.11-3, average daytime noise levels in the study area range from 53.5 dBA Leq to 64.5 dBA Leq, while average nighttime noise levels in the study area range from 54.6 dBA Leq to 62.7 dBA Leq. Noise contours also were developed to assess existing noise levels along roadways that would be used by Project-generated traffic. Noise contour boundaries represent the equal levels of noise exposure and are measured in CNEL from the center of the roadway. The noise contours do not consider the effect Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report LEGEND: £ Measurement Locations [] Site Boundary Source(s): Urban Crossroads (01-26-2021) Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga 4.11 Noise Figure 4. 11-l Noise Measurement Locations SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.11-9 Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.11 Noise Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.11-10 Table 4.11-3 24-Hour Ambient Noise Level Measurements Location1 Receiving Use Description Noise Level (dBA Leq)2 CNEL Daytime Nighttime L1 Church Located northwest of the Project site near 6th Street by the JKI Miracle Center | Christian Church at 12120 6th Street. 59.6 56.1 63.6 L2 Utility Located east of the Project site on 6th Street by Chino Basin Municipal at 12811 6th Street. 59.7 61.3 67.6 L3 Hotel Located southwest of the Project site by Rochester Avenue near Hyatt Place Ontario at 4760 E Mills Circle. 64.5 62.7 69.6 L4 Hotel Located west of the Project site by the Courtyard by Marriott Ontario 11525 Mission Vista Drive. 53.7 56.8 63.0 L5 Detention Center Located near northeastern boundary of the Project site near the West Valley Detention Center at 9500 Etiwanda Avenue. 55.6 61.2 67.2 L6 Detention Center Located near the southeastern boundary of the Project site by the West Valley Detention Center at 9500 Etiwanda Avenue. 53.5 54.6 61.1 1 See Figure 4.11-1 for the noise level measurement locations. 2 Energy (logarithmic) average levels. The long-term 24-hour measurement worksheets are included in Appendix 5.2. "Daytime" = 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.; "Nighttime" = 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. (Urban Crossroads, 2021a, Table 4-1) of any existing noise barriers or topography that may attenuate ambient noise levels. In addition, because the noise contours reflect modeling of vehicular noise on area roadways, they appropriately do not reflect noise contributions from the surrounding stationary noise sources. Estimated existing traffic noise levels on roads that would be used by Project-generated traffic are shown in Table 4.11- 4, Existing Traffic-Related Noise Contours Without Project Traffic. Table 4.11-4 Existing Traffic-Related Noise Contours Without Project Traffic ID Road Segment Receiving Land Use1 CNEL at Receiving Land Use (dBA)2 Distance to Contour from Centerline (Feet) 70 dBA CNEL 65 dBA CNEL 60 dBA CNEL 1 Etiwanda Av. s/o Foothill Bl. Sensitive 74.8 105 225 485 2 Etiwanda Av. s/o Whittram Av. Non-Sensitive 76.0 126 271 584 3 Etiwanda Av. s/o San Bernardino Av. Non-Sensitive 76.0 150 323 697 4 Foothill Bl. w/o Etiwanda Av. Non-Sensitive 77.5 189 408 879 5 6th St. w/o Etiwanda Av. Non-Sensitive 58.4 RW RW RW 6 4th St. e/o I-15 NB Ramps Non-Sensitive 76.1 154 332 715 7 4th St. w/o Etiwanda Av. Sensitive 76.3 157 339 730 8 Street A s/o Dwy. 8 Sensitive n/a n/a n/a n/a 1 Noise sensitive uses limited to noise sensitive residential land uses and the West Valley Detention Center. 2 The CNEL is calculated at the boundary of the right-of-way of the receiving adjacent land use. "RW" = Location of the respective noise contour falls within the right-of-way of the road. "n/a"= Street A does not exist for the without project conditions (Urban Crossroads, 2021a, Table 8-1) Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.11 Noise Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.11-11 B.Sensitive Receivers Sensitive receivers are generally defined as locations where people reside or where the presence of unwanted sound could otherwise adversely affect the use of the land. Noise-sensitive land uses are generally considered to include schools, hospitals, single-family dwellings, mobile home parks, churches, libraries, recreation areas or buildings where people normally sleep. Moderately noise- sensitive land uses typically include multi-family dwellings, hotels, motels, dormitories, out-patient clinics, cemeteries, golf courses, country clubs, athletic/tennis clubs, and equestrian clubs. Land uses that are considered relatively insensitive to noise include business, commercial, and professional developments. Land uses that are typically not affected by noise include: industrial, manufacturing, utilities, agriculture, undeveloped land, parking lots, warehousing, liquid and solid waste facilities, salvage yards, and transit terminals. To assess the potential for long-term operational and short-term construction noise impacts, four sensitive receiver locations, as shown on Figure 4.11-2, Sensitive Receiver Locations, were identified as representative locations for analysis, and are described below. Although the nearby West Valley Detention Center is a temporary holding facility, there are beds at this facility for temporary stays. Therefore, as a conservative measure, the individuals held at the West Valley Detention Center are considered sensitive receptors for the purposes of the Project’s noise analysis. In addition to the West Valley Detention Center, a church, and temporary visitors at the Hyatt Place and Courtyard by Marriott Hotels are considered as noise sensitive receivers. Other sensitive land uses in the Project study area that are located at greater distances than those identified in this noise study will experience lower noise levels than those presented in this report due to the additional attenuation from distance and the shielding of intervening structures. R1: Location R1 represents the noise-sensitive JKI Miracle Center/Christian Church at 12120 6th Street, approximately 1,658 feet northwest of the Project site. Receiver R1 is placed at the building façade. A 24-hour noise measurement was taken near this location, L1, to describe the existing ambient noise environment. R2: Location R2 represents the noise-sensitive West Valley Detention Center at 9500 Etiwanda Avenue, approximately 364 feet east of the Project site. Receiver R2 is placed at the building façade. Two 24-hour noise measurements were taken near this location, L5 and L6, to describe the existing ambient noise environment. R3: Location R3 represents the noise-sensitive Hyatt Place Ontario at 4760 East Mills Circle, approximately 4,167 feet southwest of the Project site. Receiver R3 is placed at the building façade. A 24-hour noise measurement near this location, L3, is used to describe the existing ambient noise environment. R4: Location R4 represents the noise-sensitive Courtyard by Marriott Ontario at 11525 Mission Vista Drive, approximately 5,321 feet west of the Project site. R4 is placed at the building façade. A 24-hour noise measurement near this location, L4, is used to describe the existing ambient noise environment. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report LEGEND: [=] Site Boundary � Receiver Locations -• Distance from receiver to Project site boundary (in feet) Source(s): Urban Crossroads (01-26-2021) Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga 4.11 Noise Figure 4. 11-2 Sensitive Receiver Locations SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.11-12 Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.11 Noise Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.11-13 4.11.4 THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE According to Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, a project will normally have a significant adverse environmental impact due to noise or vibration if it will: a) 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. b) Result in the generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan, or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels. While the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan provides direction on noise compatibility, and the Rancho Cucamonga Development Code establishes noise standards by land use type that are sufficient to assess the significance of noise impacts, they do not define the levels at which increases project related off- site traffic and operational noise levels are considered substantial. Under CEQA, consideration must be given to the magnitude of the increase, the existing ambient noise levels, and the location of receivers to determine if a noise increase represents a significant adverse environmental impact. This approach recognizes that there is no completely satisfactory way to measure the subjective effects of noise or of the corresponding human reactions of annoyance and dissatisfaction, primarily because of the wide variation in individual thresholds of annoyance and differing individual experiences with noise. Thus, an effective way of determining a person’s subjective reaction to a new noise is the comparison of it to the existing environment to which one has adapted – the so-called ambient environment. In general, the more a new noise exceeds the previously existing ambient noise level, the less acceptable the new noise will typically be judged. The Federal Interagency Committee on Noise (FICON) developed guidance to be used for the assessment of project-generated increases in noise levels that consider the ambient noise level. For this analysis a readily perceptible 5 dBA or greater Project-related noise level increase is considered a significant impact when the existing noise levels are below 60 dBA. In areas where the without Project noise levels range from 60 to 65 dBA, a 3 dBA barely perceptible noise level increase appears to be appropriate for most people. When the without project noise levels already exceed 65 dBA, any increase in community noise louder than 1.5 dBA or greater is considered a significant impact if the noise criteria for a given land use is exceeded, since it likely contributes to an existing noise exposure exceedance. Table 4.11-5, Significance of Noise Impacts at Noise-Sensitive Receivers, provides a summary of the potential noise impact significance criteria, based on guidance from FICON. The FICON guidance provides an established source of criteria to assess the impacts of substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels. Based on the FICON criteria, the amount to which a given noise level increase is considered acceptable is reduced when the without Project noise levels are already shown to exceed certain land-use specific exterior noise level criteria. The specific Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.11 Noise Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.11-14 Table 4.11-5 Significance of Noise Impacts at Noise-Sensitive Receivers Without Project Noise Level Potential Significant Impact < 60 dBA 5 dBA or more 60 - 65 dBA 3 dBA or more > 65 dBA 1.5 dBA or more Federal Interagency Committee on Noise (FICON), 1992. (Urban Crossroads, 2021a, Table 6-1) levels are based on typical responses to noise level increases of 5 dBA or readily perceptible, 3 dBA or barely perceptible, and 1.5 dBA depending on the underlying without Project noise levels for noise- sensitive uses. These levels of increases and their perceived acceptance are consistent with guidance provided by both the Federal Highway Administration and Caltrans. Provided below is a summary of the significance criteria used to evaluate Project-related noise impacts, which is based on the noise standards utilized in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. A. Off-Site Traffic Noise Thresholds of Significance Project-related off-site traffic noise impacts shall be considered significant if any of the following occur as a direct result of the Project:  When the noise levels at existing and future noise-sensitive land uses (e.g., residential, etc.): ○ are less than 60 dBA CNEL and the Project creates a 5 dBA CNEL or greater Project- related noise level increase: or ○ range from 60 to 65 dBA CNEL and the Project creates a 3 dBA CNEL or greater Project- related noise level increase: or ○ are greater than 65 dBA CNEL, and the Project creates a community noise level increase of greater than 1.5 dBA CNEL.  When the noise levels at existing and future non-noise-sensitive land uses (e.g., office, commercial, industrial): ○ are less than the City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Public Health and Safety Element, Figure PS-8, normally acceptable 70 dBA CNEL and the Project creates a readily perceptible 5 dBA CNEL or greater Project related noise level increase; or ○ are greater than the City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Public Health and Safety Element, Figure PS-8, normally acceptable 70 dBA CNEL and the Project creates a barely perceptible 3 dBA CNEL or greater Project noise level increase. B. Operational Noise Thresholds of Significance Project-related operational noise impacts shall be considered significant if any of the following occur as a direct result of the Project: Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.11 Noise Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.11-15  If Project-related operational (stationary-source) noise levels exceed the exterior 65 dBA Leq daytime or 60 dBA Leq nighttime noise level standards at nearby noise sensitive residential receiver locations (Rancho Cucamonga Development Code, Section 17.66.050).  If Project-related operational (stationary-source) noise levels exceed the exterior 70 dBA Leq daytime or 65 dBA Leq nighttime noise level standards at nearby commercial and office receiver locations (Rancho Cucamonga Development Code, Section 17.66.050[G]).  If Project-related operational (stationary-source) noise levels exceed the Class B General Industrial uses of 65 dBA at the residential property line. The general industrial land use performance standard applies to the property line of any noise sensitive land use including the nearby West Valley Detention Center (Rancho Cucamonga Development Code, Table 17.66.110).  If the existing ambient noise levels at the nearby noise-sensitive receivers near the Project site: ○ are less than 60 dBA Leq and the Project creates a readily perceptible 5 dBA Leq or greater Project-related noise level increase: or ○ range from 60 to 65 dBA Leq and the Project creates a barely perceptible 3 dBA Leq or greater Project-related noise level increase: or ○ already exceed 65 dBA Leq, and the Project creates a community noise level increase of greater than 1.5 dBA Leq (FICON, 1992). C. Construction Noise Thresholds of Significance Project-related construction noise impacts shall be considered significant if any of the following occur as a direct result of the Project:  If Project-related construction activities adjacent to a residential land use, school, church or similar type of use occur 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 the noise levels created exceed the base noise level standard of 65 dBA when measured at the adjacent property line (Rancho Cucamonga Development Code, Section 17.66.050 [D][4][a]).  If Project-related construction activities adjacent to a commercial or industrial use, occur between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. on weekdays, including Saturday and Sunday, and the noise levels created exceed the standards of 70 dBA at the adjacent property line (Rancho Cucamonga Development Code, Section 17.66.050 [D][4][b]). D. Construction Vibration Thresholds of Significance Project-related construction vibration impacts shall be considered significant if any of the following occur as a direct result of the proposed Project:  If Project-related construction activities create vibration levels which exceed the FTA guidelines for the maximum-acceptable vibration criteria of 90 VdB for industrial (workshop) Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.11 Noise Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.11-16 use, 84 VdB for office use, 78 VdB for daytime residential uses, or 72 VdB for nighttime residential uses in buildings where people normally sleep. 4.11.5 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Threshold 11.1 Would the Project 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? The proposed Project has the potential to result in a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels during construction of the proposed Project, during long-term site operations, and due to Project-related traffic. Each is discussed below. 1. Short-Term Construction-Related Noise Impacts Noise generated by the Project construction equipment would include a combination of trucks, power tools, concrete mixers, and portable generators operating simultaneously that when combined can reach high levels. No pile driving is expected as part of the Project construction activities. Figure 4.11-3, Typical Construction Noise Source Locations, shows the construction noise source locations including the potential 6th Street railroad spur crossing connection, in relation to the nearest sensitive receiver locations. The number and mix of construction equipment are expected to occur in the following stages: demolition; grading; utilities/infrastructure; paving; and building construction/architectural coating. Construction noise generated from concrete crushing activities and nighttime concrete pours are addressed separately, below. The Project’s construction noise analysis was prepared using reference noise level measurements taken by Urban Crossroads, Inc. to describe the typical construction activity noise levels for each stage of Project construction. The construction reference noise level measurements represent a list of typical construction activity noise levels with multiple pieces of equipment operating simultaneously to conservatively estimate Project construction noise levels. Table 10-1 of the Project’s Noise Impact Analysis (Appendix K1 of this Draft EIR) provides a summary of the construction reference noise level measurements. Using the reference construction equipment noise levels and the CadnaA noise prediction model, calculations of the Project construction noise level impacts with multiple pieces of equipment operating simultaneously at the nearest sensitive receiver locations were completed. The reference noise level measurements were collected from existing construction operations with similar equipment as those expected with the Project. While the construction size, scope of work, and ambient noise levels varies for each of the reference noise level measurements, each piece of construction equipment fully represents the expected noise levels for each activity. The construction noise analysis does not rely on any one reference noise level to fully describe the potential impacts. Rather, a combination of individual construction noise level measurements is used to describe typical activities for each stage of construction. As shown on Table 4.11-6, Unmitigated Typical Construction Equipment Noise Level Summary, the unmitigated construction noise levels are expected to range from 66.4 to 68.9 dBA Leq Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report LEGEND: E3 Center of Construction Activity D Parcel Boundary Source(s): Urban Crossroads (01-26-2021) Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga 4.11 Noise � Adjacent Property Line Figure 4. 11-3 Typical Construction Noise Source Locations SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.11-17 Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.11 Noise Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.11-18 Table 4.11-6 Unmitigated Typical Construction Equipment Noise Level Summary Adjacent Property Line1 Unmitigated Construction Noise Levels (dBA Leq) Demolition Grading Utilities/ Infrastructure Paving Building Construction/ Arch. Coating Highest Levels2 North 66.4 64.6 62.7 62.3 58.6 66.4 South 66.9 65.1 63.2 62.8 59.1 66.9 East 67.6 65.8 63.9 63.5 59.8 67.6 West 68.9 67.1 65.2 64.8 61.1 68.9 1 Adjacent property line as shown on Figure 4.11-3. 2 Construction noise level calculations based on distance from the center of project construction activity to the property line of adjacent uses. The unmitigated CadnaA construction noise model inputs are included in Appendix 10.1 of the Project’s Noise Impact Analysis (Appendix K1 of this Draft EIR). (Urban Crossroads, 2021a, Table 10-2) at the parcel boundary of adjacent uses. Appendix 10.1 of the Project’s Noise Impact Analysis (Appendix K1 of this Draft EIR) includes the unmitigated typical construction CadnaA noise model calculations. To demonstrate compliance with local noise regulations, the Project-only construction noise levels are evaluated against exterior noise level thresholds established by Section 17.66.050(D)(4) of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Development at the adjacent property line. As shown on Table 4.11-7, Unmitigated Typical Construction Noise Level Compliance, the estimated construction noise levels at the adjacent industrial uses to the north, south, and west would satisfy the 70 dBA Leq construction noise level standard. However, the construction noise levels at the West Valley Detention Center property line to the east would exceed the City of Rancho Cucamonga construction noise level standard 65 dBA Leq. Therefore, the unmitigated noise impact due to typical Project construction activities is considered potentially significant prior to mitigation. Table 4.11-7 Unmitigated Typical Construction Noise Level Compliance Adjacent Property Line1 Use Construction Noise Levels (dBA Leq) Highest Construction2 Construction Standard3 Threshold Exceeded?4 North Industrial 66.4 70 No South Industrial 66.9 70 No East Detention Center 67.6 65 Yes West Industrial 68.9 70 No 1 Adjacent property line as shown on Figure 4.11-3. 2 Construction noise level calculations based on distance from the center of project construction activity to the property line of adjacent uses as shown on Table 4.11-6. 3 Construction noise level standards as shown on Table 4.11-2. 4 Do the estimated Project construction noise levels exceed the construction noise level threshold? (Urban Crossroads, 2021a, Table 10-3) Mitigation measure (MM) 11-1, which requires installation of a temporary noise barrier at the eastern property line during construction (refer to Figure 4.11-4, Construction Noise Barrier Location), and MM 11-2, which requires use of properly operating and maintained mufflers and directing stationary construction equipment away noise sensitive receivers, are required to be implemented during construction. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report temporary construction perimeter noise barrier at the east side of the Project site boundary for the duration of the construction LEGEND: :··i - . -- ,_ -' I I -l -· I -1 -:-, -', �l. l -j : ·, 1: 0il!11!11U�. r-; +-• ,"'�".I ,-i I . -i ' I I � � - I ··1 . · 1 ·--I T I-· f i I -i -I I 1 -T -I -·· I �-.j 1-r -t ,j-1 -:.x1-•-1 ,· I I -I I-I . _I -· i I -I � l ; -i ;-; - SAN BERNARDINO AVE 1c:11 Temporary Noise Barrier @remporary Noise Barrier Height (in feet) Source(s): Urban Crossroads (01-26-2021) 4.11 Noise Figure 4. 11-4 Construction Noise Barrier Location Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.11-19 Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.11 Noise Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.11-20 As shown on Table 4.11-8, Mitigated Typical Construction Noise Levels, with implementation of Mitigation Measures MM 11-1 and 11-2, the Project’s mitigated construction noise levels are expected to range from 62.1 to 68.9 dBA Leq at the parcel boundary of adjacent uses. Table 4.11-9, Mitigated Typical Construction Noise Level Compliance, shows that the mitigated construction noise levels would satisfy the City of Rancho Cucamonga construction noise level standard 65 dBA Leq at the adjacent noise sensitive property line to the east. With implementation of MM 11-1 and 11-2, the Project’s typical construction noise impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels. Table 4.11-8 Mitigated Typical Construction Noise Levels Adjacent Property Line1 Mitigated Construction Noise Levels (dBA Leq) Demolition Grading Utilities/ Infrastructure Paving Building Construction/ Arch. Coating Highest Levels2 North 66.4 64.6 62.7 62.3 58.6 66.4 South 66.9 65.1 63.2 62.8 59.1 66.9 East 62.1 60.3 58.4 58.0 54.3 62.1 West 68.9 67.1 65.2 64.8 61.1 68.9 1 Adjacent property line as shown on Figure 4.11-3. 2 Construction noise level calculations based on distance from the center of project construction activity to the property line of adjacent uses. The mitigated CadnaA construction noise model inputs are included in Appendix 10.2 to the Project’s Noise Impact Analysis (Appendix K1 of this Draft EIR). (Urban Crossroads, 2021a, Table 10-4) Table 4.11-9 Mitigated Typical Construction Noise Level Compliance Adjacent Property Line1 Use Construction Noise Levels (dBA Leq) Highest Construction2 Construction Standard3 Threshold Exceeded?4 North Industrial 66.4 70 No South Industrial 66.9 70 No East Detention Center 62.1 65 No West Industrial 68.9 70 No 1 Adjacent property line as shown on Figure 4.11-3. 2 Construction noise level calculations based on distance from the center of project construction activity to the property line of adjacent uses as shown on Table 10-4. 3 Construction noise level standards as shown on Table 3-2. 4 Do the estimated Project construction noise levels exceed the construction noise level threshold? (Urban Crossroads, 2021a, Table 10-4) An analysis was also completed to assess potential noise level impacts due to concrete crushing activities planned near the eastern Project site boundary. Exhibit 10-C of the Project’s Noise Impact Analysis (Appendix K1 of this Draft EIR) shows the location of the planned concrete crushing activity area in relation to the receiver locations. Table 10-9 of the Noise Impact Analysis provides a summary of the reference average Leq noise levels used to describe concrete crushing construction activities. The reference noise level summary describes construction activity noise levels with multiple pieces of concrete construction equipment operating simultaneously and includes source noise levels for a hoe ram or breaker representing a percussion hammer fitted to an excavator for breaking concrete. As shown on Table 4.11-10, Unmitigated Concrete Crushing Noise Level Summary, the unmitigated construction noise levels are expected to range from 50.8 to 72.1 dBA Leq at the parcel boundary of adjacent uses. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.11 Noise Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.11-21 Table 4.11-10 Unmitigated Concrete Crushing Noise Level Summary Adjacent Property Line1 Use Unmitigated Construction Noise Levels (dBA Leq) Concrete Crushing2 Construction Standard3 Threshold Exceeded?4 North Industrial 50.8 70 No South Industrial 51.8 70 No East Detention Center 72.1 65 Yes West Industrial 55.5 70 No 1 Adjacent property line as shown on Figure 4.11-3. 2 Construction noise level calculations based on distance from the concrete crushing activity to the property line of adjacent uses. 3 Construction noise level standards as shown on Table 4.11-2. 4 Do the estimated Project construction noise levels exceed the construction noise level threshold? (Urban Crossroads, 2021a, Table 10-10) Table 4.11-10 shows that the estimated construction noise levels at the adjacent industrial uses to the north, south, and west would satisfy the 70 dBA Leq construction noise level standard. However, the construction noise levels at the noise sensitive West Valley Detention Center property line to the east would exceed the City of Rancho Cucamonga construction noise level standard 65 dBA Leq, representing a potentially significant impact for which mitigation is required. Table 4.11-11, Mitigated Concrete Crushing Noise Level Summary, shows that with implementation of MM 11-1 and MM 11-2, the mitigated concrete crushing construction noise levels would range from 50.8 to 64.7 dBA Leq at the parcel boundary of adjacent uses. With the required 6-foot-high temporary noise barrier, the mitigated construction noise impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels. Appendix 10.4 of the Project’s Noise Impact Analysis (Appendix K1 of this Draft EIR) includes the mitigated concrete crushing CadnaA noise model calculations. Table 4.11-11 Mitigated Concrete Crushing Noise Level Summary Adjacent Property Line1 Use Mitigated Construction Noise Levels (dBA Leq) Concrete Crushing2 Construction Standard3 Threshold Exceeded?4 North Industrial 50.8 70 No South Industrial 51.8 70 No East Detention Center 64.7 65 No West Industrial 55.5 70 No 1 Adjacent property line as shown on Figure 4.11-3. 2 Construction noise level calculations based on distance from the concrete crushing activity to the property line of adjacent uses. 3 Construction noise level standards as shown on Table 4.11-2. 4 Do the estimated Project construction noise levels exceed the construction noise level threshold? (Urban Crossroads, 2021a, Table 10-11) In addition, nighttime concrete pouring activities would occur as a part of Project construction activities. Nighttime concrete pouring activities are often used to support reduced concrete mixer truck transit times and lower air temperatures than during the daytime hours. Since the nighttime concrete pours would take place outside the permitted City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Code, Section 17.66.050(D)(4) hours of 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on any day except Sundays or national holidays, the Project Applicant would be required to obtain authorization for nighttime work from the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Prior to mitigation, it is anticipated that nighttime concrete pouring activities Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.11 Noise Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.11-22 would exceed the construction noise level standards presented in Table 4.11-2. As such, noise impacts associated with nighttime concrete pouring would be significant prior to mitigation. Table 4.11-12, Nighttime Concrete Pour Noise Level Compliance, shows the mitigated concrete pour activities (paving) noise levels with the required 6-foot-high temporary noise barrier required pursuant to Mitigation Measure MM 4.11-1. With implementation of the required mitigation, nighttime concrete pour noise levels would range from 58.0 to 64.8 dBA Leq at the parcel boundary of adjacent uses and would be less than significant. Table 4.11-12 Nighttime Concrete Pour Noise Level Compliance Adjacent Property Line1 Use Construction Noise Levels (dBA Leq) Paving Construction2 Construction Standard3 Threshold Exceeded?4 North Industrial 62.3 70 No South Industrial 62.8 70 No East Detention Center 58.0 65 No West Industrial 64.8 70 No 1 Adjacent property line as shown on Figure 4.11-3. 2 Construction noise level calculations based on distance from the center of project construction activity to the property line of adjacent uses. 3 Construction noise level standards as shown on Table 4.11-2. 4 Do the estimated Project construction noise levels exceed the construction noise level threshold? (Urban Crossroads, 2021a, Table 10-6) 2. Project Operational Noise Impacts Operational Noise Levels The operational noise analysis is intended to describe noise level impacts associated with the expected typical of daytime and nighttime activities at the Project site. To present the potential worst-case noise conditions, this analysis assumes the Project would be operational 24 hours per day, seven days per week. Consistent with similar high-cube warehouse uses, the Project business operations would primarily be conducted within the enclosed buildings, except for traffic movement, parking, as well as loading and unloading of trucks at designated loading bays. The on-site Project-related noise sources are expected to include outdoor loading dock activity, truck movements, roof-top air conditioning units, and trash enclosure activity. Figure 4.11-5, Operational Noise Source Locations, identifies the representative noise source locations used to assess the operational noise levels. To estimate the Project operational noise impacts, reference noise level measurements were collected from similar types of activities to represent the noise levels expected with the development of the Project. Refer to Subsection 9.2 of the Project’s Noise Impact Analysis (Appendix K1 of this Draft EIR) for a detailed description of reference noise levels measurement procedures and results, which are summarized in Table 9-1 of the Noise Impact Analysis. To fully describe the exterior operational noise levels from the Project, a noise prediction model was developed using the CadnaA computer program. CadnaA can analyze multiple types of noise sources Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report LEGEND: D Roof-Top Air Conditioning Unit •• Truck Movements =-= Planned 8-Foot High Screenwall ♦Trash Enclosure Activity � Loading Dock Activity 4.11 Noise Source(s): Urban Crossroads (01-26-2021) Figure 4. 11-5 Operational Noise Source Locations Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.11-23 Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.11 Noise Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.11-24 using the spatially accurate Project site plan, georeferenced Nearmap aerial imagery, topography, buildings, and barriers in its calculations to predict outdoor noise levels. The operational noise level calculations provided in the Project’s Noise Impact Analysis account for the distance attenuation provided due to geometric spreading, when sound from a localized stationary source (i.e., a point source) propagates uniformly outward in a spherical pattern. A default ground attenuation factor of 0.5 was used in the CadnaA noise analysis to account for mixed ground representing a combination of hard and soft surfaces. Refer to Subsection 9.3 of the Project’s Noise Impact Analysis for a more detailed discussion of the CadnaA Noise Prediction Model. Operation of the Project would occur in compliance with applicable requirements outlined in Chapter 17.66 of the Rancho Cucamonga Development Code. The operational noise levels describe the expected noise level impacts associated with typical warehouse storage uses. This includes noise generated by the warehouse uses that currently occupy the Project site. It is expected that the Project- related operational noise levels with be generally consistent with the operational noise source activity associated with the previous use of the Big Lots warehouse. Using the reference noise levels to represent the proposed Project operations, the operational source noise levels that are expected to be generated at the Project site and the Project-related noise level increases at each of the sensitive receiver locations were calculated. These noise levels include the planned 8-foot-high screenwall surrounding the northern and eastern loading dock areas. Table 4.11-13, Daytime Project Operational Noise Levels, shows the Project operational noise levels during the daytime hours of 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. The daytime hourly noise levels at the off-site receiver locations are expected to range from 35.5 to 44.5 dBA Leq. The daytime operational noise levels at the eastern property line adjacent to the West Valley Detention Center, which is considered to be noise-sensitive for purposes of this analysis, is estimated at 59.9 dBA Leq. Table 4.11-13 Daytime Project Operational Noise Levels Noise Source1 Operational Noise Levels by Receiver Location (dBA Leq) R1 R2 R3 R4 PL2 Loading Dock Activity 44.4 53.3 35.4 35.8 59.9 Truck Movements 23.4 27.4 17.3 15.9 26.8 Roof-Top Air Conditioning Units 21.0 27.1 14.5 12.5 28.4 Trash Enclosure Activity 8.8 14.8 0.1 2.4 18.2 Total (All Noise Sources) 44.5 53.3 35.5 35.9 59.9 1 See Exhibit 4.11-4 for operational noise source locations. CadnaA noise model calculations are included in Appendix 9.1. 2 Represents the property line of the noise sensitive West Valley Detention Center. (Urban Crossroads, 2021a, Table 9-3) Table 4.11-14, Nighttime Operational Noise Levels, shows the Project operational noise levels during the nighttime hours of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. The nighttime hourly noise levels at the off-site receiver locations are expected to range from 35.4 to 53.3 dBA Leq. The nighttime operational noise levels at the eastern property line adjacent to the West Valley Detention Center is estimated at 59.9 dBA Leq. The differences between the daytime and nighttime noise levels is largely related to the duration of noise activity (refer to Table 9-1 of the Project’s Noise Impact Analysis) and the number of truck movements (refer to Table 9-2 of the Project’s Noise Impact Analysis). Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.11 Noise Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.11-25 Table 4.11-14 Nighttime Operational Noise Levels Noise Source1 Operational Noise Levels by Receiver Location (dBA Leq) R1 R2 R3 R4 PL2 Loading Dock Activity 44.4 53.3 35.4 35.8 59.9 Truck Movements 14.5 18.6 8.3 6.9 17.9 Roof-Top Air Conditioning Units 18.6 24.7 12.1 10.1 26.0 Trash Enclosure Activity 7.8 13.8 1.4 1.4 17.3 Total (All Noise Sources) 44.4 53.3 35.4 35.8 59.9 1 See Exhibit 4.11-4 for the operational noise source locations. CadnaA noise model calculations are included in Appendix 9.1 of the Project’s Noise Impact Analysis. 2 Represents the property line of the noise sensitive West Valley Detention Center. (Urban Crossroads, 2021a, Table 9-4) To demonstrate compliance with local noise regulations, the Project-only operational noise levels are evaluated against exterior noise level thresholds based on the City of Rancho Cucamonga exterior noise level standards at the nearest noise-sensitive receiver locations and at the eastern property line adjacent to the West Valley Detention Center. Table 4.11-15, Operational Noise Level Compliance, shows the operational noise levels associated with the Project would satisfy the City of Rancho Cucamonga 65 dBA Leq daytime and 60 dBA Leq nighttime exterior noise level standards at the nearest receiver locations. In addition, Table 4.11-15 shows that the daytime and nighttime Project- related operational (stationary-source) with the planned 8-foot-high screen wall surrounding the northern and eastern loading dock aeras would satisfy the General Industrial zoning district Class B (daytime and nighttime) performance standards of 65 dBA at the residential property line (City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Code, Table 17.66.110). Therefore, the operational noise impacts are considered less than significant at the nearby noise-sensitive receiver locations. Table 4.11-15 Operational Noise Level Compliance Receiver Location1 Project Operational Noise Levels (dBA Leq)2 Noise Level Standards (dBA Leq)3 Noise Level Standards Exceeded?4 Daytime Nighttime Daytime Nighttime Daytime Nighttime R1 44.5 44.4 65 60 No No R2 53.3 53.3 65 60 No No R3 35.5 35.4 65 60 No No R4 35.9 35.8 65 60 No No PL5 59.9 59.9 65 65 No No 1 See Figure 4.11-2 for the receiver locations. 2 Proposed Project operational noise levels as shown on Table 4.11-13 and Table 4.11-14. 3 City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Code, Section 17.66.050 & 17.66.110 Noise Standards. 4 Do the estimated Project operational noise source activities exceed the noise level standards? 5 Represents the property line of the noise sensitive West Valley Detention Center. "Daytime" = 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.; "Nighttime" = 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. (Urban Crossroads, 2021a, Table 9-5) Project-related Operational Noise Level Increases To describe the Project operational noise level increases, the Project operational noise levels are combined with the existing ambient noise levels measurements for the nearest receiver locations potentially impacted by Project operational noise sources, as discussed in Subsection 9.6 of the Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.11 Noise Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.11-26 Project’s Noise Impact Analysis. The difference between the combined Project and ambient noise levels describes the Project noise level increases to the existing ambient noise environment. As indicated on Table 4.11-16, Daytime Project Operational Noise Level Increases, and Table 4.11-17, Nighttime Project Operational Noise Level Increases, the Project would generate daytime and nighttime operational noise level increases ranging from 0.0 to 2.9 dBA Leq at the receiver locations. Project operational noise level increases are not provided at the property line since this location does not represent an area of frequent human use. In addition, it unlikely that individuals will perceive an increase in the Project operation noise levels at the property line but instead at receiver location R2 representing the West Valley Detention Center. Project-related operational noise level increases would satisfy the operational noise level increase significance criteria presented Section 4.11.4. Therefore, the incremental Project operational noise level increase would be less than significant at all receiver locations. Table 4.11-16 Daytime Project Operational Noise Level Increases Receiver Location1 Total Project Operational Noise Level2 Measurement Location3 Reference Ambient Noise Levels4 Combined Project and Ambient5 Project Increase6 Noise Sensitive Land Use? Increase Criteria7 Increase Criteria Exceeded? R1 44.5 L1 59.6 59.7 0.1 Yes 5 No R2 53.3 L6 53.5 56.4 2.9 Yes 5 No R3 35.5 L3 64.5 64.5 0.0 Yes 3 No R4 35.9 L4 53.7 53.8 0.1 Yes 5 No 1 See Figure 4.11-2 for the receiver locations. 2 Total Project daytime operational noise levels as shown on Table 4.11-13. 3 Reference noise level measurement locations as shown on Figure 4.11-1. 4 Observed daytime ambient noise levels as shown on Table 4.11-3. 5 Represents the combined ambient conditions plus the Project activities. 6 The noise level increase expected with the addition of the proposed Project activities. 7 Significance increase criteria as discussed in Section 4.11.4. (Urban Crossroads, 2021a, Table 9-6) Table 4.11-17 Nighttime Project Operational Noise Level Increases Receiver Location1 Total Project Operational Noise Level2 Measurement Location3 Reference Ambient Noise Levels4 Combined Project and Ambient5 Project Increase6 Noise Sensitive Land Use? Increase Criteria7 Increase Criteria Exceeded? R1 44.4 L1 56.1 56.4 0.3 Yes 5 No R2 53.3 L6 54.6 57.0 2.4 Yes 5 No R3 35.4 L3 62.7 62.7 0.0 Yes 3 No R4 35.8 L4 56.8 56.8 0.0 Yes 5 No 1 See Figure 4.11-2 for the receiver locations. 2 Total Project nighttime operational noise levels as shown on Table 4.11-14. 3 Reference noise level measurement locations as shown on Figure 4.11-1. 4 Observed nighttime ambient noise levels as shown on Table 4.11-3. 5 Represents the combined ambient conditions plus the Project activities. 6 The noise level increase expected with the addition of the proposed Project activities. 7 Significance increase criteria as in Section 4.11.4. (Urban Crossroads, 2021a, Table 9-7) Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.11 Noise Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.11-27 Project Off-Site Traffic Noise Impacts To assess the off-site traffic CNEL noise level impacts associated with operation of the Project with proposed high-cube non-sort fulfillment center warehouse and high-cube cold storage warehouse uses, noise contours were developed based on traffic information provided in the Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga High-Cube Fulfillment Center Traffic Memo, City of Rancho Cucamonga (Urban Crossroads, 2021b). Noise contour boundaries represent the equal levels of noise exposure and are measured in CNEL from the center of the roadway were previously presented in Table 4.11-4, while Tables 8-2 through 8-8 of the Project’s Noise Impact Analysis present a summary of the exterior dBA CNEL traffic noise level without barrier attenuation for each of the following scenarios (i.e., Existing, Opening Year Cumulative, and Horizon Year conditions). Since the proposed Project will replace existing uses, the net change in trips between the existing uses and the proposed use has been used to assess the off-site traffic noise levels. The analysis of Opening Year Cumulative includes an assessment for both with and without the 6th Street connection at the railroad tracks. Appendix 8.1 of the Noise Impact Analysis (Appendix K1 of this Draft EIR) includes a summary of the dBA CNEL traffic noise level contours for each of the traffic scenarios. Existing With Project Traffic Noise Level Increases An analysis of existing traffic noise levels plus traffic noise generated by the Project has been provided solely for informational purposes and will not occur, since the Project would not be fully developed and occupied under Existing conditions. Table 8-1 of the Project’s Noise Impact Analysis (Appendix K1 of this Draft EIR) shows the Existing (2020) without Project conditions CNEL noise levels. The Existing (2020) without Project exterior noise levels are expected to range from 58.4 to 77.5 dBA CNEL, without accounting for any noise attenuation features such as noise barriers or topography. Table 8-2 of the Project’s Noise Impact Analysis shows that the Existing (2020) with Project conditions would range from 61.8 to 77.5 dBA CNEL. Table 4.11-18, Existing Plus Project Traffic Noise Level Increases, shows that the Project off-site traffic noise level impacts would range from 0.0 to 3.4 dBA CNEL. Based on the significance criteria for off-site traffic noise presented above, land uses adjacent to the study area roadway segments would experience less than significant noise level impacts due to unmitigated Project-related traffic noise levels under Existing with Project conditions. Opening Year Cumulative Without 6th Street Connection With Project Traffic Noise Level Increases Table 8-3 of the Project’s Noise Impact Analysis (Appendix K1 of this Draft EIR) presents the Opening Year Cumulative (2022) without Project and without the 6th Street connection conditions CNEL noise levels. The Opening Year (2022) without Project and without the 6th Street connection exterior noise levels are expected to range from 58.5 to 78.2 dBA CNEL, without accounting for any noise attenuation features such as noise barriers or topography. Table 8-4 of the Project’s Noise Impact Analysis shows that the Opening Year Cumulative (2022) with Project but without the 6th Street connection conditions would range from 61.9 to 78.2 dBA CNEL. Table 4.11-19, Opening Year Cumulative (2022) With Project Without 6th Street Connection Traffic Noise Increases, shows that the Project off-site traffic noise level increases would range from 0.0 to 3.4 dBA CNEL. Based on the significance criteria for Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.11 Noise Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.11-28 Table 4.11-18 Existing Plus Project Traffic Noise Level Increases ID Road Segment Receiving Land Use1 CNEL at Receiving Land Use (dBA)2 Incremental Noise Level Increase Threshold3 No Project With Project Project Addition Limit Exceeded? 1 Etiwanda Av. s/o Foothill Bl. Sensitive 74.8 74.9 0.1 1.5 No 2 Etiwanda Av. s/o Whittram Av. Non-Sensitive 76.0 76.0 0.0 3.0 No 3 Etiwanda Av. s/o San Bernardino Av. Non-Sensitive 76.0 76.0 0.0 3.0 No 4 Foothill Bl. w/o Etiwanda Av. Non-Sensitive 77.5 77.5 0.0 3.0 No 5 6th St. w/o Etiwanda Av. Non-Sensitive 58.4 61.8 3.4 5.0 No 6 4th St. e/o I-15 NB Ramps Non-Sensitive 76.1 76.4 0.3 3.0 No 7 4th St. w/o Etiwanda Av. Sensitive 76.3 76.3 0.0 1.5 No 1 Noise sensitive uses limited to noise sensitive residential land uses and the West Valley Detention Center. 2 The CNEL is calculated at the boundary of the right-of-way of each roadway and the property line of the receiving land use. 3 Does the Project create an incremental noise level increase exceeding the significance criteria in Section 4.11.4? (Urban Crossroads, 2021a, Table 8-9) Table 4.11-19 Opening Year Cumulative (2022) With Project Without 6th Street Connection Traffic Noise Increases ID Road Segment Receiving Land Use1 CNEL at Receiving Land Use (dBA)2 Incremental Noise Level Increase Threshold3 No Project With Project Project Addition Limit Exceeded? 1 Etiwanda Av. s/o Foothill Bl. Sensitive 75.8 75.9 0.1 1.5 No 2 Etiwanda Av. s/o Whittram Av. Non-Sensitive 77.0 77.1 0.1 3.0 No 3 Etiwanda Av. s/o San Bernardino Av. Non-Sensitive 76.8 76.9 0.1 3.0 No 4 Foothill Bl. w/o Etiwanda Av. Non-Sensitive 78.2 78.2 0.0 3.0 No 5 6th St. w/o Etiwanda Av. Non-Sensitive 58.5 61.9 3.4 5.0 No 6 4th St. e/o I-15 NB Ramps Non-Sensitive 76.8 76.9 0.1 3.0 No 7 4th St. w/o Etiwanda Av. Sensitive 76.9 76.9 0.0 1.5 No 1 Noise sensitive uses limited to noise sensitive residential land uses and the West Valley Detention Center. 2 The CNEL is calculated at the boundary of the right-of-way of each roadway and the property line of the receiving land use. 3 Does the Project create an incremental noise level increase exceeding the significance criteria in Section 4.11.4? (Urban Crossroads, 2021a, Table 8-10) Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.11 Noise Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.11-29 off-site traffic noise presented above, land uses adjacent to the study area roadway segments would experience less than significant noise level impacts due to unmitigated Project-related traffic noise levels. Opening Year Cumulative With 6th Street Connection with Project Traffic Noise Level Increases Table 8-5 of the Project’s Noise Impact Analysis (Appendix K1 of this Draft EIR) presents the Opening Year Cumulative (2022) without Project with 6th Street connection conditions CNEL noise levels. The Opening Year (2022) without Project with 6th Street connection exterior noise levels are expected to range from 58.5 to 78.2 dBA CNEL, without accounting for any noise attenuation features such as noise barriers or topography. Table 8-6 of the Project’s Noise Impact Analysis shows that the Opening Year Cumulative (2022) with Project with 6th Street connection conditions will range from 61.8 to 78.2 dBA CNEL. Table 4.11-20, Opening Year Cumulative (2022) With Project With 6th Street Connection Traffic Noise Increases, shows that the Project off-site traffic noise level increases would range from 0.0 to 3.3 dBA CNEL. Based on the significance criteria for off-site traffic noise presented above, land uses adjacent to the study area roadway segments would experience less than significant noise level impacts due to unmitigated Project-related traffic noise levels. Table 4.11-20 Opening Year Cumulative (2022) With Project With 6th Street Connection Traffic Noise Increases ID Road Segment Receiving Land Use1 CNEL at Receiving Land Use (dBA)2 Incremental Noise Level Increase Threshold3 No Project With Project Project Addition Limit Exceeded? 1 Etiwanda Av. s/o Foothill Bl. Sensitive 75.8 75.9 0.1 1.5 No 2 Etiwanda Av. s/o Whittram Av. Non-Sensitive 77.0 77.1 0.1 3.0 No 3 Etiwanda Av. s/o San Bernardino Av. Non-Sensitive 77.9 77.9 0.0 3.0 No 4 Foothill Bl. w/o Etiwanda Av. Non-Sensitive 78.2 78.2 0.0 3.0 No 5 6th St. w/o Etiwanda Av. Non-Sensitive 58.5 61.8 3.3 5.0 No 6 4th St. e/o I-15 NB Ramps Non-Sensitive 76.8 76.9 0.1 3.0 No 7 4th St. w/o Etiwanda Av. Sensitive 78.0 78.0 0.0 1.5 No 1 Noise sensitive uses limited to noise sensitive residential land uses and the West Valley Detention Center. 2 The CNEL is calculated at the boundary of the right-of-way of each roadway and the property line of the receiving land use. 3 Does the Project create an incremental noise level increase exceeding the significance criteria in Section 4.11.4? (Urban Crossroads, 2021a, Table 8-11) Horizon Year (2040) With Project Traffic Noise Level Increases Table 8-7 of the Project’s Noise Impact Analysis (Appendix K1 of this Draft EIR) presents the Horizon Year (2040) without Project conditions CNEL noise levels. The Horizon Year (2040) without Project exterior noise levels are expected to range from 70.5 to 80.1 dBA CNEL, without accounting for any noise attenuation features such as noise barriers or topography. Table 8-8 of the Project’s Noise Impact Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.11 Noise Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.11-30 Analysis shows that the Horizon Year (2040) with Project conditions would range from 70.8 to 80.2 dBA CNEL. Table 4.11-21, Horizon Year (2040) With Project Traffic Noise Increases, shows that the Project off-site traffic noise level increases would range from 0.0 to 0.3 dBA CNEL. Table 4.11-21 Horizon Year (2040) With Project Traffic Noise Increases ID Road Segment Receiving Land Use1 CNEL at Receiving Land Use (dBA)2 Incremental Noise Level Increase Threshold3 No Project With Project Project Addition Limit Exceeded? 1 Etiwanda Av. s/o Foothill Bl. Sensitive 78.0 78.0 0.0 1.5 No 2 Etiwanda Av. s/o Whittram Av. Non-Sensitive 79.4 79.4 0.0 3.0 No 3 Etiwanda Av. s/o San Bernardino Av. Non-Sensitive 77.1 77.1 0.0 3.0 No 4 Foothill Bl. w/o Etiwanda Av. Non-Sensitive 80.1 80.2 0.1 3.0 No 5 6th St. w/o Etiwanda Av. Non-Sensitive 70.5 70.8 0.3 3.0 No 6 4th St. e/o I-15 NB Ramps Non-Sensitive 77.2 77.4 0.2 3.0 No 7 4th St. w/o Etiwanda Av. Sensitive 77.4 77.4 0.0 1.5 No 1 Noise sensitive uses limited to noise sensitive residential land uses and the West Valley Detention Center. 2 The CNEL is calculated at the boundary of the right-of-way of each roadway and the property line of the receiving land use. 3 Does the Project create an incremental noise level increase exceeding the significance criteria in Section 4.11.4? (Urban Crossroads, 2021a, Table 8-12) Based on the significance criteria for off-site traffic noise presented above, land uses adjacent to the study area roadway segments would experience less than significant noise level impacts due to unmitigated Project-related traffic noise levels with operation of the Project with proposed high-cube non-sort fulfillment center warehouse and high-cube cold storage warehouse uses. As discussed in Section 3.0, Project Description, a high-cube sort fulfillment center is not proposed as part of the Project, and the site plan as currently proposed does not support this on-site use. Nevertheless, to provide a conservative analysis, this Draft EIR also analyzes potential off-site traffic noise impacts associated with operation of the proposed buildings with 90% of the building area as a high-cube sort fulfillment center warehouse use and 10% of the building area as a high-cube cold storage warehouse use. The analysis is provided in the Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga High-Cube Sort Fulfillment Center Supplemental Off-site Traffic Noise Assessment (Sort Use Traffic Noise Assessment), prepared by Urban Crossroads and included in Appendix K2 of this Draft EIR (Urban Crossroads, 2021c). To quantify the off-site traffic noise increases on the surrounding off-site areas, the changes in traffic noise levels on eight study-area roadway segments were calculated using the transportation related 24-hour CNEL based on the change in the ADT volumes. The traffic noise levels provided in the Sort Use Traffic Noise Assessment are based on trip generation presented in Section 4.13. Noise contour boundaries were developed for Existing (2020), Opening Year Cumulative (2022), Opening Year Cumulative (2022) with the 6th Street Connection, and Horizon Year (2040). As demonstrated in Table 17 through Table 20 of the Sort Use Noise Assessment, the traffic noise level increases under all traffic scenarios with operation of the proposed buildings with high-cube sort fulfillment center warehouse and high-cube cold storage warehouse uses would result in less than significant impacts at receiving land uses adjacent to the study area roadway segments. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.11 Noise Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.11-31 Impact 11.1 The Project would result in a temporary increase in noise levels along the eastern property boundary during construction activities, which exceed the established noise standards. With implementation of MM 11-1 and MM 11-2, construction-related noise impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels. The Project would not result in a permanent increase in daytime or nighttime noise levels during operation in excess of established noise standards. This impact is less than significant, and no mitigation is required. Threshold 11.2 Would the Project result in the generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? 1. Construction Vibration Impacts Typical Construction Vibration Impacts Construction activity can result in varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on the equipment and methods used, distance to the affected structures and soil type. It is expected that ground-borne vibration from Project construction activities would cause only intermittent, localized intrusion. Ground-borne vibration levels resulting from typical construction activities occurring within the Project site were estimated by data published by the FTA. While vehicular traffic-related vibration is rarely perceptible, construction has the potential to result in varying degrees of temporary ground vibration, depending on the specific construction activities and equipment used. Ground vibration levels associated with various types of construction equipment are summarized on Table 10-7 of the Project’s Noise Impact Analysis (Appendix K1 of this Draft EIR). Based on the representative vibration levels presented for various construction equipment types, it is possible to estimate the potential Project construction vibration levels using the following vibration assessment methods defined by the FTA. Table 4.11-22, Typical Construction Equipment Vibration Levels, presents the expected typical construction equipment vibration levels at the nearest receiver locations. At distances ranging from 364 feet to 5,321 feet from typical Project construction activities (at the Project site boundary), construction vibration levels are estimated to range from 17.2 to 52.1 VdB and would remain below the FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual maximum acceptable vibration criteria of 78 VdB for daytime residential uses at all receiver locations. Therefore, the Project-related vibration impacts are considered less than significant during typical construction activities at the Project site. Moreover, the vibration levels reported at the sensitive receiver locations are unlikely to be sustained during the entire construction period but would occur rather only during the times that heavy construction equipment is operating adjacent to the Project site perimeter. Concrete Crushing Construction Vibration Impacts Using the vibration source level of construction equipment list provided on Table 10-7 of the Project’s Noise Impact Analysis (Appendix K1 of this Draft EIR), which includes source levels for a hoe ram or breaker representing a percussion hammer fitted to an excavator for breaking concrete, and using the construction vibration assessment methodology published by the FTA, it is possible to estimate the Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.11 Noise Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.11-32 Table 4.11-22 Typical Construction Equipment Vibration Levels Receiver Location1 Distance to Construction Activity (Feet) Receiver Vibration Levels (VdB)2 Threshold VdB3 Threshold Exceeded?4 Small Bulldozer Jack- hammer Loaded Trucks Large Bulldozer Highest Vibration Levels R1 1,248' 7.1 28.1 35.1 36.1 36.1 78 No R2 364' 23.1 44.1 51.1 52.1 52.1 78 No R3 4,167' 0.0 12.3 19.3 20.3 20.3 78 No R4 5,321' 0.0 9.2 16.2 17.2 17.2 78 No 1 Noise receiver locations are shown on Figure 4.11-2. 2 Based on the Vibration Source Levels of Construction Equipment included on Table 10-5 of the Project’s Noise Impact Analysis (Appendix K1 of this Draft EIR). 3 FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment maximum acceptable vibration criteria as described in Section 4.11.4. 4 Does the vibration level exceed the maximum acceptable vibration threshold? (Urban Crossroads, 2021a, Table 10-8) Project concrete crushing construction vibration impacts. Table 4.11-23, Concrete Crushing Vibration Levels, presents the expected concrete crushing construction equipment vibration levels when the equipment with the highest reference vibration activity operating at the closest point from the edge of primary construction activity to each receiver location (Figure 4.11-2). Table 4.11-23 Concrete Crushing Vibration Levels Receiver Location1 Distance to Construction Activity (Feet) Receiver Vibration Levels (VdB)2 Threshold VdB3 Threshold Exceeded?4 Small Bulldozer Jack- hammer Loaded Trucks Large Bulldozer Hoe Ram (Breaker) Highest Vibration Levels R1 3,401 0.0 15.0 22.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 78 No R2 614 16.3 37.3 44.3 45.3 45.3 45.3 78 No R3 5,837 0.0 8.0 15.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 78 No R4 6,310 0.0 6.9 13.9 14.9 14.9 14.9 78 No 1 Concrete Crushing receiver locations are shown on Exhibit 10-B of the Project’s Noise Impact Analysis (Appendix K1 of this Draft EIR). 2 Based on the Vibration Source Levels of Construction Equipment included on Table 10-5 of the Project’s Noise Impact Analysis. 3 FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment maximum acceptable vibration criteria as described in Section 4.11.4. 4 Does the vibration level exceed the maximum acceptable vibration threshold? (Urban Crossroads, 2021a, Table 10-11) As shown in Table 4.11-23, at distances ranging from 614 feet to 6,310 feet from the Project concrete crushing construction vibration levels are estimated to range from 14.9 to 45.3 VdB and would remain below the FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual maximum acceptable vibration criteria of 78 VdB for daytime residential uses at all receiver locations. Therefore, the Project-related vibration impacts are considered less than significant during Project concrete crushing construction activities at the Project site. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.11 Noise Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.11-33 2. Operational Vibration Impacts On-site operations associated with the Project would include heavy trucks moving on-site to and from the loading dock areas. Truck vibration levels are dependent on vehicle characteristics, load, speed, and pavement conditions. Since trucks rarely create vibration that exceed 70 VdB (unless there are bumps due to frequent potholes in the road), it is expected that the on-site heavy trucks would be travelling at very low speeds so activity would satisfy the maximum-acceptable vibration criteria of 78 VdB for daytime and 72 VdB for nighttime for residential uses, and therefore, would be less than significant. With respect to off-site truck activity, ground-borne vibration levels from automobile traffic are generally overshadowed by vibration generated by heavy trucks on uneven roadway surfaces. However, due to the rapid drop-off rate of ground-borne vibration and the short duration of the associated events, vehicular traffic-induced ground-borne vibration is rarely perceptible beyond the roadway right-of-way. This is consistent with the FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual finding that rubber-tired traffic is rarely perceptible on smooth roadways. Since trucks rarely create vibration that exceed 70 VdB (unless there are bumps due to frequent potholes in the road), it is expected that off-site truck vibration impacts at nearest homes would satisfy the maximum-acceptable vibration criteria of 78 VdB for daytime and 72 VdB for nighttime for residential uses. Therefore, vibration impacts associated with Project operations would be less than significant. Impact 11.2 The Project would not result in the generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels during construction or operation. This impact is less than significant, and no mitigation is required. Threshold 11.3 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? As previously noted, and as shown on Exhibit 3-B of the Project’s Noise Impact Analysis (Appendix K1 of this Draft EIR), the Project site is located within the ONT AIA but outside the 60 dBA CNEL airport noise impact zone consistent with Policy Map 2-3 of the ONT ALUCP. According to Table 2- 3 of the ONT ALUCP, industrial land uses located outside the 60 dBA CNEL noise level contours for the ONT, such as the Project, are considered normally compatible land use. For normally compatible land use, either the activities associated with the land use are inherently noisy or standard construction methods will sufficiently attenuate exterior noise to an acceptable indoor community noise equivalent level (CNEL). Additionally, there are no components of the Project that would result in an increase in airport-related noise levels. As such, the Project would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels, and impacts would be less than significant. Impact 11.3 The Project would not expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels for airport operations at the ONT. Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.11 Noise Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.11-34 4.11.6 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS The area to the south, west, and north of the Project site is fully developed with light industrial uses, while the area to the east is developed with the San Bernardino County West Valley Detention Center. As shown on Figure 4.0-3, Cumulative Development Location Map, in Section 4.0 of this Draft EIR, the nearest cumulative developments occur more than 0.25 mile from the Project site. As such, it is unlikely that any surrounding properties would be under construction while Project construction activities are occurring, and any construction-noise from development located more than 0.25 mile from the Project site would not substantially contribute to Project-related construction noise, which is considered less than significant with mitigation. Thus, while the Project would result in direct impacts due to construction-related noise, Project construction-related noise impacts would be less than significant on a cumulatively-considerable basis. With respect to noise associated with Project operations, the analysis provided herein includes noise from existing developments in the surrounding area. As demonstrated in the analysis of Threshold 11.1, and summarized in Table 4.11-16 and Table 4.11-17, the Project would generate daytime and nighttime noise level increases ranging from 0.0 to 3.7 dBA Leq at the receiver locations, which is not a substantial noise level increase as compared to the existing ambient noise environment, which includes the existing surrounding land uses. Thus, operational noise impacts associated with the Project would be less than cumulatively considerable. Similarly, the analysis of Project-related traffic noise impacts includes traffic from existing and projected future traffic on study area roadways. As indicated in Table 4.11-19, Table 4.11-20, and Table 4.11-21, Project-related traffic, when combined with existing and projected traffic, would not expose any sensitive receptors to noise level increases exceeding the City of Rancho Cucamonga noise standards; thus, Project-related traffic noise increases would be less than cumulatively considerable. With respect to construction-related vibration impacts, and as noted above, the nearest cumulative development occurs approximately 0.25-mile northwest of the Project site. As such, it is unlikely that any surrounding properties would be under construction while Project construction activities are occurring, and any construction-related vibration from development located more than 0.25 mile from the Project site would not substantially contribute to Project-related construction vibration. The analysis of Project-related construction vibration impacts during construction, previously presented in Table 4.11-22 and Table 4.11-23, demonstrate that Project construction activities, inclusive of concrete crushing activities, would not exceed the FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual maximum acceptable vibration criteria of 78 VdB for daytime residential uses at all receiver locations. Furthermore, for Project operational-related truck traffic, it is expected that off-site truck vibration impacts at nearest homes would satisfy the maximum-acceptable vibration criteria of 78 VdB for daytime and 72 VdB for nighttime for residential uses. Therefore, Project impacts due to vibration would be less than cumulatively considerable. According to the ONT ALUCP, the Project site occurs outside the 60 dBA CNEL airport noise impact zone, and as such the noise levels are considered normally compatible for industrial land uses. Additionally, there are no components of the Project that would result in increases in airport-related noise and there would not be a potential cumulative impact. As such, Project impacts due to the Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.11 Noise Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.11-35 exposure of people residing or working in the project area to excessive airport noise levels would not be cumulatively considerable. 4.11.7 MITIGATION MEASURES MM 11-1 Prior to issuance of grading or building permits, the City of Rancho Cucamonga shall review the plans to ensure the plans require the installation of a minimum 6-foot-high temporary construction perimeter noise barrier along the Project site’s boundary with the San Bernardino County West Valley Detention Center. The location and following specifications for the noise control barrier shall also be included on the plans:  The noise control barriers must present a solid face from top to bottom.  The noise barrier shall be constructed using one of the following materials with no decorative cutouts or line-of-sight openings between shielded areas and the noise source: ○ An acoustical blanket (e.g., vinyl acoustic curtains, quilted blankets, or equivalent) attached to the construction-site perimeter fence or equivalent temporary fence posts. ○ Any combination of construction materials satisfying a weight of at least 4 pounds per square foot of face area.  The noise barriers shall be maintained, and any damage promptly repaired. Gaps, holes, or weaknesses in the barrier or openings between the barrier and the ground shall be promptly repaired. The required barrier shall be installed prior to any construction activities commencing on-site and shall remain in place until construction activities have been completed. The construction contractor shall allow for periodic inspection by the City of Rancho Cucamonga to ensure that the required noise barrier remains in place until completion of construction activities on-site. MM 11-2 During all Project site construction, the construction contractors shall equip all construction equipment, fixed or mobile, with properly operating and maintained mufflers, consistent with manufacturers’ standards. The construction contractor shall place all stationary construction equipment so that emitted noise is directed away from the noise sensitive receptors nearest the Project site. The construction contractor shall allow for periodic inspection by the City of Rancho Cucamonga to ensure compliance with these requirements. 4.11.8 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION With implementation of MM 11-1 and MM 11-2, which address construction-related noise impacts, there would be less than significant noise impacts. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.11 Noise Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.11-36 4.11.9 REFERENCES Building Standards Commission (BSC). No date. Building Standards Commission. California Building Standards Code (web page). Available at: https://www.dgs.ca.gov/BSC/Codes Office of Planning and Research (OPR). 2017. General Plan Guidelines. Available at: http://www.opr.ca.gov/docs/OPR_COMPLETE_7.31.17.pdf Urban Crossroads. 2021a (April 15). Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Noise Impact Analysis. (Included in Appendix K1 of this Draft EIR). Urban Crossroads. 2021b (April 15). Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga High-Cube Fulfillment Center Traffic Memo, City of Rancho Cucamonga. (Included in Appendix L2 of this Draft EIR). Urban Crossroads. 2021c (April 15). Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga High-Cube Sort Fulfillment Center Supplemental Off-site Traffic Noise Assessment. (Included in Appendix K2 of this Draft EIR). Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.12 Population and Housing Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.12-1 4.12 POPULATION AND HOUSING This section presents population and employment data for the City of Rancho Cucamonga and San Bernardino County and assesses the potential for the Project to directly or indirectly induce unplanned growth. Information presented in this section is based on a review of relevant regional and local planning programs, including the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan and associated Environmental Impact Report (EIR), and population and employment projections from the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). Refer to Section 4.12.8 for a list of references. The Project proposes development of two high-cube warehouse buildings and does not include any housing; thus, the discussion in this section focuses on impacts related to employment growth and indirect population growth in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. There were no Notice of Preparation (NOP) comment letters received related to population and housing. 4.12.1 RELEVANT POLICIES AND REGULATIONS A. Regional 1. Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) SCAG projects growth in employment, population, and households at the regional, county, jurisdictional, and sub-jurisdictional levels. SCAG is a Joint Powers Agency and is the designated Council of Governments (COG), Regional Transportation Planning Agency (RTPA), and Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for the six-county region that includes San Bernardino, Los Angeles, Orange, Ventura, Riverside, and Imperial counties. SCAG’s 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (Connect SoCal), which is discussed in Section 4.10, Land Use and Planning, of this Draft EIR, includes a Demographics and Growth Forecast technical report, which helps coordinate regional planning, employment, and housing development strategies in Southern California. The demographic and growth forecasts presented in Connect SoCal are the currently adopted population, housing and employment forecasts for the six-county region, and reflect recent and past trends, key demographic and economic assumptions, and local, regional, state, and national policy. As part of the development of the forecast, SCAG met with local jurisdictions, including the City of Rancho Cucamonga, to understand each community’s vision for the future so that it can be integrated into the outlook for the future of the region. SCAG’s adopted regional demographic and growth for the City of Rancho Cucamonga and San Bernardino County are shown in Table 4.12- 1, SCAG Connect SoCal Growth Forecasts for Rancho Cucamonga and San Bernardino County. Exhibit 7, 2016 Employment by Jurisdiction, and Exhibit 8, 2045 Employment by Jurisdiction, of the Connect SoCal Demographic and Growth Forecast technical report further indicate that the employment density in the City of Rancho Cucamonga is projected to increase from 1,001 to 2,500 jobs per square mile to 2,501 to 4,000 jobs per square mile (SCAG, 2020). Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.12 Population and Housing Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.12-2 Table 4.12-1 SCAG Connect SoCal Growth Forecasts for Rancho Cucamonga and San Bernardino County Year 2016 2045 Population Rancho Cucamonga 176,500 201,300 San Bernardino County 2,141,000 2,815,000 Households Rancho Cucamonga 56,800 66,400 San Bernardino County 630,000 875,000 Employment Rancho Cucamonga 88,300 105,100 San Bernardino County 791,000 1,064,000 Source: (SCAG, 2020) Related to the Project, at a regional level, transportation and warehousing is expected to experience significant employment growth (approximately 139,000 new jobs), second only to accommodation and food service (approximately 196,000 new jobs) (SCAG, 2020). B. Local 1. Rancho Cucamonga General Plan The Managing Land Use, Community Design, and Historic Resources Chapter of the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan discusses existing and planned land uses in the City and provides a summary of the City’s resident population, housing stock, non-residential floor area and employment at buildout of the City and its Sphere of Influence (SOI). Table LU-15 of the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan summarizes the level of development expected through the 2030 planning horizon year, as well as the projected population, employment, and housing. The population, employment, and housing projections at buildout (2030) identified in the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan for the area within the City limits and the City’s SOI are shown in Table 4.12-2, Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Buildout (2030) Projections. As shown, it is projected that at buildout (by 2030), 62,196 dwelling units would be provided in the City and 1,057 units would be provided in the SOI (63,253 total dwelling units). This would result in a population of 200,400 residents in the City and 3,400 residents in the SOI (203,800 residents). As much as approximately 99.8 million square feet of non-residential development would also be provided, with approximately 103,040 employment positions in the City; no non-residential development is planned in the SOI. (Rancho Cucamonga, 2010b) Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.12 Population and Housing Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.12-3 Table 4.12-2 Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Buildout (2030) Projections City Limits Sphere of Influence General Plan Buildout 2030 Dwelling Units 62, 196 1,057 63,253 Population 200,400 3,400 203,800 Non-Residential Square Feet 99,797,000 0 99,797,000 Employment 103,040 0 103,040 Source: (Rancho Cucamonga, 2010b) 2. Economic Development Strategic Plan The City of Rancho Cucamonga Economic Development Strategic Plan is a policy document adopted in 2015 intended to guide the City of Rancho Cucamonga’s economic development priorities and activities over a period of three to five years. An update to the existing Economic Development Strategic Plan was necessary due to changing conditions associated with the national recession and recovery, and the end of redevelopment. The Economic Development Strategic Plan defines seven Priority Areas for economic development activities in Rancho Cucamonga, including Industrial Development and Retention (ranked No. 4). (Strategic Economics, 2015) The Economic Development Strategic Plan indicates that the City offers access to the highly-skilled workforce of Southern California, the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, and relatively uncongested freeways that connect to national trucking routes. Industrial demand in the region is strongest for distribution and warehousing as the availability of developable land in the Inland Empire has allowed for large format buildings desired by logistics companies. As Rancho Cucamonga’s industrial building stock was developed prior to current business preferences, it consists of smaller warehousing and distribution facilities compared to younger Inland Empire cities located to the east. The goal for this Priority Area is to ensure that the City maintains and grows its industrial businesses, focusing on light industrial, manufacturing, and warehousing. There are opportunities to accommodate new development of large distribution centers in the area bounded by East Foothill to the north, I-15 to the west, East Fourth Street to the south, and the City of Fontana to the east, which includes the Southeast Focus Area and the Project site. Growth in the identified industry groups (including transportation, warehousing, and wholesale trade) will help to achieve many of the city’s economic development objectives, including creating new jobs that better match the educational levels of existing residents, reducing commutes for residents and workers, and encouraging a healthier lifestyle. (Strategic Economics, 2015) 4.12.2 EXISTING SETTING A. Population In January 2020, the City of Rancho Cucamonga had a population of approximately 175,522 residents, representing approximately 8% of the population in San Bernardino County (2,180,537 residents (DOF, 2020). Since the year 2000, the City of Rancho Cucamonga’s growth rate has been 11.1% greater than the overall growth rate for San Bernardino County. (SCAG, 2019) Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.12 Population and Housing Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.12-4 The Project site is currently occupied by a 23,240-square-foot (sf) retail building and a 1,431,000-sf warehouse building, which were occupied by Big Lots until February 2020. There are no existing housing units or associated residents at the Project site. B. Employment According to the California Employment Development Department, in February 2020, the City of Rancho Cucamonga’s civilian labor force was 96,900 persons with 94,100 people employed and an unemployment rate of 2.9% (or 2,800 persons) (EDD, 2021). It should be noted that the novel Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) caused a global pandemic, which resulted in shelter-in-place orders and closing of business operations throughout California beginning in March 2020 and notable fluctuations in labor and employment statistics. As of November 2020 (the most recent month data was available at the time this Draft EIR was prepared), the City’s civilian labor force was 95,400 persons with 90,200 people employed and an unemployment rate of 5.5% (or 5,300 persons), which represents a 2.6% increase in unemployment in the City as compared to February 2020 (EDD, 2021). The November 2020 data was the most recent data available at the time this Draft EIR was prepared, and demonstrates how the on-going closure of businesses and shelter-in-place orders have significantly altered employment data. Thus, the February 2020 and November 2020 employment are provided. According to data compiled by SCAG, approximately 85% of Rancho Cucamonga residents commute outside of the City to work (SCAG, 2019). As stated previously, the Project site is currently developed with a retail building and a warehouse. The buildings were vacated by the previous occupants in February 2020; however, they could be reoccupied without any discretionary approvals. Based on the employment generation rate for retail uses presented in Table LU-18, Build Out Summary by Land Use, of the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan (1 employee per 655 sf), and an employment generation rate of 1 employee per 1,226 sf for the existing warehouse use, which is the average employment generation rate for General Industrial uses (1 employee per 1,471 sf) and Heavy Industrial uses (1 employee per 981 sf) (Rancho Cucamonga, 2010a), the existing land use designations for the Project site, it is estimated the current buildings could accommodate 1,202 employees1. 4.12.3 THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE According to Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, a project will normally have a significant adverse environmental impact on population and housing if it will:  Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through the extension of roads or other infrastructure).  Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. 1 (1,431,000 sf ÷ 1,226 sf/employee = 1,167 employees) + (23,240 sf ÷ 655 sf/employee = 35 employees) = 1,202 employees. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.12 Population and Housing Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.12-5 4.12.4 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Threshold 12.1 Would the Project induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through the extension of roads or other infrastructure)? The Project involves the redevelopment of the Project site with two high-cube warehouse buildings, and would not involve the development of residential uses. Therefore, there would be no direct increase in the City’s population. Thus, the following analysis focuses on impacts related to employment growth and the potential for indirect population growth. The Project would employ construction workers in various trades over the estimated 17-month construction phase. Construction jobs would be created while site improvements and structures are under construction. Construction jobs are temporary and construction workers move from job to job based on their specialty trade. The Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario region has 82,200 workers employed in the construction field (BLS, 2020). Given the number of existing construction employees in the region, the construction jobs for the Project would likely be filled by existing residents of the region and would not induce housing demand near the construction site due to their temporary nature. Therefore, the Project would not induce substantial unplanned population growth during construction resulting in a less than significant impact. The Project includes amendments to the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan and Zoning Map that would modify the land use designation and zoning for approximately 55.2 acres comprising the northern portion of the Project site. The land use designation and zoning for this area would change from Heavy Industrial to General Industrial, consistent with the remaining approximately 36.2 acres of the site. The Project Applicant is pursuing the development of the proposed buildings on a speculative basis and the occupants of the buildings are not known so no specific project employee generation number can be used. For purposes of this analysis, employment estimates were calculated using average employment density factors from the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan. According to Table LU-18, Build Out Summary by Land Use, General Industrial land uses would employ 1 worker per 1,471 sf of building area (Rancho Cucamonga, 2010a). The Project involves development of 2,175,000 sf of General Industrial land uses, resulting in an estimated approximately 1,479 potential jobs2. Thus, the Project would result in a net increase of approximately 277 employment opportunities compared to the number of employment opportunities estimated for the existing buildings3. As previously identified, Connect SoCal estimates the City of Rancho Cucamonga had 88,300 jobs in 2016 (which included the jobs generated by the existing warehouse use), and is projected to have 105,100 jobs by 2045; the number of jobs in San Bernardino County is expected to increase from 791,000 to 1,064,000 during the same time period (SCAG, 2020). Therefore, it is estimated there will be an increase of 16,800 jobs in the City, and 273,000 jobs in the County between 2016 and 2045. The Project’s net increase of 277 jobs represents approximately 1.5% of the anticipated employment growth in the City by 2045, and less than 0.1% of the anticipated employment growth in the County. 2 2,175,000 sf ÷ 1,471 sf/employee = 1,479 employees 3 1,479 potential Project employees - 1,202 employees accommodated by the existing buildings = a net increase of 277 employees. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.12 Population and Housing Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.12-6 Population growth in the City of Rancho Cucamonga is projected to continue into the future and, by the year 2045, Rancho Cucamonga is estimated to house 201,300 people, which represents an increase of 25,778 residents compared to existing conditions (175,522 residents in 2020). It is speculative to estimate what percentage of workers at the Project site may relocate to the area and thus not possible to quantify any specific changes to the City’s population that would result from development of the Project. However, even if it is conservatively assumed that all of the estimated new employment opportunities (net increase of 277 positions) are filled by individuals that move to the City, this would represent approximately 1.1% of the anticipated increase in population in the City. Further, there are potential employees in the region under existing conditions, and the Project’s land use type and size would not draw substantial numbers of new, unplanned residents to the region. Therefore, the Project would not induce substantial unplanned indirect population growth in the area, resulting in a less than significant impact. Furthermore, approximately 85% of City of Rancho Cucamonga residents commute outside of the City for work and more housing units are expected to be built within the City over the next 20+ years; therefore, the Project would provide job opportunities closer to home for existing and future Rancho Cucamonga residents. The Project would also be consistent with the City’s economic development strategies, which involve development of large distribution centers in the City’s Southeast Focus Area, including the Project site. There are no components of the Project that would remove obstacles to development in the local area (and result in indirect unplanned population growth) because the surrounding area is already developed. The Project would improve local circulation with the implementation of proposed Street A and may include an at-grade crossing of the railroad track along 6th Street, which is already anticipated in the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan. Additionally, the proposed Project would be served by existing or planned utility systems. Therefore, the Project does not include any features that would remove any development obstacles/barriers that could result in unplanned growth in the area. Based on the foregoing analysis, neither the Project nor any Project-related component would directly or indirectly result in substantial unplanned population growth. Impacts would be less than significant. Impact 12.1 The Project would not directly or indirectly result in substantial unplanned population growth. Impacts would be less than significant. Threshold 12.2 Would the Project displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? The Project site does not contain any residential structures under existing conditions; therefore, no people live at the Project site. Accordingly, implementation of the Project would not displace substantial numbers of existing housing or people and would not necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. No impact would occur. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.12 Population and Housing Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.12-7 Impact 12.2 The Project site does not contain any residential structures under existing conditions; therefore, the Project would not displace existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. No impact would occur. 4.12.5 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS The Project would not lead to substantial unplanned direct population growth or remove any housing that would require the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. As such, the Project would not contribute to a cumulatively significant impact associated with the need to construct housing units. As previously discussed, the Project would be consistent with the planned land uses in the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan and the employment projections in the City and for the region as a whole, as presented in Connect SoCal, which considers cumulative development anticipated in local and regional planning documents. The Project would involve a net increase of approximately 277 employment opportunities. As discussed previously, this represents approximately 1.5% of the anticipated employment growth in the City by 2045, and less than 0.1% of the anticipated employment growth in the County. Rancho Cucamonga is estimated to have an increase of 25,778 residents by the year 2045. If it is conservatively assumed that all of the estimated new employment opportunities (net increase of 277 positions) are filled by individuals that move to the City, this would represent approximately 1.1% of the anticipated increase in population in the City. Thus, the Project’s net increase of approximately 277 employment opportunities would not induce substantial population growth (direct or indirect) that has not been planned. Additionally, the Project would not result in an extension of infrastructure that would result in unplanned induced or cumulatively considerable development. As such, the Project would not cause a cumulatively considerable impact related to population. 4.12.6 MITIGATION MEASURES The Project would not result in significant impacts related to population and housing and no mitigation is required. 4.12.7 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION Project impacts related to population and housing would be less than significant. 4.12.8 REFERENCES California Department of Finance (DOF). 2020. Table E-1 Population Estimates. Accessed October 4, 2020. Available at: http://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/E-1/ California Employment Development Department (EDD). 2021. Monthly Labor Force Data for Cities and Census Designated Places (CDP). Accessed January 4, 2021. Available at: https://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/cgi/dataanalysis/AreaSelection.asp?tableName=labf orce Rancho Cucamonga, City of. 2010a (May 19). Rancho Cucamonga General Plan. Available at: https://www.cityofrc.us/community-development/planning. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.12 Population and Housing Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.12-8 ———. 2010b (February). Rancho Cucamonga 2010 General Plan Update Program Environmental Impact Report. Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). 2019 (May). Profile of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Available: https://www.scag.ca.gov/Documents/RanchoCucamonga.pdf ———. 2020 (September 3). Connect SoCal (The 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy of the Southern California Association of Governments) – Demographics and Growth Forecast Technical Report. Available: https://www.connectsocal.org/Documents/Adopted/fConnectSoCal_Demographics-And- Growth-Forecast.pdf Strategic Economics and MIG. 2015 (February). Economic Development Strategic Plan, City of Rancho Cucamonga. United States Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2020 (March 30). May 2019 Metropolitan and Nonmetropolitan Area Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA. Available: https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_40140.htm#47- 0000 Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.13 Transportation Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.13-1 4.13 TRANSPORTATION This section assesses transportation impacts resulting from implementation of the Project. In accordance with Senate Bill (SB) 743, further discussed under Section 4.13.1, Existing Regulatory Setting, below, the California Natural Resources Agency (CNRA) adopted changes to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines in December 2018, which identify that starting on July 1, 2020, vehicle miles traveled (VMT) is the appropriate metric to evaluate a project’s transportation impacts. As of December 2018, when the revised CEQA Guidelines were adopted, automobile delay, as measured by “level of service” (LOS) and other similar metrics, no longer constitutes a significant environmental effect under CEQA. The Rancho Cucamonga City Council adopted the City of Rancho Cucamonga Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines in June 2020 (Fehr & Peers, 2020). The purpose of the City’s Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines is to provide general instructions for analyzing the potential transportation impacts pursuant to CEQA, and for conducting LOS analysis consistent with the City’s General Plan requirements. These guidelines present the recommended format and methodology that should generally be utilized in the preparation of project-specific traffic impact analysis reports. With respect to the CEQA-required VMT analysis, the Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Assessment (VMT Assessment) (March 2021) (Urban Crossroads, 2021a) is provided in Appendix L1 of this Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Transportation and circulation information to support the analysis in this section is also presented in the Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga High-Cube Fulfillment Center Traffic Memo, City of Rancho Cucamonga (Traffic Memo) (April 2021) (Urban Crossroads, 2021b). Information from the Traffic Memo is also used as the basis for addressing other potential Project impacts (e.g., air quality and health risk, greenhouse gas emissions, noise, etc.), as discussed in the respective sections of this Draft EIR. In response to the Notice of Preparation (NOP), comment letters were received from the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and the Inland Empire Biking Alliance addressing the analysis of potential transportation impacts, as summarized below and presented in the NOP comments included in Appendix A of this Draft EIR: Caltrans. Caltrans identified that a Traffic Impact Analysis should be prepared to evaluate impacts on State facilities. Caltrans suggests that local streets should be designed to serve vehicular and pedestrian circulation equally, and to consider design standards and requirements that address accessibility and multi-modal circulation. Additionally, Caltrans suggests that preferential parking for vanpools, carpools, bicycles, and low-emitting, fuel-efficient, alternative-fueled vehicles be located in areas accessible to office areas, and that installation of electric-vehicle charging stations should be considered.’ Inland Empire Biking Alliance. The Inland Empire Biking Alliance identified that the safety of bicyclists traveling along existing and proposed streets adjacent to the Project site should be addressed in the Draft EIR. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.13 Transportation Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.13-2 4.13.1 RELEVANT POLICIES AND REGULATIONS A.State of California Senate Bill 743, which was codified in Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21099, requires changes to CEQA Guidelines regarding the analysis of transportation impacts. Pursuant to PRC Section 21099, the criteria for determining the significance of transportation impacts must “promote the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, the development of multimodal transportation networks, and a diversity of land uses.” To that end, in developing the criteria, the State of California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) proposed, and the CNRA certified and adopted changes to the CEQA Guidelines in December 2018, which entailed changes to the thresholds of significance for the evaluation of impacts to transportation. Pursuant to SB 743 and PRC Section 21099, the requirement for analyzing congestion impacts for CEQA purposes was eliminated in December 2018. Therefore, an analysis of congestion impacts, including analysis of impacts related to the LOS of the circulation system, is not provided in this Section. The updated CEQA Guidelines include the addition of CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, of which Subdivision b establishes criteria for evaluating a project’s transportation impacts based on project type and using automobile VMT as the metric. As identified in Section 15064.3(b)(4) of the CEQA Guidelines, a lead agency has the discretion to choose the most appropriate methodology to evaluate a project's VMT. Beginning July 1, 2020, the provisions of CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 apply statewide. As previously discussed, the Rancho Cucamonga City Council adopted Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines in June 2020. B.Regional 1.SCAG Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy As further discussed in Section 4.10, Land Use and Planning, of this Draft EIR, the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) is a regional agency established pursuant to California Government Code Section 6500, also referred to as the Joint Powers Authority law. SCAG is designated as a Council of Governments (COG), a Regional Transportation Planning Agency (RTPA), and a Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO). The Project area is within SCAG’s regional authority. As discussed in Section 4.10 of this Draft EIR, on April 7, 2016, SCAG adopted the 2016- 2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) to address the region’s future needs for “mobility, economy, and sustainability” (SCAG, 2016). The 2016-2040 RTP/SCS combines the need for mobility with a “sustainable futu re” through a reduction in the amount of emissions produced from transportation sources. On September 4, 2020, SCAG’s Regional Council adopted Connect SoCal (the 2020 - 2045 RTP/SCS) (SCAG, 2020). Connect SoCal is a long-range visioning plan that builds upon and expands land use and transportation strategies established over several planning cycles to increase mobility options and achieve a more sustainable growth pattern. It charts a path toward a more mobile, sustainable, and prosperous region by making connections between transportation networks, between planning strategies and between the people whose collaboration can improve the quality of life for Southern Californians. Connect SoCal also recognizes the opportunities and challenges that come with goods movement, and includes a focus on its rapidly changing nature. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.13 Transportation Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.13-3 As with the 2016-2040 RTP/SCS, Connect SoCal includes a Transportation System Goods Movement Technical Report. This report presents a broad overview of goods movement in Southern California by defining what the goods movement system is, including its most critical components; highlighting its importance and connections to the economy and local industrial sectors; summarizing international and domestic trade flows and their relations to the region; addressing environmental and air quality issues; articulating a regional vision and how it can be achieved; and illustrating the path to 2045 by promoting an effective set of regional strategies. In April 2018, SCAG published Industrial Warehousing in the SCAG Region (SCAG, 2018). According to the document, the SCAG region is a vibrant hub for international and domestic trade because of its large transportation base and extensive multimodal transportation system. The SCAG region’s freight transportation system includes warehouses and distribution centers; the Ports of Los Angeles, Long Beach, and Hueneme; airports; rail intermodal terminals; rail lines, and local streets, state highways and interstates. Together the system enables the movement of goods from source to market, facilitating uninterrupted global commerce. The region is home to approximately 34,000 warehouses with 1.17 billion square feet of warehouse building space, and undeveloped land that could accommodate an additional 338 million square feet of new warehouse building space. These regions attract robust logistics activities, and are a major reason why the region is a critical mode in the global supply chain. 2.Congestion Management Program Within the SCAG region, there are five Congestion Management Agencies (CMAs) that have the responsibility of preparing the CMP for their respective county. In its role as San Bernardino County’s CMA, the San Bernardino County Transportation Authority (SBCTA) prepares, monitors, and periodically updates the San Bernardino County Congestion Management Program (CMP) to meet federal Congestion Management Process requirements and the County’s Measure I program. The San Bernardino County Congestion Management Program 2016 Update (2016 CMP) is the current version of the SANBAG CMP (SANBAG, 2016). The 2016 CMP identifies goals of the program, defines legal requirements, provides other background information and describes each individual element, component, and requirement of the program. Transportation-related goals that are applicable to individual development projects, such as the currently proposed Project are addressed under Threshold a in Section 4.13.4, Environmental Impacts, below. The San Bernardino County 2016 CMP also incorporates the goals of the SCAG 2016-2040 RTP/SCS, which were previously discussed in Section 4.10 of this Draft EIR. The 2016 CMP also defines a network of state highways and arterials, level of service standards and related procedures, the process for mitigation of impacts of new development on the transportation system, and technical justification for the approach. The CMP outlines the level of service analysis procedures and guidelines for preparing TIA reports for development projects. Although no longer required for determining Project impacts pursuant to CEQA, the Traffic Memo for the Project uses parameters provided in the CMP for San Bernardino County. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.13 Transportation Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.13-4 3.Measure I In 2004, the voters of San Bernardino County approved the 30‐year extension of Measure I, a one‐half of one percent sales tax on retail transactions, through the year 2040, for transportation projects including, but not limited to, infrastructure improvements, commuter rail, public transit, and other identified improvements. The Measure I extension requires that a regional traffic impact fee be created to ensure development is paying its fair share. A regional Nexus study was prepared by the SBCTA and concluded that each jurisdiction should include a regional fee component in their local programs in order to meet the Measure I requirement. The regional component assigns specific facilities and cost sharing formulas to each jurisdiction and was most recently updated in November 2011. Revenues collected through these programs are used in tandem with Measure I funds to deliver projects identified in the Nexus Study. While Measure I is a self‐executing sales tax administered by SBCTA, the funds raised through Measure I have funded in the past and will continue to fund new transportation facilities in San Bernardino County. C.City of Rancho Cucamonga 1.Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Community Mobility Chapter The Community Mobility Chapter of the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan addresses all means of mobility. This Chapter addresses both conventional transportation issues related to vehicular use of the local roadway network and the integration of alternative transportation methods such as mass transit, bicycle and pedestrian networks, and equestrian and hiking trails. It establishes the concept of “Complete Streets,” which is a balanced, citywide circulation system that accommodates all users and all transportation modes. This Chapter is divided into the following sections: Community Mobility: The Street System Transit Increasing Bicycle Use Accommodating Pedestrians Freight and Goods Movement Aviation Related Transportation Plans 4th Street is designated as a Major Divided Arterials on the City’s Circulation Plan (Figure CM-2 of the Community Mobility Chapter), and 6th Street is designated a Secondary Arterial. Adjacent to the Project site, 4th Street is also identified as a Primary Transit Corridor/Station (Bus Rapid Transit) (Figure CM-4 of the Community Mobility Chapter), which is a street that is expected to carry the highest levels of transit service, particularly regional service, with the most bus routes and the highest frequency of service. Figure CM-7, Bicycle Plan, identifies a Class II bike lanes (on-street striped) on 4th Street and 6 th Street, which would ultimately connect to an existing Class II bike lane along Milliken Avenue to the west, and a planned Class II bike lane along Etiwanda Avenue to the east. Figure CM-8, Truck Routes, Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.13 Transportation Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.13-5 identifies 6th Street, Etiwanda Avenue, and Foothill Boulevard as truck routes. Trucks routes are adopted by ordinance, as further discussed below. 2.Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code Citywide System Fees for Transportation Development Chapter 3.28 of the City’s Municipal Code contains the ordinance that implements the City’s General Plan Circulation Element and sets the development impact fee (DIF) program for new development and redevelopment. This regulation establishes the fair-share costs for new development and redevelopment to finance the construction of public improvements. The City Council is required, in a City Council resolution, to set forth the specific amount of the fee; describe the benefit and impact area on which the development fee is imposed; list the Nexus Improvement Program and its components specifying the public improvements to be financed; describe the estimated cost of the facilities; describe the reasonable relationship between this fee and the various types of new developments; and set forth time of payment. On an annual basis, the City Council reviews this fee to determine whether the fee amounts are reasonably related to the impacts of developments and whether the described public facilities are still needed. The current Transportation DIF fees were adopted by City Council Resolution No. 2020-005 and have been effective since April 20, 2020. The revenues raised by payment of the city-wide development transportation fees for the Nexus Improvement Program shall be placed in separate and special accounts according to each Nexus Improvement Program component, realizing that the railroad crossings and traffic signal components are part of and are to be placed in the city backbone component account, and such revenues, along with any interest earnings on that account, shall be used solely to: Pay for the City’s future construction of facilities described in the City Council resolution or to reimburse the City for those described or listed facilities it constructs with funds advanced by the City from other sources or Reimburse developers who have been required or permitted to install listed facilities on the Nexus Improvement Program. Truck Routes and Restrictions Chapter 10.56, Truck Routes and Restrictions, of the City’s Municipal Code identifies unrestricted truck routes, restricted truck routes, and terminal access routes in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Relevant to the Project, and as described in Section 10.56.10 of the City’s Municipal Code, the following roadways in the vicinity of the Project site are unrestricted truck routes: all streets in the area defined by the Industrial Area Specific Plan (IASP) as the industrial district (including 6th Street), 4th Street from the west City limits to the east City limits (including the segment adjacent to the Project site), Foothill Boulevard from the west City limits to the east City limits, and Etiwanda Avenue from 4th Street to Foothill Boulevard. It should be noted that nothing in this section prohibits the ingress and Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.13 Transportation Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.13-6 egress from a designated unrestricted truck route by vehicles and vehicle combinations onto a City street when necessary for the purpose of making pickups or deliveries of goods; wares and merchandise from or to any building or structure located on a City street; or for the purpose of delivering materials to be used in the repair, alteration, remodeling or construction of any building or structure upon a City street for which a building permit has previously been obtained. Transportation Demand Management Chapter 17.78, Transportation Demand Management, of the City’s Development Code encourages employers to implement programs to help reduce the use of single-occupancy vehicles. Relevant to the Project, developments subject to the TDM Ordinance include Light Industrial uses with 250,000 sf, or more. The ordinance requires the provision of passenger loading areas; preferential parking for carpool and vanpool vehicles; shower and locker facilities; video conferencing; and any two of the following: ridesharing program, leasing of vans, company fleet cars, subsidized transit passes and modified work hours. Streets, Sidewalks and Public Places Title 12 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code regulates activities on streets, sidewalks, and other public places. Chapter 12.03 requires that an encroachment permit be obtained prior to construction on public rights-of-way to protect public improvements and reduce hazards to the public. Chapter 12.08 requires the improvement of the one-half of the street abutting a parcel as part of the development or improvement of the parcel, along with the dedication of the street right-of-way to the City upon completion of improvements. Street improvements (including sidewalks curbs, gutters, street trees, street lighting, street paving, and drainage structures) should be made to meet City standards. Chapter 12.20 calls for the construction of complete street infrastructure (e.g., bicycle lanes, sidewalks, street crossings, and planting strips) in public and private street projects or the improvement of streets to increase the safety and convenience of pedestrians, bicyclists, and public transportation users. D.City of Ontario The Project site is bordered by the City of Ontario to the south; 4th Street forms the jurisdictional boundary between the cities of Rancho Cucamonga and Ontario. Since the Project site is not located in the City of Ontario, the land use regulations of the City of Ontario do not apply and the following information is provided for informational purposes to provide context for the discussion of transportation issues. The Ontario Plan is the City’s policy document for regulating land use and development in the City. It articulates the City’s Vision for the future that is founded on dynamic balance, a prosperous economy, distinctive development, and recognized leadership. The Governance Manual includes a set of high- level governance principles with long-term value as well as Vision-driven goals and broad policies. Among other topics, the Policy Plan states the City’s long-term goals, principles, and policies for mobility. The Mobility Element addresses the roadway system, bicycles and pedestrians, public transit, goods movement, regional transportation, and airport environs. Relevant to the Project, Figure M-2, Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.13 Transportation Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.13-7 Functional Roadway Classification Plan, of the Mobility Element identifies 4th Street as a 6-lane Principal Arterial, and Figure M-5, Truck Routes, identifies 4th Street as a truck route. 4.13.2 EXISTING SETTING A.Regional and Local Roadway Circulation System As identified in the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan EIR, there are two primary transportation facilities located within the Project area: Interstate 15 (I-15) and Interstate 10 (I-10). I-15 traverses north to south through the City. I-10 is a facility located south of the City that traverses east to west. Figure 4.13-1, Existing Circulation System, depicts the existing circulation system (e.g., number of lanes, divided or undivided roadway, etc.). Under existing conditions, regional access to the Project area is provided via I-15. Local access to the Project area is currently provided from 4th Street south of the Project site and 6th Street north of the Project site. B.Truck Routes The City of Rancho Cucamonga truck routes are shown on Figure 4.13-2, City of Rancho Cucamonga Truck Routes (City of Rancho Cucamonga, 2020). 4th Street, 6th Street, Etiwanda Avenue, Arrow Route, and Foothill Boulevard (SR‐66) are designated as truck routes within the City of Rancho Cucamonga. 6th Street is shown as a through street in the City’s General Plan Circulation Element truck routes map. 4th Street, San Bernardino Avenue, and Etiwanda Avenue are designated as truck routes within the City of Ontario and City of Fontana. C.Transit Service As shown in the VMT Assessment (included in Appendix L1 of this Draft EIR), the majority of the Project site is within a Transit Priority Area (TPA) (i.e., within ½ mile of an existing “major transit stop”1 or an existing stop along a “high-quality transit corridor”2), because 4th Street is a high-quality transit corridor. Transit service in the Project area is provided by Omnitrans, a public transit agency serving various jurisdictions within San Bernardino County. As shown in Figure 4.13-3, Existing Transit Routes, existing Omnitrans routes travel along 4th Street/San Bernardino Avenue (Route 61), Foothill Boulevard (SR‐66) (Route 66), and the I‐10 Freeway (Route 290) (City of Rancho Cucamonga, 2020). The existing Omnitrans Route 61 would likely serve the Project as it provides service along 4th Street (west of the Project site)/San Bernardino Avenue (east of the Project site). Transit service is reviewed and updated by Omnitrans periodically to address ridership, budget, and community demand needs. Changes in land use can affect these periodic adjustments which may lead to either enhanced or reduced service where appropriate. 1 Per Public Resources Code Section 21064.3, “major transit stop” means a site containing an existing rail transit station, a ferry terminal served by either a bus or rail transit service, or the intersection of two or more major bus routes with a frequency of service interval of 15 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods. 2 Per Public Resources Code Section 21155, a high-quality transit corridor means a corridor with fixed route bus service with service intervals no longer than 15 minutes during peak commute hours. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report s"o 6D RANCHO CUCAMONGA SEE INSET r--7I I I I I I � SITE I I * II I I I I I 6THST. 4D 4.13 Transportation FOOTHILL Bl. 4D ll 3D il f--�-t:::L=-==-=_J==f-::,:_4T,_,_H,_,S'-'-T.:_, -,W-:----,:--;-=77-'�=-�� 4D ONTARIO LEGEND: 4 = NUMBER OF LANES D =DIVIDED U = UNDIVIDED � = SPEED LIMIT (MPH) Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga Figure 4. 13-l Existing Circulation System SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.13-8 Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.13 Transportation i"­r-l i I, , Unincorporated San Be rnardino County i '-----·--·--------·---·----------•--·•·--·-----·--·•·--•--·-;r ------------------._ ___ .... ., r' I i ,, ! i i i � i i'O II I O I • 01 3 I vi VJ !J-T I m ' -\ � � i � < £ !1, i WilsonAY/J. ; i_ --�--7 � \ { -£ -£ I C: l E / \ J ,.3 Banyan $1. J ! j J , __ .,L., _____ J -o'o/ // \/ \ H,ghlond Ave / ., _// V' . 19th St. '-,,....-+---<---1-------1 / Upland i i / �1 / Ji • Base L,no Rd. ,/ f-l-lt-+��----t----t---:"".'-:::-+-----1r--...;...-.,... ri ('' l. J C rch coot�, I lvd. Ar le ..,.---------------------------- ', '\, Fontana \ 6 S Unincorporated L-----4 � St Ontario Ontario lnternat,onal Airport Fehr & Peers, 2020 I Sources: City of Rancho Cucamonga, 2019. -Truck Routes ---Truck Roules (38 Foo t-Kingpin Limit) Metrolink Station Metrolink 0 0.5 -··-··-Rancho Cucamonga City Limits ---Sphere of Influence [=i Adjacent City Limit s Parks Waterways San Ber nardino County 2 Miles 0 Source(s): Pion RC -Community Mobility Existing Conditions Report (May 2020) Figure 4. 13-2 City of Rancho Cucamonga Truck Routes Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.13-9 Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report Unincorporated San Bernardino County Upland Ontario lnternati Fehr & Peers, 2020 I Sources: City of Rancho Cucamonga, 2019; SBCTA, 2020. ---Bus Routes (el Transit Center 0 Rapid Transit Stops (Planned) 0 Potential Relocation of Metrolink Station Potential Gold Line Station Potential Gold Line Source(s): Plan RC -Community Mobility Existing Conditions Report (May 2020) Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga ® @ Transit Priority Area Park & Ride Melrolink Station Metrolink 0 4.13 Transportation r j IT f _____ ; i i Unincorporated San Bernardino County 0.5 2 Miles 0 -------Rancho Cucamonga City Limits ---Sphere of Influence � Adjacent City Limits Parks Waterways Figure 4. 13-3 Existing Transit Routes SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.13-10 Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.13 Transportation Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.13-11 D.Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities 1.Bicycle Facilities To promote alternative modes of transportation, the City of Rancho Cucamonga maintains a bike plan depicting existing and proposed bicycle facilities (refer to Figure 4.13-4, Bicycle Facilities) (City of Rancho Cucamonga, 2020). As shown, there are existing Class II bike lanes along 4th Street, 6th Street (shown as a through street on the City’s General Plan Circulation Element), Milliken Avenue, Arrow Route, and Foothill Boulevard (SR‐66), and planned Class II bike lanes along Etiwanda Avenue. In the City of Ontario, a bicycle corridor is identified along Ontario Mills Parkway from Etiwanda Avenue to Haven Avenue. In the City of Fontana, Class II bicycle lanes are partially existing and proposed along Etiwanda Avenue, and Class II bicycle lanes are proposed along 4th Street and 6th Street. 2.Pedestrian Facilities Existing pedestrian facilities in the vicinity of the Project site are shown on Figure 4.13-5, Existing Pedestrian Facilities. There are existing sidewalks along portions of Ontario Mills Parkway, Valley Boulevard, Etiwanda Avenue, 4th Street, San Bernardino Avenue, 6th Street, Arrow Route, and Foothill Boulevard (SR-66) within the Traffic Memo study area. E.Freight Rail Service The BNSF railroad extends in a north-south direction west of the Project site and is used for freight service. There is an existing rail spur that extends across 4th Street and 6th Street west of the Project site. Records kept by the DOT’s Federal Railroad Administration indicate that in 2019 there were no through trains during the daytime (6:00 AM to 6:00 PM) or night time hours (6:00 PM to 6:00 AM) along these segments of the railroad (FRA, 2020). F.Trip Generation The Project site is developed with a 1,431,000 square foot warehouse and a 23,240 square foot retail building. As such, when determining the net trip generation for the Project, trips associated with the existing uses have been subtracted from the number of trips that would be generated by the Project. In order to develop the traffic characteristics of the Project, the trip generation rates used are based upon information collected by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). The ITE Trip Generation Manual is a nationally recognized source for estimating site-specific trip generation. As further described in the Traffic Memo, the trip generation rates used for the existing buildings and the Project are based upon data collected by ITE as provided in their Trip Generation Manual, (10th Edition, 2017 & 10th Edition Supplement, 2020) and are presented in Table 4.13-1, Existing Use and Project Trip Generation Rates. The estimated trip generation for the existing buildings is provided in Table 4.13-2, Existing Use and Project Trip Generation Summary, and apply the trip generation rates for a high‐cube Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report Unincorporated San Bernardino County Snowdr ,p �d. � .0 � .< C -6 � j< < I 19th St. Upland orsey Bl ,d. 4th St Ontario • Ontario lnternat,onal Airport Fehr & Peers, 2020 I Sources: City of Rancho Cucamonga, 2015. � PIAN iRC ---Existing Closs I (Multi-Use Path) • • • • Proposed Class I (Multi-Use Path) ---Existing Class II (Bike lane) • • • • Proposed Class II (Bike Lane) -Existing Closs Ill (Bike Route) • • • • Proposed Class Ill (Bike Route) ---.,_. : ---Existing Closs Ill (Bike Route) Outside City • • • • Proposed Class Ill (Bike Route) Outside City Source(s): Pion RC -Community Mobility Existing Conditions Report (May 2020) Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga ® 4.13 Transportation ............... ...... f--1 E -0 • C --i.,1 ,.,._,,, __ _ Unincorporated ,------·---- 0 I Points of Interest Schools Metrolink Station Metrolink San Bernardino County 0.5 2 Miles 0 I ___ _ -------Rancho Cucamonga City Limit� ---Sphere of Influence CJ Adjacent City Limits Porks Waterways Figure 4. 13-4 Bicycle Facilities SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.13-12 Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report RANCHO CUCAMONGA 4.13 Transportation SEE INSET ONTARIO LEGEND: -=SIDEWALK El =BUS STOP (:) = NO CROSSWALK ® = FUTURE INTERSECTION Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga = CROSSWALK ON ALL APPROACHES = CROSSWALK ON THREE APPROACHES = CROSSWALK ON TWO APPROACHES = CROSSWALK ON ONE APPROACH Figure 4. 13-5 Existing Pedestrian Facilities SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.13-13 Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.13 Transportation Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.13-14 Table 4.13-1 Existing Use and Project Trip Generation Rates Land Use1 Units2 ITE LU AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Daily Code In Out Total In Out Total Actual Vehicles: High-Cube Transload and Short-Term Storage Warehouse (Without Cold Storage)3 TSF 154 0.062 0.018 0.080 0.028 0.072 0.100 1.400 Passenger Cars: 0.049 0.015 0.064 0.024 0.060 0.084 1.176 Trucks: 0.012 0.004 0.016 0.004 0.012 0.016 0.224 High-Cube Fulfillment Center (Non-Sort)3 TSF 155 0.122 0.029 0.150 0.062 0.098 0.160 1.810 Passenger Cars: 0.111 0.026 0.137 0.058 0.091 0.149 1.620 Trucks: 0.011 0.003 0.014 0.004 0.007 0.011 0.190 High-Cube Cold Storage Warehouse3 TSF 157 0.085 0.025 0.110 0.032 0.088 0.120 2.120 Passenger Cars: 0.062 0.018 0.080 0.025 0.067 0.092 1.378 Trucks: 0.023 0.007 0.030 0.007 0.020 0.028 0.742 Free-Standing Discount Store TSF 815 0.807 0.363 1.170 2.415 2.415 4.830 53.120 Passenger Car Equivalent (PCE):4 High-Cube Transload and Short-Term Storage Warehouse (Without Cold Storage)3 TSF 154 0.062 0.018 0.080 0.028 0.072 0.100 1.400 Passenger Cars: 0.049 0.015 0.064 0.024 0.060 0.084 1.176 Trucks: 0.031 0.009 0.041 0.011 0.029 0.041 0.570 High-Cube Fulfillment Center (Non-Sort)3 TSF 155 0.122 0.029 0.150 0.062 0.098 0.160 1.810 Passenger Cars: 0.111 0.026 0.137 0.058 0.091 0.149 1.620 Trucks: 0.028 0.007 0.034 0.011 0.017 0.028 0.483 High-Cube Cold Storage Warehouse3 TSF 157 0.085 0.025 0.110 0.032 0.088 0.120 2.120 Passenger Cars: 0.062 0.018 0.080 0.025 0.067 0.092 1.378 Trucks: 0.054 0.016 0.070 0.018 0.048 0.065 1.758 1 Trip Generation Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition (2017) & 10th Edition Supplement (2020). 2 TSF = thousand square feet 3 Vehicle Mix Source: ITE Trip Generation Handbook Supplement (2020), Appendix C. Truck Mix: South Coast Air Quality Management District’s (SCAQMD) recommended truck mix, by axle type. Normalized % - Without Cold Storage: 16.7% 2-Axle trucks, 20.7% 3-Axle trucks, 62.6% 4-Axle trucks. Normalized % - With Cold Storage: 34.7% 2-Axle trucks, 11.0% 3-Axle trucks, 54.3% 4-Axle trucks. 4 PCE factors per SBCTA CMP: 2-axle = 1.5; 3-axle = 2.0; 4+-axle = 3.0. Source: (Urban Crossroads, 2021b) Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.13 Transportation Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.13-15 Table 4.13-2 Existing Use and Project Trip Generation Summary Land Use Quantity Units1 AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Daily In Out Total In Out Total Existing Trip Generation Summary (Actual Vehicles) High-Cube Transload and Short-Term Storage Warehouse (Without Cold Storage) (ITE Code 154) 1,431.000 TSF Passenger Cars: 71 21 92 34 87 121 1,684 2-axle Trucks:3 1 4 1 3 4 54 3-axle Trucks:4 1 5 1 3 4 66 4+-axle Trucks: 11 3 14 4 10 14 202 Total Trucks: 18 5 23 6 16 22 322 Transload Warehouse Total Trips (Actual Vehicles)2 89 26 115 40 103 143 2,006 Free-Standing Discount Store (ITE Code 815) 23.240 TSF 19 8 27 56 56 112 1236 Pass-by Reduction (PM/Daily = 17%):3 0 0 0 -10 -10 -20 -210 Free-Standing Discount Store Total Trips (Actual)2 19 8 27 46 46 92 1,026 Total Passenger Cars 90 29 119 80 133 213 2,710 Total Trucks (Actual Vehicles) 18 5 23 6 16 22 322 TOTAL TRIPS (Actual)2 108 34 142 86 149 235 3,032 Existing Trip Generation Summary (PCE) High-Cube Transload and Short-Term Storage Warehouse (Without Cold Storage) 1,431.000 TSF Passenger Cars: 71 21 92 34 87 121 1,684 2-axle Trucks:4 1 5 2 4 6 80 3-axle Trucks:7 2 9 3 7 10 134 4+-axle Trucks: 33 10 43 12 31 43 602 Total Trucks: 44 13 57 17 42 59 816 Transload Warehousing Total Trips (PCE)2 115 34 149 51 129 180 2,500 Free-Standing Discount Store 23.240 TSF 19 8 27 56 56 112 1236 Pass-by Reduction (PM/Daily = 17%):3 0 0 0 -10 -10 -20 -210 Free-Standing Discount Store Total Trips (Actual)2 19 8 27 46 46 92 1,026 Total Passenger Cars 90 29 119 80 133 213 2,710 Total Trucks (PCE) 44 13 57 17 42 59 816 TOTAL TRIPS (PCE)2 134 42 176 97 175 272 3,526 1 TSF = thousand square feet 2 TOTAL TRIPS = Passenger Cars + Truck Trips. 3 Source: ITE Trip Generation Handbook, 3rd Edition, 2017. (Urban Crossroads, 2021b) Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.13 Transportation Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.13-16 and short‐term storage warehouse without cold storage (ITE Land Use Code 154) to the existing warehouse building, and the trip generation rates for a free‐standing discount store (ITE Land Use Code 815) to the existing retail building. The method for determining trip generation and the trip generation rates for the existing and proposed uses are presented in Section 4.13.4 below. As shown, it is estimated that the existing uses would generate approximately 3,032 actual trip ends per day (average daily trips [ADT]), 142 actual AM peak hour trips and 235 actual PM peak hour trips. With adjustments for converting trucks to passenger car equivalents, it is estimated the existing uses generate 3,526 ADT, 176 AM peak hour trips and 282 PM peak hour trips. 4.13.3 THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE According to Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, a project will normally have a significant adverse environmental impact on transportation if it will: Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities; Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b); Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment); and Result in inadequate emergency access. 4.13.4 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS A.Regulatory Requirements The Project is required to adhere to the following regulatory requirements. RR 13-1 During construction activities, work within streets, sidewalks, and public places shall comply with: (1) Title 12.03, Public Improvement Construction, of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code, which requires an encroachment permit from the City and adherence to the current edition of The Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction (Green Book), and (2) the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). Application for the permit shall be made as part of the respective plan check process and prior to any work on public areas or rights-of-way. RR 13-2 In accordance with Chapter 3.28, City-Wide System Fees for Transportation Development, of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code, prior to the issuance of each building permit, the Property Owner/Developer shall pay applicable city-wide transportation development impact fees to the satisfaction of the City Engineering Department. RR 13-3 The Property Owner/Developer shall comply with Chapter 17.78, Transportation Demand Management, of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Code, which Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.13 Transportation Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.13-17 requires the provision of amenities or programs to encourage the use of alternative modes of travel by employees; patrons; and visitors of commercial, industrial, office, and mixed use developments. These may include, but are limited to shower facilities, preferred parking, bicycle storage, video conference facilities, transit improvements, and other measures to reduce vehicle trips in the City. These facilities shall be shown in the site improvement and building plans submitted to the City during the permit process. RR 13-4 In accordance with Chapter 10.56, Truck Routes and Restrictions, of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code, commercial vehicles and vehicle combinations described in Sections 35400 and 35401 of the California Vehicle Code, or their successor provisions, and vehicles which exceed a maximum gross weight of three tons shall use designated truck routes. Non-designated truck routes shall be used only as necessary for the purpose of making pickups or deliveries of goods, wares, and merchandise from or to any building or structure located on a city street or for the purpose of delivering materials to be used in the repair, alteration, remodeling, or construction of any building or structure upon a city street for which a building permit has previously been obtained. RR 13-5 Work in the public right-of-way along 4th Street in the City of Ontario shall comply with Title 7, Chapter 3, Public Rights-of-Way, of the City of Ontario Municipal Code, which requires an encroachment permit from the City. Application for the permit shall be made as part of the respective plan check process and prior to any work on public areas or rights-of-way. B.Trip Generation and Distribution Trip generation represents the amount of traffic which is both attracted to and produced by a development. Determining traffic generation for a specific project is therefore based upon forecasting the amount of traffic that is expected to be both attracted to and produced by the specific land uses being proposed for a given development. Based on the proposed building design/site plan, it is anticipated that the proposed buildings would be operated as high-cube non-sort fulfillment center and cold storage warehouse uses. As further described in the Traffic Memo, the trip generation rates used for the proposed buildings are based upon data collected by ITE in their Trip Generation Manual (10th Edition, 2017 & 10th Edition Supplement, 2020) for the proposed high-cube non-sort fulfillment (ITE Land Use Code 155) and high-cube cold storage warehouse (ITE Land Use Code 157) uses (Urban Crossroads, 2021b). With respect to the trip generation for high-cube fulfillment center warehouses, ITE does not provide a vehicle mix for weekday daily trips. As such, the weekday daily vehicle mix was estimated based on the trip generation data for high-cube fulfillment center warehouse (sort). The percentage of trucks, by axle type, were obtained from the SCAQMD recommended truck mix. Trip generation rates for the Project are also shown in Table 4.13-1. As identified, refinements to the raw trip generation estimates have been made to provide a more detailed breakdown of trips between passenger cars and trucks. Trip generation for heavy trucks was further broken down by truck type (or axle type). The total truck percentage is comprised of 3 different Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.13 Transportation Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.13-18 truck types: 2-axle, 3-axle, and 4+-axle trucks. Passenger car equivalent (PCE) factors were applied to the trip generation rates for heavy trucks (i.e., large 2-axles, 3-axles, 4 or more axles). PCEs allow the typical “real-world” mix of vehicle types to be represented as a single, standardized unit (e.g., the passenger car). Consistent with the San Bernardino County CMP, a PCE factor of 1.5 has been applied to 2-axle trucks, 2.0 for 3-axle trucks, and 3.0 for 4+-axle trucks to estimate each turning movement. The estimated Project daily and peak hour trip generation by vehicle type (actual and PCE) with operation of the proposed buildings as 90% high-cube non-sort fulfillment center and 10% high-cube cold storage warehouse uses is shown in Table 4.13-3, Project Trip Generation Summary. The Project is estimated to generate a total of 4,008 actual vehicle trip-ends per day with 318 AM peak hour trips and 339 PM peak hour trips. When taking into consideration the trips associated with the existing industrial warehouse and retail building, the net new trips are 976 trip-ends per day with 176 AM peak hour trips and 104 PM peak hour trips. The Project is also estimated to generate a total of 1,278 PCE net new trip-ends per day with 189 PCE AM peak hour trips and 110 PCE PM peak hour trips. Trip distribution is the process of identifying the probable destinations, directions, or traffic routes that would be utilized by Project traffic. The potential interaction between the planned land uses and surrounding regional access routes are considered in order to identify the route where the Project traffic would distribute. The Project trip distribution was developed based on anticipated travel patterns to and from the Project site for both passenger cars and truck traffic. The trip distribution patterns are shown on Figure 4.13-6, Project Truck Trip Distribution - Inbound; Figure 4.13-7, Project Truck Distribution – Outbound; Figure 4.13-8(a and b), Project Passenger Car Trip Distribution - Inbound, and Figure 4.13-9(a and b), Project Passenger Car Distribution – Outbound. The assignment of traffic from the Project to the adjoining roadway system is based on Project trip generation, trip distribution, and the arterial highway and local street system improvements that would be in place by the time of occupancy of the Project. As noted in Section 3.0, Project Description, a high-cube sort fulfillment center is not proposed as part of the Project, and the site plan as currently proposed does not support this on-site use. Nevertheless, to provide a conservative analysis, this Draft EIR also analyzes potential traffic-related impacts (e.g., air quality, energy, greenhouse gas emissions, off-site traffic noise, and transportation) associated with operation of the proposed buildings with 90% of the building area as a high-cube sort fulfillment center warehouse use and 10% of the building area as a high-cube cold storage warehouse use. The trip generation factors were based upon data collected by ITE in their Trip Generation Manual (10th Edition, 2017 & 10th Edition Supplement, 2020) for the proposed high-cube sort fulfillment center warehouse use (ITE Land Use Code 155) and high-cube cold storage warehouse use (ITE Land Use Code 157). The percentage of trucks, by axle type, were obtained from the SCAQMD recommended truck mix. The 90% high-cube sort fulfillment center warehouse use and 10% high-cube cold storage warehouse use daily and peak hour trip generation by vehicle type (actual and PCE) is shown in Table 4.13-4, High-Cube Sort Fulfillment Center/High-Cube Cold Storage Warehouse Trip Generation Summary. As shown, there would be 13,070 actual vehicle trip-ends per day with 1,728 AM peak hour trips and Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.13 Transportation Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.13-19 Table 4.13-3 Project Trip Generation Summary Land Use Quantity Units1 AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Daily In Out Total In Out Total Project Trip Generation Summary (Actual Vehicles): High-Cube Fulfillment (Non-Sort) (90%) (ITE Code 155) 1,957.500 TSF Passenger Cars: 216 51 267 114 178 292 3,172 2-axle Trucks: 4 1 5 1 2 3 62 3-axle Trucks: 4 1 5 2 3 5 78 4+-axle Trucks:13 3 16 5 8 13 234 Total Trucks: 21 5 26 8 13 21 374 Fulfillment Center Total Trips (Actual Vehicles)2 237 56 293 122 191 313 3,546 High-Cube Cold Storage (10%) (ITE Code 157) 217.500 TSF Passenger Cars: 13 4 17 5 15 20 300 2-axle Trucks: 2 1 3 1 2 3 56 3-axle Trucks: 1 0 1 0 0 0 18 4+-axle Trucks:3 1 4 1 2 3 88 Total Trucks: 6 2 8 2 4 6 162 Cold Storage Total Trips (Actual Vehicles)2 19 6 25 7 19 26 462 Total Project: Passenger Cars 229 55 284 119 193 312 3,472 Total Project: Trucks (Actual Vehicles) 27 7 34 10 17 27 536 Total Project (Actual Vehicles)2 256 62 318 129 210 339 4,008 Project Trip Generation Summary (PCE) High-Cube Fulfillment (Non-Sort) (90%) 1,957.500 TSF Passenger Cars: 216 51 267 114 178 292 3,172 2-axle Trucks: 5 1 6 2 3 5 94 3-axle Trucks: 9 2 11 4 6 10 154 4+-axle Trucks:40 9 49 16 25 41 700 Total Trucks: 54 12 66 22 34 56 948 Fulfillment Center Total Trips (PCE)2 270 63 333 136 212 348 4,120 High-Cube Cold Storage (10%) 217.500 TSF Passenger Cars: 13 4 17 5 15 20 300 2-axle Trucks: 3 1 4 1 2 3 84 3-axle Trucks: 1 0 1 0 1 1 36 4+-axle Trucks:8 2 10 3 7 10 264 Total Trucks: 12 3 15 4 10 14 384 Cold Storage Total Trips (PCE)2 25 7 32 9 25 34 684 Total Project: Passenger Cars 229 55 284 119 193 312 3,472 Total Project: Trucks (PCE) 66 15 81 26 44 70 1,332 Total Project (PCE)2 295 70 365 145 237 382 4,804 1 TSF = thousand square feet 2 TOTAL TRIPS = Passenger Cars + Truck Trips. (Urban Crossroads, 2021b) Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report Source(s): Urban Crossroads (04-06-2021) 4.13 Transportation Figure 4. 13-6 Project Truck Trip Distribution -Inbound Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.13-20 Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.13 Transportation Source(s): Urban Crossroads (04-06-2021) Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga Figure 4. 13-7 Project Truck Trip Distribution -Outbound SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.13-21 Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report _,,/ / / ,,,i:::i// / ( / 5 5------/t,L __________7------FOOTHILL Bl. / 15 I // I / I / I //I/ I / I // I / I 5 �I 1/ r------ARROWRT. / I / I / I / �I / NI / I t I�I RANCHO l,q; I CUCAMONGA I ,q; / IQ / I � / I� /I� I I Loi I I ! ��---J I ___ o,HR I '! �-rl-... ,_) 1--·li Source(s): Urban Crossroads (04-06-2021) Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga WHITTRAM AV. FONTANA Without 6th St. Connection LEGEND: 10 = PERCENT TO PROJECT 4.13 Transportation With 6th St. Connection Figure 4.13-8 Project Passenger Car Trip Distribution -Inbound SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.13-22 Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 15 5--------,------------ Source(s): Urban Crossroads (04-06-2021) RANCHO CUCAMONGA 6THST. 25 20 ONTARIO ONTARIO MILLS PKWY. Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga FOOTHILL Bl. 1,------,-. 5 0 N ARROW RT. ,______,_. 5 WHITTRAM AV. Without 6th St. Connection LEGEND: 10 = PERCENT FROM PROJECT 4.13 Transportation With 6th St. Connection Figure 4.13-9 Project Passenger Car Trip Distribution -Outbound SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.13-23 Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.13 Transportation Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.13-24 Table 4.13-4 High-Cube Sort Fulfillment Center/High-Cube Cold Storage Warehouse Trip Generation Summary Land Use Quantity Units1 AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Daily In Out Total In Out Total Sort Use/Cold Storage Trip Generation Summary (Actual Vehicles): High-Cube Fulfillment (Sort) (90%) 1,957.500 TSF Passenger Cars: 1,352 317 1,669 898 1,404 2,302 12,228 2-axle Trucks:5 1 6 3 5 8 64 3-axle Trucks:6 1 7 4 6 10 78 4+-axle Trucks: 17 4 21 11 18 29 238 Total Trucks: 28 6 34 18 29 47 380 Fulfillment Center Total Trips (Actual Vehicles)2 1,380 323 1,703 916 1,433 2,349 12,608 High-Cube Cold Storage (10%) 217.500 TSF Passenger Cars: 13 4 17 5 15 20 300 2-axle Trucks:2 1 3 1 2 3 56 3-axle Trucks:1 0 1 0 0 0 18 4+-axle Trucks: 3 1 4 1 2 3 88 Total Trucks: 6 2 8 2 4 6 162 Cold Storage Total Trips (Actual Vehicles)2 19 6 25 7 19 26 462 Total: Passenger Cars 1,365 321 1,686 903 1,419 2,322 12,528 Total: Trucks (Actual Vehicles) 34 8 42 20 33 53 542 Total (Actual Vehicles)2 1,399 329 1,728 923 1,452 2,375 13,070 Sort Use/Cold Storage Trip Generation Summary (PCE) High-Cube Fulfillment (Sort) (90%) 1,957.500 TSF Passenger Cars: 1,352 317 1,669 898 1,404 2,302 12,228 2-axle Trucks:7 2 9 5 7 12 96 3-axle Trucks:14 3 17 9 15 24 196 4+-axle Trucks: 52 12 64 34 54 88 710 Total Trucks: 73 17 90 48 76 124 1,002 Fulfillment Center Sort Total Trips (PCE)2 1,425 334 1,759 946 1,480 2,426 13,230 High-Cube Cold Storage (10%) 217.500 TSF Passenger Cars: 13 4 17 5 15 20 300 2-axle Trucks:3 1 4 1 2 3 84 3-axle Trucks:1 0 1 0 1 1 36 4+-axle Trucks: 8 2 10 3 7 10 264 Total Trucks: 12 3 15 4 10 14 384 Cold Storage Total Trips (PCE)2 25 7 32 9 25 34 684 Total Passenger Cars 1,365 321 1,686 903 1,419 2,322 12,528 Total: Trucks (PCE) 85 20 105 52 86 138 1,386 Total (PCE)2 1,450 341 1,791 955 1,505 2,460 13,914 1 TSF = thousand square feet 2 TOTAL TRIPS = Passenger Cars + Truck Trips. (Urban Crossroads, 2021b) Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.13 Transportation Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.13-25 2,375 PM peak hour trips. When taking into consideration the trips associated with the existing industrial warehouse and retail building, the net new trips are 10,038 trip-ends per day with 1,586 net new AM peak hour trips and 2,140 net new PM peak hour trips. The 90% high-cube sort fulfillment center warehouse use and 10% high-cube cold storage warehouse use operation is also estimated to generate a total of 10,388 PCE net new trip-ends per day with 1,615 net new PCE AM peak hour trips and 2,188 net new PCE PM peak hour trips. The projected trip distribution for these operations is provided in Appendix L2 of this Draft EIR. C.Impact Analysis Threshold 13.1 Would the Project conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities? 1.Regional SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS and Connect SoCal The fundamental goals of SCAG’s 2016-2040 RTP/SCS and Connect SoCal are to make the SCAG region a better place to live, work, and play for all residents regardless of race, ethnicity, or income class. Table 4.10-1, RTP/SCS Consistency Analysis, in Section 4.10 of this Draft EIR, addresses the Project’s consistency with the 2016 RTP/SCS and Connect SoCal. As demonstrated through this analysis, implementation of the Project would be consistent with the goals of SCAG’s regional planning programs, including the following goals related to vehicular and non-vehicular circulation that may be applicable to the Project: SCAG 2016-2040 RTP/SCS Goal 2: Maximize mobility and accessibility for all people and goods in the region. Goal 3: Ensure travel safety and reliability for all people and goods in the region. Goal 4: Preserve and ensure a sustainable regional transportation system. Goal 5: Maximize the productivity of our transportation system. Goal 6: Protect the environment and health for our residents by improving air quality and encouraging active transportation (e.g., bicycling and walking). Goal 7: Encourage land use and growth patterns that facilitate transit and active transportation. Connect SoCal Goal 2: Improve mobility, accessibility, reliability, and travel safety for people and goods. Goal 3: Enhance the preservation, security, and resilience of the regional transportation system. Goal 4: Increase person and goods movement and travel choices within the transportation system. Goal 8: Leverage new transportation technologies and data-driven solutions that result in more efficient travel. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.13 Transportation Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.13-26 2016 San Bernardino County CMP As previously identified in Section 4.13.1, Relevant Policies and Regulations, the 2016 CMP identifies goals of the program, defines legal requirements, provides other background information and describes each individual element, component, and requirement of the program. Each element of the CMP includes a list of objectives, policies, and actions and identifies the entity responsible for implementing the actions. In each case, the responsible entity is the local jurisdiction, Congestion Management Agency (CMA), SCAG, SANBAG, a transit agency, a state agency (i.e., Caltrans), or the appropriate air district. There are no actions identified for implementation by individual development projects; therefore, a consistency analysis with the objectives, policies, and actions is not required. The following goals are outlined in the 2016 CMP and similar to the 2016 CMP objectives and policies, these goals are intended to be addressed by local, regional, and state agencies, rather than individual development projects. Further, the 2016 CMP incorporates the SCAG 2016-2040 RTP/SCS goals, discussed above, and evaluated in Section 4.10 of this Draft EIR. Goal 1: Maintain or enhance the performance of the multimodal transportation system an minimize travel delay. Goal 2: Assist in focusing available transportation funding on cost-effective responses to subregional and regional transportation needs. Goal 3: Provide for technical consistency in multimodal transportation system analysis. Goal 4 Help to coordinate development and implementation of subregional transportation strategies across jurisdictional boundaries. Goal 5: Anticipate the impacts of proposed new development on the multimodal transportation system, provide consistent procedures to identify and evaluate the effectiveness of mitigation measures and provide for adequate funding of mitigations. Goal 6: Promote air quality and improve mobility through implementation of land use and transportation alternatives or incentives that reduce both vehicle trips and miles traveled and vehicle emissions. However, the Project does not conflict with or otherwise preclude implementation of these goals. Specifically, with respect to enhancing multimodal transportation (Goal 1 and Goal 5), as described in Section 3.0, Project Description, of this Draft EIR, the Project, which is located in a TPA, would include the installation of a sidewalk along Street A, replacement of sidewalks along 4th Street and 6th Street, as needed, and installation of Class II bikeways adjacent to the Project site on 4th Street and 6th Street to facilitate pedestrian and bicycle travel. In compliance with Section 17.64.100 of the City’s Development Code, and the CALGreen Code, exterior short-term and long-term bicycle parking would be provided at each building near the office areas. There are existing bus stops adjacent to the Project site along 4th Street, which would serve to encourage transit use by Project employees and visitors. Further, the Project would be operated in adherence to Chapter 17.78, Transportation Demand Management, of the Rancho Cucamonga Development Code, which requires the provision of amenities or programs to encourage the use of alternative modes of travel by employees, patrons, and visitors Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.13 Transportation Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.13-27 (refer to RR 13-3). These may include, but are limited to shower facilities, preferred parking, bicycle storage, video conference facilities, transit improvements, and other measures to reduce vehicle trips in the City. With respect to Goal 5, the Project involves development of two contemporary high-cube warehouse buildings within an established industrial area, along designated truck routes, and in close proximity to the State highway system, which would avoid or shorten truck-trip lengths on other roadways. It should also be noted that the Project would not result in significant air quality impacts related vehicular emissions (refer to Section 4.2, Air Quality, of this Draft EIR), or transportation impacts related to VMT (refer to the analysis presented under Threshold b, below). In summary, the Project would not conflict with the goals or policies outlined in the San Bernardino County CMP. Rancho Cucamonga General Plan As previously identified, the purpose of the Community Mobility Chapter is to address all means of mobility. The Community Mobility Chapter addresses both conventional transportation issues related to vehicular use of the local roadway network and the integration of alternative transportation methods such as mass transit, bicycle and pedestrian networks, and equestrian and hiking trails. The Community Mobility Chapter provides guidance, including goals and polices. At the “project level,” the City reviews individual projects for compliance with applicable policies and regulations. The State’s general rule for a General Plan consistency determination is that “an action, program, or project is consistent with the General Plan if, considering all its aspects, it will further the objectives and policies of the General Plan and not obstruct their attainment” (OPR, 2017). Table 4.13-5, Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Consistency Analysis, provides an analysis of the Project’s consistency with applicable goals and policies outlined in the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan related to transportation, adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect, and that are subject to “project review” as outlined in Appendix A, Implementation Plan, of the General Plan. Other policies referred to as “special initiative” actions, are also addressed, if particularly relevant to the Project. The analysis below addresses the consistency of the Project with project level policies outlined in the Community Mobility Chapter and relevant policies from other General Plan Chapters. As identified, the Project does not conflict with any policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. Table 4.13-5 Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Consistency Analysis GENERAL PLAN GOAL/POLICY CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT Goal LU-3: Encourage sustainable development patterns that link transportation improvements and planned growth, create a healthy balance of jobs and housing, and protect the natural environment. Policy LU-3.3 Locate regionally serving land uses with immediate access to the regional transportation network that is designed to provide maximum access capabilities and permit maximum dispersal of traffic. No Conflict. Access to the Project site would be provided from 4th Street and 6th Street, which are adjacent to the Project site and designated truck routes, and proposed Street A. The roadways provide efficient access to I-15 approximately 0.5 Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.13 Transportation Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.13-28 Table 4.13-5 Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Consistency Analysis GENERAL PLAN GOAL/POLICY CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS mile east of the Project site, and I-10 approximately 0.7 mile south of the Project site. COMMUNITY MOBILITY Goal CM-1: Provide an integrated and balanced multi-modal transportation network of Complete Streets to meet the needs of all users and transportation modes. Policy CM-1.1 Provide a safe and efficient street system in the City to support mobility goals, all transportation modes, and the goals of the Managing Land Use, Community Design, and Historic Resources Chapter. No Conflict. As presented in Section 4.10 of this Draft EIR (refer Table 4.10-2, General Plan Consistency Analysis), the Project is consistent with the goals and policies of the Managing the Land Use, Community Design, and Historic Resources Chapter. Access to the Project site would be provided from 4th Street and 6th Street, which are adjacent to the Project site and designated truck routes, and proposed Street A, which would be constructed as part of the Project. The roadways provide efficient access to I-15 approximately 0.5 mile east of the Project site, and I-10 approximately 0.7 mile south of the Project site. The Circulation and Parking description provided in Section 3.0 of this Draft EIR, identifies vehicular and non- vehicular circulation improvements in the public right-of-way that would be implemented as part of the Project. In addition to the construction of new public Street A, the Project would be required to remove and replace portions of the curb and gutter (e.g., for curb cuts and Street A), and grind and overlay the asphalt concrete pavement along 4th Street and 6th Street along the frontage of the Project site. The Project, which is located in a TPA, would also include the installation of a sidewalk along Street A, replacement of sidewalks along 4th Street and 6th Street, as needed, and installation of Class II bikeways adjacent to the Project site on 4th Street and 6th Street to facilitate pedestrian and bicycle travel. In compliance with Section 17.64.100 of the City’s Development Code, and the CALGreen Code, exterior short-term and long-term bicycle parking would be provided at each building near the office areas. There are existing bus stops adjacent to the Project site along 4th Street, which would serve to encourage transit use by Project employees and visitors. The Project would implement street improvements (including provisions for pedestrians and bicyclists) in compliance with the City of Rancho Cucamonga street design standards. Policy CM-1.2 Provide an integrated network of roadways that provides for convenient automobile, transit, bicycle, and pedestrian circulation movement around the City. Policy CM-1.3 Implement street design standards. Modified standards may be applied where appropriate on arterial corridors relating to transit, bicycle facilities, sidewalks, and on-street parking to be context sensitive to adjacent land uses and districts, and to all roadway users, including transit, bicycles, and pedestrians. Goal CM-2: Plan, implement, and operate transportation facilities to support healthy and sustainable community objectives. Policy CM-2.1 Facilitate bicycling and walking citywide. No Conflict. Refer to the consistency analysis provided above for Goal CM-1 and the associated policies. The Project includes replacement of the existing sidewalk and installation of Class II bicycle lanes adjacent to the Project site as well as construction of a sidewalk along proposed Street A. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.13 Transportation Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.13-29 Table 4.13-5 Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Consistency Analysis GENERAL PLAN GOAL/POLICY CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS Policy CM-2.2 Encourage all feasible measures to reduce total vehicle miles traveled by automobiles, including enhanced transit access and land use approaches that provide compact and focused development along major transit corridors. No Conflict. The Project is located in an area designated for industrial development in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, which benefits from its proximity to key freeway infrastructure. Additionally, the would be operated in adherence to Chapter 17.78, Transportation Demand Management, of the Rancho Cucamonga Development Code, which requires the provision of amenities or programs to encourage the use of alternative modes of travel by employees, patrons, and visitors which would reduce total VMT (refer to RR 13-3). As presented under Threshold b, below, the Project would have a less than significant impact related to VMT. Policy CM-2.3 Support the use of hybrid, electric, and low/zero emission vehicles. No Conflict. The Project would be implemented in compliance with Section 5.106.5.2 of the CALGreen Code, which requires designated parking for low-emitting, fuel-efficient vehicles. The designated parking would be provided consistent with Section 5.106.5.3, Non-Residential Mandatory Measures, of the CALGreen Code. Policy CM-2.5 Establish priority parking locations for hybrid, electric, and low/zero emission, and alternative fuel vehicles. Policy CM-2.6 Accommodate charging and fueling stations for alternative fuel vehicles, and put forth strong efforts to have charging facilities provided at employment centers. No Conflict. Section 5.106.5.3 of the CALGreen Code requires a project provide for the future installation of electric vehicle charging. The design and installation of infrastructure for future electric vehicle charging would be consistent with Section 5.106.5.3, Non-Residential Mandatory Measures, of the CALGreen Code. Policy CM-2.7 Require new developments of more than 100 employees (per building or per tenant/company) to develop Transportation Demand Management programs to minimize automobile trips and to encourage use of transit, ridesharing, bicycling, and walking. No Conflict. The Project would comply with the City’s Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Ordinance (Section 17.78 of the City’s Development Code), which is required to reduce trip generation from the Project (refer to RR 13-3) and includes requirements to encourage use of transit, ridesharing, bicycling and walking. Goal CM-3: Provide a transportation system that includes connected transit, bicycle, and pedestrian networks. Policy CM-3.7 Continue to develop and maintain a citywide bicycle network of off-street bike paths, on-street bike lanes, and bike streets to provide connections between neighborhoods, schools, parks, civic center/facilities, recreational facilities, and major commercial centers. No Conflict. Refer to the consistency analysis for Goal CM-1 and the associated policies. The Project would involve implementation of a public roadway (Street A) and associated sidewalk and bicycle lane improvements, which would provide connections to on-site uses, adjacent uses, and nearby bus stops. Policy CM-3.8 Continue to encourage the provision of bicycle facilities, such as bicycle lockers and secure bike parking, throughout the City. No Conflict. As discussed in Section 3.0 of this Draft EIR, to facilitate bicycle travel and comply with the CALGreen Code and Section 17.64.100 of the City’s Development Code, exterior short-term and long-term bicycle parking would be provided at each building near the office areas (24 short-term and 24 long-term spaces for Building 1 [48 total], and 14 short- term and 14 long-term spaces for Building 2 [28 total]). Policy CM-3.10 Continue to complete the installation of sidewalks and require new development to provide sidewalks No Conflict. Refer to the consistency analysis for Goal CM-1 and the associated policies. The Project, which is located within a TPA, would include the replacement of existing sidewalks adjacent to the Project site and installation of a sidewalk on Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.13 Transportation Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.13-30 Table 4.13-5 Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Consistency Analysis GENERAL PLAN GOAL/POLICY CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS proposed Street A. These sidewalks would connect to pedestrian pathways serving the proposed buildings. Policy CM-3.11 Continue to require pedestrian amenities on sidewalks on major streets that are key pedestrian routes, including the provision of benches, shade trees, and trash cans. No Conflict. As shown on Figure 3-13, Conceptual Landscape Plan, the Project includes planting of trees along all Project roadways and sidewalks. Policy CM-3.12 Continue to require that the siting and architectural design of new development promotes safety, pedestrian-friendly design, and access to transit facilities. No Conflict. Refer to the consistency analysis for Goal CM-1 and the associated policies, which addresses non-vehicular circulation. To facilitate use of transit and non-vehicular circulation and to meet applicable requirements for accessibility pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Project, which is located within a TPA, includes replacement of existing sidewalks adjacent to the Project site, construction of a sidewalk along proposed Street A, and bicycle lanes along 4th Street and 6th Street. These pedestrian and bicycle facilities would be accessible from the proposed buildings, and would facilitate use of nearby transit facilities, including bus stops along 4th Street, which is a high-quality transit corridor. Policy CM-3.14 Enhance pedestrian and bicycle access to local and regional transit, including facilitating connections to transit. Goal CM-5: Require that new development mitigate transportation impacts and contribute to the improvement of the City’s transportation system. Policy CM-5.1 Continue to require that new development participates in the cost of transportation mitigation and improvements necessitated by new development, including non-automobile solutions. No Conflict. As described in Section 3.0 of this Draft EIR, and described above, the Property Owner/Developer would implement roadway improvements that would facilitate vehicular and non-vehicular circulation. Additionally, the Project Owner/Developer would participate in the implementation of the 6th Street at-grade crossing of the railroad tracks west of the Project site, which is evaluated in this Draft EIR. Further, the Property Owner/Developer would pay the required city-wide transportation development impact fees (refer to RR 13-2). The specific provisions associated with the Applicant's contribution toward funding these transportation improvements may be further outlined in the proposed Development Agreement between the City and the Project Applicant (refer to Section 3.4.5, Development Agreement, of this Draft EIR. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.13 Transportation Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.13-31 Table 4.13-5 Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Consistency Analysis GENERAL PLAN GOAL/POLICY CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS Policy CM-5.2 Require evaluation of potential traffic and transportation impacts associated with new development prior to project approval, and require adequate mitigation measures, including non- automobile solutions prior to, or concurrent with, project development. No Conflict. The Project’s potential transportation impacts have been addressed in this section pursuant to the current CEQA Guidelines. This includes an evaluation of the Project’s potential to conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system (as addressed in this table, VMT impacts, hazards due to a geometric design feature, and emergency access). As presented in this section, with adherence to the regulations outlined in RR 13-1 through RR 13-5, the Project would not result in significant impacts related to transportation and no mitigation is required. In accordance with SB 743, the CNRA adopted changes to the CEQA Guidelines in December 2018, which identify that starting on July 1, 2020, VMT is the appropriate metric to evaluate a project’s transportation impacts. The required VMT analysis is presented under Threshold b, below. As discussed, the Project would have a less than significant impact related to VMT and no mitigation measures are required. Although not required for purposes of CEQA, conditions of approval will also be imposed on the project to address any transportation deficiencies (e.g., fair share payments) identified in the Project’s Traffic Impact Assessment. Policy CM-5.3 Require that new and substantially renovated office, retail, industrial, and multi-family developments implement transit amenities, including bus turnouts, transit shelters, and other streetscape elements, as appropriate. No Conflict. In the vicinity of the Project site, there are bus stops on the north and south side of 4thStreet, which is a high- quality transit corridor. The bus stops on the north side of 4th Street adjacent to the Project site would remain in use. Policy CM-5.4 Require that new and substantially renovated office, retail, industrial, institutional and multi-family developments include bicycle and pedestrian amenities on site and/or in the vicinity of the development to facilitate bicycling and walking, including on-site bike paths where appropriate, secure off- street bicycle parking, sidewalk improvements, and benches. The City will encourage such developments to provide bicycle facilities including showers and changing rooms. No Conflict. Refer to the consistency analysis for Goal CM-1 and associated policies, which address alternative modes of transportation; the consistency analysis for Policy CM-2.7, which addresses compliance with the City’s TDM Ordinance (refer to RR 13-3, including the requirement for showers and changing rooms), and the consistency analysis for Policy CM- 3.8, which addresses bicycle parking. Goal CM-6: Coordinate with other jurisdictions on regional transportation issues. Policy CM-6.3 Maintain consistency with the South Coast Air Quality Management District air quality mandates, SANBAG’s Congestion Management and Nexus Programs, and SCAG’s Regional Mobility Plan requirements. No Conflict. Consistency with SCAQMD requirements is discussed in Section 4.2 of this Draft EIR. Consistency with the San Bernardino County 2016 CMP is provided above, and consistency with SCAG’s RTP/SCS is discussed in Table 4.10- 1, RTP/SCS Consistency Analysis in Section 4.10 of this Draft EIR. As identified, the Project would not conflict with these regional programs. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.13 Transportation Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.13-32 Table 4.13-5 Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Consistency Analysis GENERAL PLAN GOAL/POLICY CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS Policy CM-6.4 Require the provision of appropriate mitigation of traffic impacts in surrounding communities resulting from development in Rancho Cucamonga. Work with surrounding communities to ensure that traffic impacts in Rancho Cucamonga resulting from development outside the City are adequately mitigated. No Conflict. Refer to the consistency analysis for Policy CM- 5.2, which addresses the required analysis and mitigation of traffic impacts. The non-CEQA Traffic Memo for the Project takes into consideration LOS standards from agencies with jurisdiction over roadway facilities in the Traffic Memo study area (City of Ontario, City of Fontana, San Bernardino County, and Caltrans) and addresses traffic deficiencies to facilities under their jurisdiction. Goal CM-7: Maintain an efficient and safe network of goods and freight movement that supports the needs of the business community. Policy CM-7.1 Continue to maintain a truck circulation system that defines truck routes, directs the movement of trucks safely along major roadways, and minimizes truck travel on local and collector streets. No Conflict. The Project involves the development of two contemporary high cube warehouse buildings to support goods movement in the region. As discussed in Section 4.13.2.B, Truck Routes, the cities of Rancho Cucamonga, Ontario and Fontana identify truck routes in the vicinity of the Project. Notably, 4th Street, 6th Street, and Etiwanda Avenue are designated truck routes. Trucks traveling to and from the Project would adhere to applicable regulations associated with truck travel and use of these truck routes. With respect to freight movement (Goal CM-7), the portion of existing rail spur within the Project site that is within the parcel for Building 2 would be retained (south of 6th Street). The remaining portion of the rail spur within the Building 1 parcel would be removed. However, the Project has been designed to allow for future rail use at Building 1, should it be desired by a tenant. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Goal ED-1: Achieve and maintain a diverse and sustainable economic base. Policy ED-3.4 Improve internal circulation for all modes of transportation, consistent with the concept of “Complete Streets.” No Conflict. Refer to the policy consistency analysis for Goal CM.1 and associated policies, which addresses vehicular and non-vehicular circulation improvements being implemented as part of the Project. PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY Goal PS-11: Reduce the volume of pollutants generated by motorized vehicles. Policy PS-11.1 Implement the policies in the Community Mobility Chapter to foster a healthy and sustainable community and promote transportation choices other than the private automobile. No Conflict. The Project is located within a low VMT area and within a TPA and is consistent with Community Mobility goals and policies, as outlined above, including policies for use of alternative transportation systems. In summary, the Project’s location within a low VMT area indicates greater access and availability to pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities which promote transportation choices other than the private automobile and would minimize vehicle emissions. As further discussed in Section 4.2 of this Draft EIR, the Project, which involves redevelopment of the Project site, would not result in significant air quality impacts, including impacts associated with mobile emissions. Policy PS-11.2 Minimize vehicle emissions by encouraging alternative land use patterns that reduce the need for automobile trips. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.13 Transportation Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.13-33 Table 4.13-5 Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Consistency Analysis GENERAL PLAN GOAL/POLICY CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS Goal PS-12: Mitigate against climate change. Policy PS-12.3 Encourage development of transit- oriented and infill development, and encourage a mix of uses that foster walking and alternative transportation. No Conflict. The Project is an infill development, which involves redevelopment of the Project site. The southern portion of the Project site is currently developed with a warehouse and retail building constructed in the 1980s. The northern portion of the Project site includes vacant land and surface parking, is underutilized. As discussed in the preceding consistency analysis, the Project is located in a TPA and would foster walking and use of other alternative modes of transportation, including transit. Notably, there are bus stops along 4th Street that would be retained and improved access would be provided with the Project. 4th Street is a high-quality transit corridor. Policy PS-12.4 Provide enhanced bicycling and walking infrastructure, and support public transit, including public bus service, the Metrolink, and the potential for Bus Rapid Transit (BRT). Impact 13.1 Implementation of the Project would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. No impact would result and no mitigation is required. Threshold 13.2 Would the Project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? As previously discussed, SB 743 changes the way transportation impacts are determined according to CEQA. Updates to the CEQA Guidelines approved in December 2018 included the addition of CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, of which Subdivision b establishes criteria for evaluating a project’s transportation impacts based on project type and using automobile VMT as the metric. As a component of OPR’s revisions to the CEQA Guidelines, lead agencies were required to adopt VMT thresholds of significance by July 1, 2020; the City adopted its new Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines in June 2020. Consistent with City Guidelines, projects that meet certain screening thresholds based on their location and project type may be presumed to result in a less than significant transportation impact. Consistent with the screening criteria recommended in OPR’s Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA (Technical Advisory), the City of Rancho Cucamonga utilizes the following project screening thresholds: •Transit Priority Area (TPA) Screening •Low VMT Area Screening •Project Type Screening A land use project need only meet one of the above screening criteria to result in a less than significant impact. While the majority of the Project site is located within a TPA (the portion of the Project site within ½ mile of 4th Street, which is a high quality-transit corridor), it does not meet the secondary screening threshold related to floor-to-area ratio (FAR), as the Project’s FAR is less than 0.75. Additionally, the Project does not meet the screening criteria for Project type. With respect to the Low Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.13 Transportation Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.13-34 VMT Area screening threshold, the City uses the SBCTA screening tool to determine low areas of VMT. The screening tool uses the sub-regional San Bernardino Transportation Analysis Model (SBTAM) to measure VMT performance within individual traffic analysis zones (TAZ’s) within the region. While the Project is located within a TAZ (TAZ 53700501) that is not within a low VMT generating zone based on the Origin/Destination (OD) method of calculating VMT, the City’s Guidelines identify that for projects composed entirely of a single land use, such as the Project’s industrial high-cube warehouse use, VMT may be calculated using the Production-Attraction (PA) trip matrix to allow for the isolation of vehicle trips by trip purpose (i.e., home-based work trips), which measures commute VMT. The analysis of VMT by trip purpose is consistent with the recommendations published by OPR in their Technical Advisory. The Project is within a Low VMT generating TAZ based on PA VMT per service population, resulting in a less than significant transportation impact related to VMT. It should be noted that SBTAM utilizes general categories to classify employment-based land uses (i.e., retail, office, warehouse, etc.). In other words, the low VMT generating zone for TAZ 53700501 would apply to any industrial uses such as general light industrial, warehousing, high-cube fulfillment centers (non-sort), and high-cube fulfillment centers (sort). The results of the screening tool for both the OD and PA VMT per service population calculations are provided in Attachment B of the VMT Assessment included in Appendix L1 of this Draft EIR. As the Low VMT Area screening criteria is met for the PA VMT per service population measure of VMT, the Project would result in a less than significant transportation impact. While the Project meets the Low VMT Area screening criteria, a Project-level VMT analysis has also been conducted for informational purposes. The first step in the analysis is to calculate Project- generated VMT and compare it to the City’s adopted impact threshold. SBTAM is a useful tool to calculate VMT as it considers interaction between different land uses based on socio-economic data such as population, employment, and other factors. It was also the tool used to establish the City’s impact threshold, so is the appropriate tool to conduct the analysis to ensure an apples-to-apples comparison of project generated VMT to the adopted threshold. Project-generated VMT has been calculated using the most current version of SBTAM, which was updated recently by SBCTA as part of the development of their recommended VMT guidelines. Adjustments in socio-economic data (SED) (i.e., employment) have been made to a separate TAZ to reflect the Project’s proposed land uses (i.e., high-cube warehouse use). A separate TAZ is used to isolate Project-generated VMT from other land uses in the model. Adjustments were also made to remove employment related to the existing use to ensure trips related to the Project were not double counted. As further discussed in Section 4.12, Population and Housing, of this Draft EIR, the Project is estimated to generate 1,479 employees. City Guidelines state that for projects composed entirely of a single land use such as the Project, project-generated VMT may be calculated using the PA trip matrix to allow for the isolation of vehicle trips by trip purpose (i.e., home-based work trips) that allows for the isolation of commute VMT for employment uses (e.g., office, industrial, etc.). Evaluation of VMT based on trip purpose is consistent with recommendations in OPR’s Technical Advisory and offers the most straight forward method for assessing VMT reductions from mitigation measures for single use project. Therefore, for purposes of the Project analysis, Project-generated VMT was calculated based on the PA trip matrix. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.13 Transportation Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.13-35 Project-generated VMT was calculated for both the base year model (2016) and cumulative year model (2040) and linear interpolation was used to determine the baseline (2020) Project-generated VMT. The VMT value was then normalized by dividing by the Project’s service population (number of employees). Table 4.13-6, Project VMT Per Service Population, presents the key inputs for the calculation of Project-generated VMT per service population. Table 4.13-6 Project VMT Per Service Population Base Year (2016) Cumulative (2040) Baseline (2020) Project generated VMT 36,351 35,135 36,149 Service Population 1,479 employees 1,479 employees 1,479 employees VMT per Service Population 24.58 23.76 24.44 (Urban Crossroads, 2021a) The adopted City Guidelines state that the City of Rancho Cucamonga has selected a threshold based on the baseline VMT performance in the City. More specifically, the City Guidelines state that a project-generated VMT impact would be considered potentially significant if either of the following conditions are met: 1.The baseline project-generated VMT per service population exceeds the City of Rancho Cucamonga baseline VMT per service population3, or 2.The cumulative project-generated VMT per service population exceeds the City of Rancho Cucamonga baseline VMT per service population. Table 4.13-7, Project-Generated VMT Per Service Population Comparison, presents the difference between baseline and cumulative project generated VMT per service population to the City’s baseline VMT per service population. As shown, the baseline project generated VMT per service population is 24.44 or 7.77% below than the City’s current threshold of 26.5 VMT per service population. The cumulative project generated VMT per service population is 23.76 or 10.34% below the City’s threshold of 26.5 VMT per service population. Therefore, the Project’s VMT impact would be considered less than significant based on the comparison of baseline project generated VMT per service population to the City’s baseline condition and the Project screened out based on the low VMT area screening threshold. Table 4.13-7 Project-Generated VMT Per Service Population Comparison Baseline (2020) Cumulative (2040) City Baseline VMT per service population 26.5 26.5 Project VMT per service population 24.44 23.76 Percent Change -7.77%-10.34% (Urban Crossroads, 2021a) 3 City Guidelines note that as of June 2020 the baseline VMT per service population for the City of Rancho Cucamonga is 26.5 calculated using the PA method. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.13 Transportation Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.13-36 As discussed in Section 3.0, Project Description, a high-cube sort fulfillment center is not proposed as part of the Project, and the site plan as currently proposed does not support this on-site use. Nevertheless, to provide a conservative analysis, this Draft EIR also analyzes potential VMT impacts associated with operation of the proposed buildings with 90% of the building area as a high-cube sort fulfillment center warehouse use and 10% of the building area as a high-cube cold storage warehouse use. As the Low VMT Area screening criteria is met for the PA VMT per service population measure of VMT, the Project would result in a less than significant transportation impact whether the proposed buildings are operated as a high‐cube non-sort fulfillment center warehouse and high-cube cold storage warehouse, or operated as a high‐cube sort fulfillment center warehouse and high-cube cold storage warehouse. Under either scenario, impacts would be less than significant. Impact 13.2 The Project’s VMT impact would be considered less than significant based on the City’s Low VMT Area screening threshold. Thus, the Project would not conflict with or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b). This impact is less than significant and no mitigation is required. Threshold 13.3 Would the Project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? As further discussed in Section 4.10 of this Draft EIR, the Project site is within the City’s Southeast Focus Area, which anticipates industrial uses. The Project would involve redevelopment of the Project site with two high-cube warehouse buildings, and the Project site is surrounded by industrial uses and the West Valley Detention Center. Site improvements incorporated into the Project to ensure that adequate ingress and egress to the Project site is provided are described in Section 3.0 of this Draft EIR. As shown on Figure 3-10, Proposed Site Access, consistent with existing conditions, access would be provided from Project driveways along 4th Street (three driveways), and 6th Street (one driveway). There would also be five driveways along proposed Street A. Each Project driveway would have a stop control, would accommodate full access, and would accommodate the ingress and egress of heavy trucks and emergency vehicles. The Project would also include installation of a traffic signal at the new intersection of 4th Street and Street A. 1.Construction-Related Transportation Hazards Construction traffic resulting from the Project would primarily be associated with construction workers commuting to and from the Project site; transport of demolition materials and potentially soil; delivery of building materials; and transport of construction equipment (including large equipment). Construction workers would travel to the site by passenger vehicle and construction equipment and building materials deliveries would arrive by medium- and heavy-duty trucks. The amount of construction traffic would vary daily depending on the nature of the activity. Construction workers do not typically commute during peak hours as they arrive prior to morning peak hour and leave prior to the evening peak hour. The use of heavy trucks for the transport and disposal of building materials, equipment, and potentially soils would occur periodically throughout the workday but largely outside of peak hours. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.13 Transportation Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.13-37 For the Project, it is expected that the peak days for construction-related heavy truck traffic would occur when haul trucks are removing demolition materials from the site. Demolition activities would generate approximately 306 (one-way) hauling trips over the approximate 68-day demolition period, which would represent approximate 5 truckloads per day (one-way truck trips). While the grading operation are expected balance on-site, for purposes of providing a conservative analysis it is estimated that there could also be up to 5 one-way truck trips per day during grading operations. Consistent with existing conditions, access to the Project site during construction would primarily be provided via the existing driveways along 4th Street and 6th Street. It is anticipated that trucks would be routed from I-15 (northbound and southbound) to the 4th Street exit and would travel east toward the Project site. As previously discussed, to minimize traffic congestion and truck traffic impacts, the cities of Rancho Cucamonga, Ontario, and Fontana have designated truck routes that direct truck traffic to designated arterials, and construction truck traffic would be required to use these designated routes as trucks travel to and from the Project site to the freeway or to area facilities that would be used during construction (ready mix concrete batch plant, metal recycling, etc.). Compliance with the use of truck routes is enforced by the respective local jurisdictions. Construction activities associated with the Project would result in the temporary closure of traffic lanes along 4th Street and 6th Street in the City of Rancho Cucamonga during various construction activities, including, but not limited to, construction of previously identified on-site and off-site street improvements, and access driveways, and installation of utility infrastructure (including utility connections). Additionally, proposed intersection improvements at 4th Street and proposed Street A and associated traffic signal modifications would occur in the City of Ontario. The reduction of roadway capacity, the narrowing of traffic lanes, and the occasional interruption of traffic flow on streets associated with Project-related construction activities could pose hazards to vehicular traffic due to localized traffic congestion, decreased turning radii, or the condition of roadway surfaces. Additionally, construction activities in the public right-of-way could pose a hazard to pedestrian and bicyclists in the area, if not properly managed. As required by the City, an encroachment permit would be obtained prior to any work within the public right-of-way in accordance with Chapter 12.03, Public Improvement Construction, of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code (refer to RR 13-1). One of the primary purposes of this Chapter is “[t]o reduce hazards to the public resulting from inappropriate construction and traffic-control procedures during construction activities affecting streets, highways, sidewalks, drainage facilities and other public places owned and operated by the city.” As identified in RR 13-1, Chapter 12.03 of the Municipal Code also requires construction on public rights-of-way to comply with the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction (Green Book), which contains standards for maintenance of access, traffic control, and notification of emergency personnel. Further, construction activities would be conducted in compliance with the MUTCD, which identifies the necessary traffic-control devices (e.g., signs, barricades, gates, warning signs, object markers, guide signs, pavement and curb markings, traffic-control signs, pedestrian control signs, in-roadway lights, and flagger control) on public streets, highways, bikeways, etc., including temporary traffic-control devices in and near construction work areas. Title 7, Chapter 3, of the Ontario Municipal Code, similarly requires issuance of a permit prior to work in its public right-of-way, to achieve the City’s health and safety values; an encroachment permit would be obtained Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.13 Transportation Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.13-38 from the City of Ontario prior to completion of intersection and associated improvements along 4th Street within the City of Ontario (refer to RR 13-5). With adherence to the Rancho Cucamonga and Ontario requirements for obtaining an encroachment permit, and compliance with provisions of the Green Book and MUTCD, potential hazards to vehicular, bicycle and pedestrian traffic during construction would be less than significant. Therefore, the Project does not involve the introduction of any design features or uses that would substantially increase hazards on the roadways surrounding the Project site during construction. 2. Operational Transportation Hazards As shown in Table 4.13-3, the Project is estimated to generate 536 truck trips daily, with all trips by 2- to 4-axle trucks. This represents a net increase of approximately 214 truck trips daily when taking into consideration the trucks trips generated by existing uses. The roadway classifications for the roadways adjacent to the Project site were established in consideration of industrial nature of the area. The increase in truck trips would not be incompatible with existing development in the area that generates similar types of truck trips. Additionally, Project-generated truck traffic would travel on designated truck routes, and trucks traveling to and from the Project would adhere to applicable regulations associated with truck travel (refer to RR 13-4). As previously identified, as required by the City, and consistent with the City’s roadway standards, the Project would include the installation of a sidewalk along Street A, replacement of sidewalks along 4th Street and 6th Street, as needed, and installation of Class II bikeways adjacent to the Project site on 4th Street and 6th Street to facilitate pedestrian and bicycle travel. Therefore, consistent with existing conditions, pedestrians and bicyclists traveling along these roadways would interface with vehicles, including trucks, entering, and exiting the Project site. However, the Project would improve the bicycle and pedestrian facilities adjacent to the Project, would include traffic control at each driveway, and would provide appropriate sight distance for drivers. As discussed in the Circulation and Parking discussion in Section 3.0 of this Draft EIR, the environmental impacts associated with construction of an at-grade crossing of the railroad spur to complete 6th Street between Santa Anita Avenue and Etiwanda Avenue and connect to the existing roadway on either side of the railroad are evaluated in this Draft EIR. A sidewalk would also be installed on the south side of the roadway connecting sidewalks to the east and west. This at-grade crossing would involve the installation of railroad crossing arms and signals for safety purposes (vehicle, pedestrian, and bicycle). This at-grade crossing would not substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature or incompatible uses. Therefore, the Project does not involve the introduction of any design features or uses that would substantially increase hazards for motorists, pedestrians, or bicyclists, on the roadways surrounding the Project site. This impact would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. Impact 13.3 The Project does not involve the introduction of any design features or uses that would substantially increase hazards for motorists, pedestrians, or bicyclists, on the roadways Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.13 Transportation Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.13-39 surrounding the Project site. This impact would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. Threshold 13.4 Would the Project result in inadequate emergency access? As discussed above, access to the Project site during construction would primarily be provided via the driveways along 4th Street and 6th Street, consistent with existing conditions. There would be temporary partial lane closures to accommodate construction activities in the public right-of-way. Proposed construction activities would be conducted in compliance with requirements of the cities of Rancho Cucamonga and Ontario (refer to RR 13-1 and RR 13-5). Construction on public rights-of-way would comply with the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction (Green Book). The Green Book contains standards for construction activities, including notification of emergency personnel. During operation, access to the Project site would also be provided via driveways along 4th Street, 6th Street, and from proposed Street A. An internal network of drive aisles would be provided to serve each building, which would meet Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District (RCFPD) standards for access, width, and turning radii. The proposed fire access plan, which has been reviewed by RCFPD, is provided on Figure 3-11, Proposed Fire Access Plan. Additionally, the required right-of-way widths for site-adjacent roadways would be maintained. Therefore, the Project would provide adequate emergency access and this impact would be less than significant. No mitigation is required. Impact 13.4 The Project would provide adequate emergency access and impacts would be less than significant. 4.13.5 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS A comprehensive cumulative project list was compiled based on information provided by the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department and the planning departments in San Bernardino County and the cities of Ontario and Fontana. A summary of cumulative development projects and their proposed land uses is provided in Section 4.0, Environmental Setting and Impact Evaluation Overview, of this Draft EIR. As identified in the analysis presented under Threshold a, the Project would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. Cumulative development projects would be reviewed for consistency with adopted programs, plans, ordinances, or policies, including but not limited to the SCAG RTP/SCS, the San Bernardino County CMP, the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan, the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code, and the General Plans and Municipal Codes for the adjacent jurisdictions, as applicable. Accordingly, cumulative impacts would be less than significant. Even if cumulative development projects are in conflict, the Project would not contribute to a cumulative impact and thus would not cumulatively considerable because the Project does not conflict with a program, plan, Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.13 Transportation Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.13-40 ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, as identified through the analysis presented in this section. As discussed previously under Threshold 13.2, since the Low VMT Area screening criteria is met for the PA VMT per service population measure of VMT, the Project would result in a less than significant VMT impact whether the proposed buildings are operated as a high‐cube non-sort fulfillment center warehouse and high-cube cold storage warehouse, or operated as a high‐cube sort fulfillment center warehouse and high-cube cold storage warehouse. Further, the General Plan land use designations and zoning for the Project site are Heavy Industrial (northern portion of the site) and General Industrial (southern portion of the site), which allow for the proposed industrial uses. The proposed General Plan Amendment and Zoning Map Amendment to change the Heavy Industrial designations to General Industrial would allow for consistent development standard and regulations across the site. As further discussed in Section 4.12 of this Draft EIR, the projected employment generation resulting from the Project is within the total number of jobs projected by the current SCAG RTP/SCS, and is consistent with the underlying employment assumptions upon which the current RTP/SCS was based. As such, the Project’s contribution to cumulative impacts for VMT is considered less than significant. (Urban Crossroads, 2021a) The Project would have less than significant impacts related to hazards from design or incompatible uses during construction and operation, and with respect to emergency access, with adherence to applicable regulations. None of the cumulative projects listed on Table 4.0-1, Cumulative Development Land Use Summary, and shown on Figure 4.0-1, Cumulative Development Location Map, are immediately adjacent to the Project site or at a location that would otherwise result in potentially cumulative impacts related to hazards from design or incompatible uses. Additionally, each cumulative project would be required to comply with applicable regulations related to the use of designated truck routes for construction and operation, and emergency access which are in place to ensure impacts are less significant. Thus, the Project would not result in a considerable contribution to cumulative impacts for these issues, when considered with the cumulative projects that are planned, proposed, or under construction in the vicinity of the Project site. 4.13.6 MITIGATION MEASURES With adherence to the regulations outlined in RR 13-1 through RR 13-5, the Project would not result in significant impacts related to transportation and no mitigation is required. 4.13.7 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE Project impacts related to transportation would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. 4.13.8 REFERENCES Federal Railroad Administrative (FRA). 2020 (September 3). U.S. DOT Crossing Inventory Form, 4th Street, Crossing No. 026124T. Fehr & Peers. 2020 (June). City of Rancho Cucamonga Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.13 Transportation Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.13-41 Rancho Cucamonga, City of. 2010a (May 19). Rancho Cucamonga General Plan. Available at: https://www.cityofrc.us/community-development/planning. ———. 2010b (February). Rancho Cucamonga 2010 General Plan Update Program Environmental Impact Report. ———. 2020 (May). PlanRC Community Mobility Existing Conditions Report. Available at: https://www.cityofrc.us/sites/default/files/2020- 06/PlanRC_ExistingConditionsReport_CommunityMobility_May2020.pdf Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). 2016. SCAG 2016-2040 Regional Transportation Program and Sustainable Communities Strategy. Available: http://scagrtpscs.net/Documents/2016/final/f2016RTPSCS.pdf ———. 2018. Final – Industrial Warehousing in the SCAG Region. Available: http://www.freightworks.org/DocumentLibrary/Industrial%20Warehousing%20Report%20- %20Revised%202018.pdf ———. 2020 (September). Connect SoCal (The 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy of the Southern California Association of Governments). Available: https://www.connectsocal.org/Documents/Adopted/fConnectSoCal-Plan.pdf Urban Crossroads. 2021a (March 23). Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Anlaysis. (Included in Appendix L1 of this Draft EIR). ———. 2021b (April 15). Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga High-Cube Fulfillment Center Traffic Memo, City of Rancho Cucamonga. (Included in Appendix L2 of this Draft EIR). Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.14 Tribal Cultural Resources Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.14-1 4.14 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES This section identifies the potential for the Project site to contain tribal cultural resources and evaluates the Project’s potential impacts on tribal cultural resources. The analysis in this section is primarily based on the A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Rancho Cucamonga, California (Cultural Resources Report), prepared by Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. (BFSA) (December 2020) and included in Appendix D of this Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR). This section also reflects the result of the City’s consultation with Native American tribes. No comments regarding tribal cultural resources were raised at the Draft EIR scoping meeting. In its Notice of Preparation (NOP) comment letter, the California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) provided information about Assembly Bill (AB) 52 and Senate Bill (SB) 18, which address requirements for consultation with Native American tribes related to tribal cultural resources; and, provided standard guidance on the scope of the analysis of potential impacts to archaeological resources and tribal cultural resources. As further discussed in this section, the City of Rancho Cucamonga has completed Native American consultation as required by AB 52 and SB 18. SB 18 applies to the Project because the Project involves a General Plan Amendment. 4.14.1 RELEVANT POLICIES AND REGULATIONS Section 4.6 of the Rancho Cucamonga 2010 General Plan Update EIR provides a discussion of the regulatory framework for the analysis of cultural resources, including regulations relevant to the analysis of tribal cultural resources. The Rancho Cucamonga 2010 General Plan Update EIR is incorporated by reference. The following discussion addresses regulatory information particularly relevant to tribal cultural resources, including AB 52, which become effective subsequent to preparation of the Rancho Cucamonga 2010 General Plan Update EIR. A. State 1. Assembly Bill (AB) 52 California AB 52 (2014) Chapter 532 is an act to amend Section 5097.94 of, and add Sections 21073, 21074, 21080.3.1, 21080.3.2, 21802.3, 21083.09, 21084.2 and 21084.3 to the California Public Resources Code, relating to Native Americans. AB 52 was approved by the Governor on September 25, 2014. AB 52 requires: “a lead agency to begin consultation with a California Native American tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the proposed Project, if the tribe requested to the lead agency, in writing, be informed by the lead agency of proposed projects in that geographic area and the tribe requests consultation, prior to determining whether a negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration or environmental impact report is required for a project.” If the tribes desire notification of proposed projects in that area that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, AB 52 requires that Native American tribes send written notice of their geographic areas of traditional and cultural affiliation to California Environmental Quality Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.14 Tribal Cultural Resources Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.14-2 Act (CEQA) lead agencies. The CEQA lead agency is then required to provide such notification and consult with the tribe(s) if the tribe(s) requests a consultation. The provisions listed in AB 52 apply to projects that have a NOP or a notice of negative declaration filed on or after July 1, 2015. By requiring the CEQA lead agency to consider the effects relative to tribal cultural resources and to conduct consultation with California Native American tribes, AB 52 imposes a state- mandated program. AB 52 requires the NAHC to provide each California Native American tribe, as defined, on or before July 1, 2016, with a list of all public agencies that may be a lead agency within a geographic area in which the tribe is traditionally or culturally affiliated; the contact information of those agencies; and information on how the tribe may request those public agencies to notify the tribe of projects within the jurisdiction of those public agencies for the purposes of requesting consultation. The City provided notice of the Project to the Native American tribes that have requested such notice. The results of the AB 52 consultation process are discussed below under the analysis of Threshold “14.1.ii”. 2. Senate Bill (SB 18) SB 18 requires local (city and county) governments to consult with California Native American tribes to aid in the protection of traditional tribal cultural places (“cultural places”) through local land use planning. SB 18 also requires the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to include in the General Plan Guidelines advice to local governments for how to conduct these consultations. The intent of SB 18 is to provide California Native American tribes an opportunity to participate in local land use decisions at an early planning stage, for the purpose of protecting, or mitigating impacts to, cultural places. The purpose of involving tribes at these early planning stages is to allow consideration of cultural places in the context of broad local land use policy, before individual site-specific, project-level land use decisions are made by a local government. SB 18 requires local governments to consult with tribes prior to making certain planning decisions and to provide notice to tribes at certain key points in the planning process. These consultation and notice requirements apply to adoption and amendment of both general plans (defined in Government Code § 65300 et seq.) and specific plans (defined in Government Code § 65450 et seq.). 3. California Environmental Quality Act CEQA defines tribal cultural resources as follows (California Public Resources Code Section 21074): Section 21074. (a) “Tribal cultural resources” are either of the following: (1) Sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe that are either of the following: (A) Included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources. (B) Included in a local register of historical resources as defined in subdivision (k) of Section 5020.1. (2) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Section Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.14 Tribal Cultural Resources Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.14-3 5024.1 for the purposes of this paragraph, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe. (b) A cultural landscape that meets the criteria of subdivision (a) is a tribal cultural resource to the extent that the landscape is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape. (c) A historical resource described in Section 21084.1, a unique archaeological resource as defined in subdivision (g) of Section 21083.2, or a “nonunique archaeological resource” as defined in subdivision (h) of Section 21083.2 may also be a tribal cultural resource if it conforms with the criteria of subdivision (a).” Criteria for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources are set forth in subdivision (c) of Section 5024.1 of the Public Resources, CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a)(3) states 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 (Public Resources Code § 5024.1, Title 14 CCR, Section 4852) including the following: (A) Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage; (B) Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past; (C) 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; or (D) Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.” “Unique archaeological resources” and “nonunique archaeological resources” are defined in CEQA (Public Resources Code Section 21083.2[g] and [h], as follows: “(g) As used in this section, “unique archaeological resource“ means an archaeological artifact, object, or site about which it can be clearly demonstrated that, without merely adding to the current body of knowledge, there is a high probability that it meets any of the following criteria: (1) Contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions and that there is a demonstrable public interest in that information. (2) Has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest of its type or the best available example of its type. (3) Is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person. (h) As used in this section, “nonunique archaeological resource” means an archaeological artifact, object, or site which does not meet the criteria in subdivision Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.14 Tribal Cultural Resources Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.14-4 (g). A nonunique archaeological resource need be given no further consideration, other than the simple recording of its existence by the lead agency if it so elects.” 4. California Health and Safety Code (Sections 7050.5, 7051, and 7054) These sections collectively address the illegality of interference with human burial remains (except as allowed under applicable sections of the California Public Resources Code). These sections also address the disposition of Native American burials in archaeological sites and protects such remains from disturbance, vandalism, or inadvertent destruction. Procedures to be implemented are established for: (1) the discovery of Native American skeletal remains during construction of a project; (2) the treatment of the remains prior to, during, and after evaluation; and (3) reburial. 5. California Public Resources Code (Section 5097.98) Section 5097.98 of the California Public Resources Code addresses the disposition of Native American burials in archaeological sites and protects such remains from disturbance, vandalism, or inadvertent destruction. This Section also establishes procedures to be implemented if Native American skeletal remains are discovered during construction of a project and establishes the NAHC to resolve disputes regarding the disposition of such remains. It has been incorporated into Section 15064.5(e) of the State CEQA Guidelines. 4.14.2 EXISTING SETTING Section 4.6, Cultural Resources, of the Rancho Cucamonga 2010 General Plan Update EIR includes a discussion of the environmental setting for cultural resources, including a discussion of the ethnography relevant to the City. This information remains applicable to the Project. Section 4.4, Cultural Resources, of this Draft EIR summarizes information about the prehistoric presented in the Project-specific Cultural Resources Report. Following is a summary of additional information provided in the Cultural Resources Report that is particularly relevant to tribal cultural resources (BFSA, 2020). A. Protohistoric Period 1. Gabrielino The Project site is located within the traditional cultural territory occupied by the Gabrielino. The territory of the Gabrielino at the time of Spanish contact covers much of present-day Los Angeles and Orange counties. Trade of materials and resources controlled by the Gabrielino extended as far north as the San Joaquin Valley, as far east as the Colorado River, and as far south as Baja California. The Gabrielino lived in permanent villages and smaller resource gathering camps occupied at various times of the year depending upon the seasonality of the resource. Larger villages were comprised of several families or clans, while smaller seasonal camps typically housed smaller family units. The coastal area between San Pedro and Topanga Canyon was the location of primary subsistence villages, while secondary sites were located near inland sage stands, oak groves, and pine forests. Permanent villages were located along rivers and streams, as well as in sheltered areas along the coast. Gabrielino houses were domed, circular structures made of thatched vegetation. Houses varied in size and could house from one to several families. Sweathouses (semicircular, earth-covered buildings) were public structures used in male social ceremonies. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.14 Tribal Cultural Resources Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.14-5 Resources procured along the coast and on the islands were primarily marine in nature. Inland resources included oak acorn, pine nut, Mohave yucca, cacti, sage, grass nut, deer, rabbit, hare, rodent, quail, duck, and a variety of reptiles such as western pond turtle and snakes. Hunting implements included wood clubs, sinew-backed bows, slings, and throwing clubs. Maritime implements included rafts, harpoons, spears, hook and line, and nets. A variety of other tools included deer scapulae saws, bone and shell needles, bone awls, scrapers, bone or shell flakers, wedges, stone knives and drills, metates, mullers, manos, shell spoons, bark platters, and wood paddles and bowls. Baskets were made from rush, deer grass, and skunkbush. Baskets were fashioned for hoppers, plates, trays, and winnowers for leaching, straining, and gathering. Baskets were also used for storing, preparing, and serving food, and for keeping personal and ceremonial items. The Gabrielino had exclusive access to soapstone, or steatite, procured from Santa Catalina Island quarries. This highly prized material was used for making pipes, animal carvings, ritual objects, ornaments, and cooking utensils. The Gabrielino profited well from trading steatite since it was valued so much by groups throughout Southern California. 2. Serrano The Project site is also located in the region known to have been occupied by the Serrano. Researchers place the Serrano in the San Bernardino Mountains east of Cajon Pass and at the base of and north of the mountains near Victorville, east to Twentynine Palms, and south to the Yucaipa Valley. Serrano village locations were typically located near water sources. Individual family dwellings were likely circular, domed structures. Daily household activities would either take place outside of the house out in the open, or under a ramada constructed of a thatched willow pole roof held up by four or more poles inserted into the ground. Serrano villages also included a large ceremonial house where the lineage leader would live, which served as the religious center for lineages or lineage-sets, granaries, and sweathouses. The Serrano were primarily hunters and gatherers. Vegetal staples varied with locality. Acorns and piñon nuts were found in the foothills, and mesquite, yucca roots, cacti fruits, and piñon nuts were found in or near the desert regions. The Serrano were very similar technologically to the Cahuilla. In general, manufactured goods included baskets, some pottery, rabbit-skin blankets, awls, arrow straighteners, sinew-backed bows, arrows, fire drills, stone pipes, musical instruments (rattles, rasps, whistles, bull-roarers, and flutes), feathered costumes, mats for floor and wall coverings, bags, storage pouches, cordage (usually comprised of yucca fiber), and nets. B. Tribal Cultural Resources As further discussed in Section 4.4, Cultural Resources, of this Draft EIR, BFSA conducted a records search at the South-Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) at the California State University, Fullerton (CSU Fullerton) (BFSA, 2020). Based on the results of the records search, no tribal cultural resources were located within the Project site. The only cultural resources identified within one mile of the Project site were historic resources. During preparation of the Cultural Resources Report a records search of the Scared Land Files (SLFs) from the NAHC was also requested to determine if any recorded Native American sacred sites or locations of religious or ceremonial importance are present within one mile of the Project site. The NAHC SLF search did not indicate the presence of any sacred sites or locations of religious or ceremonial importance within the search radius. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.14 Tribal Cultural Resources Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.14-6 As discussed under Threshold 14.1.b, below, the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted Native American outreach pursuant to AB 52 and SB 18 and entered consultation with the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation, which is the only tribe that requested consultation. The results of this Native American outreach/consultation did not reveal the presence of any tribal cultural resources within the Project site. As further discussed in Section 4.4, Cultural Resources, of this Draft EIR, BFSA conducted pedestrian surveys of the Project site and site-adjacent roadway improvement areas on March 31, 2020, and an additional pedestrian survey on September 1, 2020 for the 6th Street at-grade crossing study area. Based upon the surveys, the Project site and site-adjacent improvement areas, and the 6th Street at-grade crossing study area have either been previously disturbed or subjected to some degree of grading and development. The intensive archaeological surveys did not result in the identification of any cultural resources or tribal cultural resources. The previous disturbance may have contributed to the negative survey results; however, no evidence was detected during the survey or records search to suggest the prior existence of any cultural sites. (BFSA, 2020) 4.14.3 THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE According to Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, a project will normally have a significant adverse environmental impact on tribal cultural resources if it will:  Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is: a. Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or b. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe. 4.14.4 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS A. Regulatory Requirements The Project is required to adhere to the following Regulatory Requirement (RR) from Section 4.4, Cultural Resources, of this Draft EIR. RR 4-1 If human remains are encountered during the conduct of ground-disturbing activities, Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code states that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition of the materials pursuant to Section 5097.98 of the California Public Resources Code. The provisions of Section 15064.5 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.14 Tribal Cultural Resources Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.14-7 shall also be followed. The County Coroner must be notified of the find immediately. If the remains are determined to be prehistoric, the Coroner shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). The NAHC will determine and notify a Most Likely Descendent (MLD). With the permission of the landowner or his/her authorized representative, the MLD may inspect the site of the discovery. The descendent must complete the inspection within 24 hours of notification by the NAHC. The MLD may recommend scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American burials. These requirements shall be included as notes on the contractor specification and verified by the Community Development Department, prior to issuance of grading permits. B. Impact Analysis Threshold 14.1.a. Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource 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)? As discussed above and further detailed in Section 4.4, Cultural Resources, of this Draft EIR, a records search for the Project was undertaken at the SCCIC. Based on this search and review of existing literature related to cultural and historic resources within the Project site, no tribal cultural resources listed or eligible for listing in the CRHR or in a local register of historical resources were identified (BFSA, 2020). Accordingly, no impacts would occur. Impact 14.1.a The Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resources 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). Threshold 14.1.b. Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource 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. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe As discussed under Section 4.14.1, Relevant Policies and Regulation, above, AB 52 and SB 18 are applicable to the Project and require the City to conduct Native American outreach to obtain information regarding the potential for the Project to cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource. As required by AB 52, on July 20, 2020, the City of Rancho Cucamonga sent Project notification letters to the following tribes that have requested such notification: Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation, Morongo Band of Mission Indians, San Manuel Band of Mission Indians, San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians, Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians and Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.14 Tribal Cultural Resources Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.14-8 Because the Project involves a General Plan amendment, Native American consultation pursuant to SB 18 is also required. As part of the SB 18 consultation process, the City of Rancho Cucamonga requested that the NAHC provide a list of tribes located within the boundaries of San Bernardino County that should be contacted. The NAHC provided a list of 12 tribes on July 23, 2020 and the City sent letters offering consultation regarding the Project on August 24, 2020; the list of tribes is provided in the Confidential Appendix to the Cultural Resources Report, available for review at the City (by qualified individuals). As a result of the outreach conducted by the City, the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation is the only tribe that requested consultation regarding the Project. The written and oral communication between the Native American tribes and the City of Rancho Cucamonga is considered confidential in respect to places that have traditional tribal cultural significance and although relied upon in part to inform the preparation of this Draft EIR section, those communications are treated as confidential and are not available for public review. Although there are no tribal cultural resources known to exist at the Project site, there is a possibility that tribal cultural resources may be present beneath the site’s surface, and may be impacted by deeper ground- disturbing activities associated with Project construction. Notably, as further described in Section 3.0, Project Description, of this Draft EIR, excavation for installation of the Project’s infiltration vaults would extent to depths of up to approximately 26-feet below the ground surface. The potential to encounter tribal cultural resources during construction is a potentially significant impact, prior to mitigation. During consultation with the City, the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation raised concerns about the potential for unknown tribal cultural resources to be encountered during ground-disturbing activities. The tribe requested, and the City and Project Applicant have agreed to require implementation of mitigation measure (MM) 14-1 through MM 14-6 to protect unknown tribal cultural resources and/or Native American human remains, should they be encountered during ground-disturbing activities. MM 14- 1 through MM 14-6 require monitoring of ground-disturbing activities, outline the parameters for the monitoring activities, and identify actions that should be taken if tribal cultural resources or Native American human remains are encountered. These measures further ensure the proper identification and subsequent treatment of any tribal cultural resources and/or Native American human remains that may be encountered during ground-disturbing activities associated with the development of the Project. With implementation of MM 14-1 through MM 14-6, and RR 4-1, which outlines state-required actions required to be taken in the event human remains of Native American origin are discovered, potential impacts related to tribal cultural resources and Native American human remains would be less than significant. With the agreement to include the requested mitigation measures, the City’s consultation with the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation was completed. Impact 14.1.b The Project has a low potential to impact unknown tribal cultural resources; however, there is a potential to encounter subsurface tribal cultural resources during construction resulting in a potentially significant impact prior to mitigation. Implementation of MM 14-1 through MM 14-6 would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. If human remains are encountered in subsurface soils, implementation of RR 4-1 would also ensure potential impacts are less than significant. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.14 Tribal Cultural Resources Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.14-9 4.14.5 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS This cumulative impact analysis considers the development of the Project in conjunction with other development projects and planned development in the City that have a potential for uncovering tribal cultural resources. As noted previously, the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted Native American consultation with potentially culturally affiliated tribes, as required by AB 52 and SB 18. As a result of this consultation effort, no tribal cultural resources were identified within the Project site, although Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation did indicate a concern over potential impacts to subsurface resources. Potential impacts to unknown tribal cultural resources and human remains would not result in significant cumulative impacts. There are no known tribal cultural resources onsite thus, the Project would not contribute to a significant cumulative impac.t While the potential for encountering unknown tribal cultural resources at the Project site is low, the Project, in conjunction with cumulative development, would have the potential to result in impacts to subsurface tribal cultural resources. As discussed in Threshold 14.1.b, with the implementation of Project-level MM 14-1 through MM 14-6, and compliance with RR 4-1, the Project’s potential impact on tribal cultural resources and Native American human remains would be less than significant. Each development proposal received by the City would be subject to the same resource protection requirements as the Project. Neither the Project nor other cumulative developments are expected to result in significant impacts to tribal cultural resources provided site-specific review and required Native American consultation is conducted, if warranted, and required measures to protect the tribal cultural resources, should they be encountered, are implemented. As such, the Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact on tribal cultural resources. 4.14.6 MITIGATION MEASURES The following mitigation was requested by the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation and accepted by the City. MM 14-1 Prior to the commencement of any ground disturbing activity at the Project Site, the project applicant shall retain a Native American Monitor approved by the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation – the tribe that consulted on this project pursuant to Assembly Bill A52 - SB18 (the “Tribe” or the “Consulting Tribe”). A copy of the executed contract shall be submitted to the City of Rancho Cucamonga prior to the issuance of any permit necessary to commence a ground- disturbing activity. The Tribal monitor shall only be present on-site during the construction phases that involve ground-disturbing activities. Ground disturbing activities are defined by the Tribe 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 shall complete daily monitoring logs that shall provide descriptions of the day’s activities, including construction activities, locations, soil, and any cultural materials identified. The on-site monitoring shall end when all ground-disturbing activities on the Project Site are completed, or when the Tribal Representatives and Tribal Monitor have indicated that all upcoming ground-disturbing activities at the Project Site have little to no potential for impacting tribal cultural resources. Upon discovery of any tribal cultural resources, construction activities shall cease in the immediate vicinity of the find (not less than the Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.14 Tribal Cultural Resources Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.14-10 surrounding 50 feet) until the find can be assessed. All tribal cultural resources unearthed by project activities shall be evaluated by the Tribal monitor approved by the Consulting Tribe and a qualified archaeologist if one is present. If the resources are Native American in origin, the Consulting Tribe shall retain it/them in the form and/or manner the Tribe deems appropriate, for educational, cultural and/or historic purposes. If human remains and/or grave goods are discovered or recognized at the Project Site, all ground disturbance shall immediately cease, and the county coroner shall be notified per Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, and Health & Safety Code Section 7050.5. Human remains and grave/burial goods shall be treated alike per California Public Resources Code section 5097.98(d)(1) and (2). Work may continue in other parts of the Project site while evaluation and, if necessary, mitigation takes place (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5[f]). 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 (non-TCR) 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, it shall be offered to a local school or historical society in the area for educational purposes. MM 14-2 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 NAHC and PRC 5097.98 shall be followed. MM 14-3 Upon discovery of human remains, the tribal and/or archaeological monitor/consultant/consultant shall immediately divert work at minimum of 100 feet and place an exclusion zone around the discovery location. The monitor/consultant(s) shall then notify the Tribe, the qualified lead archaeologist, and the construction manager who shall call the coroner. Work shall continue to be diverted while the coroner determines whether the remains are human and subsequently 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 shall notify the NAHC as mandated by state law who shall then appoint a Most Likely Descendent (MLD). MM 14-4 If the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation is designated MLD, the Koo-nas- gna Burial Policy 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 preparation of the soil for burial, the burial of funerary objects with the deceased, and the ceremonial burning of human remains. The prepared Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.14 Tribal Cultural Resources Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.14-11 soil and cremation soils 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. MM 14-5 Prior to the continuation of ground disturbing activities, the landowner 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 shall 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 shall 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 shall be removed. The Tribe shall work closely with the qualified archaeologist to ensure that the excavation is treated carefully, ethically and respectfully. If data recovery is approved by the Tribe, documentation shall be taken which includes at a minimum detailed descriptive notes and sketches. Additional types of documentation shall be approved by the Tribe for data recovery purposes. Cremations shall 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 and/or destructive diagnostics on human remains. Each occurrence of human remains and associated funerary objects shall be stored using opaque cloth bags. All human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects and objects of cultural patrimony shall 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. MM 14-6 Native American and Archaeological monitoring during construction projects shall be consistent with current professional standards. All feasible care to avoid any unnecessary disturbance, physical modification, or separation of TCR’s shall be taken. The Native American monitor must be approved by the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation. Principal personnel for Archaeology 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. 4.14.7 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION Project impacts to tribal cultural resources would be less than significant after mitigation. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.14 Tribal Cultural Resources Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.14-12 4.14.8 REFERENCES Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. (BFSA). 2020 (December 17). A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Rancho Cucamonga, California. (Included as Appendix D of this Draft EIR). Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.15 Utilities and Service Systems Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.15-1 4.15 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS This section describes the existing utilities and service systems that serve the Project, addresses the Projects demand for utilities and services systems and potential physical environmental impacts associated with the installation of infrastructure and other facilities to serve the Project, addresses water supply availability and the capacity of wastewater treatment facilities, and solid waste management. The following wet and dry utilities and solid waste services are addressed in this section (the service provider is noted parenthetically):  Domestic and recycled water supply and distribution (Cucamonga Valley Water District [CVWD])  Wastewater/sewer facilities (CVWD and Inland Empire Utilities Agency [IEUA])  Electricity (Southern California Edison [SCE] or Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Utility [RCMU])  Natural gas (Southern California Gas Company [SCGC])  Communication systems (Frontier Communications and Charter Communications or RCMU)  Solid waste (City of Rancho Cucamonga [Burrtec], and San Bernardino County Solid Waste Management Division [SWMD]) Storm drain infrastructure is discussed in Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality. Additionally, Energy Conservation (pursuant to Appendix F and Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act [CEQA] Guidelines) is discussed in Section 4.5, Energy, of this Draft EIR. There were no Notice of Preparation (NOP) comment letters received related to utilities and serve systems. 4.15.1 RELEVANT POLICIES AND REGULATIONS A. State 1. Water-Related Regulations Urban Water Management Planning Act The Urban Water Management Planning Act (UWMP Act) (California Water Code, Section 10610 et seq.) was enacted in 1983 and applies to municipal water suppliers that serve more than 3,000 customers or supply more than 3,000-acre feet per year (AFY) of water. The UWMP Act requires these suppliers to prepare and update their UWMPs every five years to demonstrate an appropriate level of reliability in supplying anticipated short-term and long-term water demands during normal, dry, and multiple-dry years. The plans must be prepared every five years and submitted to the Department of Water Resources (DWR). CVWD adopted its 2015 UWMP in June 2016. The UWMP Act has been modified over the years in response to the State’s water shortages, droughts, and other factors. A significant amendment was made in 2009, after the drought of 2007-2009, and because of the governor’s call for a statewide 20% reduction in urban water use by the year 2020. This was the Water Conservation Act of 2009, also known as SB X7-7. This Act required agencies to Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.15 Utilities and Service Systems Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.15-2 establish water use targets for 2015 and 2020 that would result in statewide savings of 20% by December 31, 2020. Beginning in 2016, retail water suppliers are required to comply with the water conservation requirements in SB X7-7 to be eligible for State water grants or loans. Retail water agencies are required to set targets and track progress toward decreasing daily per capita urban water use in their service area, which will assist the State in meeting its 20% reduction goal by 2020. The 20x2020 Water Conservation Plan, issued by the DWR in 2010 pursuant to the SBX7-7, established a water conservation target of 20% reduction in water use by 2020 compared to 2005 baseline use. Water Conservation in Landscaping Act The Water Conservation in Landscaping Act of 2006 (Assembly Bill [AB] 1881) requires cities and counties, including charter cities and charter counties, to adopt landscape water conservation ordinances by January 1, 2010. Per this Act, the DWR prepared a Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MWELO), as contained in the California Code of Regulations (CCR, Title 23, Division 2, Chapter 2.7). The MWELO was updated in 2015 and now applies to new construction projects with an aggregate landscape area equal to or greater than 500 square feet requiring a building or landscape permit, plan check or design review and to rehabilitated landscape projects with an aggregate landscape area equal to or greater than 2,500 square feet requiring a building or landscape permit, plan check, or design review. Cities and Counties had the option to adopt DWR’s ordinance or to develop their own. The City of Rancho Cucamonga implements the model ordinance adopted by the State through regulations contained in Chapter 17.82, Water Efficient Landscaping, of the City Rancho Cucamonga Development Code. Senate Bill 610 In 2001, Senate Bill (SB) 610 amended the California Public Resources Code to improve the link between information on water supply availability and certain land use decisions made by Cities and Counties. Under SB 610 (codified in the California Water Code beginning at Section 10910), unless the project is otherwise exempt, a Water Supply Assessment (WSA) must be furnished to cities and counties for inclusion in the environmental documentation of certain projects (as defined in the California Water Code), and these WSAs are subject to CEQA. SB 610 requires land use planning entities when evaluating certain large development projects, to request a water supply availability assessment from the entity that would provide water to the project. A WSA must be prepared in conjunction with the land use approval process associated with a project; the information that is required to be included in the WSA is presented in Section 2.1, SB 610-Water Supply Planning, in the Project’s WSA included in Appendix M of this Draft EIR. In summary, a WSA must include an evaluation of the sufficiency of the water supplies available to the water supplier to meet existing and anticipated future demands (including the demand associated with the project) over a 20-year horizon that includes normal, single-dry, and multiple-dry years. A WSA is required for any “project” that is subject to CEQA and meets certain criteria relative to size (e.g., a proposed industrial, manufacturing, or processing plant or industrial park planned to house more than 1,000 persons, occupying more than 40 acres of land, or having more than 650,000 square feet of floor area). SB 610 also requires information to be included as part of a UWMP if groundwater is identified as a source of water available to the supplier. The information must include a description of all water supply Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.15 Utilities and Service Systems Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.15-3 projects and programs that may be undertaken to meet total projected water use. SB 610 prohibits eligibility for funds from specified bond acts until the plan is submitted to the State. 2. Solid Waste-Related Regulations California Integrated Waste Management Act (AB 939) The California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939), created the Board now known as California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) and accomplished the following: (1) it required each jurisdiction in the state to submit detailed solid waste planning documents for CalRecycle approval; (2) it set diversion requirements of 25% in 1995 and 50% in 2000; (3) it established a comprehensive statewide system of permitting, inspections, enforcement, and maintenance for solid waste facilities; and (4) it authorized local jurisdictions to impose fees based on the types or amounts of solid waste generated. Jurisdictions select and implement the combination of waste prevention, reuse, recycling, and composting programs that best meet the needs of their community while achieving the diversion requirements. Solid Waste Disposal Measurement Act of 2008 The purpose of the Solid Waste Disposal Measurement Act of 2008 (SB 1016) is to make the process of goal measurement (as established by AB 939) simpler, timelier, and more accurate. SB 1016 builds on AB 939 compliance requirements by implementing a simplified measure of jurisdictions’ performance. SB 1016 accomplishes this by changing to a disposal-based indicator—the per capita disposal rate—which uses only two factors: (1) a jurisdiction’s population (or in some cases employment) and (2) its disposal, as reported by disposal facilities. Each year CalRecycle calculates each jurisdiction’s per capita (per resident or employee) disposal rates. If a business is the dominant source of a jurisdiction’s waste generation, CalRecycle may use the per employee disposal rate. Each year’s disposal rate will be compared to that jurisdiction’s per capita disposal target. As such, jurisdictions will not be compared to other jurisdictions or the statewide average, but they will only be compared to their own per capita disposal target. Among other benefits, per capita disposal is an indicator that allows for jurisdiction growth because, as residents or employees increase, report-year disposal tons can increase and still be consistent with the per capita disposal target. A comparison of the reported annual per capita disposal rate to the per capita disposal target will be useful for indicating progress or other changes over time. Waste Reuse and Recycling Act (AB 1327) The Waste Reuse and Recycling Act (WRRA) required the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB) to approve a model ordinance for adoption by any local government for the transfer, receipt, storage, and loading of recyclable materials in development projects by March 1, 1993. The WRRA also required local agencies to adopt a local ordinance by September 1, 1993, or allow the model ordinance to take effect. The WRRA requires all development projects that are commercial, industrial, institutional, or marina in nature and where solid waste is collected and loaded, to provide an adequate area for collecting and loading recyclable materials over the lifetime of the project. The area is required to be provided before building permits are issued. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.15 Utilities and Service Systems Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.15-4 Assembly Bill 341 Assembly Bill (AB) 341 (Chapter 476, Statutes of 2011) directed CalRecycle to develop and adopt regulations for mandatory commercial recycling. The final regulation was approved by the Office of Administrative Law on May 7, 2012. AB 341 was designed to help meet California’s recycling goal of 75% by the year 2020. AB 341 requires all commercial businesses and public entities that generate four cubic yards or more of waste per week to have a recycling program in place. B. Regional 1. Cucamonga Valley Water District 2015 Urban Water Management Plan Pursuant to the UWMP Act, described above, the CVWD has adopted and revised its Urban Water Management Plan. The CVWD’s 2015 UWMP states that the 2015 water demand in the CVWD’s service area is 42,663 acre-feet (af). The baseline per capita demand was calculated as 184 gallons per capita per day (gpcd). In accordance with SBX7-7 and the 20x2020 Water Conservation Plan, the UWMP sets a target of 232 gpcd as the baseline per capita demand by 2020. The CVWD plans to achieve these targets by more stringent standards for indoor and outdoor water use; enforcement of prohibited uses; regional conservation efforts; and enhancement of existing conservation programs. The UWMP describes the availability and reliability of water supplies through 2035 for normal, single- dry, and multiple-dry years. The UWMP projects future water demand to range from 60,500 af in 2020 to 65,700 af in 2035. Projected water supplies would range from 60,500 af in 2015 to 65,700 af in 2035. CVWD can elect to purchase additional water from IEUA at a higher Tier II price to meet additional demand. Therefore, available supplies would meet demand. In addition to the CVWD’s ongoing water conservation programs, the CVWD has also developed a water shortage contingency plan, a catastrophic supply interruption plan, mandatory water use prohibitions, and penalties for violations of prohibited water use to address future supply shortages. 2. Cucamonga Valley Water District Water Supply Master Plan The CVWD adopted a Water Supply Master Plan (Master Plan) in 2014 that identifies existing and potential water supplies and ongoing water conservation programs. The Master Plan evaluates various scenarios (average year, dry periods, loss of imported water, expanded groundwater use) and explores options to still meet projected demands through reduced reliance on imported water and increased groundwater pumping and recycled water use. While the CVWD can meet its projected water demands during dry periods at a 100% level of services and can meet demand with the loss of imported water at an 80% level of service, the Master Plan provides a strategy to meet current and future water demands in a cost-efficient manner by expanding its supply capacity through cooperative efforts, new facilities, and the use of recycled water and non-traditional supplies. 3. Cucamonga Valley Water District Municipal Code Section 4.20.030 of the CVWD Municipal Code contains Water Use Efficiency Practices that all CVWD customers must follow. These include, but are not limited to, hoses with shutoff nozzles for car washing; hosing of paved areas for health and safety purposes only and at no more than five gallons Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.15 Utilities and Service Systems Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.15-5 per minute; recirculating systems for fountains; restaurant water upon request; repair of leaks; sprinklers without runoff, overspray, or excessive irrigation; hotel guest option for linen laundry; and industrial audits. Title 5 of the CVWD Municipal Code set the regulations of the CVWD for the provision of sewer services, including connection and use of the CVWD’s sewer collection system. It also sets service application requirements, service charges, rates and tolls, construction standards for lateral service connections and new facility installations, maintenance and inspection activities, and restrictions on sewer use. Title 6 of the CVWD Municipal Code lists the prohibitions and restrictions for discharges and other wastes that may be disposed of into the sewer system. These include, but are not limited to, water softening wastes; hospital and medical wastes; liquids, solids, or gases that may cause fire or explosion; substances that may obstruct flows; radioactive wastes; emulsifying agents; pretreatment wastes; and other pollutants and wastewater that may interfere with the system. It also requires non-domestic sewer discharge permits from specific commercial and industrial sewer users, including requirements for sewage pretreatment, grease interceptors, clarifiers, or monitoring devices and controls. C. Local 1. Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code Chapter 8.17 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code contains the City’s regulations for refuse, recyclables, and organics collection. Sections 8.17.190 and 8.17.200 contains the City’s regulations for mandatory commercial recycling and commercial organics recycling, respectively. These regulations also set the City’s requirements for issuing permits to companies providing collection and disposal services in the City. They also outline the responsibilities of the refuse collection company, including regulations for waste receptacles and collection trucks. Regulations include those for the storage of refuse, recyclables, and green wastes; the placement of collection receptacles; and the disposal of hazardous wastes. Section 8.19, Construction and Demolition Waste Collection, of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code, outlines the requirements for diverting construction waste from landfills. Construction and demolition wastes are required to be made available for deconstruction, salvage, and recovery prior to demolition. All construction and demolition projects are required to divert a minimum of 65% of the tonnage generated as a result of the project from the landfill. Each person who applies for a building or demolition permit is required to complete a “waste management and recycling plan” document to be issued by the engineering services department. Chapter 17.56 of the Rancho Cucamonga Development Code sets landscaping standards for various purposes, including to conserve water. Preliminary and final landscape and irrigation plans are required to be prepared as part of the design review process for compliance with standards that include, but are not limited to, identification of a water budget that includes the estimated water use (in gallons); the irrigated area (in square feet); the precipitation rate and flow rate in gallons per minute; and conceptual Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.15 Utilities and Service Systems Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.15-6 locations for trees, shrubs, ground cover, and other vegetation and a corresponding list of planting material by species, quantity, and size. Pursuant to Chapter 17.82, Water Efficient Landscaping, of the Rancho Cucamonga Development Code, the City has adopted the State of California MWELO, as discussed above. 4.15.2 EXISTING SETTING A. Domestic and Recycled Water Service The CVWD provides domestic water and recycled water to the majority of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, including the Project site. The CVWD has an extensive existing water system (domestic and recycled water) that includes pipelines, wells, pumps, pressure-reducing valves, and storage reservoirs. As shown on Figure 3-16, Conceptual Water and Sewer Plan, in Section 3.0, Project Description, water service to the existing retail building and warehouse building is currently provided by connections to existing 16-inch water line in 6th Street and 12-inch water line in 4th Street. There is also a 30-inch recycled water line in 6th Street. B. Water Supply and Demand The Project-specific Cucamonga Valley Water District Water Supply Assessment for the Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Development Project, prepared by Charles Marr Consulting (January 7, 2021) approved by the CVWD on January 26, 2021 is provided in Appendix M of this Draft EIR, and includes a detailed discussion of the CVWD’s water supply and projected water demands. As discussed below, CVWD’s potable water supply sources include groundwater from the Chino Basin and the Cucamonga Basin, surface water from three tunnel (also referred to as canyon) sources, and imported water purchased from the Metropolitan Water District (MWD) through IEUA. In addition, CVWD has the ability to receive potable water during emergencies from the Fontana Water Company (two interconnections) and the City of Upland (one interconnection). CVWD also receives recycled water supplies from IEUA for non-potable use. The Project will use recycled water for all irrigation. 1. Chino Groundwater Basin As discussed in Section 3.2.1 of the WSA included in Appendix M, the Chino Groundwater Basin is one of the largest groundwater basins in Southern California and contains approximately 6,000,000 acre-feet of water. The basin is approximately 235 square miles of the upper Santa Ana River watershed and lies within portions of San Bernardino, Riverside, and Los Angeles counties. The Chino groundwater subbasin underlies southeast Los Angeles County, northwest Riverside County, and southwest San Bernardino County. The subbasin is bound on the northwest by the San Jose fault, on the north by the Cucamonga fault and impermeable rocks of the San Gabriel Mountains, and on the east by the Rialto-Colton fault. The subbasin is bound on the southeast by the Jurupa Mountains, Pedley Hills, La Sierra Hills, and the approximate location of the Santa Ana River. The Chino fault and impermeable rocks of the Chino Hills and Puente Hills bound the southwest side of the basin. In some areas, the subbasin boundary coincides with the Chino Basin groundwater adjudication boundary. The boundary is defined by fifty-eight segments detailed in DWR Bulletin 118. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.15 Utilities and Service Systems Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.15-7 The groundwater rights for the Chino Basin were adjudicated in 1978 in the Chino Basin Judgement, which is included in Appendix N of the CVWD 2015 UWMP; this judgement established the Chino Basin Watermaster (CVWD, 2016). The Chino Basin Watermaster, under the direct supervision and continuing jurisdiction of the San Bernardino County Superior Court, carefully manages water supplies throughout Chino Basin, arranges for local and supplemental groundwater recharge, and implements and administers the parties’ groundwater production rights under the Chino Basin Judgment. The Chino Basin Watermaster consists of various entities which include cities, water districts, water companies, agricultural, commercial, and other private entities. The mission is to manage the Chino Groundwater Basin in the most beneficial manner and to equitably administer and enforce the provisions of the Chino Basin Judgement. Management of the Basin is governed by the 2012 Restated Judgement, the 2000 Peace Agreement (as amended), the 2000 Optimum Basin Management Plan (OBMP), the OBMP Implementation Plan (as supplemented), the 2007 Peace II Agreement (included in Appendix O of the CVWD 2015 UWMP), the Watermaster Rules and Regulations (as amended), and related Court orders. Management of the basin is discussed in detail in the 2015 UWMP. The 1978 Judgement established the safe yield of the Chino Basin as 140,000 AFY. The judgement also divided the water rights into three groups called pools. The pools and pumping rights are shown in Table 8 of the WSA. Since the original agreement, the 2020 Safe Yield Reset Order has reduced the safe yield to 131,000 AFY. As discussed in the 2015 UWMP, CVWD is a member of the Appropriative Pool and holds appropriative rights to approximately 18.3% (6.6% of its own and 11.7% through its shares of Fontana Union Water Company) of the Operating Safe Yield of the total Chino Basin water rights. The Operating Safe Yield is determined annually be the Watermaster. In FY2018-2019, the appropriative pool operating safe yield was established as 49,834 AF, equating the CVWD’s rights to 9,099 AFY. CVWD, and other appropriative pool users, may also produce groundwater annually in excess of their specified rights based on the operating safe yield so long as it replenishes water in one of four methods: payment of a replenishment assessment; replenishment of physical water, replenishment of water from storage accounts, or purchase of water from others in the basin. The payment is used to replenish the basin through imported surface water recharge purchased from IEUA. As further discussed in the 2015 UWMP, CVWD also has access to land use conversion water and to the portion of the safe yield that is not produced by the Overlying Agricultural Pool. This reallocation varies by year depending on the actual usage from the Overlying Agricultural Pool. CVWD’s average annual production from the Chino Basin from 2000 to 2018 was approximately 14,656 AFY and the capacity of CVWD’s active production wells in the Chino Basin total approximately 30,400 AFY. During the most recent five years, CVWD’s annual production ranged from approximately 6,200 AFY to 21,172 AFY. The Chino Basin Judgment authorizes CVWD to produce all the water it requires from the Chino Basin for beneficial use by CVWD’s customers, subject to replenishment requirements, and that ample water is present in the Chino Basin to allow CVWD to do so. CVWD has plans to construct additional wells and associated infrastructure in the Chino Basin to match additional water supply with additional water demands from growth in the number of Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.15 Utilities and Service Systems Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.15-8 customers throughout the District. As further discussed in Section 3.2 of the WSA CVWD currently operates 12 active groundwater wells in the Chino Basin. CVWD plans to continue operating these wells and will construct replacement wells as necessary to maintain water production capacities required to meet customer demands. CVWD active wells located in the Chino Basin have not been impacted by water quality issues; however, CVWD has the necessary technical and financial resources available to allow CVWD to quickly respond to assure continuity and reliability of water service if any such water quality incidents occur. 2. Cucamonga Groundwater Basin The Cucamonga Groundwater Subbasin underlies the northern part of upper Santa Ana Valley. It is bounded on the north by contact of alluvium with the San Gabriel Mountains and on the west, east, and south by the Red Hill fault. This portion of the upper Santa Ana Valley is drained by Cucamonga and Deer Creeks to the Santa Ana River. Recharge to the basin includes infiltration of stream flow, percolation of rainfall to the valley floor, underflow from the San Gabriel Mountains, and return irrigation flow. Spreading grounds along Cucamonga Creek and near Red Hill and Alta Loma also contribute to storm flow recharge to the Basin. As discussed in the 2015 UWMP, the Cucamonga Basin was adjudicated by decree in 1958; the Cucamonga Basin Judgement (1958 Decree) is included in Appendix P of the CVWD 2015 UWMP (CVWD, 2016). There are three main water agencies that hold all of the adjudicated rights in the Basin by virtue of having acquired or otherwise succeeded to the original parties to the Decree. These agencies include the CVWD, The San Antonio Water Company, and the City of Upland. The court did not appoint an official Watermaster for the basin, although the Decree contains various provisions for the metering and recording of all water production, inspection of records, prohibitions against new water production, potential reductions in water production, and other protective measures. The existing parties to the Decree meet periodically, and joint efforts are currently underway to perform additional hydraulic investigations, update the safe yield of the basin, and develop management strategies. The 1958 Decree allocates groundwater rights and the right to divert water from Cucamonga Creek, totaling approximately 22,721 AFY. However, several studies have been performed using varying base periods, varying geological boundaries, and other varying factors, which have indicated an estimated Basin yield between 13,800 AFY and 22,200 AFY. Historical production data and future projections show the total water production from the basin by CVWD is substantially below the allocated rights. CVWD has the right to produce 75% of the total basin yield, and additionally has the right to divert 3,620 AFY from Cucamonga Creek. Production has been limited in recent years since treatment is required to fully utilize Cucamonga Basin Wells. CVWD currently has two clusters of wells in the Cucamonga Basin. The Cucamonga Creek Cluster which is a group of 10 wells, and the Alta Loma Cluster, which is a group of 7 wells. CVWD can utilize up to 9 of the 17 total wells. The remaining 8 wells are not used due to high nitrate and/or DBCP1 concentrations. Production has been limited in recent years since treatment is required to fully 1 Dibromo chloropropane is a synthetic organic chemical. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.15 Utilities and Service Systems Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.15-9 utilize Cucamonga Basin Wells. The Nitrate Treatment Facility (NTF) is a recently-constructed wellhead treatment facility anticipated to be operational by mid-2021. This facility is expected to return water production from the basin to its previous levels. Total basin yield is expected to range from 14,000 AFY to 16,000 AFY, resulting in a minimum total production of approximately 10,500 AFY for CVWD (based on a 75% share). For the purposes of the WSA, future projections estimate a total production rate of 10,000 AFY from Cucamonga Basin. CVWD’s average annual production from the Cucamonga Basin from 2000 to 2018 was approximately 6,674 AFY. The capacity of CVWD’s active production wells in the Cucamonga Basin totals approximately 11,548 AFY. During the most recent five years, CVWD’s annual production ranged from approximately 5,619 AFY to 8,439 AFY. Although CVWD has rights and some additional capacity to produce additional groundwater from the Cucamonga Basin, CVWD has reduced its annual groundwater production in anticipation of a reduced Operating Safe Yield. Overall basin production currently is less than the estimated sustainable safe yield. Therefore, under current conditions, the Cucamonga Basin may be assumed to be a reliable source of supply. 3. Surface Water Supplies CVWD’s surface water supplies come from streams, springs, and tunnels located within the northern area of the District. These water sources are also referred to as tunnel sources or canyon sources. Surface water sources accounted for 6.5% of the total supply water for CVWD, based on 2006-2015 averages. CVWD has rights to a total of 6 canyon sources, or tunnel sources of surface water. These are the 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. Water supplies from the canyon/tunnel sources are heavily dependent on precipitation in the region. In the 2015 UWMP, CVWD has two projection scenarios: one for normal conditions and one for dry conditions. Water production during dry conditions is projected to be half the production during a normal year. CVWD acquired the rights of the Loamosa Water Company in 1970s, which included the Loamosa Tunnel and rights to surface water in Cucamonga Canyon. The Cucamonga Canyon facilities include two diversion ponds and an inlet connecting to 3,300 lineal feet of 24-inch diameter transmission pipeline to Arthur H. Bridge Water Treatment Plant. The pond intake facilities are located in an unincorporated area of western San Bernardino County, north of the Rancho Cucamonga city boundary. CVWD owns rights to 250 miner’s inches, which is equal to 3.24 million gallons per day (MGD). CVWD acquired the Etiwanda Water Company in 1979, and thereby acquired surface and subsurface water rights for both Day and East Etiwanda Canyons. The sources from the two canyons are considered together and identified as Day/East Canyon. The canyons are located on the west and east end of the prolongation of Etiwanda Avenue. The facilities capture flows from four sources: Day Basin, east basin, Smith Tunnel, and Bee Tunnel. The flows are funneled into 14,600 lineal feet of 10-, 16-, and 18-inch diameter transmissions pipeline to Royer Nesbit Water Treatment Plant (currently not Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.15 Utilities and Service Systems Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.15-10 operating) and the Lloyd Michael Water Treatment Plant. Rights for both canyons are appropriative and include all rights to both surface and subsurface flows. CVWD acquired control and ownership of the Hermosa Water Company in the early 1970s, and thereby acquired surface and subsurface water rights for Deer Canyon. The improvements in Deer Canyon included the Hermosa Tunnel, Thayer Tunnel, and “A” Tunnel, falls, and a collection point in a side canyon known as Fan Canyon. Transmission mains conveyed the flows from these sources to a common collection point at a small reservoir located on the south side of Lemon Avenue, east of Archibald Avenue. The area known as Deer Canyon is located in the foothills generally north of Haven Avenue. In 2002, CVWD signed an agreement to sell the natural spring water production from Deer Canyon to Nestle Company. In 2005, Nestle completed a pipeline that conveys flows from Deer Canyon to their plant in the City of Ontario. Currently, the CVWD only captures flows from the Hermosa Tunnel in Deer Canyon. The flows are funneled into 1,310 lineal feet of 6-inch transmission pipe and conveyed to a reservoir for disinfection and distribution. The water from the Hermosa Tunnel is considered to be groundwater and meets State requirements as a source for drinking water. CVWD’s average annual production from surface water sources from 1990 to 2018 was approximately 4,794 AFY. During the most recent ten years, CVWD’s annual production ranged from approximately 1,050 AFY to 5,919 AFY (the lowest production years were recorded during a severe drought or while Cucamonga Canyon was out of service). It is estimated approximately 4,540 AFY of surface water (from Cucamonga Canyon, Deer Canyon, and Day/East Canyon) is available during a normal year and approximately 2,270 AFY of surface water is available during a dry year (CVWD 2015 UWMP, Table 34). 4. Wholesale Water Supplies As further discussed in Section 3.1 of the WSA included in the Appendix M of this Draft EIR, imported water purchased through IEUA, which is an MWD member agency, is currently CVWD’s primary source of water supply. CVWD purchases SWP water supplies from IEUA using two separate connections. Historically, CVWD had a connection to receive Colorado River Aqueduct (CRA) water from IEUA, however, the connection was removed due to the lack of treatment capabilities at the connection. Imported water purchases can range from 35 to 65% of CVWD’s water. The average supply imported of water by percentage from years 2006 to 2015 was 46.6%. CVWD purchases SWP water from IEUA and does not purchase CRA water. Imported water purchased by IEAU from MWD is limited by a purchase order agreement. The agreement allows the region to purchase up to a total of 93,283 AFY at its lowest (Tier I untreated) rate. This limit is based on historical imported water purchases for municipal use by the member agencies and for regional groundwater recharge. The agreement includes an annual minimum purchase commitment of 39,835 AF, which is slightly less than the 40,000 AFY minimum needed to operate the region’s water treatment facilities. (IEUA, 2020c) Two separate MWD/IEUA connections serve CVWD - an 18-inch connection (CB7) and a 60-inch connection (CB16). The amount of water imported by CVWD for Years 2000 to year 2018 is shown in Table 5 of the WSA included in Appendix M of this Draft EIR. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.15 Utilities and Service Systems Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.15-11 CVWD has the capacity to accept up to 71 MGD of MWD imported SWP water from IEUA for treatment and distribution. CVWD’s Royer-Nesbit Water Treatment Plant is currently not in operation, and the Lloyd Michael Water Treatment Plant can accept up to 60 MGD. CVWD may purchase as much untreated imported SWP water as it needs from IEUA. Potable water rates are based on a tier system where higher commodity rates are charged as usage increases. Under normal conditions, CVWD has a Tier I allocation of imported water from MWD equal to the historical average of CVWD’s total imported water purchased over a 10-year period. CVWD has a Tier I allocation of 28,369 AFY, and projects to use the full allocation by year 2020. Imported water above CVWD’s Tier I allocation shall be MWD replenishment water in the Chino Basin or Tier II imported water. Any water purchased by CVWD over the Tier I allocation is charged at a higher rate, Tier II. CVWD can elect to purchase Tier II water from IEUA. The IEUA import projections for CVWD are shown in Table 6 of the WSA. The future of SWP supplies to MWD is uncertain, but it is projected that climate change and other factors will curtail allocations and ultimately increase the cost of water. IEUA and MWD have drought contingency plans to ensure that adequate drinking water supplies will be available to its customers. (IEUA, 2016a; IEUA, 2016b; IEUA, 2020c) The reliability of imported water and recycled water is described in detail in the WSA included in Appendix M. 5. Recycled Water Supplies IEUA also provides recycled water to its member agencies for direct non-potable reuse and groundwater recharge. In 2009, the District and IEUA jointly constructed the Northeast Area Projects to provide recycled water storage and conveyance from Arrow Route to the San Sevaine Basins. Ensuing projects, including the West Recycled Water Pipeline completed in 2012, provided additional recycled water to the CVWD service area. From the IEUA-sourced recycled water connections, CVWD has distributed over 1,000 AFY to end users within its service area. The District anticipates development of a comprehensive plan for increasing its recycled water use, especially in the southeast portion of its service area. Recycled water will be a source of supply for the Project (landscape irrigation) because recycled water pipelines currently serve non-potable uses in the southeast region of CVWD’s service area. There is an existing recycled water line in 4th Street adjacent to the Project site. 6. Existing Water Use Over the last 18 years (2000 to 2018), an average of 51,309 AFY of water was supplied by CVWD to meet demand within its service area. In 2018, CVWD provided 45,877 AF of water to its customers. Of this total demand, potable water use at the Project site (for the existing retail building and warehouse building) was approximately 11.4 AFY. C. Wastewater and Wastewater Treatment CVWD also provides wastewater collection services for the Project site. As shown on Exhibit 3-17, Conceptual Utility Plan, in Section 3.0, sewer service to the Project site is currently provided by connections to an existing 18-inch sewer line in 4th Street. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.15 Utilities and Service Systems Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.15-12 Wastewater is conveyed to IEUA regional trunk and interceptor sewers. The IEUA receives over 50 MGD of wastewater per day, which is treated in IEUA facilities to produce recycled water (refer to discussion above regarding recycled water lines). IEUA provides wastewater treatment with domestic and industrial disposal systems and energy production facilities serving approximately 875,000 residents within a 242-square mile area in San Bernardino County through its water and sewer member agencies (including CVWD) (IEUA, 2020a). Wastewater from the CVWD sewer lines is conveyed for treatment at the IEUA’s Regional Plant No. 4 (RP-4), located at 12811 6th Street in Rancho Cucamonga. This plant is 0.3-miles east of the site. RP-4 has a design capacity of 14 MGD and serves the cities of Rancho Cucamonga and Fontana and the unincorporated areas east of Rancho Cucamonga and south of Fontana. Approximately 10 MGD of wastewater is treated to the tertiary level at RP-4 to meet standards for recycled water use, with solids conveyed to RP-1 for thickening, anaerobic digestion, and dewatering (IEUA, 2020b). D. Storm Water Conveyance Facilities As further discussed in Section 4.9, of this Draft EIR, under existing conditions, runoff from the Project site is collected in multiple catch basins and travels southwest into an existing storm drain beneath 4th Street, which then discharges into an existing City of Ontario storm drain system. Runoff from landscaped areas adjacent to 4th Street, an existing parking lot, and the easterly drive aisle discharge to the street via sheet flow or a parkway culvert. E. Electricity, Natural Gas, Telecommunication Services SCE serves portions of the City, including the existing retail building and warehouse building on the Project site. SCE has existing 12 kV underground facilities adjacent to the Project site in 6th Street and 4th Street. RCMU also provides electricity services to various residential and non-residential developments in the southeastern section of the City; however, RCMU does not currently provide electric service to the site and does not have any electric facilities in the vicinity of the Project site. SCGC provides natural gas services to the City and the region, and has 6-inch gas main lines in the north sides of 4th Street and 6th Street. Frontier Communications and Charter Communications have franchise rights to operate communication systems in the area; both providers have existing underground facilities in 6th Street. RCMU also provides telecommunication services in the City; however, RCMU does not currently provide these services to the site and does not have any telecommunications facilities in the vicinity of the Project site. F. Solid Waste Collection and Disposal Services Solid waste collection services for the City, including the Project site, are provided by Burrtec Waste Industries. Burrtec offers residential, commercial, and industrial collection services. Solid waste from the Project site is expected to be disposed at the Mid-Valley Landfill, which is owned and operated by the San Bernardino County Solid Waste Management Division. The Mid-Valley Landfill, located in Rialto, is permitted to receive 7,500 tons of solid waste per day and has a remaining disposal capacity Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.15 Utilities and Service Systems Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.15-13 of approximately 61.2 million cubic yards (CalRecycle, 2019a). In November 2020, the peak daily disposal at the Mid-Valley Landfill was 4,857 tons (CalRecycle, 2020). In 2019 (the last year data was approved), the City implemented 40 programs to reduce solid waste generation and achieve the increased solid waste diversion required. These programs involve composting, facility recovery, household hazardous waste (HHW), policy incentives, public education, recycling, source reduction, special waste materials, and transformation (CalRecycle, 2019b). G. Existing Site Conditions Following is a summary of existing available information related to the existing warehouse building and retail building on the Project site, which has a building area of approximately 1,454,240 square feet (sf).  From 2019 to 2020, the warehouse building and retail building on the Project site consumed an average of 10,184 gallons per day (GPD) of water (approximately 11.4 AFY) (CMC, 2021).  In December 2018, the warehouse building and retail building on the Project site used 524,461 kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electricity; the average usage between January 2018 and December 2018 was approximately 516,322 kWh per month (Engie Insight, 2019).  In December 2018, the warehouse building and retail building on the Project site used 139 therms of natural gas; the average usage between January 2018 and December 2018 was approximately 83 therms per month (Engie Insight, 2019). 4.15.3 THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE According to Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, a project will normally have a significant adverse environmental impact on utilities and service systems if it will:  Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects.  Have insufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years.  Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project determined that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments.  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.  Not comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.15 Utilities and Service Systems Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.15-14 4.15.4 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS A. Regulatory Requirements The Project is required to adhere to the following Regulatory Requirements (RRs). Additionally, the Project would adhere to applicable regulations discussed in Section 4.5, Energy, and Section 4.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of this Draft EIR, which address energy and water consumption (e.g., Title 24 Building and Energy Efficiency Standards, the California Green Building Standards Code, and the City of Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code). RR 15-1 Water and sewer plans shall be designed and constructed to meet the applicable requirements of the Cucamonga Valley Water District (CVWD) Municipal Code and City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Code. Approval of the plans by the CVWD is required prior to final map approval or issuance of permits, whichever occurs first. RR 15-2 Landscaping associated with the Project shall be implemented in compliance with Chapter 17.56 of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Code, which requires preparation and review of landscape and irrigation plans during the Design Review process. Pursuant to Section 17.56.030(B) of the Development Code, the final landscape planting and irrigation plans shall be prepared by a registered licensed Landscape Architect and shall be in substantial compliance with the preliminary landscape and irrigation plan approved by the designated approving authority. RR 15-3 Landscape plans prepared for the Project shall be in compliance with Chapter 17.82, Water Efficient Landscaping, of the City Rancho Cucamonga Development Code, which includes requirements for development of a water budget, landscape design guidelines, soil and grading requirements, and a requirement to use recycled water. RR 15-4 Demolition and construction activities on the Project site shall be conducted in compliance with requirements of Chapter 8.19, Construction and Demolition Waste Collection, of the City’s Municipal Code. Construction and demolition waste shall be made available for deconstruction, salvage, and recovery prior to demolition. Inclusive of the recovered and salvaged materials, all construction and demolition projects are required to divert a minimum of 65% of the tonnage generated as a result of the project from the landfill. Prior to issuance of each Demolition or Building Permit, a “Form CD-1 Waste Management and Recycling Plan” shall be submitted to the Engineering Services Department. RR 15-5 Development shall comply with Chapter 8.17, Refuse, Recyclables and Green Waste Collection, of the City’s Municipal Code. The collection and disposal of refuse, recyclables or green waste shall only be conducted by entities issued a permit to do so by the City, with certain exceptions, as identified in the Municipal Code. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.15 Utilities and Service Systems Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.15-15 B. Impact Analysis Threshold 15.1 Would the Project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? The Project involves the demolition of existing structures and associated facilities on the Project site, and redevelopment of the Project site with two high-cube warehouse buildings with ancillary office space uses (up to 2,175,000 sf including 2,134,000 sf of warehouse space and 41,000 sf of office space). The analysis below addresses the utility demand generated by the Project and infrastructure that would be installed to serve the Project. It should be noted that the Project’s proposed infrastructure connections would only serve the Project and would not facilitate additional development. A. Water Infrastructure The Project’s water demand (indoor and outdoor uses) as reported in the Project-specific WSA, is estimated to be approximately 30,152 GPD (33.8 AFY), including 14,790 gpd (16.6 AFY) for indoor water and 15,362 GPD (17.2 AFY) for outdoor irrigation. As previously discussed, based on CVWD- provided meter records, the 2019/2020 water use on the site was 10,184 GPD (11.4 AFY), which would have been accounted for in the CVWD 2015 UWMP water demand projections. Therefore, the net increase in water demand for the site with implementation of the Project would be approximately 19,968 GPD (22.4 AFY). The Project would include the installation of on-site water and recycled water lines to provide domestic water to the proposed uses, and for fire flow and irrigation. The on-site water and recycled lines would connect to existing lines beneath 4th Street and 6th Street (refer to Figure 3-16, Conceptual Water and Sewer Plan, in Section 3.0, of this Draft EIR). No expansion, extension, re-construction, or other modifications to existing off-site water or recycled water lines would be required to serve the Project. The Project’s water system would be designed to ensure sufficient fire flow to the proposed buildings, including the installation of fire pumps on-site for each building. Construction activities associated with removal of existing on-site water lines, and installation of the proposed on-site water and recycled water lines, fire pumps, and connections to existing lines in 4th Street and 6th Street would be within the physical impact area identified for the Project in Section 3.0, and evaluated throughout this Draft EIR (refer to the construction and physical impact discussions in Sections 4.1 through 4.15 of this Draft EIR). Additionally, water facilities would be installed in compliance with applicable CVWD requirements (refer to RR 15-1). No additional impacts associated with construction/installation of on-site water lines or connections to existing water facilities would occur. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.15 Utilities and Service Systems Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.15-16 B. Wastewater The Project would increase the amount of wastewater generated at the Project site. The Project’s estimated wastewater generation entering the CVWD’s sewer system is conservatively estimated to be a net increase of approximately 19,968 GPD based on the estimated net increase in water demand. The Project would connect to an existing CVWD 18-inch sewer line beneath 4th Street. Each building would have its own 6-inch sewer lateral and an 8-inch sewer line beneath the trailer parking area along the Project’s western boundary. Existing on-site sewer lines would be removed and would occur within the physical impact area evaluated in this Draft EIR. No expansion, extension, re-construction, or other modifications to existing off-site public sewer lines would be required to serve the Project, as CVWD has indicated that the existing sewer system has adequate capacity to serve the Project (CVWD, 2019). Construction activities associated with the removal of existing on-site sewer lines and the proposed installation of new on-site sewer lines, and connections to the existing sewer line beneath 4th Street would be within the physical impact area identified for the Project in Section 3.0 and evaluated throughout this Draft EIR (refer to the construction and physical impact discussions in Sections 4.1 through 4.15 of this Draft EIR). Additionally, sewer facilities would be installed in compliance with applicable CVWD regulations (refer to RR 15-1). No additional impacts associated with construction/installation of on-site sewer lines or connections to sewer facilities would occur. C. Stormwater Drainage As described in Section 4.9, of this Draft EIR, stormwater from the Project site currently drains southerly via existing storm drains beneath the Project site into a 7x3 reinforced concrete box (RCB) beneath 4th Street. The proposed on-site storm drain system would be installed as part of the Project, and would consist of a network of grate inlets, catch basins, underground storm drain pipes, and underground retention systems that would collect and treat stormwater runoff from the Project site (refer to Figure 3-17 and Figure 3-18 in Section 3.0 of this Draft EIR). Existing on-site storm drain facilities would be removed. Additionally, a proposed storm drain system with multiple public catch basins would be constructed along proposed Street A to collect the runoff from the roadway. Consistent with existing conditions, the on-site storm drain system would connect to the RCB beneath 4th Street. The Project does not include the expansion, extension, re-construction, or other modifications to existing off-site public storm drains to accept stormwater runoff flows from the Project site. Construction activities associated with the proposed on-site storm drain facilities, off-site connections to existing facilities, and relocation of the catch basin, would be within the physical impact area identified for the Project and evaluated throughout this Draft EIR (refer to the construction and physical impact discussions in Sections 4.1 through 4.15 of this Draft EIR). No additional impacts associated with construction of on-site storm drain facilities or connections to storm drain facilities would occur. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.15 Utilities and Service Systems Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.15-17 D. Dry Utilities As previously discussed in Section 4.5, the Project would increase the demand for electricity at the Project site; however, the Project would comply with Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards and the CALGreen Code (which the City has adopted by reference). As previously discussed, SCE has existing 12 kV underground facilities adjacent to the Project site in 4th Street and 6th Street. However, RCMU has indicated that they would provide electric service to the Project. To serve the proposed development, above ground transformers would be installed at each building and onsite electric facilities would connect to either existing SCE electric facilities or future RCMU facilities in 4th Street and 6th Street. The extension of backbone electric infrastructure to the Project site by RCMU is not currently proposed and the location and timing for installation of this infrastructure is speculative at this time. Therefore, the physical impacts that may occur from installation of this infrastructure by RCMU in the future are appropriately not addressed in this environmental analysis. If RCMU extends their backbone infrastructure to the Project site, the City would analyze any impacts of such extension as required pursuant to CEQA. As previously discussed, Frontier Communications and Charter Communications have existing underground facilities in 6th Street. However, RCMU has indicated that they would provide telecommunications service to the Project. RCMU does not currently provide telecommunications facilities to serve the Project. The extension of backbone infrastructure to the Project site by RCMU is not currently proposed and the location and timing for installation of this infrastructure is speculative at this time. Therefore, the physical impacts that may occur from installation of this infrastructure by RCMU in the future are appropriately not addressed in this environmental analysis. If RCMU extends their backbone infrastructure to the Project site, the City would analyze any impacts of such extension as required pursuant to CEQA. The installation of new communication systems would be the best available technology at the time of the development (currently fiber optic service) and would connect to existing facilities in 6th Street. SCG owns and operates the existing natural gas facilities within and around the Project site and has existing 6-inch gas lines beneath 4th Street and 6th Street. It is not anticipated that the proposed high- cube warehouse uses would require natural gas for operations, and no new natural gas facilities are proposed. Should a future tenant require natural gas service in the future, this would be accommodated through connections to the existing gas lines. Final plans for dry utility service would be designed and infrastructure would be installed in compliance with applicable requirements of the utility providers, as applicable. With RCMU’s extension of backbone infrastructure to the Project site, which would be subject to separate CEQA review by RCMU, no off-site expansions or up upgrades are required. The Project does not include the expansion, extension, re-construction, or other modifications to existing off-site utility lines. Construction activities associated with the installation of proposed on-site dry utility infrastructure, and any off-site connections to existing or planned dry utility infrastructure, would be within the physical impact area identified for the Project and evaluated throughout this Draft EIR. No additional impacts associated with construction of dry utility infrastructure would occur. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.15 Utilities and Service Systems Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.15-18 Impact 15.1 Utility infrastructure installation and associated improvements would occur within the identified physical impact area for the Project (on-site and within the public right-of- way along adjacent streets) as addressed throughout this Draft EIR, and in compliance with applicable requirements of the utility providers. No additional impacts would result and this impact would be less than significant. Threshold 15.2 Would the Project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years.? A WSA for the Project has been prepared in compliance with SB 610; the WSA, approved by the CVWD Board of Directors on January 26, 2021, is provided in Appendix M of this Draft EIR, and is summarized in this section. CVWD is the water provider for the Project and its 2015 UWMP was prepared pursuant to California Water Code and the Urban Water Management Planning Act. The CVWD 2015 UWMP, as well as pertinent updated demand and supply information from CVWD staff, serve as the basis for the WSA and were used in determining available water supplies to serve the Project. The WSA utilizes the net new water demand for the Project site to evaluate if there is sufficient supply to meet the demands of the Project as well as all other existing and planned future water demand for the CVWD service area over the next 20 years. The net new demand for the Project area is the difference between the existing water use and the estimated new water demand for the site. As noted below in Table 4.15-1, Estimated Potable Water Demand, the Project’s water demand (indoor and outdoor uses) is estimated to be approximately 30,152 GPD (33.8 AFY). Based on CVWD-provided meter records, the 2019/20 water use on the site was 11.4 AFY, which would have been accounted for in the CVWD’s 2015 UWMP water demand projections. Therefore, the net increase in water demand for the site would be approximately 22.4 AFY. It should be noted that compliance with RRs 14-2 and 14-3 address water efficient landscaping and irrigation systems and serve to reduce water demand. The Project-specific WSA includes a detailed discussion of CVWD’s projected water supply and demand. In summary, and as shown Table 4.15-2, CVWD Future Potable Supply - Normal Years, CVWD’s projected total water demand in 2020, is approximately 57,942 AFY. By Year 2040, with the currently proposed Project and the EHNCP, the estimated water demand for the CVWD water service area is approximately 64,567 AFY, under normal hydrologic conditions. As previously identified CVWD’s sources of water supply includes untreated imported water purchased through the IEUA, groundwater rights to the Chino and Cucamonga Basins, and surface water. Recycled water is also provided through the IEUA and is considered in the CVWD 2015 UWMP. However, as a conservative analysis, only potable sources are considered for the Project’s 22.4 AFY total net water demand. CVWD has historically met all of its water demands using these sources. It should be noted that imported water is broken down between Tier I and Tier II, and has been updated to include the estimated water demands for the Project and EHNCP. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.15 Utilities and Service Systems Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.15-19 Table 4.15-1 Estimated Potable Water Demand Bldg. Land Use Type Indoor Water Use Demand Factor Outdoor Water Use Demand Factor1 Estimated Domestic Water Demand3 Indoor Water Demand Outdoor Irrigation Demand5 Quantity Units 1 General Industrial 961 Employee 10 gpcd - 9,610 gpd - Landscape 5.56 Ac4 - 2 AF/Ac/Yr - 9,940 gpd 2 General Industrial 518 Emp 10 gpcd - 5,180 gpd - Landscape 3.04 Ac4 - 2 AF/Ac/Yr - 5,422 gpd - Street/Easement 8.0 Ac - - - - GROSS Total 14,790 gpd 15,362 gpd 16.6 AFY 17.2 AFY Existing2 n/a n/a -2 10,184 gpd2 Net Increase - - 19,968 gpd 22.4 AFY 1 Typical landscape ordinance restrictions per the 2009 Water Conservation Act range from 1.0 to 2.0 AF/Ac/Yr. 2 CVWD staff provided consumption data for water service accounts serving the Project site; assumes irrigation consumption is included. 3 Represents demand on CVWD potable (domestic) water sources until non-domestic water becomes available. 4 For purposes of analysis, estimated irrigation acreage associated with each building is based on 375,000 of landscaped area and the breakdown between each building is based on square-footage of each building. 5 Represents demand that could be served by non-domestic water sources. Source: (CMC, 2021) Table 4.15-2 CVWD Future Potable Supply - Normal Years Potable Water Supply & Demands (Afy) 2020 Year 2025 2030 2035 20401 Water Demands Project Demands 0 22 22 22 22 CVWD Total Potable Demands1 57,942 60,163 64,209 64,547 64,547 PROJECTED TOTAL CVWD DEMAND 57,942 60,185 64,231 64,569 64,569 Water Supply Chino Basin 12,755 13,687 13,859 19,282 19,282 Cucamonga Basin 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 Surface Water 4,540 4,540 4,540 4,540 4,540 IEUA Tier I Imported Water 28,369 28,369 28,369 28,369 28,369 IEUA Tier II Imported Water 1 3,236 4,704 7,463 2,378 2,378 Imported Water Total (Adjusted from Table 20 of the WSA)3 31,605 33,073 35,832 30,747 30,747 TOTAL POTABLE SUPPLY2 58,900 61,300 64,231 64,569 64,569 Surplus Supply2 958 1,115 0 0 0 1 Based on input from CVWD staff and published data from CVWD. 2 Based on current total water supply (58,900 AFY) 4 Adjusted from CVWD Projected Water Supplies (Table 20 of the WSA) to include the Project and based on information provided by CVWD staff. Source: (CMC, 2021) Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.15 Utilities and Service Systems Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.15-20 Based on the water supply information in the 2015 UWMP, and information provided by CVWD staff specific to the Project’s WSA and previous WSAs, CVWD’s future water demands can be met by using existing sources of water. The additional demands for future projects, including the Project, can be met by CVWD’s purchase of additional Tier II imported water from IEUA. CVWD has the ability to purchase Tier II water to meet the demands of future projects. With CVWD’s unlimited access to Tier II water, CVWD plans to use this as the water supply source for currently proposed future projects. All water sources are evaluated on a continual basis and implemented in the most cost-effective manner for service to CVWD customers. The supply and demand for the normal year are summarized in Table 23 of the WSA included in Appendix M of this Draft EIR. The table shows that CVWD is projected to have sufficient supply to meet demands. In a single dry year, CVWD’s groundwater supply is not anticipated to be affected. The water supply/demand projected for dry year conditions is shown in Table 24 of the WSA included as Appendix M of this Draft EIR. The difference from reduced canyon flows during a single dry year could be met from CVWD’s stored groundwater from the Chino Basin and/or implementation of water shortage contingency plan (see Section 3.2 of the WSA). In multiple dry years, CVWD’s surface water supplies are expected to be reduced. The water supply projected for multiple dry year conditions is shown in Table 25 of the WSA included in Appendix M of this Draft EIR. There could also potentially be imported water restriction, such as those implemented in 2015. To meet demands, the shortfall from reduced canyon flows, imported water restrictions and State mandated water reductions during a multi-dry year could be met from the CVWD’s stored groundwater from the Chino Basin, MWD Tier II imported water (if available), replenishment water (if available), and implementation of the water shortage contingency plan. For the projected supply, CVWD would utilize all its MWD Tier I allocation (28,369 AFY) and would also pursue MWD Tier II water in order to meet any additional demand needs. Additional groundwater is also available to CVWD from the Cucamonga Basin. Cucamonga Basin water production has been limited due to groundwater treatment capacity. Current water supply improvement projects are proposed by CVWD to return the Cucamonga Basin production to its previous levels. New wells and additional groundwater treatment capacity in Cucamonga Basin would allow production to the CVWD’s full groundwater pumping rights to serve the Project as well as all other currently planned development projects within CVWD. As identified in Section 5.2.2 of the CVWD 2015 UWMP, the District has the right to produce at least 10,500 AFY in addition to the 3,620 AFY from surface flows in Cucamonga Creek. Currently, as shown in Table 4.15-2 above, CVWD is planning to utilize only 10,000 AFY of groundwater from the Cucamonga Basin. A potential 2,566 AFY or more of groundwater could be evaluated for use by CVWD. Therefore, the CVWD would have sufficient water supplies available to serve the Project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years and this impact would be less than significant. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.15 Utilities and Service Systems Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.15-21 Impact 15.2 Development allowed by the Project would require water supplies from the CVWD. The WSA shows that CVWD has available water supplies to meet the water demands (22.4 AFY) of the Project for the next twenty years through 2040, including demands during normal, single dry and multiple dry years. The CVWD has concurred with the findings of the WSA that available water supplies would be adequate to serve the Project. Thus, impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. Threshold 15.3 Would the Project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has inadequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? As previously discussed, wastewater is collected and transported to IEUA wastewater treatment facilities where it is processed into recycled water. IEUA provides disinfected tertiary treated recycled water. Wastewater generated by the Project would be treated at IEUA’s RP-4. Under existing conditions, RP-4 has an excess capacity of approximately 4 MGD. As previously discussed, it is conservatively estimated that the Project would generate a net increase of approximately 19,968 GPD of wastewater (approximately 0.02 MGD). Accordingly, implementation of the Project would utilize less than 0.01% of the excess daily treatment capacity at RP-4. RP-4 has sufficient excess capacity to treat wastewater generated by the Project (CVWD, 2019). The Project would not create the need for any new or expanded wastewater facilities. This impact is less than significant and no mitigation is required. Impact 15.3 IEUA wastewater treatment facilities have sufficient capacity to serve the Project and existing commitments, and this impact would be less than significant. Threshold 15.4 Would the Project generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? A. Construction Impact Analysis Existing on-site structures and associated facilities would be demolished during Project construction, which would generate various types of solid waste (e.g., scrap metal, green waste, and building material trash). The CALGreen Code, which is implemented through the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code Chapter 8.19, Construction and Demolition Waste Collection, requires that at least 65% of construction and demolition debris be diverted from landfills through recycling, reuse, and/or salvage (refer to RR 15-4). It is estimated that approximately 137,597 tons of debris would be generated during demolition. There would be approximately 125,120 tons of demolished concrete and approximately 3,809 tons of pulverized asphalt, which would be re-used on-site as fill material. Additionally, approximately 432 tons of green waste, 2,800 tons of scrap metal, and 3,913 tons of refuse would be diverted from the landfill through recycling or reuse. In summary, the Project would divert approximately 136,074 tons of debris from the landfill. Thus, approximately 98% of the Project’s demolition waste would be diverted, exceeding the requirements of the CALGreen Code and City Municipal Code. Approximately 1,523 tons of materials would require disposal at the landfill. As shown in Table 3-2 in Section 3.0, of this Draft EIR, it is estimated that demolition/crushing for Building 1, and site preparation for Building Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.15 Utilities and Service Systems Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.15-22 2 (including demolition of existing parking areas), would occur over approximately 72 days. This corresponds to the approximately 21 tons per day of material for landfill disposal. As previously discussed, the Mid-Valley Landfill is permitted to receive 7,500 tons of solid waste per day and in December 2019, the average daily disposal at the Mid-Valley Landfill was 5,000 tons. Therefore, the demolition materials generated by the Project would represent approximately 0.8% of the remaining permitted daily capacity of the landfill (2,500 tons of solid waste per day). Following demolition, solid waste also would be generated by the Project construction process, primarily comprising discarded materials and packaging. Based on a proposed building area of 2,175,000 sf and a construction waste generation factor of 4.34 pounds per square foot (EPA, 2009), approximately 4,720 tons of waste would be generated over the course of Project construction2. With the required diversion of at least 65% of construction debris, the Project is estimated to generate approximately 1,652 tons of construction waste that would be disposed of at a landfill. The Project’s building construction would occur over a period of approximately 807 working days, which corresponds to approximately 2.0 tons of construction waste being generated per day of construction activity. This represents approximately 0.08% of the remaining permitted daily capacity of the landfill. The volume of solid waste generated during Project construction would neither exceed State or local disposal standards nor exceed the local infrastructure capacity to handle the waste disposal. Furthermore, the Mid-Valley Landfill is not expected to reach its total maximum permitted disposal capacity until 2045, which would not occur during the Project’s construction period. The Mid-Valley Landfill would have sufficient daily capacity to accept solid waste generated by the Project’s construction phase; therefore, impacts to landfill capacity associated with Project construction activities would be less than significant. B. Operation Impact Analysis Based on a daily waste generation factor of 1.42 pounds of waste per 100 square feet of industrial/warehouse building area (CalRecycle, 2019c), long-term operation of the Project would generate approximately 15.4 tons of solid waste per day3. A minimum of 75% of all solid waste would be required to be recycled pursuant to AB 341, consistent with the State’s solid waste reduction goals; therefore, Project operation would generate approximately 3.9 tons per day of solid waste requiring disposal at a landfill. Non-recyclable waste generated by the Project would also be disposed at the Mid- Valley Landfill. The Project’s estimated solid waste generation represents approximately 0.2% of the remaining permitted daily capacity of the landfill (2,500 tons of solid waste per day). The Project’s long-term solid waste generation is not in excess of State or local disposal standards, or in excess of the local infrastructure capacity to handle the waste disposal. As described above, the Mid- Valley Landfill is below its maximum permitted daily disposal volume and is not anticipated to close until 2045. Thus, waste generated by the Project’s operation is not anticipated to cause the landfill to exceed its maximum permitted daily disposal volume. Because the Project would generate a relatively 2 2,175,000 sf of new building area × 4.34 lbs/sf ÷ 2,000 lbs/ton = 4,720 tons 3 2,175,000 sf of building area × 1.42 lbs/100 sq. ft ÷ 2,000 lbs/ton = 15.4 tons Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.15 Utilities and Service Systems Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.15-23 small amount of solid waste per day as compared to the permitted daily capacity of the landfill, impacts to landfill facilities during the Project’s long-term operational activities would be less than significant. Impact 15.4 The Project would be served by a landfill with available capacity. Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. Threshold 15.5 Would the Project comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Federal, State, and local statutes and regulations regarding solid waste generation, transport, and disposal are intended to decrease solid waste generation through mandatory reductions in solid waste quantities (e.g., through recycling and composting of green waste) and the safe and efficient transport of solid waste. Future tenants of the Project would be required to coordinate with Burrtec Waste Industries to develop a collection program for recyclables, such as paper, plastics, glass, and aluminum, in accordance with local and State programs, including AB 341, Mandatory Commercial Recycling, and the California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Act of 1991. Additionally, future tenants would be required to comply with applicable practices enacted by the City under the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939) and any other applicable local, State, and federal solid waste management regulations. AB 939 required that local jurisdictions divert at least 50% of all solid waste generated by January 1, 2000. The diversion goal has been increased to 75% by 2020 by SB 341. Further, the Solid Waste Disposal Measurement Act of 2008 (SB 1016) was established to make the process of goal measurement (as established by AB 939) simpler, more timely, and more accurate. SB 1016 builds on AB 939 compliance requirements by implementing a simplified measure of jurisdictions’ performance. SB 1016 accomplishes this by changing to a disposal-based indicator—the per capita disposal rate—which uses only two factors: (1) a jurisdiction’s population (or in some cases employment); and (2) its disposal, as reported by disposal facilities. As previously discussed, in 2018, the City implemented 40 programs to reduce solid waste generation and achieve the increased solid waste diversion required. The City had an average disposal rate of 4.9 pounds per resident per day and 10.8 pounds per employee per day in 2018 (the last year for which information is available. These disposal rates are less than the established disposal rate target of 6.8 pounds per resident per day and 16.7 pounds per employee per day. (CalRecycle, 2019d) Therefore, resident- and employee-generated solid waste being diverted to landfills is less than anticipated for the City, and the City is in compliance with solid waste management regulations. Building operators would participate in the City’s recycling programs, and recycling would occur in compliance with Chapter 8.17, Refuse, Recyclables, and Organics Collection, of the City’s Municipal Code (refer to RR 15-5). As such, the Project would not conflict with any federal, State, or local regulations related to solid waste. Therefore, no impact related to compliance with solid waste statutes would occur, and no mitigation is required. Impact 15.5 Construction and operation associated with implementation the Project would be conducted in compliance with applicable statues and regulations related to solid waste. No impact would occur and no mitigation is required. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.15 Utilities and Service Systems Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.15-24 4.15.5 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS The geographic context for the cumulative impact analysis for utilities and infrastructure systems for water, recycled water, and sewer collection services is the CVWD service area. The geographic context for the cumulative impact analysis for dry utilities is the service area for the respective service providers (RCMU and/or SCE, SCGC, Frontier Communications, and Charter Communications). The cumulative impact area for wastewater treatment impacts is the service area for IEUA’s RP No. 4, which is located in the City of Rancho Cucamonga and serves areas of Fontana, Rancho Cucamonga, and other areas in San Bernardino County. The geographic context for the cumulative impact analysis for the solid waste is the City of Rancho Cucamonga. As with the Project, individual cumulative development projects would require the construction of necessary infrastructure (water and wastewater lines, storm drain facilities, dry utility infrastructure, and others) to serve the projects. However, the infrastructure needed for the Project would be limited to relatively small distribution and collection lines, which would occur within the Project’s identified construction impact area (on-site and adjacent to the site). No new or expanded off-site infrastructure is required to be implemented as part of the Project, beyond the utility line connections to existing utilities adjacent to the Project site. As further discussed in Section 6.4, Growth Inducing Impacts, the Project’s proposed utility line connections would only serve the Project site and would not facilitate additional development in the area. Should RCMU provide electric and/or telecommunication services to the Project, new backbone infrastructure would be installed by RCMU and would occur within existing public street right-of-way. The environmental impacts associated with construction utility infrastructure to be installed as part of the Project have been addressed throughout this Draft EIR and would be less than significant with mitigation. The Project and all new development would have to coordinate with service providers to obtain services, and connections to existing utility lines would be made in accordance with the applicable requirements of the utility provider and City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Code, as applicable. Further, the payment of service fees to the respective service providers is expected to ensure adequate services to individual developments. The Project in conjunction with cumulative development would not result in significant impacts related to the construction and installation of utility infrastructure and would not result in a cumulative impact. Therefore, the Project would not have a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact associated with construction of utility infrastructure. The Project involves redevelopment of the Project site and as discussed under Threshold 15.2 would increase the amount of potable water demand for the site. According to the Project’s WSA included in Appendix M of this Draft EIR, CVWD has sufficient potable water supplies to meet existing and future demands through the year 2040 under normal, single dry, and multiple dry years serve the Project and reasonably foreseeable future development, resulting in a less than significant cumulative impact. As such, the Project would not have a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact associated with water supply. As previously discussed, the IEUA provides wastewater treatment services to approximately 875,000 people over 242 square miles, and the current remaining capacity for treatment at RP No. 4 is 4 MGD. The existing primary and secondary treatment processes at RP-4 have sufficient capacity to treat Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.15 Utilities and Service Systems Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.15-25 projected flows and loads through the planning horizon of 2035; however, the tertiary process will need to be expanded. Additional filtration and disinfection units would be needed by 2035 to handle the increased flows and loads. IEUAs 20-year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) includes the RP-4 Tertiary Expansion Project, which is evaluated in the IEUA Facilities Masters Plans Final Program Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2016061064) (February 2017) (ESA, 2017). Therefore, the IEUA would have adequate wastewater treatment capacity for wastewater generation by the Project and cumulative developments in its service area and there would be less than significant cumulative impact. The wastewater generated by the Project would not exceed the capacity of RP-4 and the Project would not have a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact associated with wastewater treatment. The solid waste generated by construction and operation of the Project would represent nominal portion of the daily disposal capacity at the Mid-Valley Landfill. This landfill has sufficient daily capacity to handle solid waste during the Project construction and operation and the Project and would not directly result in the need for expanded solid waste disposal facilities. Further, the Project would adhere to applicable local and State regulations during both construction and long-term operations. Other cumulative development would also be required to comply with such regulations. Therefore, the Project combined with cumulative projects would not have a cumulative impact, and the Project would not have a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact related to solid waste disposal and compliance with regulations addressing the reduction of solid waste generation and disposal. 4.15.6 MITIGATION MEASURES With adherence to the regulations outlined in RR 15-1 through RR 15-5, no significant impacts related to utilities and service systems would result and no mitigation measures are required. 4.15.7 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION Project impacts related to utilities and service systems would be less than significant. 4.15.8 REFERENCES California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). 2019a (August 31, access date). Facility/Site Summary Details: Mid-Valley Sanitary Landfill (36-AA- 0055). Available: https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/Site/Summary/2662. ———. 2019b (January 21, access date). Jurisdiction Waste Diversion Program Summary. Available: https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/LGCentral/DiversionProgram/JurisdictionSummary _____. 2019c (August 31, access date). Estimated Solid Waste Generation Rates. Available: https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/WasteCharacterization/General/Rates. ———. 2019d (January 21, access date). Jurisdiction Diversion/Disposal Rate Summary. Available: https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/LGCentral/DiversionProgram/JurisdictionDiversionPost2006 Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.15 Utilities and Service Systems Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 4.15-26 _____. 2020 (December 31, access date). Disposal Facility Inspection Report December 2020. Available: https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteInspection/Details/321294. Cucamonga Valley Water District (CVWD). 2016 (June). Cucamonga Valley Water District 2015 Urban Water Management Plan. Available: https://www.cvwdwater.com/DocumentCenter/View/1955/2015-Urban-Water-Management- Plan---CVWD?bidId=. Charles Marr Consulting (CMC). 2021 (January 7). Cucamonga Valley Water District Water Supply Assessment for the Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Development Project. (Included in Appendix M of this Draft EIR). Cucamonga Valley Water District. 2019 (August 28). Availability of Water and Sewer Service, APN: 0229-283-50 & 51, 12434 4th Street, Rancho Cucamonga, CA. Letter from T. Munson Jr. (Lead Engineering Technician, CVWD) to City of Rancho Cucamonga Engineering Department. Engie Insight. 2019 (August 21). Use Cost Analysis – Year Over Year Big Lots Stores, Inc. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2009. Estimating 2003 Building-Related Construction and Demolition Materials Amounts. https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017- 09/documents/estimating2003buildingrelatedcanddmaterialsamounts.pdf ESA. 2017 (February). IEUA Facilities Master Plans, Final Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse #2016061064). Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA). 2016a. (January). Integrated Water Resources Plan 2015 Update. Available: http://www.mwdh2o.com/PDF_About_Your_Water/2015%20IRP%20Update%20Report%2 0(web).pdf _____.2016b (June). 2015 Urban Water Management Plan. Available:http://www.mwdh2o.com/PDF_About_Your_Water/2.4.2_Regional_Urban_Water _Management_Plan.pdf _____. 2020a (March). Inland Empire Utilities Agency Annual Report Fiscal Year 2018-2019. _____. 2020b (August 26, access date). Regional Water Recycling Plant #4. Available: https://www.ieua.org/facilities/regional-water-recycling-plant-no-4/ _____. 2020c (August 31, access date). Inland Empire Utilities Agency Regional Drought Contingency Plan. Available: https://18x37n2ovtbb3434n48jhbs1-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp- content/uploads/2020/06/IEUA-Regional-Drought-Contingency-Plan-Final-April-2020.pdf Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 5.0 Alternatives Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 5-1 5.0 ALTERNATIVES 5.1 INTRODUCTION An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) must identify ways to mitigate or avoid the significant effects that a project may have on the environment. In compliance with Section 15126.6(a) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, an EIR must “describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any significant effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives”. This section identifies potential alternatives to the Project and evaluates them, as required by CEQA. Key provisions of the CEQA Guidelines on alternatives (Sections 15126.6[b]–15126.6[f]) are provided below to explain the foundation and requirements for the alternatives analysis in the EIR.  The discussion of alternatives shall focus on alternatives to the project or its location which are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects of the project, even if these alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of the project objective, or would be more costly (Section 15126.6[b]).  The specific alternative of ‘no project’ shall also be evaluated along with its impact (Section 15126.6[e][1]).  The “no project” analysis shall discuss the existing conditions at the time the Notice of Preparation is published, and at the time the environmental analysis is commenced, as well as what would reasonably be expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project were not approved, based on current plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community services. If the environmentally superior alternative is the “no project” alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives (Section 15126.6[e][2]).  The range of alternatives required in an EIR is governed by the “rule of reason” that requires the EIR to set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice. The alternatives shall be limited to ones that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project. Of those alternatives, the EIR need examine in detail only the ones that the lead agency determines could feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project. The range of feasible alternatives shall be selected and discussed in a manner to foster meaningful public participation and informed decision making. Among the factors that may be taken into account when addressing the feasibility of alternatives are site suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, general plan consistency, other plans or regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries, and whether the proponent can reasonably acquire, control or otherwise have access to the alternative site (or the site is already owned by the proponent) (Section 15126.6[f]). Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 5.0 Alternatives Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 5-2  For alternative locations, “only locations that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project need be considered for inclusion in the EIR” (Section 15126.6[f][2][A]).  If the lead agency concludes that no feasible alternative locations exist, it must disclose the reasons for this conclusion, and should include the reasons in the EIR. For example, in some cases there may be no feasible alternative locations for a geothermal plant or mining project which must be in close proximity to natural resources at a given location (Section 15126.6[f][2][B]).  An EIR need not consider an alternative whose effect cannot be reasonably ascertained and whose implementation is remote and speculative (Section 15126.6[f][3]). 5.1.1 SUMMARY OF THE PROJECT The Project site encompasses 91.4 gross acres1 and is located north of 4th Street, south of 6th Street, and generally located west of Etiwanda Avenue and east of Santa Anita Avenue. The Project site is currently occupied with a 23,240-square foot (sf) retail building and a 1,431,000- sf warehouse building previously occupied by Big Lots. As described in Section 3.0, Project Description, of this Draft EIR, the Project involves redevelopment of the Project site with high-cube warehouse uses consisting of two buildings (up to 2,175,000 sf) of gross floor area (warehouse uses and ancillary office space), which includes the 1,422,500 sf Building 1 (1,403,500 sf of ground floor building area and 19,000 sf of mezzanine area) and 752,500 sf Building 2 (738,270 sf of ground floor building area and 14,230 sf of mezzanine area). For purposes of analysis in this Draft EIR, as applicable, it is assumed that up to 90% of the building square footage would consist of a high-cube non-sort fulfillment center warehouse, and 10% would consist of a high-cube cold storage warehouse. Existing structures and improvements on the Project site would be demolished to accommodate the Project. Access to the Project would be provided from access driveways along 4th Street, 6th Street, and one new public roadway proposed by the Project (Street A). Additional improvements associated with the Project include, but are not limited to, surface parking areas (automobile and truck trailer stalls), vehicle drive aisles, landscaping, storm water quality/storage, utility infrastructure, exterior lighting, and signage. The Project would also involve improvements to 4th Street and 6th Street along the Project site frontage. The Project site is within the City’s Southeast Focus Area, as identified in the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan, and has the General Plan land use designations of Heavy Industrial on the northern 55.2 acres and General Industrial on the remaining 36.2 acres of the site. The Project includes a General Plan Amendment and Zoning Map Amendment to modify the land use designation and zoning for the 1 The Project site encompasses approximately 85.0 net acres, excluding existing and proposed public roadway right- of-way and other area to be granted to the City. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 5.0 Alternatives Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 5-3 northern area from Heavy Industrial to General Industrial to allow for land use designations and associated regulations and development standards across the site. Approval actions required from the City to implement the Project include: (1) adoption of a General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation for the northern portion of the Project site from Heavy Industrial to General Industrial; (2) adoption of a Zoning Map Amendment to change the zoning designation for the northern portion of the Project site from Heavy Industrial to General Industrial; (3) approval of a Tentative Parcel Map to subdivide the Project site, which is currently a single legal parcel, into two parcels to accommodate the proposed buildings (Buildings 1 and 2); (4) approval of a Site Plan and Architectural review for site, architectural plans, and landscape plans; (5) adoption of a Development Agreement; and, (6) certification of the EIR. Additionally, a Tree Removal Permit would be required for the removal of heritage trees on-site. 5.1.2 PROJECT OBJECTIVES As stated in Section 3.0, Project Description, of this Draft EIR, the objectives that have been established for the Project are listed below. 1. Ensure that development of the Project site is accomplished consistent with applicable goals and policies of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as set forth in the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan. 2. Maximize redevelopment of the existing underutilized Project site and generate increased property tax revenue for the City of Rancho Cucamonga in order to support the City’s ongoing municipal operations. 3. Maximize development of Class A high cube warehouse industrial buildings in the City of Rancho Cucamonga that are designed to meet contemporary industry standards for operational design criteria, can accommodate a wide variety of users, and are economically competitive with similar industrial buildings in the local area and region. 4. Create employment-generating businesses in the City of Rancho Cucamonga to reduce the need for members of the local workforce to commute outside the area for employment, and to improve the jobs to housing balance. 5. Develop a project with an architectural design and operational characteristics that complement other existing buildings in the immediate vicinity and minimize conflicts with other nearby land uses. 6. Maximize industrial warehouse buildings in close proximity to an already-established industrial area, designated truck routes, and the State highway system in order to avoid or shorten truck- trip lengths on other roadways, and avoid locating industrial warehouse buildings in close proximity to residential uses. 7. Develop properties that have access to available infrastructure, including roads and utilities to be used as part of the Southern California supply chain and goods movement network. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 5.0 Alternatives Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 5-4 5.1.3 SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS The analysis in Sections 4.1 through 4.15 of this Draft EIR concludes that implementation of the Project would result in no impact; a less than significant impact; or a less than significant impact with adherence to applicable regulatory requirements and/or incorporation of Project-level mitigation measures, for each of the thresholds of significance evaluated in this Draft EIR. No significant and unavoidable impacts would result. It should be noted that although the Project would not result in any significant and unavoidable impacts, Project-level mitigation measures are required to reduce potentially significant impacts to levels considered less than significant for the following topical issues: Air Quality (due to construction- related emissions), Cultural Resources (due to the potential to encounter previously undiscovered cultural resources during construction), Geology and Soils (due to the potential to encounter paleontological resources during construction), Noise (due to construction-related noise), and Tribal Cultural Resources (due to the potential to encounter previously undiscovered tribal cultural resources during construction). These potentially significant impacts are associated with construction activities, not operation of the Project. 5.2 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT NOT CARRIED FORWARD FOR DETAILED ANALYSIS Section 15126.6(c) of the CEQA Guidelines specifies that an EIR should 1) identify alternatives that were considered by the Lead Agency but were eliminated from detailed consideration because they were determined to be infeasible during the scoping process, and 2) briefly explain the reasons underlying the Lead Agency’s determination. Section 15126.6(c) of the CEQA Guidelines states, “[a]mong the factors that may be used to eliminate alternatives from detailed consideration in an EIR are: (i) failure to meet most of the basic project objectives, (ii) infeasibility, or (iii) inability to avoid significant environmental impacts. The following alternatives were considered but not selected for detailed analysis in this Draft EIR. As described in greater detail below, the main reason for rejecting these alternatives was that they would not avoid or substantially reduce the impacts associated with the Project and/or would not be consistent with the Project objectives. 5.2.1 ALTERNATIVE SITE CEQA requires that the discussion of alternatives focus on alternatives to the Project or its location that are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects of the Project. The key question and first step in the analysis is determining whether any of the significant effects of the Project would be avoided or substantially lessened by developing the Project at another location. Only locations that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project need be considered for inclusion in the EIR (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.6[f][2][B]). To meet the Project objectives and implement the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan, the Alternative Site for consideration in this analysis could include other parcels within the Southeast Focus Area. For this Alternative, any development within the Southeast Focus Area would need to be consistent with Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 5.0 Alternatives Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 5-5 the Project, the Project objectives, and development anticipated in these, as presented in the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan. As identified in the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan (Chapter 2, Managing Land Use, Community Design, and Historic Resources), the Southeast Focus Area encompasses the only remaining land in the City devoted to industrial uses. The Southeast Focus Area is primarily accessible from the I-15 and is in the proximity of I-10. The Southeast Focus Area is a source of employment and revenue for the City. The vision for the Southeast Focus Area is as follows: the concentration of heavy industrial uses; supporting infrastructure improvements to attract industrial, manufacturing, and green technology uses; and prevent encroachment of conflicting uses that would diminish the utility of the area for heavy industry. It should be noted that although there are existing light industrial warehouse uses in the Southwest Focus Area, planned residential neighborhoods border the area to the southwest and the northeast. The vision for the Southwest Focus Area as presented in the General Plan is for commercial and community service uses, implement improvements that reduce truck traffic impacts on the residential neighborhoods, and encouraging the reuse and rehabilitation of historic or high-quality buildings. Therefore, consideration of Project implementation at an Alternative Site in the Southwest Focus Area may not be consistent with the General Plan vision and is not further addressed. Under existing conditions, the majority of the Southeast Focus Area is developed, with the exception of several vacant parcels. There is no large, undeveloped site in this Focus Area that is similar in size to the Project site (approximately 91.4 acres) that can accommodate the same development proposed by the Project. Other parcels are developed with industrial or other non-residential uses. Consolidating an Alternative Site that is the same size as the Project site would require acquisition of contiguous property, demolition of existing operational structures, and discontinuing existing land uses, which is likely to disrupt existing businesses and operations, and would result in environmental impacts similar to those identified for the Project. These conditions also apply to other areas designated for industrial uses in the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan outside of the Southeast Focus Area. As identified in the analysis presented in Sections 4.1 through 4.15 of this Draft EIR, with adherence to applicable regulations required of any similar development in the City, and implementation of Project-level mitigation measures, the Project would result in no impacts, less than significant impacts or less than significant impacts with mitigation for the identified topical issues. The impacts of the Project could be similar at an Alternative Site because development of the Project at an Alternative Site would only move Project impacts to a different location, thus, resulting in a similar construction impact area, types of land uses, and Project size and would be subject to the same regulatory requirements and mitigation measures. The Project’s potentially significant impacts related to encountering previously undiscovered cultural resources, tribal cultural resources, and paleontological resources during excavation would be reduced to levels considered less than significant with implementation of Project-level mitigation measures. This impact would be similar to any other sites in the Southeast Focus Area. Construction-related air quality impacts are primarily associated with the use of heavy equipment. These potential impacts are also likely to occur at other sites in the Southeast Focus Area. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 5.0 Alternatives Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 5-6 The Project’s construction-related noise impact is associated with increased noise levels that would occur at the West Valley Detention Center. This impact would occur with construction at any site in the vicinity of the Detention Center or near another sensitive receiver. Although this temporary impact could potentially be avoided with construction at a site at a further distance or that is not near a sensitive receiver, the Project’s impact is less than significant with mitigation. The Project-related increase in truck and vehicular trips and the associated air pollutant emissions, off- site increases in traffic-related noise, and GHG emissions, which would be less than significant with the Project, would also occur at a similar level of significance with development at an Alternative site. Further, there are no sensitive receptors immediately adjacent to the Project site, including the West Valley Detention Center, that would be significantly impacted due to on-site operations associated with the Project, whereas sensitive receptors may or may not be located adjacent to an Alternative Site. Lastly, the Project Applicant does not own and is not involved in the acquisition of any property in the Southeast Focus Area or any other location in the City that could accommodate the Project, other than the Project site. It would not be feasible for the owner to control or otherwise have access to another site of a similar size to the Project site. Therefore, locating the Project at other parcels within the Southeast Focus Area would require lot consolidation, demolition, and displacement of existing land uses to provide a site similar to the size of the Project site (approximately 91.4 acres). CEQA does not require the consideration of infeasible sites that are not owned by the landowner or that could not be reasonably acquired by the landowner to be analyzed as alternatives to the Project (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.6[f][1]). Further analysis of an alternative site(s) in this Draft EIR is not required. 5.2.2 ALTERNATIVE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT ON-SITE It is typical to consider alternative development scenarios for a Project (reduced intensity, reduced development area, alternative site plan, alternative use, etc.) when identifying potential alternatives to avoid or reduce potential significant impacts resulting from construction or operation of a project to a less than significant level. As previously identified, and as demonstrated through the analysis presented in Section 4.1 through Section 4.15 of this Draft EIR, the Project would not result in any significant and unavoidable impacts. The Project’s potentially significant impacts are less than significant with incorporation of mitigation measures. Alternative development scenarios that involve reuse of the existing warehouse building on-site are addressed in Section 5.3, Alternatives Analysis, below. Implementation of an alternative development scenario at the Project site that involves redevelopment of the Project site, and that could potentially meet the established Project objectives, would require the removal of the existing buildings and associated facilities, site preparation, grading/excavation, building construction and utility installation (including subsurface detention chambers). All project impacts that require Project-level mitigation are associated with construction activities, not operation, and would therefore also occur under a potential alternative redevelopment scenario on-site. For that reason, as discussed further below, there is no need to further evaluate alternative redevelopment scenarios. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 5.0 Alternatives Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 5-7 Following is an explanation for each topical issue as to why further consideration of alternative scenarios that involve redevelopment of the Project site is not warranted. A. Aesthetics As discussed above, the Project requires a General Plan Amendment and Zoning Map Amendment to provide a consistent industrial zoning across the Project site. As identified in Section 4.1, Aesthetics, of this Draft EIR, the Project would not result in any significant aesthetics impacts during construction or operation, including an adverse effect on a scenic vista, damage of scenic resources within a state scenic highway, conflict with a regulation governing scenic quality, or substantial light or glare. No mitigation is required. Redevelopment of the Project site with an alternative redevelopment scenario would be required to comply with the City’s regulations related to aesthetics and may have similar less than significant impacts as the Project. There is no need to further evaluate alternative redevelopment scenarios to address the Project’s less than significant aesthetics impacts. B. Air Quality As identified in Section 4.2, Air Quality, of this Draft EIR, the Project would result in less than significant air quality impacts (construction-related and operational). The Project’s less than significant air quality impacts are primarily based on consistency of the Project with land use and growth assumptions in the City’s General Plan and the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG)’s regional planning documents, and elimination of air pollutant emissions generated by operation of the existing warehouse building and retail building on-site. The Project would adhere to applicable South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) regulatory requirements (refer to RR 2-1 through RR 2-5) addressing emissions during construction and operation, and would incorporate a mitigation measure (refer to MM 2-1) to reduce air pollutant emissions during construction, which would reduce impacts to a less than significant level. Redevelopment of the Project site with an alternative redevelopment scenario may result in similar construction-related air quality impacts as alternative redevelopment scenarios are anticipated to have similar construction activities as the Project (e.g., demolition, grading/excavation, building construction, installation of infrastructure, architectural coatings, etc.). Additionally, any reduction in operational emissions would not avoid a significant Project impact as the Project’s operational impacts are less than significant. Therefore, there is no need to further evaluate alternative redevelopment scenarios to address the Project’s less than significant air quality impacts. C. Biological Resources As identified in Section 4.3, Biological Resources, of this Draft EIR, due to historic and existing land uses, no native plant communities or natural communities of special concern occur on or adjacent to the Project site. The land cover types present include “disturbed” and “developed”. Additionally, there are heritage trees located on-site, primarily in the landscaped area long 4th Street. The Project would not impact sensitive plant or wildlife species or sensitive natural community; would not impact wetlands or any area under the jurisdiction of the United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Board), or California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW); would not interfere with wildlife movement; and would not conflict with an Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 5.0 Alternatives Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 5-8 approved habitat conservation plan. Further, with adherence to applicable federal and state regulations to protect nesting avian species (refer to RR 3-1 and RR 3-2), and City regulations addressing removal of trees (refer to RR 3-3 and RR 3-4), the Project would have a less than significant impact to nesting avian species, and associated with the removal of trees. Potential indirect impacts to an ephemeral channel and water detention basin located east of the Project site, outside of the Project’s impact limits, would be less than significant with adherence to regulations addressing water quality protection during construction, as discussed under Hydrology and Water Quality, below. Redevelopment of the Project site may have the same physical impact area, and may result in the same less than significant impacts as the Project. Therefore, there is no need to further evaluate alternative redevelopment scenarios to address the Project’s less than significant biological resource impacts. D. Cultural Resources As identified in Section 4.4, Cultural Resources, of this Draft EIR, the Project would not impact any known historic or archaeological resources. The Project would have the potential to encounter cultural resources and human remains during construction, resulting in a potentially significant impact. This impact is mitigated to a level considered less than significant with adherence to regulations identifying actions to take if human remains are encountered (refer to RR 4-1), and Project-level mitigation measures (refer to MM 4-1 and MM 4-2) that outline requirements for monitoring during construction and actions to take if cultural resources are discovered. This potentially significant impact could occur with any redevelopment of the Project site, as redevelopment of Project site would require the removal of existing buildings, installation of new utility infrastructure, and associated excavation. Therefore, this impact would not be reduced or avoided with implementation of alternative redevelopment scenarios. Therefore, there is no need to further evaluate alternative redevelopment scenarios to address impacts related to cultural resources. E. Energy As identified in Section 4.5, Energy, of this Draft EIR, the Project would comply with applicable regulations for energy conservation (e.g., Title 24 Building and Energy Efficiency Standards, the California Green Building Standards Code, and the City of Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code), and idling restrictions for construction vehicles (refer to RR 5-1), and would not result in any significant energy impacts. No mitigation is required. Any alternative development scenario involving redevelopment of the Project site would also be required to comply with applicable regulations related to energy conservation and may result in less than significant impacts similar to the Project. Therefore, there is no need to further evaluate alternative redevelopment scenarios to address the Project’s less than significant energy impacts. F. Geology and Soils As identified in Section 4.6, Geology and Soils, with adherence to state and local building code requirements, regulatory requirements (RR 6-1 through RR 6-4), and adherence to recommendations outlined in the Project-specific geotechnical report (which is ensured with implementation of RR 6-2), the Project would not result in any significant impacts associated with geotechnical conditions. Further, Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 5.0 Alternatives Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 5-9 any new development at the Project site under alternative redevelopment scenarios would be subject to the same geotechnical constraints and similar recommendations to address these constraints. With respect to paleontological resources, excavation activities during construction to remove existing foundations and to install utility infrastructure would likely extend into native soil formations that have high sensitivity for paleontological resources, resulting in a potentially significant impact. This impact is mitigated to a level considered less than significant with Project-level mitigation measure (refer to MM 6-1) that outlines requirements for monitoring during construction and actions to take if paleontological resources are discovered. This potentially significant impact would occur with any redevelopment of the Project site, as redevelopment of Project site would require the removal of existing buildings, installation of new utility infrastructure, and associated excavation. Therefore, this impact would not be reduced or avoided with implementation of alternative redevelopment scenarios. Therefore, there is no need to further evaluate alternative redevelopment scenarios to address impacts related to geology and soils. G. Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions As identified in Section 4.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of this Draft EIR, the Project would result in less than significant GHG emissions impacts. The Project’s less than significant impact associated with GHG emissions is a result of the elimination of existing GHG emissions generated associated with reuse of the existing warehouse and retail building. The Project also would be consistent with the City of Rancho Cucamonga Sustainable Community Action Plan and other plans, policies and regulations addressing GHG emissions. Any alternative development scenario involving redevelopment of the Project site would eliminate GHG emissions from use of the existing buildings and may result in similar less than significant GHG emissions as the Project from construction and operation. Therefore, there is no need to further evaluate alternative redevelopment scenarios to address the Project’s less than significant GHG impacts. H. Hazards and Hazardous Materials As identified in Section 4.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of this Draft EIR, with adherence to applicable regulations (refer to RR 8-1 through RR 8-4), the Project would have no impact or a less than significant impact related to hazards and hazardous materials (e.g., transport, use and disposal of hazardous materials; release of hazardous materials and hazardous emissions; location on a hazardous materials site; hazards from airport operations; emergency response/evacuation; and wildland fires). Any alternative development scenario involving redevelopment of the Project site may have similar less than significant impacts as the Project associated with construction and operation related to hazards and hazardous materials. Therefore, there is no need to further evaluate alternative redevelopment scenarios to address the Project’s less than significant hazards and hazardous materials impacts. I. Hydrology and Water Quality As discussed in Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, of this Draft EIR, with adherence to applicable water quality regulations (as required by regulatory requirements RR 9-1 through RR 9-3), Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 5.0 Alternatives Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 5-10 the Project would have no impact or less than significant impacts related to hydrology and water quality. Notably, the Project would retain existing drainage patterns, would not increase the amount of water entering the public storm drain system, and would implement structural and non-structural water quality best management practice (BMPs), which do not currently exist at the Project site. Due to the depth of groundwater below the ground surface (bgs), the Project does not involve the extraction of groundwater. Additionally, the Project would not conflict with the Basin Plan or a Sustainable Groundwater Management Plan. Redevelopment at the Project site under an alternative development scenario would be subject to the same existing regulations and may have similar less than significant impacts as the Project. Therefore, there is no need to further evaluate alternative redevelopment scenarios to address the Project’s less than significant hydrology and water quality impacts. J. Land Use and Planning As discussed in Section 4.10, Land Use and Planning, of this Draft EIR, the Project involves the development of industrial uses that are consistent with land use and growth assumptions for the Southeast Focus Area, as outlined in the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan, as well as applicable goals and policies of the General Plan. The Project includes proposed amendments to the General Plan and Zoning Map to provide consistent zoning across the site; these amendments would not alter the types of use allowed at the Project site. The Project is also consistent with goals and policies outlined in SCAG’s 2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (2016 RTP/SCS) and 2020 RTP/SCS (Connect SoCal). Notably, the Project addresses regional needs related to goods movement as presented in the RTP/SCS. Redevelopment of the Project site with an alternative development scenario that meets the Project objectives, is consistent with existing zoning and land use, and is consistent with local and regional planning programs also may have similar less than significant land use impacts as the Project. An alternative redevelopment scenario that is not consistent with the existing zoning and land use designation, or that conflicts with local and regional programs would have greater impacts compared to the Project. Therefore, there is no need to further evaluate alternative redevelopment scenarios to address the Project’s less than significant land use and planning impacts. K. Noise As discussed in Section 4.11, Noise, of this Draft EIR, the Project would have a less than significant impact related to operational noise, and vibration (construction-related and operation). Operation of an alternative redevelopment scenario that meets the Project objectives and is consistent with the industrial zoning and land use designation for the Project site could generate similar operational noise as the Project, and operations at the Project site when it was previously occupied; operational noise impacts may be less than significant similar to the Project. Due to similar types of construction activities and operations, as with the Project, vibration impacts may also be less significant similar to the Project. The Project and any alternative redevelopment scenario would have no impact related to noise from airport operations because the Project site is outside the 60 dBA CNEL airport noise impact zone for the Ontario International Airport (ONT). Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 5.0 Alternatives Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 5-11 The Project would have potentially significant impacts related to construction noise; however, this impact would be reduced to a less than significant level with installation of a temporary noise barrier at the eastern property line shared with the West Valley Detention Center during construction and use of properly operating and maintained mufflers and directing stationary construction equipment away noise sensitive receivers (refer to MM 11-1 and MM 11-2). Construction of an alternative redevelopment scenario would also involve construction near the West Valley Detention Center and may have similar less than significant construction-related noise impacts as the Project; MM 11-1 and MM 11-2 would also apply to an alternative redevelopment scenario. Therefore, there is no need to further evaluate alternative redevelopment scenarios to address the Project’s less than significant noise and vibration impacts. L. Population and Housing As discussed in Section 4.12, Population and Housing, of this Draft EIR, the Project does not involve the development of residential use and would not result in any direct population growth in the City. Additionally, since the Project site does not contain any residential structures, the Project would not displace substantial number of existing housing or people that would necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. The Project involves the development of industrial uses that would generate new employment opportunities at the Project site. Because the building tenants are not currently known, the types of employment opportunities that would be generated are not known. However, with a limited net increase in new employment opportunities compared to use of the existing buildings (projected as 277 employees), and no direct population growth through construction of residential uses, means the Project would not result in unplanned population growth in the area. The Project’s impacts to population and housing would be less than significant. An alternative redevelopment scenario involving development of non-residential uses at the Project site consistent with the current land use and zoning designations may have similar less than significant impacts to population and housing as the Project. Therefore, there is no need to further evaluate alternative redevelopment scenarios to address the Project’s less than significant population and housing impacts. M. Transportation As discussed in Section 4.13, Transportation, of this Draft EIR, with adherence to applicable regulatory requirement (refer to RR 13-1 though RR 13-5), the Project would have less than significant transportation impacts during construction and operation. The Project would not conflict with local and regional plans, policies or ordinances related to vehicular and non-vehicular circulation. Additionally, the Project would have a less than significant impact related to VMT, and would not conflict with or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b). Further, the Project has been designed to adhere to the City’s requirements for access, sight distance, accessibility, etc. and would have a less than significant impact related to increased hazards due to design or incompatible uses, and emergency access. Construction and operation of an alternative redevelopment scenario that meets the Project objectives, involves non-residential development consistent with the current land use and zoning designations, adheres to the City’s requirements for circulation and access and applicable regulatory requirements, Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 5.0 Alternatives Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 5-12 may have similar less than significant transportation impacts as the Project. Therefore, there is no need to further evaluate alternative redevelopment scenarios to address the Project’s less than significant transportation impacts. N. Tribal Cultural Resources As discussed in Section 4.14, Tribal Cultural Resources, of this Draft EIR, excavation activities during construction to remove existing foundations and to install utility infrastructure would extend into previously undisturbed sediment. There is a low potential for previously undiscovered tribal cultural resources or Native American human remains could be encountered. With implementation of required mitigation measures (MM 14-1 through MM 14-6) and regulatory requirement RR 4-1 which require monitoring of construction activities by an archaeologist, and outline actions to take in the event any resources or human remains are discovered, respectively, the Project’s potential impacts to tribal cultural resources would be less than significant. The potential to encounter tribal cultural resources and human remains would occur with any redevelopment of the Project site, as redevelopment of Project site would require the removal of existing buildings and installation of new utility infrastructure, and associated excavation. Therefore, this less than significant impact would not be reduced or avoided with implementation of alternative redevelopment scenarios and there is no need to further evaluate alternative redevelopment scenarios to address impacts to tribal cultural resources. O. Utilities and Service Systems As discussed in Section 4.15, Utilities and Service Systems, with adherence to regulatory requirements (refer to RR 15-1 through RR 15-5) and state and local regulations addressing energy and water conservation, the Project would have less than significant impacts related to utilities and service systems and no mitigation is required. The Project can be served by existing utility infrastructure located in the roadways surrounding the Project site. The Project would include the installation of new utility infrastructure on-site and connections to existing site-adjacent utilities. The Project would result in an increase in water consumption and wastewater generation compared to the existing buildings on- site; however, the water and wastewater service providers for the site have adequate supplies and capacity to serve the Project. Further, construction and operation would adhere to applicable regulations for solid waste management and diversion of waste from the existing landfills. An alternative redevelopment scenario involving development of non-residential uses at the Project site consistent with the current land use and zoning designations may have similar less than significant impacts related to utilities and service systems as the Project. Therefore, there is no need to further evaluate alternative redevelopment scenarios to address the Project’s less than significant utility and service system impacts. P. Conclusion In summary, the analysis above demonstrates that redevelopment of the Project site under alternative redevelopment scenario, which meets the Project objectives, adheres to existing regulations and regulatory requirements, and implements non-residential uses consistent with existing land use designations, would not avoid or otherwise reduce the Project’s potentially significant impacts. Each of the Project’s impacts that are potentially significant prior to implementation of Project-level Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 5.0 Alternatives Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 5-13 mitigation measures are associated with construction activities, may also occur with alternative development scenarios, and the same mitigation requirements would apply. The Project’s operational impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required; therefore, there is no need to consider alternative redevelopment scenarios to address operation. Consideration of an alternative redevelopment scenario that involves a different land use type (e.g., residential) does not need to be further evaluated as it would not be consistent with development anticipated in the Southeast Focus Area, as identified in the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan, and would not meet any of the Project objectives. An alternative with reduced construction activities could potentially avoid the Project construction- related impacts that require mitigation. This alternative concept is effectively addressed under the No Project/No Development Alternative – Reuse of Existing Buildings, below. 5.3 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS As described in Sections 4.1 through 4.15 of this Draft EIR, and summarized above, while an EIR was prepared, all potentially significant impacts of the Project can be mitigated to a less than significant level. There are no significant and unavoidable impacts. When considering potential alternatives to the Project, the City focuses on alternatives that would avoid or reduce the potentially significant impacts. As discussed previously, because the Project’s potentially significant impacts, prior to mitigation, are related to construction, the only type of development that would reduce or avoid these impacts would involve reduced construction activities. This could potentially be accomplished with reuse of one or more of the existing buildings rather than removal of the existing buildings and redevelopment of the Project site as proposed with Project. As analyzed in 5.2, Alternatives Considered But Not Carried Forward For Detailed Analysis, there is no need to further evaluate development of the Project at an alternative site within the City of Rancho Cucamonga, or an alternative redevelopment scenario involving redevelopment of the Project site. For the alternative evaluated below, it is assumed that relevant regulatory requirements, PDFs, and Project-specific mitigation measures would also be implemented and thus serve to reduce or avoid potential significant impacts similar to the Project. 5.3.1 NO PROJECT/NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE Section 15126.6(e) of the CEQA Guidelines requires than an EIR evaluate a “no project” alternative to allow decision makers to compare the impacts of approving a Project with the impacts of not approving that project. Section 15126.6(e)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines describes the two general types of no project alternative: (1) when the project is the revision of an existing land use or regulatory plan, policy, or ongoing operation, the no project alternative would be the continuation of that plan; and (2) when the project is other than a land use/regulatory plan (such as a specific development on an identifiable property), the no project alternative is the circumstance under which the project does not proceed. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 5.0 Alternatives Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 5-14 Under the No Project/No Action Alternative, the existing warehouse building, retail building, and associated facilities on the Project site would be retained, but they would remain vacant with no associated operations. As described previously, the Project site is currently occupied by a former Big Lots warehouse building and retail building. The Project site includes 23,240- sf retail building and a 1,431,000-sf warehouse building. The No Project/No Action represents both types of no project alternatives outlined in the CEQA Guidelines: (1) continuation of development consistent with the existing land use and zoning designations, and (2) assumes the Project does not proceed (leaving the existing warehouse building and retail building on-site). The No Project/No Action Alternative would avoid the Project’s less than significant impacts; however, such an alternative would not meet the Project objectives, would not realize any of the Project’s design benefits associated with new development, would not meet current City design standards, and also has potential for negative effects associated with urban blight and safety and security issues. 5.3.2 NO PROJECT/NO DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVE– REUSE OF EXISTING BUILDINGS A. Description of the Alternative As described previously, the Project site is currently occupied by a 1,431,000- sf former Big Lots warehouse building and a 23,240- sf for Big Lots retail building. Big Lots vacated the Project site in February 2020 and the buildings are currently vacant. Under No Project/No Development – Reuse of Existing Buildings Alternative (No Project/No Development Alternative), the existing warehouse building, retail building, and associated facilities on the Project site would be retained and reoccupied for use consistent with that allowed by right pursuant to Section 17.30, Allowed Land Use by Base Zoning District, of the City’s Development Code. This includes, but is not limited to, ongoing warehouse and retail uses. It is expected that, depending on the type of use that would occupy the existing buildings, tenant improvements would be needed to accommodate reuse of the buildings; however, these improvements would not require approval of discretionary actions. With respect to roadway and utility infrastructure, this Alternatives analysis assumes that existing circulation patterns would be maintained, and existing utility infrastructure would continue to serve the site. This alternative would not involve implementation of the roadway and infrastructure improvements proposed as part of the Project, including construction of a public roadway that would be implemented with the Project (Street A), and construction of an at-grade crossing of 6th Street at the railroad tracks. The No Project/No Development Alternative represents both types of no project alternatives outlined in Section 15126.6(e)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, discussed previously: (1) continuation of development consistent with the existing land use and zoning designations, and (2) assumes the Project does not proceed (leaving the existing warehouse building and retail building on-site). B. Comparative Analysis of Environmental Impacts Following is a comparative analysis of the No Project/No Development Alternative and the Project. The focus of this analysis is to determine if the No Project/No Development Alternative is capable of eliminating or reducing the potentially significant environmental effects of the Project. As previously noted, the Project would not result in any significant and unavoidable impacts; therefore, the analysis Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 5.0 Alternatives Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 5-15 addresses significant effects that might occur if the identified Project-level mitigation measures are not applied. 1. Aesthetics The No Project/No Development Alternative does not involve any new development or change in current uses, except as necessary to accommodate a future occupant of the existing buildings. There would not be a substantial change in the visual character of the Project site under the No Project/No Development Alternative. The No Project/No Development Alternative would not result in any significant aesthetics impacts, including an adverse effect on a scenic vista, damage to scenic resources within a state scenic highway, conflict with a regulation governing scenic quality, or substantial light or glare. No significant aesthetic impacts related to aesthetics were identified for the Project and no significant aesthetic impacts would occur under this Alternative. 2. Air Quality The No Project/No Development Alternative would not involve substantial construction activities. While there may be some demolition and building modifications to accommodate a future occupant, it is not expected that there would be any grading or excavation. Therefore, the No Project/No Development Alternative would result in less construction-related air pollutant emissions compared to the Project. However, the Project’s construction-related air quality impacts would be less than significant adherence to regulatory requirements (refer to RR 2-1 and RR 2-2) and with implementation of Project-level mitigation measure MM 2-1. Therefore, the No Project/No Development Alternative would have reduced impacts as compared to the Project; however, the No Project/No Development Alternative would not avoid any significant construction-related air quality impacts. The No Project/No Development Alternative would involve some type of industrial and retail operation at the Project site. As discussed in Section 4.2, of this Draft EIR, when taking into consideration the elimination of air pollutant emissions from the existing warehouse and retail buildings, the net air pollutant emission with the Project would be less than significant and less than emissions associated with operation of the Project site with a warehouse building and a retail building, with the exception of VOC and PM10 emissions. The Project’s increase in VOC and PM10 emissions would be less than significant. The No Project/No Development Alternative would be consistent with the SCAQMD Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) because it would involve no change in use compared to existing conditions. The Project would also be consistent with the AQMP. Additionally, the existing buildings on-site would operate in compliance with applicable regulations (including those identified in RR 2-3 through RR 2-4) and would not significantly impact sensitive receptors, consistent with the Project. Therefore, the No Project/No Development Alternative, assuming continued use of the site with warehouse and retail operations, would potentially have greater operational air quality impacts compared to the Project, but impacts would be less than significant, consistent with the Project. 3. Biological Resources As identified in Section 4.3, of this Draft EIR, the Project would involve the removal of existing vegetation on-site, including mature trees that meet the criteria to be considered heritage trees; Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 5.0 Alternatives Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 5-16 however, direct and indirect impacts to biological resources would be less than significant with adherence to regulatory requirements (refer to RR 3-1 though RR 3-4). The No Project/No Development Alternative would not involve the removal of existing vegetation; therefore, this Alternative would avoid the less than significant impacts to biological resources resulting from the Project. 4. Cultural Resources As identified in Section 4.4 of this Draft EIR, the Project would not impact any historic or known archaeological resources. Therefore, no impact to known historic or archaeological resources would occur with implementation of the No Project/No Development Alternative or the Project. The No Project/No Development Alternative would not involve any excavation or grading activities. Therefore, the potential to discover previously unidentified cultural resources is eliminated. As such, the potential for impacts to cultural resources with the No Project/No Development Alternative would be less than with the Project. However, the Project impacts are considered less than significant with adhere to regulatory requirements (refer to RR 4-1) and incorporation of mitigation measures MM 4- 1 and MM 4-2. Therefore, the No Project/No Development Alternative would not avoid any significant impacts related to cultural resources. 5. Energy As identified in Section 4.5, of this Draft EIR, the Project would comply with applicable regulations for energy conservation, and would not result in any significant energy impacts. The No Project/No Development Alternative would require less electricity use compared to the Project but would require more natural gas, as the Project would not involve the use of natural gas. The existing buildings, which were constructed in the 1980s, do not meet current, more stringent energy requirements including the most current 2019 Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings. The No Project/No Development Alternative would not meet current more stringent energy requirements. The Project would be required to meet the current, more stringent energy requirements including the most current 2019 Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings. Thus, because the Project would be subject to current more stringent energy requirements, the No Project/No Development Alternative would have potentially greater energy impacts related to energy efficiency compared to the Project, although the Project’s impacts would be less than significant. 6. Geology and Soils As discussed in Section 4.6, of this Draft EIR, the Project site is subject to seismic ground shaking; therefore, under the No Project/No Development Alternative existing building on-site would be subject to seismic ground shaking consistent with existing conditions. With adherence to applicable local and state building codes, the Project’s impacts related to exposure to seismic ground shaking would be less than significant. The No Project/No Development Alternative and would not involve grading and excavation; therefore, potential impacts identified for the Project associated with geology and soil conditions would be reduced under the No Project/No Development Alternative. However, the Project Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 5.0 Alternatives Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 5-17 impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, the No Project/No Development Alternative would not avoid any significant impacts related to geology and soils. With respect to paleontological resources, the No Project/No Development Alternative would not involve any excavation or grading activities. Therefore, the potential to discover previously undiscovered paleontological resources is eliminated. As such, the potential for impacts to paleontological resources with the No Project/No Development Alternative would be less than with the Project. However, the Project impacts would be less than significant with implementation of the identified Project-level mitigation measure (refer to MM 6-1). Therefore, the No Project/No Development Alternative would not avoid any significant impacts related to paleontological resources. 7. Greenhouse Gas Emissions As discussed in Section 4.7 of this Draft EIR, the GHG emissions under the No Project/No Development Alternative, which involves reuse of the existing buildings, would be less compared to the Project. However, when taking into consideration the elimination of emissions from the existing buildings, the net GHG emissions with the Project would be less than significant. Therefore, the No Project/No Development Alternative would not avoid any significant impacts related to GHG emissions. The Project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs. The No Project/No Development Alternative would not involve new development at the Project site and would not implement Project components that serve to reduce GHG emissions, such as compliance with current energy conservation requirements, and implementation improvements to encourage non-vehicular circulation. However, the reuse of buildings under the No Project/No Development Alternative would not be required to comply with any current regulations related to efficient use of energy under Title 24 as the existing building was built under the prior energy code. Therefore, the No Project/No Development Alternative would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs, resulting in a less than significant impact, consistent with the Project. 8. Hazards and Hazardous Materials As identified in Section 4.8, of this Draft EIR, with adherence to applicable regulations (refer to RR 8- 1 through RR 8-4), the Project would have no impact or a less than significant impact related to hazards and hazardous materials. The No Project/No Development Alternative would also be operated in compliance with applicable regulations and would have a less than significant impact related to transport, use and disposal of hazardous materials; and, release of hazardous materials and hazardous emissions. Additionally, consistent with the Project, the No Project/No Development Alternative would have no impact or a less than significant impact related to its location on a hazardous materials site, hazards from airport operations, emergency response/evacuation, and wildland fires. Therefore, the No Project/No Development Alternative would not avoid any significant impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 5.0 Alternatives Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 5-18 9. Hydrology and Water Quality Under the No Project/No Development Alternative, the existing hydrology and drainage patterns of the Project site would remain. As discussed in Section 4.9, of this Draft EIR, with implementation of detention basins in each truck yard as part of the Project, discharge from the Project site would occur at slightly reduced peak flow rates compared to the 100-year existing condition scenario, and would not have a negative impact downstream. Additionally, in compliance with existing regulations (refer to RR 9-2 and RR 9-3), the Project would involve the installation of structural and non-structural BMPs for water quality treatment, which do not exist under existing conditions. Therefore, the No Project/No Development Alternative and the Project would have less than significant impacts associated with the amount of stormwater runoff; however, the No Project/No Development Alternative would have greater water quality impacts during operation. The No Project/No Development Alternative would not include any grading or substantial construction activities, and construction-related water quality impacts would be less than the Project. However, the Project’s impacts would be less than significant with adherence to applicable water quality regulations associated with construction activities (refer to RR 9-1). The Project site is not located within a flood hazard zone, an area subject to inundation from seiche or tsunami, or in a groundwater recharge area. Additionally, groundwater would not be encountered during construction. Therefore, the No Project/No Development Alternative and the Project would have no impacts related to flooding, release of pollutants due to inundation, or groundwater supplies. Further, as with the Project, the No Project/No Development Alternative, which involves use of existing buildings, would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan. 10. Land Use and Planning Under the No Project/No Development Alternative, the existing uses would be retained and there would be no division of an established community, consistent with the Project. Additionally, the No Project/No Development Alternative, which retain existing uses, would not conflict with goals and/or policies SCAG’s RTP/SCS, the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan, or other applicable plans and programs. While the No Project/No Development Alternative would not conflict with planning programs, it would not meet all of the goals and policies to the same extent as the Project. Notably, the No Project/No Development Alternative does not meet the vision for the Southeast Focus Area to the same extent as the Project because it would not “support infrastructure improvements to attract industrial, manufacturing, and green technology uses”. Further, the No Project/No Development Alternative would not accommodate revitalization of the area, which the General Plan anticipates for the Southeast Focus Area. The No Project/No Development Alternative would also not implement a Project that would further regional goals outlined in SCAG’s RTP/SCS to improve goods movement, to facilitate transit and active transportation, or to improve energy efficiency. However, because it does not conflict with the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan or other Planning document, the No Project/No Development Alternative would not result in any significant land use impacts, consistent with the Project. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 5.0 Alternatives Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 5-19 11. Noise The No Project/No Development Alternative would not involve construction activities to the same extent as the Project; therefore, noise and vibration effects associated with construction would be less than the Project. However, the Project’s construction-related noise impacts would be less than significant with implementation of mitigation measures MM 11-1 and MM 11-2. Therefore, the No Project/No Development Alternative would not avoid any significant impacts related to noise during construction. Similar to the Project, operational activities associated with the No Project/No Development Alternative have the potential to generate noise, and it is expected that noise from operations under the No Project/No Development Alternative would be similar to noise generated by the former Big Lots operations and from the Project. The No Project/No Development Alternative and Project would have less than significant noise and vibration impacts. 12. Population and Housing As with the Project, the No Project/No Development Alternative would not displace any existing housing or people. However, the No Project/No Development Alternative would generate a fewer employment opportunities associated with non-residential industrial uses on the Project site as compared to the employment that would be generated with implementation of the Project. The No Project/No Development Alternative and Project would have less than significant population and housing impacts. 13. Transportation The No Project/No Development Alternative would not involve any roadway or circulation improvements, including providing new or replacement sidewalks along 4th Street and 6th Street, construction of a new public roadway (Street A) with a sidewalk, and providing Class II bicycle lanes adjacent to the Project site. Therefore, the No Project/No Development Alternative would not meet the circulation goals and policies outlined in the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan and SCAG’s RTP/SCS related to pedestrian and bicycle travel and transit, which are addressed in Table 4.10-1 in Section 4.10, and Table 4.13-3 in Section 4.13, respectively, to the same extent as the Project. However, similar to the Project, the No Project/No Development Alternative would have a less than significant impact related to conflict with a circulation plan or policy. As discussed in Section 4.13, the Project would have a less than significant impact related to VMT, and would not conflict with or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b). The No Project/No Development Alternative, which would involve the reuse of the existing buildings on-site, would not include any features that would increase the rate or length of trips, would have a less than significant transportation impact based on VMT, and would not conflict with or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b). Further, the No Project/No Development Alternative would maintain the existing circulation system and would not cause any impacts related to increased hazards due to design or incompatible uses, and emergency access, similar to the Project. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 5.0 Alternatives Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 5-20 Therefore, the No Project/No Development Alternative and the Project would have less than significant impacts related to transportation. 14. Tribal Cultural Resources The No Project/No Development Alternative would not involve any excavation or grading activities. Therefore, the potential to discover previously undiscovered tribal cultural resources, which is a potential impact of the Project, is eliminated. As such, the potential for impacts to tribal cultural resources with the No Project/No Development Alternative would be less than with the Project. However, the Project impacts are considered less than significant with incorporation of mitigation measures (refer to MM 14-1 through MM 14-6). Therefore, the No Project/No Development Alternative would not avoid any significant impacts related to tribal cultural resources. 15. Utilities and Service Systems Although there would be no new development under the No Project/No Development Alternative, continued use of the Project site with warehouse and retail operations would result in demands for utilities and service systems similar to the previous Big Lots operations. However, as with the Project and consistent with existing conditions, the existing utility infrastructure would be sufficient to serve the Project and impacts would be less than significant. Operations under the No Project/No Development Alternative and the Project would be conducted in compliance with applicable regulations addressing solid waste management and impacts related to solid waste generation would be less than significant. C. Conclusions Avoid or Substantially Lessen the Significant Impacts of the Project As presented in Sections 4.1 through 4.15 of this Draft EIR, the Project would not result in any significant and unavoidable impacts; therefore, the No Project/No Development Alternative would not avoid or substantially lessen a significant and unavoidable impact. Project-level mitigation measures are required to reduce potentially significant impacts to levels considered less than significant for the following topical issues: air quality (due to construction-related emissions), cultural resources (due to the potential to encounter previously undiscovered cultural resources), geology and soils (due to the potential to encounter previously undiscovered paleontological resources), noise (due to construction- related noise), and tribal cultural resources (due to the potential to encounter undiscovered tribal cultural resources). These potentially significant impacts are associated with construction activities, not operation of the Project. As described above, the No Project/No Development Alternative would have a similar lack of impacts, or less than significant impacts, as the Project related to aesthetics, biological resources, geology and soils (related to seismic ground shaking and soil conditions), hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology/drainage and groundwater, land use and planning, operational noise, population and housing, transportation, and utilities and service systems. Therefore, the No Project/No Development Alternative would not avoid or substantially lessen Project impact related to these issues. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 5.0 Alternatives Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 5-21 The Project and No Project/No Development Alternative would also have less than significant impacts for the following topics; however, the No Project/No Development Alternative would have less impacts: construction-related air quality emissions, biological resources, cultural resources, GHG emissions, geology and soils (related to paleontological resources), and tribal cultural resources. Notably, the No Project/No Development Alternative would avoid potentially significant impacts related to cultural resources, paleontological resources, and tribal cultural resources that require Project-level mitigation to reduce the impact to a less than significant level. The Project and No Project/No Development Alternative would have less than significant impacts for the following topics; however, the No Project/No Development Alternative would have potentially greater impacts: energy conservation; conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs; and water quality impacts during operations. Attainment of Project Objectives The discussion below addresses the ability of the No Project/No Development Alternative to attain the project objectives. 1. Ensure that development of the Project site is accomplished consistent with applicable goals and policies of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as set forth in the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan. The No Project/No Development Alternative would not involve redevelopment of the Project site, rather it would involve the reuse of existing buildings and facilities at the Project site for continued warehouse and retail uses. Additionally, as discussed under “Land Use and Planning,” above, the No Project/No Development Alternative would not further achievement of planning objectives outlined in the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan. Therefore, while the No Project/No Development Alternative meets the intent of this Project objective, it does not meet it to the same extent as the Project. 2. Maximize redevelopment of the existing underutilized Project site and generate increased property tax revenue for the City of Rancho Cucamonga in order to support the City’s ongoing municipal operations. The No Project/No Development Alternative would involve reuse of the existing buildings and would not maximize redevelopment of the underutilized Project site. While the No Project/No Development Alternative would generate revenue consistent with previous use of the site, it would not generate increased revenues. Therefore, the No Project/No Development Alternative would not meet this objective. 3. Maximize development of Class A high cube warehouse industrial buildings in the City of Rancho Cucamonga that are designed to meet contemporary industry standards for operational design criteria, can accommodate a wide variety of users, and are economically competitive with similar industrial buildings in the local area and region. The reuse of the existing buildings on-site, which involves operation of a retail building, and leaving the northern portion of the Project site undeveloped, would not meet this Project objective, which is associated with maximizing development of the Project site through redevelopment and the operation of contemporary high cube warehouse industrial buildings. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 5.0 Alternatives Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 5-22 4.To create employment-generating businesses in the City of Rancho Cucamonga to reduce the need for members of the local workforce to commute outside the area for employment, and to improve the jobs to housing balance. The Project would generate more employment opportunities than what would be generated through reuse of the existing buildings. Therefore, the No Project/No Development Alternative would not achieve this objective to the same extent as the Project. 5.To develop a project with an architectural design and operational characteristics that complement other existing buildings in the immediate vicinity and minimize conflicts with other nearby land uses. Retention of the existing buildings under the No Project/No Development Alternative would not conflict with existing architecture or the operations of nearby uses and would achieve this objective. 6.To maximize industrial warehouse buildings in close proximity to an already- established industrial area, designated truck routes, and the State highway system in order to avoid or shorten truck-trip lengths on other roadways, and avoid locating industrial warehouse buildings in close proximity to residential uses. The reuse of the existing buildings on-site, which involves operation of a retail building, and leaving the northern portion of the Project site undeveloped, would not maximize the amount of available industrial warehouse uses, and would not meet this Project objective. 7.To develop properties that have access to available infrastructure, including roads and utilities to be used as part of the Southern California supply chain and goods movement network. The No Project/No Development Alternative would involve the use of existing buildings and facilities at the Project site for continued warehouse and retail uses. Although existing uses under the No Project/No Development Alternative would continue to operate with service from existing roadways and infrastructure, due to the reduction in warehouse uses, and lack of contemporary buildings, the No Project/No Development Alternative would not meet the intent of this objective to the same extent as the Project relative to supporting goods movement in Southern California. 5.3.3 EXISTING WAREHOUSE AND ADDITIONAL PARKING ALTERNATIVE A.Description of the Alternative Under the Existing Warehouse and Additional Parking Alternative, the existing 1,431,000 sf warehouse building would be retained and operated as a warehouse, and the underutilized northern portion of the Project site would be developed with 530 new trailer parking stalls (refer to Figure 5-1, Existing Warehouse and Additional Parking Alternative). As shown, the existing warehouse would be modified to include up to 54 additional loading dock doors. Additionally, it is also expected that internal improvements to the existing building would be needed to accommodate a tenant. Truck trailer parking would continue to be provided east of the warehouse building. The existing retail building and landscaping in the southern portion of the Project site would be removed and this area would be developed with surface parking (495 parking stalls with a combination of existing and new parking stalls). New landscaping would be installed on-site. This Alternative would require installation of a Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report ·o \ NEW TRAILER PARKING APPROX. 530 STALLS 17.3AC APPROX. 215 EXISTING AUTO STALLS I EXISTING TRAILER PARKING APPROX. 148 STALLS /1/, � UP TO 16 NEW DOCK DOORS � � EXISTING RAIL SPUR TO REMAIN 13 (E) DOCK HIGH--------) EXISTING ONE STORY CONCRETE TILT-UP BUILDING WITH TWO-STORY OFFICE FOOTPRINT AREA: 1,373,000 SF MEZZANINE AREA: 58,000 SF TOTAL EXISTING FLOOR AREA: 1,431,000 SF APPROX. 200 EXISTING AUTO STALLS APPROX. 195 NEW & EXIST AUTO STALLS .,I. APPROX. 100 NEW AUTO STALLS PROJECT DATA 5.0 Alternatives GENERAL PLAN: EXISTING ZONE: PROPOSED ZONE: GENERAL INDUSTRIAL & HEAVY INDUSTRIAL GENERAL INDUSTRIAL (GI) ANO HEAVY INDUSTRIAL (HI) GENERAL INDUSTRIAL (GI) SITE AREA: LEGAL DESCRIPTION FEE: EXISTING 6TH STREET AREA: NET SITE AREA FOR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT: SITE AREA BUILDING AREA FOOTPRINT AREA: MEZZANINE: GROSS FLOOR AREA: BUILDING AREA BY USE: EXISTING BUILDING 3,922,533SF 1,373,000SF 58,000SF 1,431,000SF OFFICE AREA 30,000 SF WAREHOUSE AREA 1,401,000 SF NET COVERAGE: NETF.AR.: LANDSCAPE: PROVIDED: 35.00% 0.357 COVERAGE: -% AREA: -SF AUTO PARKlNG: REQUIRED PARKING: OFFICE@1/250SF 120STALLS WAREHOUSE 1-20KSF 20STALLS 20K-40KSF 10STALLS >40K SF 340STALLS TOTAL 490STALLS PROVIDED PARKING: 710STALLS DOCK LOADING POSITIONS: 116 DOCKS TRAILER PARKING PROVIDED: 818 TRAILERS BICYCLE PARKING: SHORTTERM 36REQ./36PROV. LONG TERM 36 REQ. / 36 PROV. 3,981,084SF/91.39AC 58,562SF/1.34AC 3,922,533 SF/90.49AC Source(s): RGA (10-14-2020) Figure 5-l Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga Existing Warehouse and Additional Parking Alternative SCH No. 2020100056 Page 5-23 Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 5.0 Alternatives Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 5-24 retaining wall between the existing warehouse building in the southern portion of the Project site and new truck trailer parking area in the northern portion of the Project site. Existing circulation patterns would be maintained, and existing utility infrastructure would continue to serve the site. As with the Project, this Alternative would include replacement of existing sidewalks on 4th Street and 6th, and implementation of on-street bikeways along these roadways. In addition to the new truck trailer parking in the northern portion of the Project site, this Alternative would involve construction of the northern portion of Street A, which would terminate with a cul-de-sac before extending into the southern portion of the Project site, and retention of the existing rail spur. Should redevelopment of the southern portion of the Project site be considered in the future, extension of Street A to 4th Street could be completed. Additionally, this Alternative does not involve the construction of an at-grade crossing of 6th Street at the railroad tracks. For purposes of analysis, it is anticipated that operations under this Alternative could also occur 24 hours per day/7 days per week, consistent with the Project. As shown in Table 5.3-1, Existing Warehouse and Additional Parking Alternative Trip Generation, this Alternative would generate less PM peak hour trips and average daily trips (ADT) compared to reuse of the existing buildings (with no modifications), and a slight increase in AM peak hour trips. Additionally, due to the overall reduction in building intensity, this Alternative would generate less vehicle trips compared to the Project. As discussed in Section 4.13, of this Draft EIR, the Project would result in a net increase of 176 actual AM peak hour trips, 104 actual PM peak hour trips, and 976 ADT. When considering passenger car equivalent (PCE) trip generation, the Project would result in a net increase of 189 actual AM peak hour trips, 110 actual PM peak hour trips, and 1,278 ADT. Table 5.3-1 Existing Warehouse and Additional Parking Alternative Trip Generation Trip Generation Comparison AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Daily In Out Total In Out Total Actual Vehicles: Existing Trip Generation1 108 34 142 86 149 235 3032 Existing Warehouse and Additional Parking Alternative2 168 41 209 86 139 225 2,638 Variance 60 7 67 0 -10 -10 -394 Passenger Car Equivalent (PCE): Existing Trip Generation (PCE)1 134 42 176 97 175 272 3,526 Existing Warehouse and Additional Parking Alternative (PCE)2 195 47 242 96 158 254 3,161 Variance 61 5 66 -1 -17 -18 -365 1 Trip generation for the uses that currently exist. 2 Existing Warehouse and Additional Parking Alternative trip generation. The Existing Warehouse and Additional Parking Alternative would be consistent with the existing land use and zoning designations for the Project site, and associated development standards. Therefore, a General Plan amendment, and Zoning Map amendment would not be required. Further, it is not anticipated that the Project Applicant would enter into a Development Agreement with the City. This Alternative would require a site plan and architectural review, a Tentative Parcel Map, and a tree removal permit. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 5.0 Alternatives Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 5-25 B. Comparative Analysis of Environmental Impacts The following is a comparative analysis of the environmental impacts resulting from the Existing Warehouse and Additional Parking Alternative and the Project. The focus of this analysis is to determine if the Existing Warehouse and Additional Parking Alternative is capable of eliminating or reducing the potentially significant environmental effects of the Project. As previously noted, the Project would not result in any significant and unavoidable impacts, and potentially significant impacts prior to mitigation are associated with construction activities. Therefore, the Existing Warehouse and Additional Parking Alternative is being considered because it would reduce construction-related impacts. 1. Aesthetics The Existing Warehouse and Additional Parking Alternative would primarily involve adding 54 additional loading dock doors to the existing warehouse building, demolition of the retail building, and development of additional parking areas, including truck trailer parking in the northern portion of the Project site. There would not be a substantial change in the visual character of the Project site under the Existing Warehouse and Additional Parking Alternative. The Existing Warehouse and Additional Parking Alternative would not result in any significant aesthetics impacts, including an adverse effect on a scenic vista, damage to scenic resources within a state scenic highway, conflict with a regulation governing scenic quality, or substantial light or glare. No significant aesthetic impacts related to aesthetics were identified for the Project and no significant aesthetic impacts would occur under this Alternative. Therefore, the Existing Warehouse and Additional Parking Alternative would not reduce or avoid any significant impacts related to aesthetics. 2. Air Quality The Existing Warehouse and Additional Parking Alternative would involve construction activities for demolition of the retail building, modifications to the warehouse building and construction of the parking areas. There would be the need for some grading, primarily in the northern portion of the Project site; however, the amount of grading and overall construction activities would be reduced compared to the Project. Therefore, the Existing Warehouse and Additional Parking Alternative would result in less construction-related air pollutant emissions compared to the Project, which would result in potentially significant air quality impacts prior to mitigation (even with adherence to regulatory requirements [refer to RR 2-1 and RR 2-2]). It is expected the construction-related emissions would continue to exceed established regional thresholds of significance and would remain significant due to overlapping construction activities associated with the existing building and the northern parking area. However, the construction-related air quality impacts would be less than significant with the Project and this Alternative with implementation of a Project-specific mitigation measure (refer to MM 2-1). Therefore, the Existing Warehouse and Additional Parking Alternative, which would also adhere to applicable regulations that address construction-related air pollutant emissions and would implement the Project-specific mitigation measures, would not avoid any significant construction-related air quality impacts. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 5.0 Alternatives Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 5-26 Similar to the Project, the Existing Warehouse and Additional Parking Alternative would involve high- cube warehouse operations at the Project site. However, air pollutant emissions resulting from this Alternative would be reduced compared to the Project due to the reduced building area on the site and associated reduction in trip generation. Any operations at the Project site would be conducted in adherence to applicable regulations (refer to RR 2-3 and RR 2-4) and potential impacts to sensitive receptors would be similar to or less than the Project. In addition, odor emissions under this Alternative would be similar to those associated with the Project, would adhere to existing regulations (refer to RR 2-5) and would be less than significant. The Existing Warehouse and Additional Parking Alternative would be consistent with the SCAQMD AQMP because it would involve no change in land use compared to existing conditions and would not exceed established regional or localized significance thresholds for air pollutants. The Project would also be consistent with the AQMP. Therefore, the Existing Warehouse and Additional Parking Alternative would have reduced operational air quality impacts compared to the Project; however, the Project’s impacts would be less than significant. While the air quality impacts resulting from the Existing Warehouse and Additional Parking Alternative would be less than with the Project, the Project’s impacts are less than significant with mitigation. Therefore, the Existing Warehouse and Additional Parking Alternative would not avoid any significant air quality impacts. 3. Biological Resources As previously discussed, no native plant communities or natural communities of special concern occur on or adjacent to the Project site. The land cover types present include “disturbed” and “developed”. Additionally, there are heritage trees located on-site, primarily in the landscaped area long 4th Street. The Project would not impact sensitive plant or wildlife species or sensitive natural community; would not impact wetlands or any area under the jurisdiction of the Corps, Regional Board, or CDFW; would not interfere with wildlife movement; and would not conflict with an approved habitat conservation plan. Furthermore, with adherence to applicable federal and state regulations to protect nesting avian species (refer to RR 3-1 and RR 3-2), and City regulations addressing removal of trees (refer to RR 3- 3 and RR 3-4), the Project would have a less than significant impact to nesting avian species and removal of trees. No mitigation is required. The Existing Warehouse and Additional Parking Alternative would involve the development of the disturbed area in the northern portion of the Project site and removal of on-site trees primarily in the southern portion of the Project site, and would result in similar less than significant impacts as the Project. Therefore, the Existing Warehouse and Additional Parking Alternative would not reduce or avoid any significant impacts related to biological resources. 4. Cultural Resources As identified in Section 4.4 of this Draft EIR, the Project would not impact any historic or archaeological resources. Therefore, no impact to known historic or archaeological resources would occur with implementation of the Existing Warehouse and Additional Parking Alternative or the Project. Although the amount of grading and depth of excavation would be reduced under the Existing Warehouse and Additional Parking Alternative, there would still be a potential to encounter previously undiscovered cultural resources during construction, similar to the Project, resulting in a potentially Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 5.0 Alternatives Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 5-27 significant impact. As with the Project, this impact would be reduced to a level considered less than significant with implementation of Project-specific mitigation measures (refer to MM 4-1 and MM 4- 2). With adherence to RR 4-1 impacts to human remains would be less than significant with implementation of the Project and this Alternative. Therefore, the Existing Warehouse and Additional Parking Alternative would not avoid any significant impacts related to cultural resources. 5. Energy As identified in Section 4.5, of this Draft EIR, the Project would comply with applicable regulations for energy conservation, and would not result in any significant energy impacts. Although the existing warehouse would not be as energy efficient as a new warehouse; any modifications to the existing building would be implemented in accordance with current energy conservation regulations. The Existing Warehouse and Additional Parking Alternative would result in similar less than significant energy impacts. Therefore, the Existing Warehouse and Additional Parking Alternative would not reduce or avoid any significant impacts related to energy. 6. Geology and Soils The Project site is subject to seismic ground shaking, and the Existing Warehouse and Additional Parking Alternative would involve use of an existing building that would be subject to modifications as described previously. Any building modifications would be implemented in accordance with existing building standards and other building regulations (refer to RR 6-1 through RR 6-4). Therefore, the Existing Warehouse and Additional Parking Alternative would have similar less than significant impacts as the Project related to seismic ground shaking. The Existing Warehouse and Additional Parking Alternative would not involve development of a new building; new development would be limited to surface parking areas. New development at the Project site under this Alternative would be subject to the same geotechnical constraints and similar recommendations to address these constraints as the Project. Under the Project and the Existing Warehouse and Additional Parking Alternative, potential impacts related to geotechnical constraints would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. Therefore, the Existing Warehouse and Additional Parking Alternative would not reduce or avoid any significant impacts related to geology and soils. With respect to paleontological resources, the Existing Warehouse and Additional Parking Alternative would not involve any substantial excavation or grading activities. Although the amount of grading and depth of excavation would be reduced under the Existing Warehouse and Additional Parking Alternative, there would still be a potential to encounter previously undiscovered paleontological resources, similar to the Project, resulting in a potentially significant impact. This impact is mitigated to a level considered less than significant with incorporation of the identified Project-level mitigation measure (refer to MM 6-1), that outlines requirements for monitoring during construction and actions to take if paleontological resources are discovered. Therefore, the Existing Warehouse and Additional Parking Alternative would not avoid any significant impacts related to paleontological resources. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 5.0 Alternatives Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 5-28 7.Greenhouse Gas Emissions As identified in Section 4.7, of this Draft EIR, the Project would result in less than significant GHG emissions impacts when taking into consideration the elimination of emissions from operation of the existing buildings. It is expected that GHG emissions under the Existing Warehouse and Additional Parking Alternative would be reduced compared to the Project due to the reduction in construction activities, reduced building area on the site, and reduction in trip generation. As with the Project, the Existing Warehouse and Additional Parking Alternative would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs. Therefore, similar to the Project, the Existing Warehouse and Additional Parking Alternative would have less than significant impacts related to GHG emissions and this Alternative would not reduce or avoid any significant impacts related to GHG emissions. 8.Hazards and Hazardous Materials As identified in Section 4.8 of this Draft EIR, with adherence to applicable regulations, the Project would have no impact or a less than significant impact related to hazards and hazardous materials. Both the Project and the Existing Warehouse and Additional Parking Alternative would be operated in compliance with applicable regulations (refer to RR 8-1 though RR 8-3) and would have a less than significant impact related to transport, use and disposal of hazardous materials; and release of hazardous materials and hazardous emissions. The Project site is within the Airport Influence Area (AIA) established by the LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ONT ALUCP) and with adherence to disclosure requirements (refer to RR 8-4) impacts related to airport operations would also be less than significant. Additionally, consistent with the Project, the Existing Warehouse and Additional Parking Alternative would have no impact or a less than significant impact related to its location on a hazardous materials site, emergency response/evacuation, and wildland fires. Therefore, the Existing Warehouse and Additional Parking Alternative would not reduce or avoid any significant impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials. 9.Hydrology and Water Quality As discussed in Section 4.9 of this Draft EIR, with adherence to applicable water quality regulations (as required by regulatory requirements RR 9-1 through RR 9-3), the Project would have no impact or less than significant impacts related to hydrology and water quality. As with the Project, the Existing Warehouse and Additional Parking Alternative would retain existing drainage patterns. Development of this Alternative, which includes new surface parking areas, would be subject to current hydrology and water quality regulations. Consistent with the Project, this Alternative would not increase the amount of water entering the public storm drain system, and would implement structural and non- structural water quality BMPs, which do not currently exist at the Project site. Due to the depth of groundwater, the Project and this Alternative would not involve the extraction of groundwater. Further, the Project and this Alternative would not conflict with the Basin Plan or a Sustainable Groundwater Management Plan. Therefore, the Existing Warehouse and Additional Parking Alternative would not reduce or avoid any significant impacts related to hydrology and water quality. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 5.0 Alternatives Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 5-29 10.Land Use and Planning Under the Existing Warehouse and Additional Parking Alternative, the existing warehouse building would be retained and the remainder of the Project site would be developed with surface parking area, as allowed by the existing land use designations. Similar to the Project, development of the Project site under this Alternative would not divide an established community. Additionally, the Existing Warehouse and Additional Parking Alternative and the Project would not conflict with any local or regional land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Therefore, the Existing Warehouse and Additional Parking Alternative would not reduce or avoid any significant land use or planning impacts. 11.Noise The Existing Warehouse and Additional Parking Alternative would have reduced construction activities compared to the Project; however, similar to the Project, there would be construction activities with the potential to impact receptors at the West Valley Detention Center, resulting in a potentially significant impact. As with the Project, this impact would be reduced to a level considered less than significant with implementation of Project-specific mitigation, which consists of installation of a temporary noise barrier at the eastern property line during construction and use of properly operating and maintained mufflers and directing stationary construction equipment away noise sensitive receivers (refer to MM 11-1 and MM 11-2). Due to similar types of construction activities, vibration impacts during construction would be less significant with the Project and this Alternative. Operational activities associated with the Project and the Existing Warehouse and Additional Parking Alternative have the potential to generate noise, and it is expected that noise from on-site operations under the Existing Warehouse and Additional Parking Alternative would be similar to noise generated by the former operations at the Project site and by the Project, and would be less than significant. On- site operations with the Project and this Alternative would be conducted in compliance with noise standards established by the City. Due to the reduction in trip generation, the Existing Warehouse and Additional Parking Alternative would generate less traffic-related noise on off-site roadways; however, the Project’s impacts were determined to be less than significant. The Project and the Existing Warehouse and Additional Parking Alternative would have no impact related to noise from airport operations. Therefore, the Existing Warehouse and Additional Parking Alternative would not reduce or avoid any significant noise or vibration impacts. 12.Population and Housing The Existing Warehouse and Additional Parking Alternative would not involve any unplanned population growth and would not displace any existing housing or people. Similar to the Project, the Existing Warehouse and Additional Parking Alternative would generate employment opportunities; however, due to the reduction in building space, the amount of employment generation would be reduced under this Alternative compared to the Project. The Existing Warehouse and Additional Parking Alternative would not reduce or avoid any significant impacts related to population or housing. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 5.0 Alternatives Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 5-30 13.Transportation The Project and the Existing Warehouse and Additional Warehouse Alternative would include the replacement of existing sidewalks and the installation of Class II bicycle lanes along the 4th Street and 6th Street adjacent to the Project site, and the installation of bicycle facilities on-site. The portion of Street A within the northern portion of the Project site would be constructed, and the extension Street A to 4th Street if the future would not be precluded. The Project and this Alternative would also generate employment opportunities near existing transit facilities. Therefore, as with the Project, the Existing Warehouse and Additional Parking Alternative would meet the circulation goals and policies outlined in the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan and SCAG’s RTP/SCS related to pedestrian and bicycle travel and transit, and would not conflict with a circulation plan or policy. As discussed in Section 4.13, the Project would have a less than significant impact related to VMT, and would not conflict with or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b). The Existing Warehouse and Additional Warehouse Alternative would generate less traffic compared to the Project, would also have a less than significant transportation impact based on VMT, and would not conflict with or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b). Further, both the Project and the Existing Warehouse and Additional Parking Alternative would adhere to the City’s requirements for circulation and access (refer to RR 13-1 through RR 13-5) and would not cause any impacts related to increased hazards due to design or incompatible uses, or emergency access. The Existing Warehouse and Additional Parking Alternative and Project would not reduce or avoid any significant impacts related to transportation. 14.Tribal Cultural Resources The Existing Warehouse and Additional Parking Alternative would not involve any substantial excavation or grading activities. Although the amount of grading and depth of excavation would be reduced under the Existing Warehouse and Additional Parking Alternative, there would still be a potential to encounter previously undiscovered tribal cultural resources, similar to the Project, resulting in a potentially significant impact. Similar to the Project, this impact would be reduced to a level considered less than significant with implementation of identified Project-specific mitigation measures (refer to MM 14-1 through MM 14-6). Therefore, the Existing Warehouse and Additional Parking Alternative would not avoid any significant impacts related to tribal cultural resources. 15.Utilities and Service Systems The Existing Warehouse and Additional Parking Alternative would generate less demand for utilities and service systems compared to the Project due to reduction in construction activities, including demolition, and reduction in overall building space. However, as with the Project and consistent with existing conditions, the existing utility infrastructure would be sufficient to serve the Existing Warehouse and Additional Parking Alternative, which would be operated in compliance with applicable regulations (refer to RR 14-1 through RR 14-3), and impacts would be less than significant. Construction and operations under the Existing Warehouse and Additional Parking Alternative and the Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 5.0 Alternatives Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 5-31 Project would be conducted in compliance with applicable regulations addressing solid waste management (refer to RR 14-4 and RR 14-5) and impacts related to solid waste generation would also be less than significant. Therefore, the Existing Warehouse and Additional Parking Alternative would not avoid any significant impacts related to utilities or service systems. C. Conclusions Avoid or Substantially Lessen the Significant Impacts of the Project As presented in Sections 4.1 through 4.15 of this Draft EIR, the Project would not result in any significant and unavoidable impacts; therefore, the Existing Warehouse and Additional Parking Alternative would not avoid or substantially lessen a significant and unavoidable impact. Project-level mitigation measures are required to reduce potentially significant impacts to levels considered less than significant for the following topical issues: air quality (due to construction-related emissions), cultural resources (due to the potential to encounter undiscovered cultural resources), geology and soils (due to the potential to encounter paleontological resources), noise (due to construction-related noise), and tribal cultural resources (due to the potential to encounter undiscovered tribal cultural resources). These potentially significant impacts are associated with construction activities, not operation of the Project. As described above, the Project and the Existing Warehouse and Additional Parking Alternative would be required to comply with applicable regulations and would also implement the same mitigation measures required for the Project. Therefore, this Alternative would have a similar lack of impacts, or less than significant impacts, for each topical issue. However, due to the reduction in construction activities and overall building space, the Existing Warehouse and Additional Parking Alternative would have reduced impacts associated with air pollutant emissions, GHG emissions, noise, and utilities and services systems. Attainment of Project Objectives The discussion below addresses the ability of the Existing Warehouse and Additional Parking Alternative to attain the project objectives. 1. Ensure that development of the Project site is accomplished consistent with applicable goals and policies of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as set forth in the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan. The Existing Warehouse and Additional Parking Alternative would not conflict with applicable goals and policies of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as set forth in the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan and therefore would meet this objective. 2. Maximize redevelopment of the existing underutilized Project site and generate increased property tax revenue for the City of Rancho Cucamonga in order to support the City’s ongoing municipal operations. The Existing Warehouse and Additional Parking Alternative would involve reuse of the existing warehouse building on-site and construction of a surface parking area for truck trailer parking in the northern portion of the site. While this Alternative would generate increased property tax revenue compared to existing Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 5.0 Alternatives Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 5-32 conditions, it would not maximize redevelopment of the underutilized site. Therefore, the Existing Warehouse and Additional Parking Alternative would not meet this objective. 3. Maximize development of Class A high cube warehouse industrial buildings in the City of Rancho Cucamonga that are designed to meet contemporary industry standards for operational design criteria, can accommodate a wide variety of users, and are economically competitive with similar industrial buildings in the local area and region. The reuse of the existing warehouse building and addition of trailer dock doors and additional parking under the Existing Warehouse and Additional Parking Alternative would not meet this Project objective, which is associated with the operation of contemporary high cube warehouse buildings, and maximizing development on-site. Redevelopment of the Project is necessary to accomplish this objective. 4. To create employment-generating businesses in the City of Rancho Cucamonga to reduce the need for members of the local workforce to commute outside the area for employment, and to improve the jobs to housing balance. The Project would generate more employment opportunities than what would be generated through reuse of the existing building with additional parking under the Existing Warehouse and Additional Parking Alternative, due to the greater amount of building area proposed by the Project. Therefore, the Existing Warehouse and Additional Parking Alternative would meet the objective but not to the same extent as the Project as it would not generate additional new jobs. 5. To develop a project with an architectural design and operational characteristics that complement other existing buildings in the immediate vicinity and minimize conflicts with other nearby land uses. Retention of the existing use/building under the Existing Warehouse and Additional Parking Alternative would not conflict with existing architecture or the operations of nearby uses. Therefore, the Existing Warehouse and Additional Parking Alternative would meet this objective. 6. To maximize industrial warehouse buildings in close proximity to an already- established industrial area, designated truck routes, and the State highway system in order to avoid or shorten truck-trip lengths on other roadways, and avoid locating industrial warehouse buildings in close proximity to residential uses. The reuse of the existing warehouse building and addition of surface parking under the Existing Warehouse and Additional Parking Alternative would not maximize the amount of available industrial warehouse uses, and would not meet this Project objective. 7. To develop properties that have access to available infrastructure, including roads and utilities to be used as part of the Southern California supply chain and goods movement network. The Existing Warehouse and Additional Parking Alternative would involve the use of the existing warehouse building and addition of parking for continued warehouse uses. Although the existing warehouse building would continue to operate with service from existing roadways and infrastructure, due to the reduction in warehouse space, and lack of contemporary buildings, the Existing Warehouse and Additional Parking Alternative would Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 5.0 Alternatives Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 5-33 not meet the intent of this objective to the same extent as the Project relative to supporting goods movement in Southern California. 5.3.4 EXISTING WAREHOUSE AND ADDITIONAL WAREHOUSE ALTERNATIVE A. Description of the Alternative Under the Existing Warehouse and Additional Warehouse Alternative, the existing 1,431,000 sf warehouse building on the Project site would be retained and would operate as a high-cube warehouse, the existing retail building would be removed, and the underutilized northern portion of the Project site would be developed with a new 713,200 sf high-cube warehouse building and associated parking and facilities (refer to Figure 5-2, Existing Warehouse and Additional Warehouse Alternative). Collectively with the existing warehouse and additional warehouse, this Alternative would have 2,144,200 sf of building area, compared to 2,175,000 sf with the Project, a reduction of 30,800 sf. Similar to the Existing Warehouse and Additional Parking Alternative, the existing warehouse would be modified to include up to 54 additional loading dock doors and additional truck trailer parking would be provided east of the existing building. A retaining wall would be installed along the northeastern portion of this truck trailer parking area. It is also anticipated that internal improvements to the existing building would be needed to accommodate a tenant. In addition to removal of the retail building in the southern portion of the Project site, existing landscaping in this area would be removed to accommodate additional surface parking (495 parking stalls consisting of a combination of existing and new parking stalls). The new 713,200 sf high-cube warehouse building in the northern portion of the Project site would include an 8,000- sf mezzanine area, and up to 16,000 sf of office space. There would be 88 dock doors and 89 trailer stalls on the north and south sides of the building, and automobile parking (258 stalls) would be provided near potential office areas. Approximately 100,000 sf of new landscaping would be installed around the building. This Alternative would require installation of a retaining wall between the existing and proposed buildings. With respect to circulation and utility infrastructure improvements, existing circulation patterns would be maintained, and existing utility infrastructure would continue to serve the site. Similar to the Project, this Alternative would include replacement of existing sidewalks on 4th Street and 6th Street, and implementation of on-street bikeways along these roadways. Short- and long-term bicycle parking would be provided for both buildings. The existing rail spur on-site (south of 6th Street) would be retained. This Alternative would also include construction of the northern portion of Street A, which would terminate with a cul-de-sac before extending into the southern portion of the Project site, and retention of the existing rail spur. Should redevelopment of the southern portion of the Project site be considered in the future, extension of Street A to 4th Street could be completed. This Alternative does include the construction of an at-grade crossing of 6th Street at the railroad tracks, as proposed with the Project. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report '1 () 0 p I _ ------ --- --- -_ j _ --� -- ---� �i.=i.,.;:;:;:.,;;;;:;;;::;:;;.:=;:;::;:;:;:;:;:;..;:;:;.;.;.-,..-.,...;:;:-:;:.,.;.-,...:;::;=;.a;TTT''rTTi"rrrrn'TTTTITTTTTTTTTTTICTTITTT'iTTi"rrrrn'TTTT'TT'miTTT'i"i"r=�-------�---��-x;1p1:ITTm-Jl7Tr -=-�--'---� 0°£l:6 CCC0 � 0000 ° 0� 16,000SFOFFICE INC.INABOVE 88DOCK DOORS 89TRAILER STALLS 258AUTOS REQ ./258 PROVIDED LANDSCAPE: 100,000SF I I � UP TO 16 NEW DOCK DOORS � � EXISTING RAIL SPUR TO BE REMOVED 13 (E) DOCK HIGH--------) EXISTING ONE STORY CONCRETE TILT-UP BUILDING WITH TWO-STORY OFFICE FOOTPRINT AREA: 1,373,000 SF MEZZANINE AREA: 58,000 SF TOTAL EXISTING FLOOR AREA: 1,431,000 SF :::l_ l l2JI if' APPROX. 200 EXISTING AUTO STALLS 135' � \1-nr-J=----'"--'---+---+---t-+--+-r"-+---+-+--+-t-+�+-----'"--'---===,al�--"------ll � ·o� \ Source(s): RGA (10-14-2020) � el 12 APPROX. 195 NEW & EXIST AUTO STALLS APPROX. 100 NEW AUTO STALLS PROJECT DATA 5.0 Alternatives GENERAL PLAN: EXISTING ZONE: PROPOSED ZONE: GENERAL INDUSTRIAL & HEAVY INDUSTRIAL GENERAL INDUSTRIAL (GI) ANO HEAVY INDUSTRIAL (HI) GENERAL INDUSTRIAL (GI) SITE AREA: LEGAL DESCRIPTION FEE: EXISTING 6TH STREET AREA: 3,981,084SF/91.39AC 58,562SF/1.34AC NET SITE AREA FOR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT: 3,922,533SF/90.49AC EXISTING BUILDING BLDG 2 TOTAL SITE AREA 2,587,432SF 1,256,770SF 3,922,533SF BUILDING AREA FOOTPRINT AREA: 1,373,000SF 705,200SF 2,078,200SF MEZZANINE: 58,000SF 8,000SF 66,000SF GROSS FLOOR AREA: 1,431,000SF 713,200SF 2,144,200SF BUILDING AREA BY USE: OFFICE AREA 30,000SF 16,000SF 46,000SF WAREHOUSE AREA 1,401,000SF 697,200SF 2,098,200SF NET COVERAGE: 53.06% 56.11% 52.98% NETF .AR.: 0.553 0.567 .547 LANDSCAPE: PROVIDED: COVERAGE: -% 8.0% -% AREA: -SF 100,000SF -SF AUTO PARKlNG: REQUIRED PARKING: OFFICE@1/2 50SF 120STALLS 64STALLS 184STALLS WAREHOUSE 1-20K SF 20STALLS 20STALLS 40STALLS 20K -40K SF 10STALLS 10STALLS 20STALLS >40K SF 340STALLS 164STALLS 504STALLS TOTAL 490STALLS 258STALLS 748STALLS PROVIDED PARKING: 495STALLS 258STALLS 753STALLS DOCK LOADING POSITIONS: 116DOCKS 88DOCKS 204 DOCKS TRAILER PARKING PROVIDED: 185 TRAILERS 89 TRAILERS 274 TRAILERS BICYCLE PARKING: SHORT TERM 22 REQ./22PROV. 14 REQ./14PROV. 36 REQ./36 PROV . LONGTERM ll.REQ./22PROV. 14 REQ./14PROV.36 REQ./36 PROV . EMPLOYEE OUTDOOR AREAS SF REQUIRED 1,000SF 500SF 1,500SF SF PROVIDED 1,000SF 540SF 1,540SF SEATING REQUIRED 43SEATS 28SEATS 71 SEATS SEATING PROVIDED 48SEATS 32SEATS 80SEATS Figure 5-2 Existing Warehouse and Additional Warehouse Alternative Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 5-34 Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 5.0 Alternatives Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 5-35 For purposes of analysis, it is anticipated that operations under this Alternative could also occur 24 hours per day/7 days per week, consistent with the Project. As shown in Table 5.3-2, Existing Warehouse and Additional Warehouse Alternative Trip Generation, this Alternative would increase peak hour and ADT compared to reuse of the existing buildings (with no modifications). Additionally, due to the overall reduction in building intensity, this Alternative would generate slightly less vehicle trips compared to the Project. As discussed in Section 4.13, of this Draft EIR, the Project would result in a net increase of 176 actual AM peak hour trips, 104 actual PM peak hour trips, and 976 ADT. When considering passenger car equivalent (PCE) trip generation, the Project would result in a net increase of 189 actual AM peak hour trips, 110 actual PM peak hour trips, and 1,278 ADT. Table 5.3-2 Existing Warehouse and Additional Warehouse Alternative Trip Generation Trip Generation Comparison AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Daily In Out Total In Out Total Actual Vehicles: Existing Trip Generation1 108 34 142 86 149 235 3032 Existing Warehouse and Additional Warehouse Alternative2 253 61 314 127 205 332 3,950 Variance 145 27 172 41 56 97 918 Passenger Car Equivalent (PCE): Existing Trip Generation (PCE)1 134 42 176 97 175 272 3,526 Existing Warehouse and Additional Warehouse Alternative (PCE)2 292 69 361 142 232 374 4,736 Variance 158 27 185 45 57 102 1,210 1 Trip generation for the uses that currently exist. 2 Existing Warehouse and Additional Warehouse Alternative trip generation. The Existing Warehouse and Additional Warehouse Alternative would involve uses allowed by the existing land use and zoning designations for the Project site. However, as with the Project, a General Plan amendment and Zoning Map amendment would be required for the northern portion of the Project site, changing the designation from Heavy Industrial to General Industrial. This Alternative would also require site plan and architectural review, a Tentative Parcel Map, and a tree removal permit. It is also anticipated that the Project Applicant would enter into a Development Agreement with the City. B.Comparative Analysis of Environmental Impacts Following is a comparative analysis of the Existing Warehouse and Additional Warehouse Alternative and the Project. The focus of this analysis is to determine if the Existing Warehouse and Additional Warehouse Alternative is capable of eliminating or reducing the potentially significant environmental effects of the Project. As previously noted, the Project would not result in any significant and unavoidable impacts, and potentially significant impacts prior to mitigation are associated with construction activities. Therefore, the Existing Warehouse and Additional Warehouse Alternative is being considered because it would reduce construction-related impacts. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 5.0 Alternatives Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 5-36 1.Aesthetics The Existing Warehouse and Additional Warehouse Alternative would primarily involve retention of the existing warehouse building in the southern portion of the Project site with added loading dock doors, removal of the retail building and landscaping in the southern portion of the Project site (along 4th Street) to accommodate additional surface parking, and development of a new high-cube warehouse and associated surface parking and facilities in the underutilized northern portion of the Project site. The visual character of the Project site would be similar to that of the proposed Project. The Existing Warehouse and Additional Warehouse Alternative would not result in any significant aesthetics impacts, including an adverse effect on a scenic vista, damage to scenic resources within a state scenic highway, conflict with a regulation governing scenic quality, or substantial light or glare. No significant aesthetic impacts related to aesthetics were identified for the Project and no significant aesthetic impacts would occur under this Alternative. Therefore, the Existing Warehouse and Additional Warehouse Alternative would not reduce or avoid any significant impacts related to aesthetics. 2.Air Quality The Existing Warehouse and Additional Warehouse Alternative would involve construction activities for demolition of the retail building, modifications to the warehouse building and construction of the new high-cube warehouse building and associated facilities. There would be the need for some grading, primarily in the northern portion of the Project site; however, the amount of grading and overall construction activities would be reduced compared to the Project. Therefore, the Existing Warehouse and Additional Warehouse Alternative would result in less construction-related air pollutant emissions compared to the Project, which would result in potentially significant air quality impacts prior to mitigation (even with adherence to regulatory requirements [refer to RR 2-1 and RR 2-2]). It is expected the construction-related emissions would continue to exceed established regional thresholds of significance and would remain significant due to overlapping construction activities associated with the existing building and the new additional building. However, the construction-related air quality impacts would be less than significant with the Project and this Alternative with implementation of a Project-specific mitigation measure (refer to MM 2-1). Therefore, the Existing Warehouse and Additional Warehouse Alternative, which would also adhere to applicable regulations that address construction-related air pollutant emissions and would implement the Project-specific mitigation measure MM 2-1, would not avoid any significant construction-related air quality impacts. Both the Project and the Existing Warehouse and Additional Warehouse Alternative would involve high-cube warehouse operations at the Project site. However, air pollutant emissions resulting from this Alternative would be slightly reduced compared to the Project due to the slight reduction in building area on the site and associated reduction in trip generation. Any operations at the Project site would be conducted in adherence to applicable regulations (refer to RR 2-3 and RR 2-4) and would be expected to have potential impacts to sensitive receptors similar to or less than the Project; the Project would have less than significant impacts to sensitive receptors. Operations would adhere to existing regulations to control odor emissions (refer to RR 2-5); therefore, odor emissions under this Alternative would be similar to those associated with the Project and would be less than significant. As with the Project, the Existing Warehouse and Additional Warehouse Alternative would be consistent with the Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 5.0 Alternatives Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 5-37 SCAQMD AQMP because it would not exceed regional or localized significance threshold for operations, and would be consistent with the types of land uses anticipated by the General Plan and zoning designations. The Existing Warehouse and Additional Warehouse Alternative would have similar or slightly reduced operational air quality impacts compared to the Project; however, the Project’s impacts would be less than significant. While the air quality impacts resulting from the Existing Warehouse and Additional Warehouse Alternative would be similar to or slightly less than with the Project, the Project’s impacts are less than significant with mitigation. Therefore, the Existing Warehouse and Additional Warehouse Alternative would not avoid any significant air quality impacts. 3.Biological Resources As discussed in Section 4.3 of this Draft EIR, no native plant communities or natural communities of special concern occur on or adjacent to the Project site. The land cover types present include “disturbed” and “developed”. Additionally, there are heritage trees located on-site, primarily in the landscaped area long 4th Street. The Project would not impact sensitive plant or wildlife species or sensitive natural community; would not impact wetlands or any area under the jurisdiction of the Corps, Regional Board, or CDFW; would not interfere with wildlife movement; and would not conflict with an approved habitat conservation plan. Further, with adherence to applicable federal and state regulations to protect nesting avian species (refer to RR 3-1 and RR 3-2), and City regulations addressing removal of trees, the Project would have a less than significant impact to nesting avian species, and associated with the removal of trees (refer to RR 3-3 and RR 3-4). No mitigation is required. The Existing Warehouse and Additional Warehouse Alternative would involve the development of the disturbed area in the northern portion of the Project site and removal of on-site trees primarily in the southern portion of the Project site, and would result in similar less than significant impacts as the Project. Therefore, the Existing Warehouse and Additional Warehouse Alternative would not reduce or avoid any significant impacts related to biological resources. 4.Cultural Resources As discussed in Section 4.4, of the Draft EIR, the Project would not impact any historic or archaeological resources. Therefore, no impact to known historic or archaeological resources would occur with implementation of the Existing Warehouse and Additional Warehouse Alternative or the Project. Although the amount of grading would likely be reduced under the Existing Warehouse and Additional Warehouse Alternative, there would still be a potential to encounter previously undiscovered cultural resources during excavation, similar to the Project, resulting in a potentially significant impact. Similar to the Project, this impact would be reduced to a level considered less than significant with implementation of Project-specific mitigation measures (refer to MM 4-1 and MM 4- 2). With adherence to RR 4-1 impacts to human remains would be less than significant with implementation of the Project and this Alternative. Therefore, the Existing Warehouse and Additional Warehouse Alternative would not avoid any significant impacts related to cultural resources. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 5.0 Alternatives Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 5-38 5.Energy As identified in Section 4.5 of this Draft EIR, the Project would comply with applicable regulations for energy conservation, and would not result in any significant energy impacts. Although the existing warehouse would not be as energy efficient as a new warehouse; any modifications to the existing building would be implemented in accordance with current energy conservation regulations. Additionally, the new warehouse building to be constructed in the northern portion of the Project site under this Alternative would comply with applicable regulations for energy conservation. The Existing Warehouse and Additional Warehouse Alternative would result in similar less than significant energy impacts. Therefore, the Existing Warehouse and Additional Warehouse Alternative would not reduce or avoid any significant impacts related to energy. 6.Geology and Soils The Project site is subject to seismic ground shaking, and the Existing Warehouse and Additional Warehouse Alternative would involve use of an existing building with some modifications, and construction of a new building. The new building and modifications to the existing building would be implemented in accordance with existing building standards and other building regulations (refer to RR 6-1 through RR 6-4). Therefore, the Existing Warehouse and Additional Warehouse Alternative would have similar less than significant impacts as the Project related to seismic ground shaking. With adherence to state and local building code requirements, and adherence to recommendations outlined in the Project-specific geotechnical report (which is ensured with implementation of RR 6-2), the Project and the Existing Warehouse and Additional Warehouse Alternative would not result in any significant impacts associated with geotechnical conditions. Further, new development at the Project site would be subject to the same geotechnical constraints and similar recommendations to address these constraints. As with the Project, potential impacts related to geotechnical constraints would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. Therefore, the Existing Warehouse and Additional Warehouse Alternative would not reduce or avoid any significant impacts related to geology and soils. With respect to paleontological resources, the Existing Warehouse and Additional Warehouse Alternative would involve excavation and grading activities, primarily in the northern portion of the Project site. Although the amount of grading would be reduced under the Existing Warehouse and Additional Warehouse Alternative, there would still be a potential to encounter previously undiscovered paleontological resources during excavation, similar to the Project, resulting in a potentially significant impact. This impact is mitigated to a level considered less than significant with incorporation of the identified Project-level mitigation measure (refer to MM 6-1), that outlines requirements for monitoring during construction and actions to take if paleontological resources are discovered. Therefore, the Existing Warehouse and Additional Warehouse Alternative would not avoid any significant impacts related to paleontological resources. 7.Greenhouse Gas Emissions As identified in Section 4.7 of this Draft EIR, the Project would result in less than significant GHG emissions impacts when taking into consideration the elimination of emissions from operation of the existing buildings. It is expected that GHG emissions under the Existing Warehouse and Additional Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 5.0 Alternatives Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 5-39 Warehouse Alternative would be reduced compared to the Project due to the reduction in construction activities, slightly reduced building area on the site, and reduction in trip generation. Both the Project and the Existing Warehouse and Additional Warehouse Alternative would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs. Therefore, both the Project and the Existing Warehouse and Additional Warehouse Alternative would have less than significant impacts related to GHG emissions. The Existing Warehouse and Additional Warehouse Alternative would not reduce or avoid any significant impacts related to GHG emissions. 8.Hazards and Hazardous Materials As identified in Section 4.8 of this Draft EIR, with adherence to applicable regulations, the Project would have no impact or a less than significant impact related to hazards and hazardous materials. As with the Project, the Existing Warehouse and Additional Warehouse Alternative would operate in compliance with applicable regulations (refer to RR 8-1 though RR 8-3) and would have a less than significant impact related to transport, use and disposal of hazardous materials; and, release of hazardous materials and hazardous emissions. The Project site is within the AIA established by the ONT ALUCP and with adherence to disclosure requirements (refer to RR 8-4) impacts related to airport operations would also be less than significant. Additionally, consistent with the Project, the Existing Warehouse and Additional Warehouse Alternative would have no impact or a less than significant impact related to its location on a hazardous materials site, emergency response/evacuation, and wildland fires. Therefore, the Existing Warehouse and Additional Warehouse Alternative would not reduce or avoid any significant impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials. 9.Hydrology and Water Quality As discussed in Section 4.9, of this Draft EIR, with adherence to applicable water quality regulations (as required by regulatory requirements RR 9-1 through RR 9-4), the Project would have no impact or less than significant impacts related to hydrology and water quality. Similar to the Project, the Existing Warehouse and Additional Warehouse Alternative would retain existing drainage patterns. Development of this Alternative, which includes a new building and associated facilities in the northern portion of the Project site, would be subject to current hydrology and water quality regulations. Consistent with the Project, this Alternative would not increase the amount of water entering the public storm drain system, and would implement structural and non-structural water quality BMPs, which do not currently exist at the Project site. Due to the depth of groundwater, the Project and this Alternative would not involve the extraction of groundwater. Further, the Project and this Alternative would not conflict with the Basin Plan or a Sustainable Groundwater Management Plan. Therefore, the Existing Warehouse and Additional Warehouse Alternative would not reduce or avoid any significant impacts related to hydrology and water quality. 10.Land Use and Planning Under the Existing Warehouse and Additional Warehouse Alternative, the existing warehouse building would be retained and the northern portion of the Project site would be developed with a new high- cube warehouse building and associated facilities, as allowed by the existing land use designations. Similar to the Project, development of the Project site under this Alternative would not divide an Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 5.0 Alternatives Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 5-40 established community. Additionally, the Existing Warehouse and Additional Warehouse Alternative and the Project would not conflict with any local or regional land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Therefore, the Existing Warehouse and Additional Warehouse Alternative would not reduce or avoid any significant land use or planning impacts. 11.Noise The Existing Warehouse and Additional Warehouse Alternative would have reduced construction activities compared to the Project primarily due to the retention of the existing warehouse on-site; however, as with the Project, there would be construction activities with the potential to impact receptors at the West Valley Detention Center, resulting in a potentially significant impact. Under the Project and the Existing Warehouse and Additional Warehouse Alternative, this impact would be reduced to a level considered less than significant with implementation of Project-specific mitigation, which consists of installation of a temporary noise barrier at the eastern property line during construction and use of properly operating and maintained mufflers and directing stationary construction equipment away noise sensitive receivers (refer to MM 11-1 and MM 11-2). Due to similar types of construction activities, vibration impacts during construction would be less significant with the Project and this Alternative. Similar to the Project, operational activities associated with the Existing Warehouse and Additional Warehouse Alternative have the potential to generate noise, and it is expected that noise from on-site operations under the Existing Warehouse and Additional Warehouse Alternative would be similar to noise generated by the former operations at the Project site and by the Project, and would be less than significant. On-site operations with the Project and this Alternative would be conducted in compliance with noise standards established by the City. Due to the slight reduction in trip generation, the Existing Warehouse and Additional Warehouse Alternative would generate less traffic-related noise on off-site roadways; however, the Project’s impacts were determined to be less than significant. The Project and the Existing Warehouse and Additional Warehouse Alternative would have no impact related to noise from airport operations. Therefore, the Existing Warehouse and Additional Warehouse Alternative would not reduce or avoid any significant noise or vibration impacts. 12.Population and Housing The Existing Warehouse and Additional Warehouse Alternative would not involve any unplanned population growth and would not displace any existing housing or people. Similar to the Project, the Existing Warehouse and Additional Warehouse Alternative would generate employment opportunities; however, due to the reduction in building space, the amount of employment generation could be slightly reduced under this Alternative. The Existing Warehouse and Additional Warehouse Alternative would not reduce or avoid any significant impacts related to population or housing. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 5.0 Alternatives Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 5-41 13.Transportation Both the Project and the Existing Warehouse and Additional Warehouse Alternative would include the replacement of existing sidewalks and the installation of Class II bicycle lanes along the 4th Street and 6th Street adjacent to the Project site, and the installation of bicycle facilities on-site. The portion of Street A within the northern portion of the Project site would be constructed, and the extension Street A to 4th Street in the future would not be precluded. The Project and this Alternative would generate employment opportunities near existing transit facilities. Therefore, similar to the Project, the Existing Warehouse and Additional Warehouse Alternative would meet the circulation goals and policies outlined in the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan and SCAG’s RTP/SCS related to pedestrian and bicycle travel and transit, and would not conflict with a circulation plan or policy. As discussed in Section 4.13, the Project would have a less than significant impact related to VMT, and would not conflict with or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b). The Existing Warehouse and Additional Warehouse Alternative would generate slightly less traffic compared to the Project, would also have a less than significant transportation impact based on VMT, and would not conflict with or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b). Furthermore, as with the Project, the Existing Warehouse and Additional Warehouse Alternative would adhere to the City’s requirements for circulation and access (refer to RR 13-1 through RR 13- 5)and would not cause any impacts related to increased hazards due to design or incompatible uses, or emergency access. The Existing Warehouse and Additional Warehouse Alternative and Project would not reduce or avoid any significant impacts related to transportation. 14.Tribal Cultural Resources The Existing Warehouse and Additional Warehouse Alternative would involve excavation and grading activities, primarily in the northern portion of the Project site. Although the amount of grading would be reduced under the Existing Warehouse and Additional Warehouse Alternative, there would still be a potential to encounter previously undiscovered tribal cultural resources, similar to the Project, resulting in a potentially significant impact. Similar to the Project, this impact would be reduced to a level considered less than significant with implementation of identified Project-specific mitigation measures (refer to MM 14-1 through MM 14-6). Therefore, the Existing Warehouse and Additional Warehouse Alternative would not avoid any significant impacts related to tribal cultural resources. 15.Utilities and Service Systems The Existing Warehouse and Additional Warehouse Alternative would involve use of the existing warehouse and construction of a new high-cube warehouse. It is expected that the overall utility demand would be less than the Project because although there would be a similar building, the Project would be more efficient with the construction of two new buildings. As with the Project and consistent with existing conditions, the existing utility infrastructure would be sufficient to serve the Existing Warehouse and Additional Warehouse Alternative, which would be operated in compliance with applicable regulations (refer to RR 14-1 through RR 14-3), and impacts would be less than significant. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 5.0 Alternatives Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 5-42 Construction and operations under the Existing Warehouse and Additional Warehouse Alternative and the Project would be conducted in compliance with applicable regulations addressing solid waste management (refer to RR 14-4 and RR 14-5) and impacts related to solid waste generation would also be less than significant. Therefore, the Existing Warehouse and Additional Warehouse Alternative would not avoid any significant impacts related to utilities or service systems. C. Conclusions Avoid or Substantially Lessen the Significant Impacts of the Project As presented in Sections 4.1 through 4.15 of this Draft EIR, the Project would not result in any significant and unavoidable impacts; therefore, the Existing Warehouse and Additional Warehouse Alternative would not avoid or substantially lessen a significant and unavoidable impact. Project-level mitigation measures are required to reduce potentially significant impacts to levels considered less than significant for the following topical issues: air quality (due to construction-related emissions), cultural resources (due to the potential to encounter undiscovered cultural resources), geology and soils (due to the potential to encounter paleontological resources), noise (due to construction-related noise), and tribal cultural resources (due to the potential to encounter undiscovered tribal cultural resources). These potentially significant impacts are associated with construction activities, not operation of the Project. As described above, both the Project and the Existing Warehouse and Additional Warehouse Alternative would be required to comply with applicable regulations and would also implement the same mitigation measures required for the Project. Therefore, this Alternative would have a similar lack of impacts, or less than significant impacts for each topical issue. However, due to the reduction in construction activities due to the reuse of the existing warehouse building, and slight reduction in overall building space, the Existing Warehouse and Additional Warehouse Alternative would have reduced impacts associated with air pollutant emissions, GHG emissions, and noise. Attainment of Project Objectives The discussion below addresses the ability of the Existing Warehouse and Additional Warehouse Alternative to attain the project objectives. 1. Ensure that development of the Project site is accomplished consistent with applicable goals and policies of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as set forth in the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan. The Existing Warehouse and Additional Warehouse Alternative would not conflict with applicable goals and policies of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as set forth in the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan and therefore would meet this Project objective. 2. Maximize redevelopment of the existing underutilized Project site and generate increased property tax revenue for the City of Rancho Cucamonga in order to support the City’s ongoing municipal operations. The Existing Warehouse and Additional Warehouse Alternative would involve reuse of the existing warehouse building on-site and construction of a new building in the underutilized northern portion of the site. Due to the Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 5.0 Alternatives Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 5-43 similarity in overall building space as the Project, and because this Alternative would also increase property tax revenue, this Alternative would meet this Project objective. 3.Maximize development of Class A high cube warehouse industrial buildings in the City of Rancho Cucamonga that are designed to meet contemporary industry standards for operational design criteria, can accommodate a wide variety of users, and are economically competitive with similar industrial buildings in the local area and region. The reuse of the existing warehouse building and construction of a new building in the underutilized northern portion of the Project site under the Existing Warehouse and Additional Warehouse Alternative would meet this Project objective, but not to the same extent as the Project. Modifications to the existing building would not meet contemporary industry standards to the same extent as a new warehouse building. 4.To create employment-generating businesses in the City of Rancho Cucamonga to reduce the need for members of the local workforce to commute outside the area for employment, and to improve the jobs to housing balance. As with the Project, the Existing Warehouse and Additional Warehouse Alternative would generate new employment opportunities and would meet this Project objective, but not to the same extent as the Project. 5.To develop a project with an architectural design and operational characteristics that complement other existing buildings in the immediate vicinity and minimize conflicts with other nearby land uses. Retention of the existing warehouse building and construction of a new warehouse under the Existing Warehouse and Additional Warehouse Alternative would not conflict with existing architecture or the operations of nearby uses. Therefore, the Existing Warehouse and Additional Warehouse Alternative would meet this Project objective. 6.To maximize industrial warehouse buildings in close proximity to an already- established industrial area, designated truck routes, and the State highway system in order to avoid or shorten truck-trip lengths on other roadways, and avoid locating industrial warehouse buildings in close proximity to residential uses. The Project site is within an established industrial area near designated truck routes and the State highway system. The reuse of the existing warehouse building and construction of a new building on the underutilized northern portion of the Project site under the Existing Warehouse and Additional Warehouse Alternative would meet this Project objective. 7.To develop properties that have access to available infrastructure, including roads and utilities to be used as part of the Southern California supply chain and goods movement network. The Existing Warehouse and Additional Warehouse Alternative would involve the use of the existing warehouse building and construction of new warehouse building, and would continue to operate with service from existing roadways and infrastructure. Additionally, the buildings would be used as part of the Southern California supply chain and goods movement network. Therefore, the Existing Warehouse and Additional Warehouse Alternative would meet this Project objective. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 5.0 Alternatives Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 5-44 5.4 ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE CEQA requires the identification of an environmentally superior alternative. As discussed above, the No Project/No Development Alternative, which involves reuse of the existing building and facilities on-site would result in greater operational impacts than the Project for certain environmental issues, less construction-related impacts, and no change from current conditions for other environmental issues. However, Section 15126.6(e)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines states that, if the No Project Alternative is the environmentally superior alternative, then the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives. Based on the analysis presented in Section 4.1 through 4.15 of this Draft EIR, the Project would result in potentially significant impacts during construction for the following topics, and Project-level mitigation measures are required to reduce these potentially significant impacts to levels considered less than significant: air quality (due to construction-related emissions), cultural resources (due to the potential to encounter undiscovered cultural resources), geology and soils (due to the potential to encounter paleontological resources), noise (due to construction-related noise), and tribal cultural resources (due to the potential to encounter undiscovered tribal cultural resources). For all other topics, the Project, which would be implemented in compliance with applicable regulations, would result in no impact or a less than significant impact. The Project would not result in any significant and unavoidable impacts; therefore, no alternative is needed to reduce or avoid such impacts. Therefore, for purposes of this discussion, for an alternative to be superior to the Project, it would need to reduce construction-related impacts. The Existing Warehouse and Additional Parking Alternative would be the environmentally superior alternative to the Project due to the reduction in construction activities, and reductions in overall building space. Specifically, this alternative would involve modifications to and reuse of the existing warehouse building, and construction of a new parking area in the northern portion of the Project site, rather than construction of two new industrial warehouse buildings. This Alternative would generate approximately 884 fewer daily trips compared to the Project. As discussed in Section 5.3.2, the Existing Warehouse and Additional Parking Alternative would have reduced impacts associated with air pollutant emissions, GHG emissions, noise, and utilities and services systems. The Existing Warehouse and Additional Parking Alternative would meet some, but not all of the Project objectives, or would not meet the Project objectives to the same extent as the Project. This is primarily because the Project objectives are related to maximizing industrial development on the Project site that is consistent with the City’s General Plan, and to constructing contemporary buildings. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 6.0 Other CEQA Considerations Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 6-1 6.0 OTHER CEQA CONSIDERATIONS Section 15128 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines states that “an EIR shall contain a statement briefly indicating the reasons that various possible significant effects of a project were determined not to be significant and were therefore not discussed in detail in the EIR.” Section 15126 of the CEQA Guidelines requires that all aspects of a project (including planning, acquisition, development, and operation) be considered when evaluating its impact on the environment and sets forth general content requirements for Environmental Impact Reports (EIRs). Potential significant effects of the Project, applicable mitigation measures from the Rancho Cucamonga 2010 General Plan Update EIR and Project-level mitigation measures to address potential significant effects, and potential cumulative impacts have been identified throughout the analysis presented in Sections 4.1 through 4.15 of this Draft EIR. An analysis of alternatives is included in Section 5.0, Alternatives. This section identifies (1) effects determined not to be significant; (2) significant environmental effects that cannot be avoided if the Project is implemented; (3) significant irreversible environmental changes that would result from implementing the Project; and (4) growth-inducing impacts of the Project. 6.1 EFFECTS DETERMINED NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT The Notice of Preparation (NOP) for this Draft EIR, included in Appendix A, identifies environmental issues for which it was determined the Project would result in no impact or a less than significant impact. This includes the following topical issues: Agriculture and Forestry Resources, Mineral Resources, Public Services, Recreation, and Wildfire. The analysis presented in the NOP is presented below. 6.1.1 AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES According to the California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, the Project site is classified as “Urban and Built-Up Land.” Urban and Built-Up Land is occupied by structures with a building density of at least 1 unit to 1.5 acres, or approximately 6 structures to 10- acre parcel. There is no Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (collectively referred to as Farmland). Additionally, no forest land or timberland is located on or near the Project site. Furthermore, the Project site and surrounding area are not zoned for agricultural land uses and the Project site is not subject to a Williamson Act contract. Accordingly, implementation of the Project would not result in the loss of Farmland or forest land; result in the conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use; or result in the conversion of forest land resources to non-forest use. 6.1.2 MINERAL RESOURCES According to the City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Land Use Map, the Project site is designated for Light Industrial and Heavy Industrial uses. Moreover, the Project site is zoned for General Industrial and Heavy Industrial uses. In addition, the Project site is not identified as a locally-important mineral resource recovery site. As such, the implementation of the Project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region or to the residents of the State of California. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 6.0 Other CEQA Considerations Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 6-2 6.1.3 PUBLIC SERVICES Fire and police services are provided to the Project site by the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District (RCFPD) and San Bernardino Sheriff Department (SBSD), respectively. The Project would not involve new residential uses or an increase in the City’s population, and there is an existing demand for public services at the Project site associated with the existing development on-site. The nearest RCFD fire station is Station No. 174, located approximately 1.4 miles northwest of the Project site at 11297 Jersey Boulevard. The SBSD operates from one station located at 10510 Civic Center Drive, approximately 2.7 miles northwest of the Project site. Consistent with the existing condition, the Project would create the typical range of service calls for the RCFD and SBSD that occur with the proposed industrial uses. Additionally, the Project would comply with all applicable codes, ordinances, and standard conditions, including the current edition of the California Fire Code and the RCFPD Fire Protection Standards and Guidance Documents, regarding fire prevention and suppression measures, fire hydrants, automatic fire extinguishing systems, access, water availability, and fire sprinkler systems, among other measures, which would ensure that impacts to fire protection services resulting from development of the Project are less than significant. Furthermore, in compliance with Chapter 3.64, Police Impact Fee (Ordinance No. 865), of the City’s Municipal Code, the Property Owner/Developer would pay the required City Police Impact Fee, which is collected to fund new facilities, vehicles, and equipment. This section of the Municipal Code states that the Police Impact Fee was enacted “to prevent new residential and commercial/industrial development from reducing the quality and availability of public services provided to residents of the City by requiring new residential and business development to contribute to the cost of expanding the availability of police assets in the City.” The Project would not require the construction of new or alteration of existing fire or police protection facilities to maintain an adequate level of service to the Project area, and no physical environmental impacts would result. The Project would not directly generate students, as it does not involve the development of residential land uses and would not result in a direct increase in the population in the City. Additionally, appropriate developer impact fees, as required by State law (Section 65995(b) of the California Government Code), shall be assessed and paid by the Project Applicant to the Cucamonga School District and Chaffey Joint Union High School District. The Project would not require the construction of new or expanded school facilities and no physical environmental impacts would result. The City’s Parks and Recreation Department operates various City parks and provides a wide range of recreational programs to the community. Because the Project does not propose new residential uses and would not result in a direct increase in the population within the City, the Project would not create a demand for parks or recreational facilities. The Project would not require the construction of new or expanded park or recreational facilities and no physical environmental impacts would result. 6.1.4 RECREATION The nearest park to the Project site is Garcia Park at 13150 Garcia Drive, approximately 1.7 miles northeast. The Project does not propose any type of residential use or other land use that would increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities. Additionally, the Project does not propose to construct any new on- or off-site recreational facilities. As such, the Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 6.0 Other CEQA Considerations Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 6-3 implementation of the Project would not result in the increased use or substantial physical deterioration of an existing neighborhood park or regional park, or substantial adverse environmental effects related to the construction or expansion of recreational facilities. 6.1.5 WILDFIRE According to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CalFire), the Project site is not within a State Responsibility Area (SRA). SRAs include land where the State of California is financially responsible for the prevention and suppression of wildfires. SRAs do not include lands within city boundaries or in federal ownership. Based on a review of Figure PS-1, Fire Hazard Severity Zones, of the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan, the Project site is outside all designated fire hazard areas. Additionally, according to the CalFire, the Project site is not located within a very high fire hazard severity zone. The Project site is surrounded by development, with no wildland areas in the immediate vicinity. Furthermore, under existing conditions the Project site is developed and disturbed and does not contain any vegetation or topographical features that would exacerbate wildfire risk. As such, no impacts related to wildfire would occur. 6.2 SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WHICH CANNOT BE AVOIDED IF THE PROJECT IS IMPLEMENTED Section 15126.2(c) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR describe any significant impacts that cannot be avoided, even with the implementation of feasible mitigation measures. The environmental impacts of the Project are disclosed in Sections 4.1 through 4.15 of this Draft EIR, and are summarized in the Draft EIR Executive Summary (Section 1). With incorporation of regulatory requirements (RRs), project design features, and Project-level mitigation measures (MMs), the Project would result in less than significant impacts for each of the topical issues addressed in this EIR: Aesthetics, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Energy, Geology and Soils, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Land Use and Planning, Noise, Population and Housing, Transportation, Tribal Cultural Resources, and Utilities and Services Systems. There are no significant environmental effects which cannot be avoided if the Project is implemented. 6.3 SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES WHICH WOULD BE CAUSED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT SHOULD IT BE IMPLEMENTED Section 15126.2(d) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires a discussion of any significant irreversible environmental changes that would be caused by a proposed project. Specifically, Section 15126.2(d) states: Uses of nonrenewable resources during the initial and continued phases of the project may be irreversible, since a large commitment of such resources makes removal or non-use thereafter unlikely. Primary impacts and, particularly, secondary impacts Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 6.0 Other CEQA Considerations Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 6-4 (such as highway improvement which provides access to a previously inaccessible area) generally commit future generations to similar uses. Also, irreversible damage can result from environmental accidents associated with the project. Irretrievable commitments of resources should be evaluated to assure that such current consumption is justified. Generally, a project would result in significant irreversible environmental changes if the following occurs:  The primary and secondary impacts would generally commit future generations to similar uses;  The project would involve a large commitment of nonrenewable resources;  The project involves uses in which irreversible damage could result from any potential environmental accidents associated with the project; and  The proposed consumption of resources is not justified (e.g., the project involves the wasteful use of energy). Determining whether the Project may result in significant irreversible effects requires a determination of whether key non-renewable resources would be degraded or destroyed in such a way that there would be little possibility of restoring them. The southern portion of the Project site is developed with industrial uses, associated facilities, and landscaping, and the northern portion of the Project site consists of a surface parking area and vacant land (a former vineyard). The Rancho Cucamonga General Plan anticipates that development within the Southeast Focus Area will eventually support urban uses that would generate jobs and revenue. Thus, the Project would alter the Project site by replacing the existing warehouse and retail buildings, which were originally constructed in 1983, with two new contemporary high-cube industrial warehouse buildings. There are no non-renewable resources present at the Project site; therefore, conversion of the land from its current state to a high- cube industrial warehouse development would have no direct effect on any such resources at the Project site. Construction of the Project would require the commitment and reduction of nonrenewable and/or slowly renewable resources, including petroleum fuels and natural gas (e.g., for construction, vehicle operations) as well as lumber, sand/gravel, steel, copper, lead, and other metals (for use in building and internal roadway construction and utility infrastructure). Construction of the Project would not involve the use of large sums or sources of renewable energy. Additionally, the Project is required by law to comply with federal, state, and local building requirements addressing energy conservation, compliance with these requirements reduces a building operation’s energy volume that is produced by fossil fuels. A more detailed discussion of energy consumption is provided in Section 4.4, Energy, of this Draft EIR. Non-renewable natural resources that would be consumed over the operating life of the Project could include fuels (petroleum and natural gas) for both on-site workers who would commute to the Project site and for the vehicles that would deliver goods to/from the Project site. Depending on the specific occupants of the Project’s future buildings, various non-renewable natural resources could be Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 6.0 Other CEQA Considerations Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 6-5 consumed during operations, including metals (such as lead, copper, etc.). There also could be a variety of ancillary maintenance and fueling activities for equipment used inside the future buildings and in the truck loading areas of the industrial buildings. These activities could involve the use of liquid fuels such as gasoline and diesel, propane, or other gases. The consumption of non-renewable resources to construct and operate the Project over the long-term would likely commit subsequent generations to the same use of the land and similar patterns of energy consumption. It is improbable that the site would revert to permanently undeveloped conditions due to the large capital investment that would already have been committed. However, the Project is not expected to reduce the availability of any natural resources as a result of long-term operational activities. Section 4.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of this Draft EIR, provides an analysis of the Project’s potential to transport or handle hazardous materials which, if released into the environment, could result in irreversible damage to the environment. As concluded in the analysis, compliance with federal, State, and local regulations related to hazardous materials would be required of all contractors working on the property during the Project’s construction and of all occupants that occupy the Project’s buildings. As such, construction and long-term operation of the Project would not have the potential to cause significant irreversible damage to the environment, including damage that may result from upset or accident conditions. Lastly, an increased commitment of public services (e.g., police and fire) would also be required. However, as discussed above, the Project would not require the construction of new or alteration of existing fire or police protection facilities to maintain an adequate level of service to the Project area, and no physical environmental impacts would result. In summary, Project development is an irreversible commitment of the land, energy resources, and public services. 6.4 GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS CEQA requires an EIR include a discussion of ways in which the proposed project could induce growth. The State CEQA Guidelines identify a project as growth-inducing if it fosters economic or population growth or if it encourages the construction of additional housing either directly or indirectly in the surrounding environment (State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.2[e]). New employees from the future high-cube warehouse uses proposed by the Project represent direct forms of growth. These direct forms of growth have a secondary effect of expanding the size of local markets and inducing additional economic activity in the area, placing additional demands on public services and infrastructure systems, and in the generation of a variety of environmental impacts, which are addressed in Section 4.1 through 4.15 of this Draft EIR. To address this issue, potential growth-inducing effects are examined through analysis of the following questions: Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 6.0 Other CEQA Considerations Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 6-6 1. Would this project remove obstacles to growth (e.g., through the construction or extension of major infrastructure facilities that do not presently exist in the project area or through changes in existing regulations pertaining to land development)? 2. Would this project result in the need to expand one or more public services to maintain desired levels of service? 3. Would this project encourage or facilitate economic effects that could result in other activities that could significantly affect the environment? 4. Would approval of this project involve some precedent setting action that could encourage and facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment? A project could indirectly induce growth by reducing or removing barriers to growth or by creating a condition that attracts additional population or new economic activity. However, a project’s potential to induce growth does not automatically result in growth. Growth can only happen through capital investment in new economic opportunities by the private or public sectors. Under CEQA, growth inducement is not considered necessarily detrimental, beneficial, or of little significance to the environment. This issue is presented to provide additional information on ways in which the Project could contribute to significant changes in the environment, beyond the direct consequences of implementing the Project examined in the preceding sections of this EIR. 1. Would this Project remove obstacles to growth (e.g., through the construction or extension of major infrastructure facilities that do not presently exist in the project area or through changes in existing regulations pertaining to land development)? Urban development in the City of Rancho Cucamonga and existing development in the Southeast Focus Area are already served by an extensive network of utility/service systems and the other infrastructure necessary to accommodate or serve the existing conditions and planned growth. The existing utility/service systems can be readily upgraded and/or extended onto the future development sites. Further, future development would be reviewed on a project-by-project basis prior to the time of proposed construction in order to determine the utility/service systems necessary to serve the proposed land uses. The Project would not involve the construction of any off-site infrastructure; existing and planned utility infrastructure and facilities are available adjacent to the Project site. New utility infrastructure would be required to serve the proposed development and would connect to existing utilities. The utility infrastructure installed as part of the Project would be sized and located expressly to serve the Project and would not, therefore, induce growth in the Project vicinity. The Project would not involve the construction of any major roadways. A new public street referred to as “Street A” would be constructed along the eastern boundary of the Project site to provide a connection between 4th Street and 6th Street to alleviate vehicular trips on nearby streets. Additionally, the Project includes the connection of 6th Street over the railroad tracks west of the Project site to complete 6th Street between Santa Anita Avenue and Etiwanda Avenue. This connection is already anticipated in the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan. These roadway improvements would not induce growth in the Project vicinity. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 6.0 Other CEQA Considerations Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 6-7 As previously discussed, the Project site is currently designated for Light Industrial and Heavy Industrial uses. The Project implements growth and development anticipated in the Southeast Focus Area, as identified in the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan. However, a General Plan Amendment and Zoning Map Amendment are requested for the northern portion of the Project site for consistency of land use designations across the Project site and to create a uniform set of development standards to follow. The Project is not, therefore, considered to be growth- inducing with respect to the removal of obstacles to growth. 2. Would this Project result in the need to expand one or more public services to maintain desired levels of service? As identified in Section 6.1, above, consistent with the existing condition, the Project would create the typical range of service calls for the RCFPD and SBSD that occur with the proposed industrial uses. The Project would not necessitate the construction of new or the expansion of existing public service facilities in order to maintain desired levels of service. No demand for other public services (e.g., schools, parks, libraries) would occur with the Project and the facilities or associated resources of these services do not need to be expanded. In addition, the City has funding mechanisms in place through existing regulations and standard practices to accommodate future growth and the demand for public services. This Project would not, therefore, have significant growth inducing consequences with respect to public services. 3. Would this Project encourage or facilitate economic effects that could result in other activities that could significantly affect the environment? During Project construction, a number of designs, engineering, and construction-related jobs would be created. This would last until Project construction is completed. This would be an indirect, growth-inducing effect of the Project. As the Project is built and occupied, Project employees would seek shopping, entertainment, employment, home improvement, auto maintenance, and other economic opportunities in the surrounding area. This would represent an increased demand for such economic goods and services and could, therefore, encourage the creation of new businesses and/or the expansion of existing businesses that address these economic needs. However, it is expected that any such development would occur consistent with planned growth identified in the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan and the General Plans of nearby cities, including Ontario and Fontana. The Project is located near existing commercial and retail areas that would help serve the needs of Project employees. However, the Project would not increase the residential population in the City and would not directly induce or cause substantial unexpected growth in the area. As discussed in Section 4.12, Population and Housing, of this Draft EIR, once operational, the Project could result in a net increase of approximately 277 employment opportunities in the City, and the number of jobs that would result from operation of the Project is within the growth projections for the City and region, including the growth assumptions in SCAG’s current Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS; referred to as Connect SoCal). It is expected that the short-term construction jobs and new positions during project operation would be filled by workers who already reside in the local area or region. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 6.0 Other CEQA Considerations Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 6-8 Operation of the Project is not anticipated to generate a substantial permanent increase in population in the City, and the increase in demand for additional goods and services would be limited to those associated with employee demands. 4. Would this Project involve some precedent setting action that could encourage and facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment? As identified above, the Project involves a General Plan Amendment and Zoning Map Amendment to provide a consistent land designation for the Project site. However, no changes to any of the City’s building safety standards (i.e., building, grading, plumbing, mechanical, electrical, fire codes) are proposed or required to implement this Project. Regulatory requirements and mitigation measures have been identified in Sections 4.1 through 4.15 of this Draft EIR to ensure that implementation of the Project complies with applicable City plans, policies, and ordinances, ensure that there are no conflicts with adopted land development regulations, and environmental impacts are minimized. The Project does not propose any precedent-setting actions that, if approved, would specifically allow, or encourage other projects and resultant growth to occur. Furthermore, the Project is not extending any infrastructure or facilitating further development. Accordingly, the Project’s potential influence on other nearby properties to redevelop at greater intensities and/or different uses than the City’s General Plan and Zoning allow is speculative. CEQA does not require the analysis of speculative effects (CEQA Guidelines Section 151454). If any other property owner were to propose redevelopment of a property in the Project vicinity or in any part of the City, the redevelopment project would require evaluation under CEQA based on its own merits, including an analysis of direct and cumulatively considerable effects. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 7.0 List of EIR Preparers and Contributors Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 7-1 7.0 LIST OF EIR PREPARERS AND CONTRIBUTORS 7.1 EIR PREPARERS 7.1.1 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA (LEAD AGENCY) A. Planning Department Anne McIntosh, AICP .................................................................................................Planning Director Michael Smith .............................................................................................................. Principal Planner Sean McPherson, AICP ................................................................................................... Senior Planner B. Engineering Department Fred Lyn ......................... Deputy Director of Engineering/Utilities & Environmental Services, RCMU Baldwin Ngai. ........................................... Associate Engineer, Land Development and Transportation 7.1.2 EIR PEER REVIEW CONSULTANT TEAM A. FirstCarbon Solutions Kerri Tuttle .................................................................................................................... Project Director Megan Starr ...................................................................................................................... Legal Counsel Tsui Li ............................................................................................................................Project Manager Brittany Hagen ............................................................................................... Assistant Project Manager Kevin Bolland ...................................................................................... Environmental Services Analyst Phil Ault ................................................................................................................ Senior Noise Scientist Kimberly Johnson ................................................................................................... Air Quality Scientist Stefanie Griffin, MA .......................................................................................................... Archaeologist Michael W. Tuma, PhD ................................................................................................. Senior Biologist Zackery Freeman (Leighton) ............................................................. Environmental Project Geologist Mike Taing (KWC Engineers) .......................................................................... Director of Engineering 7.1.3 T&B PLANNING, INC. (EIR PREPARATION) Tina Andersen .......................................................................................................... Principal-in-Charge Emilie Colwell ...............................................................................................................Project Manager Lauren Fujimori .................................................................................................. Environmental Analyst Cristina Maxey ........................................................................................................................... Graphics 7.2 EIR CONTRIBUTORS 7.2.1 ARDENT ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP, INC. (PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT) Paul A. Roberts, P.G. ................................................................................................ Principal Geologist Matthew Penksaw ............................................................................................................. Staff Scientist Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 7.0 List of EIR Preparers and Contributors Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 7-2 7.2.2 BRIAN F. SMITH AND ASSOCIATES, INC. (CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT AND PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT) Brian F. Smith ........................................................................................................................... President Andrew Garrison ........................................................................................ Senior Project Archaeologist Todd Wirths ........................................................................................................... Senior Paleontologist 7.2.3 BRUYEA BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING (DELHI SANDS FLOWER-LOVING FLY HABITAT SUITABILITY ASSESSMENT) Guy P. Bruyea. ........................................................................................................................... Principal 7.2.4 CHARLES MARR CONSULTING (WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT) Charles Marr, P.E. ...................................................................................................................... Principal 7.2.5 ELMT CONSULTING (HABITAT ASSESSMENT) Thomas J. McGill, Ph.D. ...........................................................................................Managing Director Travis J. McGill .......................................................................................................................... Director 7.2.6 PSOMAS (TREE INVENTORY REPORT) David T. Hughes ................................................................................................ Senior Project Manager Trevor Bristle ...............................................................................................................Certified Arborist 7.2.7 RGI UTILITY CONSULTANTS, INC. (DRY UTILITIES) Robert H. Gregory ..................................................................................................................... Principal 7.2.8 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GEOTECHNICAL (GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION AND INFILTRATION REPORT) Robert G. Trazo, M.Sc, GE ........................................................................................ Principal Engineer Gregory K. Mitchell, GE ........................................................................................... Principal Engineer Scott McCann .................................................................................................................... Staff Scientist 7.2.9 THIENES ENGINEERING, INC. (CIVIL ENGINEERING, PRELIMINARY HYDROLOGY CALCULATIONS, PRELIMINARY WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN) Dane Dysthe, EIT .......................................................................................................... Design Engineer Reinhard Stenzel, R.C.E .................................................................................... Director of Engineering Cesar Raymundo ............................................................................................................Project Manager Kristie Ferronato ........................................................................................................... Project Engineer Luis Prado ..................................................................................................................... Project Engineer Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 7.0 List of EIR Preparers and Contributors Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 7-3 7.2.10 URBAN CROSSROADS, INC. (AIR QUALITY IMPACT ANALYSIS, HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT, ENERGY ANALYSIS, GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSION ANALYSIS, NOISE IMPACT ANALYSIS, VEHICLES MILES TRAVELED ANALYSIS) Aric Evatt, PTP .......................................................................................................................... Principal Bill Lawson, P.E., INCE ............................................................................................................ Principal Haseeb Qureshi, MES ............................................................................................... Associate Principal Charlene So, P.E. ...................................................................................................... Associate Principal 7.3 PROJECT APPLICANT 7.3.1 BRIDGE POINT RANCHO CUCAMONGA, LLC Brendan Kotler .......................................................................... ExecutiveVice President, Development Heather Crossner ............................................................................ Senior Vice President, Development Tom Fitzpatrick .................................................................................... Project Executive, Development Angela Noah ...................................................................................................... Manager, Development 7.4 ORGANIZATIONS AND PERSONS CONSULTED 7.4.1 STATE AGENCIES Andrew Green ............................. Cultural Resources Analyst, Native American Heritage Commission 7.4.2 UTILITY PROVIDERS Gidti Ludesirishoti, PE ....................................................................... Cucamonga Valley Water District 7.4.3 NATIVE AMERICAN TRIBES Andrew Salas ......................................................... Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 September 2021 Final Environmental Impact Report SCH No. 2020100056 Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project City of Rancho Cucamonga, California Exhibit D FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project State Clearinghouse No. 2020100056 Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 (909) 477-2750 September 2021 Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Final Environmental Impact Report i Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page Section 1.0 Introduction .................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Content and Format ............................................................................. 1-1 1.2 Public Review Process ......................................................................... 1-1 1.3 Point of Contact .................................................................................... 1-2 1.4 Project Summary .................................................................................. 1-3 1.4.1 Project Location and Setting ..................................................... 1-3 1.4.2 Proposed Project ...................................................................... 1-3 1.4.3 Project Objectives ..................................................................... 1-4 1.4.4 Required Permits and Discretionary Actions ............................. 1-4 Section 2.0 Responses to Comments .............................................................................. 2-1 2.1 List of Persons, Organizations, and Public Agencies Commenting on The Draft EIR .............................................................................................. 2-2 2.2 Responses to Comments ..................................................................... 2-2 Section 3.0 Draft EIR Clarifications and Revisions ......................................................... 3-1 ATTACHMENTS A Attachments to Comment Letter A from Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo B March 24, 1982 Staff Report for Environmental Assessment and Conditional Use Permit 82-01 – Pic “n” Save C Technical Expert Responses to Comments Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Final Environmental Impact Report Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 1-1 SECTION 1.0 INTRODUCTION In accordance with Section 15088 of the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA Guidelines), the City of Rancho Cucamonga (City), as the Lead Agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), has evaluated the comments received on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (State Clearinghouse [SCH] No. 2020100056) for the proposed Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project (Project) and has prepared this Final EIR with written responses to these comments. The City of Rancho Cucamonga has independently reviewed, analyzed, and exercised its judgment in the analysis contained in this Final EIR and supporting documentation pursuant to Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21082. According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15132, the Final EIR shall consist of: (a) The draft EIR or a revision of the draft; (b) Comments and recommendations received on the draft EIR either verbatim or in summary; (c) A list of persons, organizations, and public agencies commenting on the draft EIR; (d) The responses of the Lead Agency to significant environmental points raised in the review and consultation process; and (e) Any other information added by the Lead Agency. The purpose of the Final EIR is to respond to all comments received by the City regarding the environmental information and analyses contained in the Draft EIR. Additionally, any clarifications/revisions to the text, tables, figures and appendices of the Draft EIR generated from responses to comments are stated in the Final EIR, which includes the Draft EIR, as modified per the clarifications and revisions presented in Section 3.0 of this document. In addition to the Final EIR (including supporting technical appendices), the City of Rancho Cucamonga will also consider adoption of a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMRP), and a Statement of Findings of Fact, staff reports, Ordinances, and Resolutions as part of the approval process for the Project. 1.1 CONTENT AND FORMAT Subsequent to this introductory section, Section 2 contains copies of each comment letter received by the City regarding the Draft EIR, along with annotated responses to each comment contained within the letters. Section 3, Draft EIR Clarifications and Revisions, of this document contains clarifications/revisions to the Draft EIR. 1.2 PUBLIC REVIEW PROCESS In compliance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15201, the City has taken steps to provide opportunities for public participation in the environmental process. A Notice of Preparation (NOP) was distributed on October 2, 2020, to federal, State, regional, and local government agencies and interested parties for a 30-day public review period to solicit input on the scope of the Draft EIR and to inform agencies and the public of the Project. The Project was described; potential Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Final Environmental Impact Report Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 1-2 environmental effects associated with Project implementation were identified; and agencies and the public were invited to review and comment on the NOP. A copy of the NOP and responses received are included in Appendix A of the Draft EIR. The City received five comment letters in response to the NOP. Draft EIR Table 2-1, Summary of NOP Comments Received, provides a brief summary of the NOP comments received addressing environmental and related issues. The City of Rancho Cucamonga held a virtual scoping meeting for the Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Draft EIR on October 15, 2020, in accordance with San Bernardino County Department of Public Health requirements in effect at the time. The purpose of the meeting was to solicit input from interested agencies, individuals, and organizations regarding the Project, alternatives, mitigation measures, and significant effects to be analyzed in the EIR. In addition to City staff and Project Applicant representatives, the meeting was attended by two members of the Laborers’ International Union of North America (LIUNA). The LIUNA members indicated support for the Project. No comments on the scope of the Draft EIR were raised at the public scoping meeting. CEQA requires that a Draft EIR have a review period lasting at least 45 days for projects that have been submitted to the State Clearinghouse for review (CEQA Guidelines Section 15105[a]). The Draft EIR for the Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project was released for public review on May 7, 2021, and was circulated for public review and comment for a 45-day period that ended on June 21, 2021. In compliance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15087, the City of Rancho Cucamonga provided a public Notice of Availability (NOA) of the Draft EIR at the same time it sent a Notice of Completion to the Office of Planning and Research. The City of Rancho Cucamonga used several methods to solicit comments on the Draft EIR. The NOA, which included a link to the Draft EIR and technical appendices on the City’s website, was mailed to various agencies and organizations and to individuals that had previously requested such notice. The Draft EIR was electronically submitted to the State Clearinghouse for review by State agencies. The NOA was also mailed to property owners within 660 feet of the Project site and was published in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin on May 7, 2021. Additionally, copies of the Draft EIR were available for review at the two City libraries (Archibald Library and Paul A. Biane Library) and at the City Planning Department. As further discussed in Section 2.1 of this Final EIR, one comment letter was received by the City during the Draft EIR public review period, and two comment letters were received after the end of the public review period. All of the comment letters received by the City have been included and responded to within this Final EIR. Comments contained in the letters that address environmental issues are thoroughly responded to in Section 2.0. 1.3 POINT OF CONTACT The Lead Agency for this Project is the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Any questions or comments regarding the preparation of this document, its assumptions, or its conclusions, should be referred to: Mr. Sean McPherson, Senior Planner City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 Phone: (909) 477-2750 • e-mail: sean.mcpherson@cityofrc.us Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Final Environmental Impact Report Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 1-3 1.4 PROJECT SUMMARY The following information is summarized from the Project Description in the Draft EIR. For additional detail regarding the Project characteristics, along with analyses of the Project’s potential environmental impacts, please refer to Draft EIR Sections 3.0 and 4.0, respectively. 1.4.1 PROJECT LOCATION AND SETTING The approximately 91.4 gross acre Project site is located at 12434 4th Street, in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County, California. The Project site comprises Assessor Parcel Numbers (APNs) 0229-283-50 and -51. The Project site is bounded by 4th Street to the south (which is also the jurisdictional boundary between the City of Rancho Cucamonga and the City of Ontario) and 6th Street to the north, and generally located between Etiwanda Avenue to the east and Santa Anita Avenue to the west. The Project site is located approximately 0.5-mile east of Interstate (I)-15 and 0.7-mile north of I-10. The southern portion of the Project site is currently occupied by a 23,240 square foot (sf) retail building, a 1,431,000-sf warehouse building, and associated facilities. There are existing surface parking lots (auto and truck trailer) and vacant land (previously a vineyard) in the northern portion of the Project site. 1.4.2 PROPOSED PROJECT The Project includes redevelopment of the Project site with two new contemporary warehouse buildings (Buildings 1 and 2) with a combined building area, including the mezzanine space, of approximately 2,175,000 sf consisting of 2,134,000 sf of warehouse uses and 41,000 square feet of ancillary office space. There would be approximately 2,136,200 sf of ground level floor space and approximately 38,800 sf of mezzanine. For purposes of analysis, it is assumed that up to 90% of the building square footage would consist of a high-cube warehouse, and 10% would consist of a high-cube cold storage warehouse. Following is a brief description of the individual buildings. • Building 1 would include approximately 1,422,500 sf of floor area (approximately 25,000 sf of ancillary office space and 1,397,500 sf of warehouse space). Building 1 is a cross- dock building, meaning that loading docks are located on opposite sides of the building; Building 1 provides loading docks on the east and west sides of the building. • Building 2 would include approximately 752,500 sf of floor area (approximately 16,000 sf of ancillary office space and 736,500 sf of warehouse space). The building would also include 16,000 sf of office within either the ground level or mezzanine. Building 2 also is a cross-dock building and provides loading docks on the north and south sides of the building. The Project includes construction of a new public roadways referred to as Street “A”, which would extend north-south along the eastern boundary of the Project site between 4th Street and 6th Street. Additional on-site improvements associated with the Project include, but are not limited to, surface parking areas (automobile and truck trailer spaces ancillary to operation of the two buildings), vehicle drive aisles, landscaping, storm water quality/storage, utility infrastructure, and exterior lighting. The Project site is within a Transit Priority Area and would include improvements Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Final Environmental Impact Report Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 1-4 to 4th Street and 6th Street along the Project site’s frontage to facilitate the use of transit and non- vehicular circulation (removal and replacement of the existing sidewalk and the installation of Class II bikeways adjacent to the Project site). Sidewalks would also be installed along proposed Street A. The City plans to construct an at-grade crossing of the railroad spur to complete 6th Street between Santa Anita Avenue and Etiwanda Avenue; this roadway improvement has also been evaluated. It is expected that construction of the Project (except for the City’s construction of the at-grade crossing) would be initiated in 2021 and be complete by 2022. Anticipated approvals and permits are discussed below. 1.4.3 PROJECT OBJECTIVES The objectives of the Project include the following: 1. Ensure that development of the Project site is accomplished consistent with applicable goals and policies of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as set forth in the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan. 2. Maximize redevelopment of the existing underutilized Project site and generate increased property tax revenue for the City of Rancho Cucamonga in order to support the City’s ongoing municipal operations. 3. Maximize development of Class A high-cube warehouse industrial buildings in the City of Rancho Cucamonga that are designed to meet contemporary industry standards for operational design criteria, can accommodate a wide variety of users, and are economically competitive with similar industrial buildings in the local area and region. 4. Create employment-generating businesses in the City of Rancho Cucamonga to reduce the need for members of the local workforce to commute outside the area for employment, and to improve the jobs to housing balance. 5. Develop a project with an architectural design and operational characteristics that complement other existing buildings in the immediate vicinity and minimize conflicts with other nearby land uses. 6. Maximize industrial warehouse buildings in close proximity to an already-established industrial area, designated truck routes, and the State highway system in order to avoid or shorten truck-trip lengths on other roadways, and avoid locating industrial warehouse buildings in close proximity to residential uses. 7. Develop properties that have access to available infrastructure, including roads and utilities to be used as part of the Southern California supply chain and goods movement network. 1.4.4 REQUIRED PERMITS AND DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS The Final EIR identifies known State, regional, and local government approvals needed for construction and/or operation of the Project. A list of the anticipated actions under City of Rancho Cucamonga jurisdiction is provided in Table 1-1, Project Related Approvals/Permits. In addition, discretionary and/or administrative actions may be necessary from other government agencies to fully implement the Project are also identified. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Final Environmental Impact Report Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 1-5 Concurrent with preparation of the Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft EIR, the City of Rancho Cucamonga was processing Ordinance No. 982, which includes amendments to Title 17 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code to modify administrative procedures and development standards within the Development Code for industrial development within the City. The Planning Commission hearing for Ordinance No. 982 was held on May 26, 2021, during public circulation of the Project’s Draft EIR, and Ordinance No. 982 was adopted by the City Council on July 21, 2021. Ordinance No. 982 became effective on August 20, 2021. Among other things, Ordinance No. 982 renamed the pre-existing General Industrial (GI) zone as the Neo- Industrial (NI) zone. While the Project applications were processed pursuant to the zoning regulations in effect when the Project’s applications were deemed completed (March 11, 2021), the Project’s zone change request is being updated to reflect the NI zoning designation currently in effect. The NI zone continues to allow for the Project’s proposed uses. Construction and operational activities evaluated in the Draft EIR would not change under the new NI zoning. Therefore, no changes to the environmental analysis conducted for the Project are required to address the application of the City’s new zoning designation. Ordinance No. 982 also requires a Minor Use Permit for “E-Commerce Distribution/Fulfillment Center, Large” in the NI zoning district, as outlined in Table 17.30.030-1 of the Development Code, Allowed Land Uses and Permit Requirements by Base Zoning District. A request for a Minor Use Permit has therefore been added to the Project’s requested approvals. A Minor Use Permit evaluates whether there are any special considerations in the design or operation of a proposed use that are necessary to ensure compatibility with surrounding or potential future uses. Here, as already analyzed throughout the Draft EIR, the Project has been designed such that the use of the proposed warehouse buildings is compatible with the current and future uses in the area. Given that the Project is being built on a speculative basis, the EIR assumes that various types of warehouse uses would operate out of the Project’s two buildings, including e-commerce, distribution, and fulfillment. The Minor Use Permit would only permit the use that has previously been considered as a potential use for the Project in the EIR. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Final Environmental Impact Report Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 1-6 TABLE 1-1 PROJECT-RELATED APPROVALS/PERMITS Public Agency Approvals and Decisions City of Rancho Cucamonga Discretionary Approvals Planning Commission and/or City Council • Approve, conditionally approve, or deny: o General Plan Amendment o Zoning Map Amendment o Site Plan and Architectural Review (DRC2020- 00202) o Minor Use Permit for proposed large E-commerce distribution/fulfillment center uses o Tentative Parcel Map No. 20271 o Development Agreement o Tree Removal Permit • Certify the Project’s EIR along with appropriate CEQA Findings. Subsequent Discretionary and Ministerial Approvals City of Rancho Cucamonga • Approve Grading Plans and Issue Permits • Approve Final Maps • Approve Building Plans and Issue Permits • Issue Landscape Permits • Approve Street Improvement Plans and Issue Permits. • Approve Infrastructure Plans and Issue Permits • Approve Encroachment Permits for Construction Activities in the Public Right-of-Way • Approve Night-time Construction Activities • Accept Public Right-of-Way Dedications • Approve the Final Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) prepared in accordance with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit requirements. Responsible and Other Agencies/Entities – Subsequent Approvals and Permits California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) • Approval of the 6th Street at-grade crossing of the BNSF railroad spur State Water Resources Control Board • Coverage under the statewide general National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) for stormwater discharges from construction sites South Coast Air Quality Management District • Issuance of permits to construct and/or permits to operate new stationary sources of equipment that emit or control air contaminants, such as HVAC units City of Ontario • Approval of encroachment permit for 4th Street intersection improvements and traffic signal modifications. Utility Service Providers • Issuance of permits and associated approvals, as necessary for the installation of on-site new utility infrastructure or connections to existing facilities. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Final Environmental Impact Report Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 1-7 Public Agency Approvals and Decisions Burlington North Santa Fe (BNSF) • Approval of the 6th Street at-grade crossing of the BNSF railroad spur Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Final Environmental Impact Report Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 2-1 SECTION 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Three comment letters were received by the City during the Draft EIR public review period, and have been included and responded to in this Final EIR. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088(a), comments that address significant environmental issues have been responded to. Comments that do not require a response include those that (1) do not address the adequacy or completeness of the Draft EIR; (2) do not raise significant environmental issues; or (3) do request the incorporation of additional information not relevant to environmental issues. Specifically, Section 15088 of the CEQA Guidelines, Evaluation of and Response to Comments, states: a) The lead agency shall evaluate comments on environmental issues received from persons who reviewed the draft EIR and shall prepare a written response. The lead agency shall respond to comments raising significant environmental issues received during the noticed comment period and any extensions and may respond to late comments. b) The lead agency shall provide a written proposed response, either in a printed copy or in an electronic format, to a public agency on comments made by that public agency at least 10 days prior to certifying an environmental impact report. b) The written responses shall describe the disposition of significant environmental issues raised (e.g., revisions to the proposed project to mitigate anticipated impacts or objections). In particular, the major environmental issues raised when the Lead Agency’s position is at variance with recommendations and objections raised in the comments must be addressed in detail, giving the reasons that specific comments and suggestions were not accepted. There must be good faith, reasoned analysis in response. Conclusory statements unsupported by factual information will not suffice. The level of detail contained in the response, however, may correspond to the level of detail provided in the comment (i.e., responses to general comments may be general). A general response may be appropriate when a comment does not contain or specifically refer to readily available information, or does not explain the relevance of evidence submitted with the comment. c) The responses to comments may take the form of a revision to the draft EIR or may be a separate section in the Final EIR. Where the responses to comments makes important changes in the information contained in the text of the draft EIR, the Lead Agency should either: 1. Revise the text in the body of the EIR; or 2. Include marginal notes showing that the information is revised in the responses to comments. Revisions to the Draft EIR have been prepared to make minor revisions to the Draft EIR as a result of comments received during the public review period (refer to Section 3.0, Draft EIR Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Final Environmental Impact Report Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 2-2 Clarifications and Revisions, of this document). Therefore, this Response to Comments section, along with the Draft EIR Revisions, are included as part of this Final EIR along with the Draft EIR for consideration by the City of Rancho Cucamonga prior to a vote to certify the Final EIR. The Draft EIR revisions and information presented in the responses to comments do not result in any of the conditions set forth in Section 15088.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines requiring that the EIR be recirculated prior to its certification. 2.1 LIST OF PERSONS, ORGANIZATIONS, AND PUBLIC AGENCIES COMMENTING ON THE DRAFT EIR In accordance with Section 15132 of the CEQA Guidelines, below is a list of the agency, organization, and person that submitted comments regarding the Draft EIR. During the established public review period, which ended on June 21, 2021, one comment letter was received by the City. Two late comment letters were received after the end of the public review period. Each comment letter received is indexed with a letter below. A Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo, Attorneys at Law (on behalf of Californians Allied for a Responsible Economy (CARECA) (June 21, 2021) Aidan P. Marshall B Mark Rush (June 22, 2021) – Late Comment C California Air Resources Board (CARB) (June 24, 2021) – Late Comment Stanley Armstrong, Air Pollution Specialist 2.2 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Aside from certain courtesy statements, introductions, closings, and certain attachments, individual comments within the body of each letter have been identified and numbered. A copy of each comment letter and the City’s responses to each applicable comment are included in this section. Brackets delineating the individual comments and a numeric identifier have been added to the right margin of the letter. Responses to each comment identified are included on the page(s) following each comment letter. Responses to comments were sent to the agency, organizations and person that provided comments. Page 2-3 Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Final Environmental Impact Report Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Comment Letter A A-1 Page 2-4 Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Final Environmental Impact Report Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Comment Letter A A-3 A-2 A-1(cont) Page 2-5 Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Final Environmental Impact Report Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Comment Letter A A-4 A-5 Page 2-6 Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Final Environmental Impact Report Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Comment Letter A A-5(cont) Page 2-7 Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Final Environmental Impact Report Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Comment Letter A A-6 A-5(cont) Page 2-8 Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Final Environmental Impact Report Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Comment Letter A A-7 A-8 Page 2-9 Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Final Environmental Impact Report Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Comment Letter A A-9 A-8(cont) Page 2-10 Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Final Environmental Impact Report Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Comment Letter A A-10 A-9(cont) Page 2-11 Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Final Environmental Impact Report Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Comment Letter A A-11 A-10(cont) Page 2-12 Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Final Environmental Impact Report Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Comment Letter A A-13 A-12 A-11(cont) Page 2-13 Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Final Environmental Impact Report Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Comment Letter A A-14 A-13(cont) Page 2-14 Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Final Environmental Impact Report Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Comment Letter A A-14(cont) Page 2-15 Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Final Environmental Impact Report Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Comment Letter A A-14(cont) Page 2-16 Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Final Environmental Impact Report Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Comment Letter A A-14(cont) Page 2-17 Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Final Environmental Impact Report Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Comment Letter A A-14(cont) Page 2-18 Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Final Environmental Impact Report Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Comment Letter A A-15 A-14(cont) Page 2-19 Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Final Environmental Impact Report Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Comment Letter A A-15(cont) Page 2-20 Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Final Environmental Impact Report Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Comment Letter A A-16 A-17 A-15(cont) Page 2-21 Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Final Environmental Impact Report Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Comment Letter A A-18 A-17(cont) Page 2-22 Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Final Environmental Impact Report Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Comment Letter A A-20 A-18(cont) A-19 Page 2-23 Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Final Environmental Impact Report Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Comment Letter A A-21 A-20(cont) Page 2-24 Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Final Environmental Impact Report Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Comment Letter A A-22 A-21(cont) Page 2-25 Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Final Environmental Impact Report Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Comment Letter A A-22(cont) Page 2-26 Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Final Environmental Impact Report Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Comment Letter A A-23 A-22(cont) Page 2-27 Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Final Environmental Impact Report Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Comment Letter A A-23(cont) Page 2-28 Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Final Environmental Impact Report Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Comment Letter A A-23(cont) Page 2-29 Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Final Environmental Impact Report Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Comment Letter A A-25 A-24 A-23(cont) Page 2-30 Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Final Environmental Impact Report Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Comment Letter A A-27 A-26 A-25(cont) Page 2-31 Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Final Environmental Impact Report Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Comment Letter A A-27(cont) Page 2-32 Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Final Environmental Impact Report Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Comment Letter A A-29 A-28 A-27(cont) Page 2-33 Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Final Environmental Impact Report Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Comment Letter A A-30 A-29(cont) Page 2-34 Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Final Environmental Impact Report Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Comment Letter A A-31 A-30(cont) Page 2-35 Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Final Environmental Impact Report Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Comment Letter A A-32 A-31(cont) Page 2-36 Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Final Environmental Impact Report Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Comment Letter A A-33 A-32(cont) Page 2-37 Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Final Environmental Impact Report Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Comment Letter A A-33(cont) Page 2-38 Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Final Environmental Impact Report Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Comment Letter A A-34 A-33(cont) Page 2-39 Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Final Environmental Impact Report Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Comment Letter A A-35 A-36 A-34(cont) Page 2-40 Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Final Environmental Impact Report Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Comment Letter A A-37 A-38 A-36(cont) Page 2-41 Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Final Environmental Impact Report Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Comment Letter A A-39 A-40 A-38(cont) Page 2-42 Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Final Environmental Impact Report Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Comment Letter A A-41 A-40(cont) Page 2-43 Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Final Environmental Impact Report Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Comment Letter A A-42 A-43 A-41(cont) Page 2-44 Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Final Environmental Impact Report Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Comment Letter A A-43(cont) Page 2-45 Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Final Environmental Impact Report Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Comment Letter A A-44 A-43(cont) Page 2-46 Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Final Environmental Impact Report Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Comment Letter A A-46 A-45 A-47 A-48 A-44(cont) Page 2-47 Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Final Environmental Impact Report Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Comment Letter A A-48(cont) Page 2-48 Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Final Environmental Impact Report Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Comment Letter A A-49 A-48(cont) Page 2-49 Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Final Environmental Impact Report Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Comment Letter A Page 2-50 Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Final Environmental Impact Report Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Comment Letter A A-50 Page 2-51 Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Final Environmental Impact Report Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Comment Letter A A-50(cont) Page 2-52 Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Final Environmental Impact Report Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Comment Letter A A-51 A-52 Page 2-53 Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Final Environmental Impact Report Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Comment Letter A A-52(cont) Page 2-54 Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Final Environmental Impact Report Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Comment Letter A A-52(cont) Page 2-55 Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Final Environmental Impact Report Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Comment Letter A A-53 Page 2-56 Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Final Environmental Impact Report Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Comment Letter A A-54 A-55 Page 2-57 Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Final Environmental Impact Report Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Comment Letter A A-56 A-55(cont) Page 2-58 Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Final Environmental Impact Report Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Comment Letter A A-56(cont) Page 2-59 Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Final Environmental Impact Report Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Comment Letter A A-57 A-56(cont) Page 2-60 Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Final Environmental Impact Report Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Comment Letter A A-58 A-57(cont) Page 2-61 Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Final Environmental Impact Report Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Comment Letter A A-59 A-58(cont) Page 2-62 Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Final Environmental Impact Report Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Comment Letter A A-60 A-59(cont) Page 2-63 Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Final Environmental Impact Report Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Comment Letter A A-61 A-60(cont) Page 2-64 Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Final Environmental Impact Report Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Comment Letter A A-62 A-61(cont) Page 2-65 Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Final Environmental Impact Report Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Comment Letter A Page 2-66 Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Final Environmental Impact Report Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Comment Letter A A-63 A-64 Page 2-67 Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Final Environmental Impact Report Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Comment Letter A A-65 A-64(cont) Page 2-68 Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Final Environmental Impact Report Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Comment Letter A A-66 A-67 A-65(cont) Page 2-69 Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Final Environmental Impact Report Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Comment Letter A A-68 A-67(cont) Page 2-70 Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Final Environmental Impact Report Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Comment Letter A Page 2-71 Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Final Environmental Impact Report Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Comment Letter A A-69 Page 2-72 Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Final Environmental Impact Report Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Comment Letter A A-69(cont) Page 2-73 Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Final Environmental Impact Report Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Comment Letter A A-69(cont) Page 2-74 Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Final Environmental Impact Report Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Comment Letter A A-69(cont) Page 2-75 Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Final Environmental Impact Report Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Comment Letter A A-69(cont) Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Final Environmental Impact Report Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 2-76 Responses to Comment Letter A Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo (on behalf of CARECA) June 21, 2021 Responses to Main Comment Letter A A-1 This comment consists of introductory remarks and identifies that comments on the Draft EIR are being provided by Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo on behalf of the Californians Allied for a Responsible Economy (CARECA), and provides a summary of the Project. This comment does not raise any environmental issues, and no further response is required. A-2 This comment identifies that review of the Draft EIR was also provided by technical consultants supporting the commenter and requests that separate responses be provided to the comment letters provided by these technical consultants. Responses to the comments received from the technical consultants have been provided herein, as requested. Attachments to the technical consultant comment letters are included in Attachment A of this Final EIR. A-3 This comment raises general concerns about impacts to air quality, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, hazardous materials, noise, transportation, energy, land use and planning, and biological resources resulting from the Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project (Project), as well as general concerns about the Project approvals. These concerns are reiterated in later comments and are addressed in greater detail in the responses to those comments below. This comment incorrectly asserts that the Draft EIR does not comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements. As presented in the responses to comments below, the Draft EIR adequately analyzes and discloses the potential environmental impacts resulting from the Project, including the impacts areas cited by the commenter: air quality, GHG emissions, hazardous materials, noise, transportation, energy, land use and planning, and biological resources. As such, no revisions to the Draft EIR analysis or conclusions are required, and recirculation of the Draft EIR is not required. In addition, as further explained below, the City has not yet made any findings in connection with the Project or related approvals; thus, the commenter’s claims regarding the sufficiency of these findings are premature. A-4. The statement of interest is noted. While there is no publicly available information about CARECA, we note from this comment that the “coalition” is comprised of various labor unions, whose primary interest is securing jobs through a project labor agreement. Employment and business concerns raised in this comment do not raise any associated environmental issues and are therefore not within the purview of CEQA; however, this comment will be provided to the City decision makers for their review and consideration of the project as a whole. This comment does not raise any issues concerning the environmental analysis provided in the Draft EIR and thus no further response is required. A-5 This comment interprets and provides a summary of CEQA requirements from the Guidelines and case law and introduces general concerns about the Draft EIR’s compliance with CEQA and discussion of impacts. These concerns are addressed in the Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Final Environmental Impact Report Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 2-77 responses to the more specific comments below. This comment does not raise any specific issues. As presented in the responses to comments below, the Draft EIR adequately discloses the potential environmental impacts resulting from the Project. No revisions to the Draft EIR analysis or conclusions are required, and recirculation of the Draft EIR is not required. A-6 This comment incorrectly asserts that the Draft EIR does not include an accurate and complete Project Description and summarizes CEQA requirements and case law related to describing a project. The comment generally criticizes the Draft EIR, is unsupported and does not identify any specific concerns or provide evidence that the Project Description is incomplete. The City agrees with the commenter that a Project Description must be “accurate, stable, and finite,” which is exactly what is provided in the Draft EIR. Responses to Comments A-7 through A-11, below, address specific comments related to the Project Description and demonstrate that the Draft EIR includes an accurate and complete Project Description that adequately meets CEQA requirements.” A-7 This comment acknowledges that the City Draft EIR’s estimate of cold storage is based, in part, on the proposed building design and site plan then incorrectly asserts that the Draft EIR fails to substantiate the estimate that 10% of the Project will be used for cold storage. As identified on Page 3-9 of the Draft EIR, different types of high-cube warehouses have various operational characteristics (e.g., fulfillment centers that can be non-sort or sort facilities, cold storage warehouses, hours of operations, etc.). The future tenants of the buildings are not currently known, could not reasonably be known, and were not known when the Draft EIR was prepared. The Project involves developing two Class A speculative industrial buildings designed to meet contemporary industry standards that can accommodate a wide variety of users. Each building has been designed to operate independently. Therefore, for analysis purposes in the Draft EIR, certain assumptions regarding the Project’s physical characteristics, operations, and construction activities are made, and are clearly identified in Draft EIR Section 3.0, Project Description. The proposed building design/site plan and associated parking layout was the basis for anticipating that the proposed buildings would operate as non-sort fulfillment centers, as further discussed under Response to Comment A-8, below. The statement that 90% of the building square footage would be operated as a high-cube non-sort fulfillment center warehouse and the remaining 10% would be operated as a high-cube cold storage warehouse was not based on the building design/site plan. Rather, the Project Applicant is proposing that tenants would occupy a maximum 10% of the Project building square footage with high-cube cold storage uses, and therefore this was the maximum amount of cold storage square footage analyzed. In addition, as part of its Project approvals, in response to this comment and for purposes of clarification, this operational characteristic that has already been disclosed in the Draft EIR, will be enforced by the City through a Condition of Approval that restricts the Project to no more than 10% of the building space being used for high-cube cold storage warehouse space, consistent with the analysis in the Draft EIR. As noted in the Draft EIR and reiterated herein, because the Project will involve no more than 10% use for cold storage as a condition of approval, no revisions to the Draft EIR project description or associated analyses are required. Notwithstanding, for clarification, page 3-9 of the Draft EIR Project Description (1st partial paragraph) is hereby revised to read as follows: Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Final Environmental Impact Report Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 2-78 “…However, for purposes of analysis in this Draft EIR, and based on the proposed building design/site plan and associated parking layout, it is assumed that 90% of the building square footage would be operated as a high-cube non-sort fulfillment center warehouse 1 and the remaining 10% would be operated as a high-cube cold storage warehouse 2. A Condition of Approval will be included for the Project limiting any cold storage to a maximum 10% of building square footage.” This revision is included in Section 3.0, Draft EIR Clarifications and Revisions, of this Final EIR. A-8 This comment addresses the description of the Project as a “high-cube non-sort fulfillment center”. The referenced text on Page 3-38 of the Draft EIR is simply acknowledging that based on the proposed building design/site plan, the Project Applicant anticipates that the proposed buildings would be operated as a high-cube non-sort fulfillment center. As identified on Page 3-9 of the Draft EIR, based on Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Rate 155 for “fulfillment center” a non-sort fulfillment center typically ships large box items that use more automation than manual sortation, and a sort fulfillment center typically ships out smaller items, requiring extensive sorting, typically by manual means. The fact that a sorting facility would also be allowed under the proposed Project entitlements has no bearing on the Project description. As provided by the Guidelines, a conclusion is supported by substantial evidence if there is “enough relevant information and reasonable inferences … that a fair argument can be made to support a conclusion, even though other conclusions might also be reached.”3 In this case, the Project buildings at this point, due to the proposed design and parking layout, are anticipated to operate as non-sort fulfillment centers, and that was appropriately the basis for analysis in the Draft EIR. Contrary to the commenter’s assertion, the Draft EIR does not conclude that sorting would not occur at the Project site following construction, instead the City conservatively evaluated two operational scenarios in the Draft EIR: the proposed operations as a non- sort fulfillment center and operations as a sort fulfillment center, where applicable. The supplemental analysis for a sort fulfillment center is related to impacts based on trip generation (e.g., air quality, energy, greenhouse gas emissions, off-site traffic noise, and transportation) because a sort fulfillment center use would be expected to generate an estimated 13,070 actual vehicle trip-ends per day, and a net increase of 10,038 total vehicle trip-ends per day (passenger cars and trucks) when taking into consideration daily trips that would be generated by use of the existing buildings (3,032 actual vehicle trip- ends per day as discussed in Draft EIR Section 4.13, Transportation). For comparison, the high-cube non-sort fulfillment center warehouse and high-cube cold storage building operations would generate 3,472 actual passenger car vehicle trip ends per day, compared to 12,528 actual passenger car vehicle trip ends per day with the high-cube sort 1 Fulfillment centers can be categorized as either sort or non-sort facilities. A non-sort fulfillment center typically ships large box items that use more automation than manual sortation. A sort fulfillment center typically ships out smaller items, requiring extensive sorting, typically by manual means. (Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Rate 155). 2 A cold storage warehouse has the ability to keep temperature sensitive items in a temperature-controlled environment. 3 Guidelines § 15384(a). Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Final Environmental Impact Report Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 2-79 fulfillment center warehouse use. There would be a minimal difference in truck trip ends per day (536 trips ends per day with a non-sort warehouse operation compared to 542 trip ends per day with a sort warehouse operation), and no difference in trip generation for the high-cube cold storage warehouse use. Therefore, the Draft EIR conservatively analyzes the impacts resulting from use of the buildings as non-sort fulfillment centers and sort fulfillment centers, ensuring that the potential environmental impacts resulting from operation of the Project have been adequately analyzed. No further analysis is required. Further, the Project Applicant has agreed as part of the proposed Development Agreement that the proposed buildings would not be operated as sort use fulfillment centers. A-9 This comment requests that the types of end-users for the proposed buildings be identified, if known to the City or the Project Applicant. As discussed in Responses to Comment A-7 and A-8, above, the end-users are not currently known and cannot reasonably be known. The identification of any future tenant or end user would be entirely speculative and, as such, is not appropriate or required under CEQA. The proposed buildings are being constructed as speculative industrial buildings designed to meet contemporary industry standards, accommodating a wide variety of users. The estimate made for purposes of analysis that 90% of the building square footage would be operated as a high-cube non-sort fulfillment center warehouse and the remaining 10 percent would be operated as a high-cube cold storage warehouse is explained in Response to Comment A-7, above. As also identified, the City of Rancho Cucamonga will condition the Project with a restriction that no more than 10% of the building space be used for high- cube cold storage warehouse space, consistent with the analysis in the Draft EIR. Commentor cites Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City of Bakersfield 4 for the proposition that an EIR must disclose its tenant or type of business “where the type of tenant, or type of business, is known and there is evidence that an impact unique to that tenant or type of business will result.”5 That case involved an EIR where no tenants were identified, despite the fact that it was “clear from the administrative record that prior to certification of the [] EIR, the public and the City knew that one of [the applicants] tenants was going to be a Supercenter.”6 As noted repeatedly throughout the Draft EIR and herein, neither the City nor Applicant have any such knowledge regarding the future tenants of the Project. In addition, courts have held that “[i]t is common knowledge that projects are often developed without any knowledge of who the user/tenant will be. If CEQA was to be interpreted [to require that information], no such projects could ever proceed until all potential user/tenants were identified and subsequently investigated by the lead agency. In addition to being completely impractical, this interpretation finds no support in the sphere of law and regulation encompassed by CEQA.”7 Courts have also held that identification of a specific tenant, such as a nation-wide retail chain store, in a proposed commercial development did not constitute potentially significant change and did not warrant additional environmental review under CEQA.8 4 (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1184, 1213. 5 Comment Letter, p. 7. 6 Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City of Bakersfield, 124 Cal.App.4th at 1194. 7 Maintain Our Desert Env't v Town of Apple Valley (2004) 124 CA4th 430 8 Friends of Davis v. City of Davis (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 1004, 1021-22. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Final Environmental Impact Report Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 2-80 A-10 Backup generators would operate very infrequently, if at all, and would be used only for emergency operations. This fact, in conjunction with a number of assumptions that would need to be made to estimate air quality impacts due to emergency operations (e.g., frequency and duration of the emergency, the specific horsepower rating and engine type), renders quantification of those impacts too speculative to be meaningful and is therefore not required by CEQA. “An impact which is ‘speculative or unlikely to occur is not reasonably foreseeable’”9 and therefore is not required to be analyzed under CEQA. Additionally, any such backup generators utilized by the Project would be required to obtain a separate air quality permit from the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). Under these circumstances, backup generators would only operate for periodic testing as limited by the ultimate air permit it would be governed by for non- emergency situations. Notably, SCAQMD Rule 1470 identifies that new stationary emergency standby diesel-fueled engines (>50 break horsepower [bhp]) shall not operate more than 50 hours per year for maintenance and testing. As such, even if information were available to calculate daily emissions from periodic testing of the backup generators, these emissions would be negligible and would not change the findings or conclusions of the Draft EIR. A-11 This comment addresses the analysis in the Draft EIR related to the use of natural gas. The proposed buildings are not being designed or constructed to accommodate use of natural gas; therefore, the Draft EIR analysis correctly does not consider operational impacts associated with use of natural gas (e.g., air pollutant emissions, energy consumption, etc.). As typical for this type of building, the main warehouse space would have no heating and the office space would be heated from an electric source. The Draft EIR discussion of potential connections to existing natural gas lines in the future was solely to demonstrate that there would not be a need for the installation of offsite infrastructure. Although it is not anticipated to be needed, should use of natural gas be requested by a tenant in the future, building and infrastructure modifications would be required that would require approval by the City. As such, any future use of natural gas would be subject to additional environmental review pursuant to CEQA. This requirement has already been disclosed in the Draft EIR and does not represent a new mitigation measure. In addition, in response to this comment, this requirement will be enforced by the City through a Condition of Approval that restricts the Project such that any future proposed use of natural gas and associated installation of required infrastructure is prohibited and any modifications to this prohibition would be subject to additional review under CEQA. No revisions to the Draft EIR project description or associated analyses are required. However, for clarification, page 3-32 of the Draft EIR Project Description (3rd paragraph under “Dry Utilities”) is hereby revised to read as follows: “…However, natural gas service to the Project is not required and the Project does not include the installation of natural gas lines. Connections to existing gas lines in 4th Street and 6th Street could be made in the future if a tenant requires natural gas for operations subject to additional review pursuant to CEQA. This requirement will be included as a Condition of Approval for the Project.” 9 Anderson First Coalition v. City of Anderson (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 1173, 1182 (quoting Guidelines § 15064(d)(3)). Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Final Environmental Impact Report Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 2-81 This revision is included in Section 3.0, Draft EIR Clarifications and Revisions, of this Final EIR. A-12 This comment addresses the treatment of the expected lifespan of the Project in the Draft EIR. The commenter correctly identifies that the Draft EIR conservatively assumes a 30- year Project lifespan when conducting the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions analysis. As presented in Draft EIR Section 4.7 (refer to Draft EIR page 4.7-13), for construction phase Project emissions, GHGs are quantified and amortized over the life of the Project. To amortize the emissions over the life of the Project, the SCAQMD recommends calculating the total GHG emissions for the construction activities, dividing it by a 30-year Project life. It should be noted that the typical lifespan of a warehouse building is 50 to 60 years 10, and the amortization of construction-related GHG emissions over 30 years is a conservative assumption because it results in greater GHG emissions per year from construction when added to the total GHG emissions. The estimated construction-related GHG emissions is the only Project analysis where the Project’s lifespan is necessary for evaluating Project impacts. Other technical analyses consider daily annual, or cumulative impacts, or are not based on a specific period of time. For instance, operational GHG emissions are based on annual emissions calculations, and construction-related and operational criteria air pollutant emissions are based on daily emissions calculations. In addition, the case cited by the commenter, Communities for a Better Environment v. City of Richmond (CBE)11 contains no discussion regarding the lifespan of a project. That case involved upgrades to and replacement of existing equipment at an oil refinery “to improve the Refinery's ability to process a more varied proportional mix of crude oil types than it currently processes, including crude oil with higher sulfur content.”12 The court in CBE found the project description in the EIR insufficient because it was “inconsistent and obscure as to whether the Project enables the Refinery to process heavier crude” oil.13 The court’s holding in CBE did not relate to the life span of the project. In addition, there is no similar lack of clarity around the description of the Project here. As such, no further response to this comment is required. A-13 This comment is acknowledged. While making several statements about CEQA requirements, this comment does not raise any issues related to the environmental analysis provided in the Draft EIR; thus, no further response is required. Moreover, and as explained in Response to Comments A-14 and A-15 below, the City relied on a proper existing conditions baseline supported by substantial evidence. A-14 The first six paragraphs of this comment interpret and summarize various legal cases. As described in detail below, relevant case law actually supports the Draft EIR’s baseline. Section 15125 of the CEQA Guidelines sets forth the requirements for the EIR’s description of the physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the Project.14 10 commercialproperty2sell.com.au (July 2018). Available at https://www.commercialproperty2sell.com.au/blog/2018/07/what-is-the-lifespan-of-a-commercial- building.php 11 (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 70, 85-89. 12 Id. at 80. 13 Id. at 89. 14 CEQA Guidelines §15125(a). Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Final Environmental Impact Report Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 2-82 Subsection (a)(1) of that Section, to which Commenter provides a limited citation, goes on to note that “[w]here existing conditions change or fluctuate over time, and where necessary to provide the most accurate picture practically possible of the project's impacts, a lead agency may define existing conditions by referencing historic conditions, or conditions expected when the project becomes operational, or both, that are supported with substantial evidence.”15 It further provides that “a lead agency may also use baselines consisting of both existing conditions and projected future conditions that are supported by reliable projections based on substantial evidence in the record.”16 The Final Statement of Reasons for the 2018 Guidelines update explains that “a lead agency may look back to historic conditions to establish a baseline where existing conditions fluctuate, provided that it can document such historic conditions with substantial evidence. (See, Communities for a Better Environment v. South Coast Air Quality Management District 48 Cal.4th at pp. 327-328 (‘Environmental conditions may vary from year to year and in some cases, it is necessary to consider conditions over a range of time periods’).”17 The existing conditions defined in the Draft EIR meet the requirements outlined by the CEQA Guidelines and applicable caselaw because they reflect the existing warehouse and retail buildings on the Project site, occupied by warehouse uses for over 37 years, including during the preparation of the Draft EIR. The existing buildings are intact and can be occupied by a warehouse use at any time without any discretionary approvals from the City.18 As explained in the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment included in the Draft EIR as Appendix I-1 (“Phase I”), the existing buildings were constructed in approximately 1983 and “[s]ince construction, the site buildings have been used by Big Lots (formerly known as Pic-N-Save) for warehouse, distribution, and retail purposes.”19 Big Lots occupied the existing buildings at the time the development applications for the Project were submitted in November 2019. Following submittal, the existing buildings were briefly vacant from March 1, 2020, to October 29, 2020, at which time the buildings were then re-occupied by another warehouse user (Geodis). The re-occupation of the existing warehouse building was reasonably foreseeable when the NOP was published on October 2, 2020, as the property owner was in the process of seeking out tenants through standard methods of advertisement. The 8-month vacancy does not represent the 37-year history of the project site; therefore, this brief vacancy would not be considered an accurate or reasonable baseline for the project site. Additionally, this vacancy occurred at the beginning of the COVID pandemic, which further substantiates that the vacant condition does not represent an accurate baseline. This is in contrast to the commenter’s incorrect assumption that the existing buildings “have remained vacant since” Big Lots vacated the Project site. The NOP was published only 27 days before the existing buildings were re- occupied by Geodis. Therefore, the EIR was prepared while the existing buildings were occupied, coupled with their occupied use for approximately 37 years prior, is a reasonable environmental baseline to compare the Project impacts against. Therefore, the baseline that was used to inform the analysis is supported by substantial evidence. 15 CEQA Guidelines §15125(a)(1). 16 Id. 17 CEQA Guidelines Update Statement of Reasons; available at: https://resources.ca.gov/CNRALegacyFiles/ceqa/docs/2018_CEQA_Final_Statement_of%20Reasons_11 1218.pdf 18 Draft EIR, p. 4-4. 19 Draft EIR, Appendix I-1, p. 1. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Final Environmental Impact Report Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 2-83 Unlike the Draft EIR prepared for the Project, Communities for a Better Environment v. South Coast Air Quality Management District (“CBE v. SCAQMD”) involved SCAQMD’s failure to prepare an EIR.20 In that case, ConocoPhillips had applied for a permit to conduct a new industrial process at its petroleum refinery that would result in increased nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions.21 SCAQMD determined that although this increase in NOx emissions “exceeded the District’s established significance threshold,” it was not a significant environmental effect of this project because the increase in NOx emissions was still below the maximum amount allowed for the refinery’s existing permits.22 The court found that this baseline was improper because “in ordinary operation any given boiler ran at the maximum allowed capacity only when one or more of the other boilers was shut down for maintenance” and “operation of the boilers simultaneously at their collective maximum was not the norm.”23 The Draft EIR did not use “hypothetical conditions allowable” like the Negative Declaration at issue in CBE v. SCAQMD.24 The Draft EIR included the normal operation of existing buildings and uses, 23,240 square foot (sf) retail building and a 1,431,000 sf warehouse building, as the baseline conditions for the Project site.25 As noted above, these uses have been consistent in the existing buildings at the Project site since their construction 37 years ago, with the exception of an 8-month period amid a global pandemic, during which the buildings were vacant before they were reoccupied. The commenter provides no evidence to support its claim that the existing buildings were ever “underutilized.” Therefore, the Draft EIR used the “realized physical conditions on the ground” as required by CBE.26 The fact that the existing buildings were briefly vacant at the time the NOP was published does not affect the environmental baseline. As noted by the court in CBE v. SCAQMD, “the date for establishing baseline cannot be a rigid one. Environmental conditions may vary from year to year and in some cases it is necessary to consider conditions over a range of time periods.”27 Importantly, CBE v. SCAQMD notes that “[n]either CEQA nor the CEQA Guidelines mandates a uniform, inflexible rule for determination of the existing conditions baseline. Rather, an agency enjoys the discretion to decide, in the first instance, exactly how the existing physical conditions without the project can most realistically be measured, subject to review, as with all CEQA factual determinations, for support by substantial evidence.”28 In this case, the Project site’s use as retail and warehouse for over 37 years, including during the period that the Draft EIR was prepared, constitutes substantial evidence that those conditions represent an accurate baseline. Association of Irritated Residents v. Kern County Board of Supervisors (“AIR”), also cited by the commenter, also involved a change to operations at a refinery. In that case, the court upheld the agency’s use of the refinery’s 2007 operations as baseline, despite the 20 CBE v. SCAQMD (2010) 48 Cal.4th 310, 318. 21 Id. at 316. 22 Id. at 320. 23 Id. at 322. 24 Id. at 322. 25 Draft EIR, p. 4-4. 26 Id. at 318, quoting appellate court opinion. 27 Id. at 327-28, quoting Save Our Peninsula Committee v. Monterey County Board of Supervisors (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 99, 125, emphasis added. 28 Id. at 329. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Final Environmental Impact Report Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 2-84 filing of the NOP in 2013, “because of the refinery’s history of fluctuating operations.”29 The refinery in that case had ceased operations in 2008 and resumed partial operations, but very limited refining operations, in 2011.30 Despite the fact that the refinery had not operated at full capacity in the preceding four years, and had not operated at all for two of those years, the court held that “an operating refinery was properly included in the project’s baseline.”31 The court based this conclusion on four factors: (1) that the issuance approved the refinery’s operations in the baseline year of permits or other entitlements that were still in effect; (2) information in the EIR showed that the refinery processed oil until its bankruptcy in 2008 and resumed processing oil, albeit at a limited capacity, following its subsequent purchase; (3) the refinery operations had been subject to prior review under CEQA; and (4) the processing of crude oil at the refinery could begin again without the approval of the project.32 In the case of the Project, the existing buildings have been fully operational with retail and warehouse uses for nearly all of the 37 years since they were constructed, with the exception of the8-month vacancy between tenants noted above. This vacancy is much shorter than the 4-year vacancy and limited operations period in AIR. In addition, the Project site meets all of the factors outlined by the court in AIR in that (1) it has entitlements to operate as a warehouse use and can do so at any time without any discretionary approvals from the City; 33 (2) information in the Draft EIR indicated that it was used as a warehouse and retail site until its vacation by Big Lots in February 2020,34 and, as noted above, was subsequently occupied by Geodis in October 2020; (3) the retail and warehouse uses at the Project site have been subject to prior review under CEQA, as indicated in the Staff Report included in Attachment B to this Final EIR. Most importantly, the warehouse and retail uses at the Project site could begin again – and did begin again on October 29, 2020, without the approval of the Project.35 Similarly, the project in North County Advocates v. City of Carlsbad (“North County Advocates”), involved the redevelopment of a shopping center, which contained a department store that had been vacant for approximately 6 years.36 The court in that case upheld an EIR’s traffic analysis that treated a department store “as fully occupied, even though it was vacated in 2006 and had been only periodically occupied since.”37 In addition, the court in North County Advocates distinguished the application of CBE v. SCAQMD, stating that: “the City's selection of a traffic baseline that assumed full occupancy of the [department store] space was not merely hypothetical because it was not based solely on [the shopping center’s] entitlement to reoccupy the [department store] building ‘at any time without discretionary action,’ but was also based on the actual 29 (2017) 17 Cal.App.5th 708, 718. 30 Id. at 721. 31 Id. at 728-29. 32 Id. at 728-9. 33 Draft EIR, p. 4-4. 34 Draft EIR, p. 4-4. 35 Draft EIR, p. 4-4. 36 (2015) 241 Cal.App.4th 94, 96-8. 37 Id. at 97. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Final Environmental Impact Report Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 2-85 historical operation of the space at full occupancy for more than 30 years up until 2006.”38 The reasoning used by the court to uphold the baseline in North County Advocates is exactly analogous to the facts outlined in the Draft EIR with respect to the Project site. Not only is it fully entitled and able to be reoccupied at any time as a retail/warehouse use, but it had also been fully operational as such for more than 37 years until it was vacated in February 2020, after which it was reoccupied by Geodis eight months later, as outlined above. The commenter’s characterization that the Project is distinguishable from the project at issue in North County Advocates because that project “sought to fill a vacant space in an existing mall” is incorrect. The site development plan for the project studied in the Draft EIR in North County Advocates “allowed for the immediate removal, renovation, and/or redevelopment of portions of the east end of the existing mall structure and associated outbuildings.” An initial site plan “would have allowed for a net increase of approximately 35,000 square feet of gross leasable area.”39 Even after the scope of the project was reduced, the final project “still included demolition and reconstruction of the [department store].”40 The reconstruction and expansion of an existing use is identical to the Project at issue here. Similarly, the “expansion or replacement of components of an existing facility” to which the commenter refers in connection with AIR involved “(1) the expansion of existing rail, transfer and storage facilities; (2) the construction of process unit upgrades and modifications; (3) repurposing existing storage tanks; and (4) the relocation and modernization of an existing liquid propane gas truck rack and upgrades to a sales rack.”41 In addition, the project in that case would result in the offloading of 150,000 barrels of oil per day and the processing of 70,000 barrels per day, as compared to the baseline that the agency chose, and court approved, of 60,389.42 The commenter’s attempt to distinguish North County and AIR from the fact here therefore fails. Just like in those cases, the existing buildings have a long history of use. The fact that the NOP was issued during an 8-month temporary lull in occupancy between Big Lots and Geodis does not impact the City’s ability to use an existing conditions baseline that assumes full occupancy of the existing warehouse buildings. Therefore, the Draft EIR uses an appropriate baseline and does not need to be revised or recirculated. The other cases the commenter cites provide support for, rather than against, the baseline used in the Draft EIR. San Francisco Baykeeper, Inc. v. State Lands Commission (SF Baykeeper), involved the approval of mineral extraction leases.43 In that case, the court upheld a baseline of “the average annual volume of sand mined in the proposed project area per year from 2002 to 2007” which the agency concluded provided “a more accurate 38 Id. at 105. 39 Id. at 98. 40 Id. 41 AIR, 17 Cal.App.5th at 721. 42 See AIR 17 Cal.App.5th at 721, indicating refining capacity of up to 70,000 barrels per day and 727-8, noting that average barrels per day for 2007 was 60,389. We further note that the average number of barrels processed per day in 2012, the year immediately preceding NOP preparation, was 4,751. 43 (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 202, 210. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Final Environmental Impact Report Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 2-86 measure of mining activity against which to evaluate project impacts.”44 The court in that case upheld the baseline, noting both that “[e]nvironmental conditions may vary from year to year” and that “an agency enjoys the discretion to decide, in the first instance, exactly how the existing physical conditions without the project can most realistically be measured.”45 As in SF Baykeeper, given that the Project site was briefly vacant at the time of the NOP, the City here determined that the most accurate baseline was the historical operation of the Project site. In Cherry Valley Pass Acres & Neighbors v. City of Beaumont (“Cherry Valley”) involved the construction of 560 residential units on a 200-acre agricultural site, in which the EIR used a baseline that relied on a property owner’s right to draw 1,484 acre-feet of water from the Beaumont Basin in lieu of the 50 acre-feet that it actually used.46 The court in that case upheld the use of the baseline as it was “quintessentially a discretionary determination of how the ‘existing physical conditions of the project’ could ‘most realistically be measured.’”47 In so holding, the court also noted that although the property owner was currently using only 50 acre-feet of water, “its right to use its full 1,484 [acre- foot] entitlement on the project site was wholly unaffected.”48 Similarly, in this case, the City retains discretion to determine the most realistic baseline against which to compare the effects of the Project. Additionally, as in Cherry Valley, the fact that the Project site was briefly vacant does not affect its entitlements or the [applicant’s] right to lease to a new tenant at any time. A-15 This comment and its subparts are based on the premise that the Draft EIR’s baseline is inaccurate. As detailed above in Response to Comment A-14 above, the baseline was properly determined by the historical retail and warehouse use of the property since its construction in 1983 and its use as such during the Draft EIR preparation period. As such, the commenter is incorrect, and each analysis and specific impact finding in the Draft EIR is based on accurate baseline conditions. 1. The commenter is correct that the Draft EIR used ITE trip generation information […] for operation of the warehouse building as a high cube transload short-term storage warehouse use (without cold storage) and operation of the retail building as a free- standing discount store use. As explained in Response to Comment A-33 below, the use of this standard trip rate is conservative because it represents the lowest possible trip rate for a warehouse use for purposes of comparing the baseline condition to those of the Project. As stated in the technical response memo prepared by Urban Crossroads and included in Attachment C of this EIR, it is not uncommon to use the ITE Trip Generation Manual rates when there is limited driveway data available or if an existing use is occupied at less than full capacity, as the use of the ITE rates would provide an average representation of the existing trip generation. This method was expressly upheld by the court in North County Advocates, where trip rates “for the vacant Robinson's-May building were estimated using those identified in the San Diego Association of Government'.” 49 Like in North County, the City’s “decision to base the traffic baseline on historical occupancy rates is further supported by 44 SF Baykeeper, 242 Cal.App.4th at 212. 45 Id. at 218 (internal citations omitted). 46 (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 316, 323 and 336. 47 Id. at 337. 48 Id. at 338. 49 North County Advocates v. City of Carlsbad (2015) 241 Cal.App.4th 94, 102 Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Final Environmental Impact Report Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 2-87 substantial evidence consisting of [ITE] data on such use levels.” 50 The commenter’s statement that existing trips should be zero based on vacancy on the date of the NOP is therefore directly contrary to case law and is nonsensical. This would mean that trips would also need to be zero if the NOP was released on a day a fully occupied building happened to be empty because the company was at an off-site event. This is not representative of actual existing conditions at the Project site over the past 37 years. The City correctly used conservative ITE trip generation rates to estimate traffic generated by the existing buildings. 2. As explained above, the ITE trip generation rates are a standard, appropriate and conservative method to determine trip generation from the existing buildings. As such, the existing conditions baseline conditions that relied upon the trip generation data, including mobile source air pollution emissions baseline, mobile source GHG emissions baseline transportation energy demands baseline, traffic fuel consumption baseline, and transportation hazards baseline are all correct. We note that the VMT baseline did not rely on trip generation from the existing baseline and the commenter’s reference to this analysis is misinformed. 3. Baseline emissions associated with architectural coatings, consumer products, and landscape maintenance equipment are property calculated based on operation of the existing buildings. As explained in Response to Comment A-14 above, the Draft EIR use of an existing conditions baseline complies with CEQA and CEQA case law. The fact that the NOP was issued at a brief time when the building was vacant between tenants is immaterial. Therefore, the baseline emissions do not need to be reduced. 4. The commenter is correct that the existing facility's baseline natural gas, electricity, and water consumption is based on historic conditions when Big Lots occupied the existing buildings. It is expected that if a future tenant occupies the existing buildings, they would have similar utility consumption and therefore this data is appropriate to use as the existing conditions baseline. As explained in Response to Comment A-14 above, the existing utilities baseline is not zero, and the analysis does not need to be revised. 5. The commenter is correct that energy-related emissions baseline reflects historic energy usage, derived from utility bills from previous tenants. It is expected that if a future tenant occupies the existing buildings, they would have similar energy consumption and therefore this data is appropriate to use as the existing conditions baseline. As explained in Response to Comment A-14 above, the existing energy baseline is not zero and the analysis does not need to be revised. 6. The commenter is correct that the existing wastewater generated is based on the fact that warehouse uses have occupied the existing buildings for the past 37 years, were reoccupied 27 days after the NOP was issued, and could be reoccupied again at any time with similar warehouse uses. As explained in Response to Comment A-14, the existing wastewater generation baseline is not zero, and the analysis does not need to be revised. 7. The commenter is correct that the existing water demand is based on the fact that warehouse uses have occupied the existing buildings for the past 37 years, were 50 Id. at 106. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Final Environmental Impact Report Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 2-88 reoccupied 27 days after the NOP was issued, and could be reoccupied again at any time with similar warehouse uses. As explained in Response to Comment A-14, the existing water demand baseline is not zero, and the analysis does not need to be revised. 8. The commenter is correct that the existing GHG emissions baseline is derived from the site’s energy source, mobile source, waste generation, and water usage. This is based on the fact that the existing buildings have been occupied by warehouse uses for the past 37 years, were reoccupied 27 days after the NOP was issued, and could be reoccupied again at any time with similar warehouse uses. As explained in Response to Comment A-14, the correct baseline is not a vacant facility and the existing emissions do not need to be reduced at all. 9. The commenter is correct that the baseline employment opportunities assume the existing buildings are occupied by warehouse and retail uses, as they have been for the majority of the past 37 years. As explained in Response to Comment A-14, the commenter is wrong that the correct baseline is a vacant facility. A-16 As identified in Response to Comments A-14 and A-15 above, and further detailed in response to commenter’s additional comments below, the baseline accurately reflects the environmental condition of the site. A-17 The commenter correctly notes that the trip generation rates for the existing uses were based on rates established by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. As further discussed in Response to Comment A-33 below, the High-Cube Transload and Short- Term Storage Warehouse use was utilized as it closely fit the description of the existing use relative to functionality and size and had the most conservative (lower) daily trip generation rate. As noted by the commenter, substantial evidence, as defined by CEQA, includes “facts, reasonable assumptions predicated upon facts, and expert opinion supported by facts.”51 The fact that Big Lots, and its predecessor Pic-N-Save, operate retail stores does not preclude the necessity of a warehouse in which to store and distribute the goods they sell. In addition to the common-sense relationship between retail stores and warehouses or distribution centers, the Phase I prepared for the Project site, and included as Appendix I- 1 to the Draft EIR, specifically notes that the “site contains a Big Lots retail store … and a large 1,350,000-square foot warehouse building … The site is used for warehouse, distribution, and retail purposes by Big Lots.”52 This factual statement made by an environmental professional based on a review of leasing information and a site inspection of the building (see photos below from Appendix A, Photographic Documentation, of the Phase I ESA included in Appendix I-1 to the Draft EIR), falls within the definition of substantial evidence provided by CEQA. As noted in Response to Comment A-33 below, the existing trip generation was estimated using ITE’s High-Cube Transload and Short- Term Storage Warehouse (ITE Land Use Code 154) and Free-Standing Discount Store (ITE Land Use Code 815) land uses in an effort to conduct a conservative analysis. The High-Cube Transload and Short-Term Storage Warehouse use was utilized, as it closely fit the description of the existing use relative to functionality and size and had the most conservative (lower) daily trip generation rate. 51 CEQA Guidelines § 15384(b). 52 Draft EIR, Appendix I-1, p. 8. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Final Environmental Impact Report Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 2-89 A-18 The use to which commenter cites and surmises “seems to be referring to its ITE-derived baseline” is in fact referring to the Project site’s ITE baseline because the pages to which the commenter cites are in fact the Project’s Air Quality Impact Analysis and Traffic Data Memorandum, which are included in Appendix B1 and Appendix L2 of the Draft EIR, respectively. As noted in Response to Comment A-33 below, the existing trip generation was estimated using ITE’s High-Cube Transload and Short-Term Storage Warehouse (ITE Land Use Code 154) and Free-Standing Discount Store (ITE Land Use Code 815) land uses in an effort to conduct a conservative analysis. The High-Cube Transload and Short-Term Storage Warehouse use was utilized, as it closely fit the description of the existing use relative to functionality and size and had the most conservative (lower) daily trip generation rate. This is the most conservative rate because estimating a lower existing trip generation increases the Project’s net trip generation when subtracting the number of estimated existing trips from the number of estimated trips associated with the proposed use. A-19 As explained above, the baseline for ITE trip generation accurately reflects the environmental conditions of the Project site. As explained in Response to Comment A-15 above, the use of trip rates prepared by an expert agency (in this case the ITE) to determine existing trips for a vacant building was expressly upheld by the court in North Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Final Environmental Impact Report Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 2-90 County Advocates. As stated in the technical response memo prepared by Urban Crossroads and included in Attachment C of this EIR, it is not uncommon to use the ITE Trip Generation Manual rates when there is limited driveway data available or if an existing use is occupied at less than full capacity as the use of the ITE rates would provide an average representation of the existing trip generation. A-20 As explained above, as well as in the Draft EIR, while the existing buildings were vacant for a brief 8-month period, they were occupied when the Draft EIR was being prepared. Because the buildings can be reoccupied at any time without any discretionary approvals, the Draft EIR assumed occupation of the buildings for the purposes of analysis.53 Because the existing buildings were vacant at the time of the NOP, albeit reoccupied soon thereafter, the City chose to use the employment generation rate provided in the General Plan rather than speculate on the number of employees that would be generated by a potential future tenant.54 The commenter provides no evidence that the assumptions provided in the General Plan are in any way inappropriate for the existing buildings at the Project site. A-21 This comment summarizes CEQA requirements for disclosing and mitigating potentially significant impacts resulting from a project. In addition to the requirements and guidance noted by commenter, we note that the City’s conclusions in the Draft EIR are reviewed under the highly deferential substantial evidence standard. This standard is applied to “conclusions, findings, and determinations and to challenges to the scope of an EIR’s analysis of a topic, the methodology used for studying an impact, and the reliability or accuracy of the data upon which the EIR relied.”55 This “highly deferential substantial evidence standard of review” is applied because the “agency is the finder of fact” and “has the discretion to resolve factual issues and to make policy decisions.”56 This comment does not provide substantial evidence that environmental impacts are not adequately mitigated in the Draft EIR and thus no response is required. A-22 See Response to Comments A-14 and A-15. As noted above, the baseline condition that was the basis for the air quality analysis presented in the Draft EIR accurately reflects the site's environmental condition. Baseline emissions are property calculated based on the historical operation of the existing buildings. The Draft EIR’s use of an existing conditions baseline complies with CEQA and CEQA caselaw. The fact that the NOP was issued at a brief moment when the building was vacant between tenants is immaterial. Therefore, the baseline emissions credits used in the Draft EIR are accurate and no changes to the analysis of operational impacts (regional and local), analysis of the Project’s consistency with the SCAQMD Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP), or any other conclusions cited by commenter are required. In addition, notwithstanding the Project’s less than significant air quality impacts, in response to a generic comment letter from the California Air Resources Board (CARB) (Comment Letter C), the Project Applicant has voluntarily agreed to incorporate the following additional mitigation measures that would further reduce the Project’s less than significant air quality impacts. Specifically, mitigation measure (MM) 2-1 included in Draft EIR Section 4.2, Air Quality, has been expanded (as shown in bold underline) to include 53 Draft EIR, p. 4-4 and p. 4.12-4. 54 Id. 55 Santa Monica Baykeeper v. City of Malibu (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 1538, 1546. 56 California Native Plant Society v. City of Santa Cruz (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 957, 984-85. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Final Environmental Impact Report Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 2-91 additional construction-related mitigation requirements, and new MM 2-2 includes operational requirements. The expanded and new mitigation requirements are also included in Section 3.0, Draft EIR Clarifications and Revisions, of this Final EIR. MM 2-1 Prior to grading permit and building permit issuance, the City of Rancho Cucamonga shall verify that the following applicable notes are included on the grading plans and building plans. Project contractors shall be required to ensure compliance with these notes and permit periodic inspection of the construction-site by City of Rancho Cucamonga staff or its designee to confirm compliance. These notes also shall be specified in bid documents issued to prospective construction contractors. • During construction activity, Project construction contractors shall ensure that off-road diesel construction equipment complies with applicable California Air Resources Board (CARB) emissions standards or equivalent and shall ensure that all construction equipment is tuned and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications. • The following off-road construction equipment shall be CARB Tier III certified or better, by construction phase as shown: ○ Demolition/Crushing: Boom Lift Concrete/Industrial Saws Crusher Skid Steer ○ Utilities/Infrastructure: Trencher ○ Building Construction: Forklifts Generator Sets Welders ○ Paving: Pavers Paving Equipment Rollers ○ Architectural Coating Air Compressors • The following off-road construction equipment shall be CARB Tier IV Final certified or better, by construction phase as shown: ○ Demolition/Crushing: Breakers Excavators Generator Sets Rubber Tired Dozers Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Final Environmental Impact Report Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 2-92 ○ Grading: Crawler Tractors Excavators Graders Rubber Tired Dozers Scrapers ○ Utilities/Infrastructure: Excavators Skip Loaders/Backhoes ○ Building Construction Cranes Crawler Tractors Laser Screed Scissor Loaders/Backhoes Skip Loaders/Backhoes • Idling of heavy construction equipment shall be restricted to two minutes and electrical hook ups shall be provided to support use of zero and near-zero construction equipment and tools whenever feasible. • Off-road equipment with a power rating below 19 kilowatts (e.g., plate compactors, pressure washers) used during project construction shall be electric powered, provided that it is commercially available, which may be plug-in (electric) or battery powered. • Heavy-duty trucks used for dirt and material hauling during construction shall meet the United States Environmental Protection Agency/California Air Resource Board truck engine standard for Model Year 2014 or later. MM 2-2 The Project Applicant shall include the following operational requirements in the final building design or stipulate the operational requirements for building occupants, as appropriate: Project Design • Make truck dock positions EV-ready by installing conduits at truck dock positions for future accommodation of light-duty and/or heavy-duty electric trucks and charging stations. Lease Agreement and Owner-Occupant Requirements • Those loading docks used by trucks with transport refrigeration units (TRU) as determined by a cold storage tenant shall be Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Final Environmental Impact Report Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 2-93 equipped with electrical hookups (applicable to cold storage tenant lease agreements only). • TRUs entering the Project site shall be plug-in capable (applicable to cold storage tenant lease agreements only). • On-site TRU diesel engine run time shall be no longer than 15 minutes (applicable to cold storage tenant lease agreements only). • Service equipment (e.g., yard hostlers, yard equipment, forklifts, and pallet jacks) shall be powered by alternative fuels, electrical batteries or other alternative/non-diesel fuels (e.g., propane) that do not emit diesel particulate matter, and that are low or zero emission. • Trucks and support equipment shall not idle longer than five minutes while on site. A-23 Urban Crossroads, the technical consultant responsible for conducting the air quality analysis and HRA for the Project included in the Draft EIR, has reviewed this comment and determined that the commenter incorrectly asserts that the Draft EIR and underlying health risk assessment is flawed because emissions from “building downwash” have not been considered. The appropriate modeling parameter for trucks idling and traveling associated with the Project would be to use multiple volume sources, which was done in the Draft EIR and underlying technical study. The building downwash effect referenced by the commenter does not apply to truck travel, because emissions from trucks are modeled as volume sources (i.e., it is more appropriate to model truck travel using multiple volume sources that make up a line source), are not point sources (i.e., typically used for stationary sources), and the Project’s source of emissions is truck travel and idling. The commenter should be aware that building downwash effect does not apply to the volume source algorithm per US EPA and SCAQMD guidance and therefore is not applicable to the analysis associated with Project truck traffic. Specifically, SCAQMD’s Risk Assessment Procedures Version 8.1 Appendix X (page X-3) states: “The building downwash algorithms only affect point sources and do not affect volume or area sources.”57 In fact, the commenter cites to Dr. Clark’s comments (included in Exhibit A attached to Comment Letter A) that explain that building downwash occurs “…from nearby stacks.” In the case of the Draft EIR and underlying technical analysis, there are no nearby stacks, and the building downwash algorithm is not applicable since it would be inappropriate to model the trucks from the Project using stacks. Notwithstanding, the commenter provides no evidence or model outputs other than a statement that “Dr. Clark reran the AERMOD model to account for” the building downwash 57 South Coast Air Quality Management District Risk Assessment Procedures for Rules 1401, 1401.1 and 212, Version 8.1 dated September 1, 2017. Available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/permitting/rule-1401-risk-assessment/riskassessproc-v8-1.pdf?sfvrsn=12 Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Final Environmental Impact Report Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 2-94 effect – which is incorrect (since building downwash cannot be applied to volume sources like trucks) unless other inappropriate changes to the source configuration were made. The commenter provides no source to the modeled input or output files referenced by the commenter. In addition, the case cited by commentor, Berkeley Keep Jets Over the Bay Committee v. Board of Port Commissioners,58 involved a failure to conduct any analysis of toxic air contaminants, despite comments from the expert air district suggesting such an analysis.59 As explained above, no such omission occurred in the Draft EIR. Therefore, no changes to air quality analysis or health risk assessment conducted for the Project or changes to the Draft EIR are required. Further, we note that Lead Agencies retain the discretion to decide between expert opinions in Findings of Fact. The existence of differing opinions arising from the same pool of information is not a basis for finding the EIR to be inadequate.60 When approving an EIR, an agency need not correctly resolve a dispute among experts about the accuracy of the EIR's environmental forecasts.61 A-24 The Draft EIR Project Description incorrectly identifies the construction assumption used for purposes of analysis. The following revision is hereby made to the Draft EIR (page 3- 38, 1st sentence, 2nd paragraph) consistent with the construction-related air quality analysis, which analyzed construction 5 days a week. This revision is also included in Section 3.0, Draft EIR Clarifications and Revisions, of this Final EIR. For purposes of analysis in this Draft EIR, construction equipment is expected to operate on the Project site approximately eight hours per day, six five days per week (Monday through Saturday). Because the analysis itself was correctly based on an assumption of construction equipment operating on the Project site five days per week, the results of the analysis remain accurate. Therefore, no changes to the analysis are required and the Draft EIR need not be recirculated. A-25 Urban Crossroads reviewed this comment and notes that the commenter incorrectly states that only 80 TRUs were accounted for in the Health Risk Assessment (HRA) modeling. As shown on page 149 of Appendix B2 of the Draft EIR, a total of 81 TRUs were in fact accounted for in the HRA modeling. The commenter’s reference to the summary Table 2- 4 is flawed because the actual calculation in excel identifies 81 TRUs; however, 35% are attributable to Building 2 and 65% are attributable to Building 1. When these percentages are applied, and the resulting value is presented as a rounded number, the totals appear to show 80 total TRUs. However, if the values are expanded to show two decimal places, it is clear that 81 TRUs have been accounted for, as presented in the excerpt below. Therefore, no changes to the HRA or the analyses in the Draft EIR are required. 58 (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1344. 59 Id. at 1371. 60 Greenbaum v. City of Los Angeles (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 391, 413; see also Eureka Citizens for Responsible Government v. City of Eureka (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 357, 371. 61 Id. VMT a Truck Emission Rate b Truck Emission Rate b Daily Truck Emissions c Modeled Emission Rates d (miles/day)(grams/mile)(grams/idle-hour)(grams/day)(g/second) Onsite Idle A (Building 2 northern loading docks)14.18 0.1444 2.57 2.977E-05 Onsite Idle B (Building 2 southern loading docks)14.18 0.1444 2.57 2.977E-05 Onsite Idle C (Building 1 eastern loading docks)26.33 0.1444 4.78 5.528E-05 Onsite Idle D (Building 1 western loading docks)26.33 0.1444 4.78 5.528E-05 Trucks Per Day Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Final Environmental Impact Report Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 2-95 A-26 See Response to Comments A-14 and A-15. As described above, the baseline condition that was the basis for the GHG emissions analysis presented in the Draft EIR accurately reflects the site's environmental condition. Baseline emissions are property calculated based on operation of the existing buildings. The Draft EIR’s use of an existing conditions baseline complies with CEQA and CEQA caselaw. The fact that the NOP was issued at a brief moment in time when the building was vacant between tenants is immaterial. Therefore, the baseline emissions do not need to be reduced and no changes to the analysis of GHG emissions are required. The Project’s impacts remain less than significant. Notwithstanding the Project’s less than significant GHG emissions impacts, in response to a generic comment letter from CARB, the Project Applicant has voluntarily agreed to incorporate additional mitigation measures that would further reduce the Project’s less than significant GHG emissions impacts during construction and operation (refer to modified MM 2-1 and new MM 2-2 presented in Response to Comment A-22 above). A-27 Ardent Environmental Group, Inc. (Ardent), prepared the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) and Results of a Subsurface Investigation for the Project site (October 8, 2019). These documents are included in Appendix I1 and I2 of the Draft EIR, and summarized in Section 4.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials. Ardent Environmental Group, and specifically Mr. Paul A. Roberts, P.G., Principal Geologist, has provided technical input for this response and Response to Comment A-28, which are based on the comment letter from Clark & Associates (Exhibit A of Comment Letter A). Ardent’s responses are provided in their entirety in Attachment C of this Final EIR. Contrary to the commenter’s assertion, the Phase II is not impermissibly narrow. Prevailing winds in Rancho Cucamonga are reported from the south to southwest.62 This is consistent with information presented on page 14 of the 1973 EPA report showing wind blowing from the southwest to the northeast. Wind direction is reported in degrees and describes the direction from which the wind is blowing. Southwest is at 225 degrees). The former Kaiser Steel plant was located east-northeast of the Project site and would be considered downwind from the site, making it almost impossible for contaminants from this former plant to be aerially deposited on the Project site. Mr. Roberts prepared the Phase I ESA in accordance with ASTM E 1527-13 and concluded that the only Recognized Environmental Condition (REC) that presented a material harm to the public health or the environment was the clarifier located east of a former truck maintenance area. Sections 5.2 and 5.7 of the Phase I ESA recognize that “From the early 1950s, properties further north and east of the site were used as an electrical generating plant (Etiwanda Generating Station) and steel manufacturing (Kaiser Steel).” The former Kaiser Steel plant is not identified as a REC in the Phase I based on the distance of the former Kaiser Steel Plant from the site, prevailing wind direction, extensive studies completed at the Kaiser Steel property since 1976, and the results a 2019 independent Phase I ESA completed for the Project site. Phase II testing was performed by Ardent to assess whether elevated concentrations of selected chemicals were present in the vicinity of the clarifier and assess whether elevated 62 Meteoblue, Climate Rancho Cucamonga (accessed July 9, 2021). See windrose available at: https://www.meteoblue.com/en/weather/historyclimate/climatemodelled/rancho-cucamonga_united- states-of-america_5385955 Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Final Environmental Impact Report Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 2-96 concentrations of agricultural chemicals were present in the northern portion of the site. Consistent with ASTM E 1527-13, the Phase II investigation was performed based on the results of the Phase I ESA. Because the Phase I properly did not identify the former Kaiser Steel plant as a REC, the Phase II investigation was targeted to analyze soil for Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) and pesticides. The results of the Phase II indicated no detectable concentrations of petroleum hydrocarbons and VOCs and low levels of pesticides. Because arsenic was formerly used in pesticides, the Phase II investigation sampled and analyzed shallow soils for arsenic. All results were less than 1 mg/kg, which is well below the background level of 12 mg/kg of arsenic in soil. Mr. Clark relies on a 1975 “Visible Emission Observations” report prepared by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and its attached generic “Inventory of Carcinogenic Substances Released into the Ambient Air of California” to determine compliance with air quality regulations and orders. There is nothing in this report that indicates or concludes that aerially deposited contaminants exist at the Project site. Mr. Roberts reviewed the information provided by the commenter, and noted that since completion of this 45-year-old study, numerous investigations have been completed throughout the former Kaiser Steel property and in the surrounding vicinity under the direction and oversight of the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). Most of the properties in and around the former Kaiser Steel plant have been successfully redeveloped. Based on the results of these investigations, four operable units have been identified, all within the boundary of the former Kaiser Steel property. Site-wide groundwater contamination is considered a fifth operable unit. There have been no indications that any of these operable units are associated with aerially deposited contaminants on surrounding soils. Moreover, the absence of arsenic in the shallow soils at the property supports our conclusion that the Project site was not impacted by aerially deposited contaminants from the Kaiser Steel Plant. Mr. Roberts concluded that aerially deposited chemicals from the Kaiser Steel Plant are not present at the Project site at levels that would impact redevelopment of the site. This is based on the distance of the former Kaiser Steel Plant from the site, prevailing wind direction, extensive studies completed at the Kaiser Steel property since 1976, the results of two independent Phase I ESAs completed for the site, and lack of arsenic (one of Kaiser Steel’s reported COPCs) detected during subsurface investigations completed at the site. Therefore, the Phase I ESA and subsequent Phase II investigation completed by Ardent are adequate to address the environmental concerns at the site. A-28 The City is not required to conduct a health risk assessment associated with disturbance of contaminated soil. As explained above in Response to Comment A-26, the Phase II investigation was properly targeted to investigate potential contaminants of concern at the Project site, and it determined that aerially deposited chemicals from the Kaiser Steel Plant are not present at the Project site at levels that would impact redevelopment of the site. Consistent with California Building Industry Assn. v. Bay Area Air Quality Management Dist. (2015) 62 Cal.4th 369, 389, the EIR here did analyze whether potential soil contamination at the site could be exacerbated by redevelopment of the site.63 The claim that additional investigation is required because “Dr. Clark’s comments provide substantial evidence that carcinogenic compounds might be found on the Project site” is contrary to 63 Draft EIR 4.8-20-23. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Final Environmental Impact Report Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 2-97 the law. Evidence of a fair argument that a project may have a significant effect on the environment is relevant in determining whether or not the preparation of an EIR is required.64 This standard has no bearing on the analysis contained within the EIR once prepared. The EIR analyzed the potential for carcinogenic compounds to be present at the site and concluded, based on extensive review in the Phase I and Phase II investigation that the impact was less than significant. Mr. Clark’s speculation that there “might be” additional contaminants at the site is not substantial evidence of an impact. or of a need for additional investigation. The information provided by Mr. Clark does not indicate the presence, or even possible presence, of carcinogenic compounds at the site that could be disturbed during redevelopment. A-29 Urban Crossroads prepared the Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Noise Impact Analysis (Noise Impact Analysis) included in Appendix K1 of the Draft EIR, and summarized in Section 4.11, Noise, and has provided technical input for this response and Responses to Comments A-30 and A-31 below, which are based on the comment letter from Wilson Ihrig (Exhibit C of Comment Letter A). Urban Crossroads’ responses are provided in their entirety in Attachment C of this Final EIR. Urban Crossroads’ experience demonstrates that the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM) significantly overstates the predicted construction noise levels for typical construction noise source activities. Although the model was first published in 2006, the typical noise levels in the RCNM are based on the heavy construction equipment data collected from the Central Artery/Tunnel (CA/T) project in Boston, Massachusetts in the early 1990’s. While the RCNM may be the de facto national standard for major infrastructure and/or highway construction projects, they do not accurately represent the noise source activities associated with the planned construction of Bridge Point industrial warehouse uses. The reference noise levels used in the RCNM are now over 30 years old. Over this time, equipment manufacturers have gone to great lengths to make their equipment quieter and new equipment is generally much quieter than old equipment. In addition, the CA/T reference construction noise levels were collected to describe the 24-hour construction of the 7.5 linear mile project with hundreds of pieces of equipment operating at any time. This includes a combination of equipment types such as cranes, slurry trenching machines, hydromills, hoe rams, pile drivers, jackhammers, dump trucks, concrete pumps and trucks, backhoes, loaders, excavators, vacuum trucks, concrete and chain saws, and gas and pneumatically powered hand tools. The 12-year long CA/T project involved major excavation, and concrete placement with thousands of residential and commercial receivers in some cases as close as 10 feet away. Public concerns about construction noise and vibration increase considerably with lengthy periods of heavy construction on major projects as well as prevalence of nighttime construction (often scheduled to avoid disrupting workday road and rail traffic). Noise and vibration complaints typically arise from interference with people's activities, especially when the adjacent community does not have information about the extent or duration of the construction. Construction activities for the proposed warehouses represent the short-term daytime construction of warehouse projects within an existing industrial area on a flat site with no major excavation or nearby residential communities. In addition, due to substantial 64 Quail Botanical Gardens Foundation, Inc. v. City of Encinitas (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1597, 1602. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Final Environmental Impact Report Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 2-98 changes in the air quality emission requirements required by CARB, the RCNM reference noise level measurements do not adequately describe modern construction equipment noise levels. Starting 2014, CARB adopted regulations aimed at cleaning up off-road construction equipment. These requirements impose limits on idling, require all vehicles to be reported to CARB, and restrict the use of older vehicles. This regulatory oversight ensures that only newer and quieter construction equipment is operating in compliance with manufactured specifications. In addition, the RCNM methodology places all construction equipment at a single point near the property line. This scenario simply does not happen in the real world as typical construction activity represents a variety of equipment operating at different locations throughout the project site. Therefore, to estimate the Project’s typical construction-related noise levels, sample reference noise level measurements of similar modern construction activities were collected by Urban Crossroads, Inc. to describe the different stages of construction. A total of 16 different construction reference noise level measurements were collected by Urban Crossroads, Inc. at four separate construction sites. This included several noise level measurements of modern industrial/warehousing construction grading and concrete pouring equipment. The reference noise levels are intended to represent typical construction noise levels when multiple pieces of equipment are operating simultaneously at the construction site. In addition, the construction noise analysis does not rely on any one reference noise level to fully describe the potential impacts. Rather, a combination of individual construction noise level measurements is used to describe typical activities for each stage of construction. Consistent with City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Code Section 17.66.050[D][4], the construction noise analysis was developed to satisfy an exterior noise level standard of 65 and 70 dBA Leq. Since the City of Rancho Cucamonga does not identify any maximum construction noise level criteria, the noise analysis does not consider the Lmax construction noise levels. Local noise ordinances that specify limits in terms of maximum noise levels are generally not practical for assessing the noise impacts of a construction project. The construction activities will occur throughout the day at varying degrees of intensity and at different locations on the Project site. Therefore, the use of the identified reference noise levels for the Project’s construction analysis is appropriate and no changes to the analysis presented in the Draft EIR is required. A-30 Urban Crossroads does not have an independent noise reference noise level measurement of the concrete crushing activity; therefore, the Noise Impact Analysis relied on the published RCNM reference noise levels to describe the concrete crushing activity, which is an accepted industry practice. It is expected that using modern construction equipment, the actual noise concrete crushing activity will be lower than what is considered in the Draft EIR. Further, the City does not espouse the use of RCNM, since there is no mention of the RCNM in the General Plan Public Health and Safety Element, the General Plan EIR, or the Development Code. Therefore, the construction noise source levels representing a combination of reference noise levels collected by Urban Crossroads and the concrete crushing noise levels found in the RCNM were fully considered and disclosed in the Noise Impact Analysis as summarized in the Draft EIR. The comments provide no evidence that additional temporary construction noise mitigation is required. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Final Environmental Impact Report Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 2-99 The construction noise analysis is consistent with the City Development Code Section 17.66.050[D][4][a], and adjacent receivers were conservatively placed at the property line. The receivers adjacent to the north, south, west all represent non-noise sensitive industrial land uses. Only the West Valley Detention Center is conservatively considered as sensitive receptors for the purposes of this analysis. Although the West Valley Detention Center is a temporary holding facility, there are beds at this facility for temporary stays. However, it is highly unlikely that receivers (inmates, staff, etc.) will be occupying the areas abutting the property lines. The nearest façade of the buildings containing temporary stay facilities are located 364 feet east of the Project site boundary. The Draft EIR fully discloses the typical construction noise levels by identifying a potentially significant unmitigated noise impacts due to project construction activities at the eastern property line. To reduce the construction noise levels at the property line of the West Valley Detention Center the Draft EIR requires a 6-foot-high temporary noise barrier for the Detention Center and provides short-term construction noise mitigation at the property line for potentially sensitive receivers at the West Valley Detention Center. The Draft EIR adequately addresses potentially significant construction-related noise impacts and identifies feasible mitigation to reduce the impact to a less than significant impact. No additional mitigation is required, and no changes to the analysis presented in the Draft EIR is required. A-31 As identified in Responses to Comments A-29 and A-30, above, the City does not rely on the use of RCNM construction noise levels to fully disclose the potential noise level impacts, and the use of reference noise levels identified by Urban Crossroads in the Noise Impact Analysis included in the Draft EIR is appropriate. Further, as identified in Response to Comment A-23 above, Lead Agencies retain the ability to decide between expert opinions and the existence of differing opinions arising from the same pool of information is not a basis for finding the EIR to be inadequate. In addition, this comment fails to recognize that the proposed Project is located within an industrial area with no nearby noise sensitive residential land uses. The individuals temporarily held at the West Valley Detention Center located 364 feet east of the Project site boundary are conservatively considered the nearest sensitive receiver. However, consistent Development Code Section 17.66.050[D][4][a], the construction noise analysis places the adjacent receivers at the property line. This conservatively overstates the Project construction noise levels because the noise experienced by individuals temporarily held at the West Valley Detention Center are estimated at 59.8 dBA Leq with the planned 6-foot-high temporary construction noise barrier and would be approximately 2.3 dBA Leq lower than what is disclosed in the Draft EIR. The Draft EIR adequately addresses potentially significant construction-related noise impacts and identifies feasible mitigation to reduce the impact to a less than significant impact. No additional mitigation is required, and no changes to the analysis presented in the Draft EIR is required. A-32 Urban Crossroads prepared the Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis dated March 23, 2021, and Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga High-Cube Fulfillment Center Traffic Memo (Traffic Memo), dated April 15, 2021. These documents are included in Appendix L1 and Appendix L2 of the Draft EIR, respectively, and are summarized in Section 4.13, Transportation, of the Draft EIR. Urban Crossroads has provided technical input for this response and Response to Comment A-33, which are based on the comment letter from Smith Engineering & Management (Exhibit B of Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Final Environmental Impact Report Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 2-100 Comment Letter A). Urban Crossroads’ responses are provided in their entirety in Attachment C of this Final EIR. The City Guidelines state that a low VMT area is defined as an individual traffic analysis zone (TAZ) where total daily Origin/Destination (O/D) VMT per service population is lower than the City average total daily O/D VMT per service population. (City Guidelines pg. 19- 20) This test was performed, and it was disclosed in the analysis that the project did not meet this test. However, City Guidelines also state elsewhere that “it may be appropriate to extract the project generated VMT using the production-attraction (P/A) trip matrix instead of the O/D trip matrix… when a project is entirely composed of retail or employment type uses and there is a need to isolate commute VMT.” (City Guidelines page 23). The Guidelines also state “The City should evaluate the appropriate methodology based on the project land use types and context.” (City Guidelines page 23). In this case, VMT for this project is entirely composed of retail and employment uses and the City appropriately evaluated the VMT per service population based on the P/A trip matrix as well, which resulted in the project residing in a low VMT area. As stated in the OPR Technical Advisory, “…projects that locate in areas with low VMT, and that incorporate similar features (i.e., density, mix of uses, transit accessibility), will tend to exhibit similarly low VMT” (OPR Technical Advisory pg. 12). The Project here is consistent with the underlying land use and does not propose to change other factors that would prohibit the use of map-based screening. This methodology is appropriate for the Project land use type (industrial warehouse) based on the adopted VMT analysis guidelines and impact thresholds. The City Guidelines also state that “for low VMT screening to be satisfied, the analyst must verify that the project land uses would not alter the existing built environment in such a way as to increase the rate or length of vehicle trips (e.g., the proposed project is consistent with existing land use in the area, the project would be expected to contribute VMT consistent with existing land use in the area, and the project would not significantly alter travel patterns in the area).” Consistent with the Guidelines and for disclosure purposes, a full VMT analysis was also conducted for the project based on the City’s adopted guidance to use the P/A trip matrix for single land use projects. The analysis findings support and verify the screening conclusion that P/A based project generated VMT per service population would not exceed the City’s impact threshold or significantly alter travel patterns in the area. As explained in the VMT analysis, the project generated VMT per service population is 7.77% below the City’s current threshold, and the cumulative Project-generated VMT per service population 10.34% below the City’s threshold. Therefore, the Project’s VMT impact would also be considered less than significant based on the comparison of baseline project generated VMT per service population to the City’s adopted threshold and the comparison of cumulative project generated VMT per service population to the City’s adopted threshold. No changes to the VMT analysis or the conclusions in the Draft EIR are required. A-33 See Response to Comments A-14 and A-15. No evidence is given as to why the reviewer disputes the commonly used method of taking credit for the existing baseline. As explained above, the existing conditions here reflect the existing warehouse and retail buildings on the Project site that have been occupied by warehouse and retail uses for over 37 years Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Final Environmental Impact Report Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 2-101 and were occupied during preparation of the Draft EIR. First, the existing buildings are intact and can be occupied by a warehouse and associated use at any time without any new entitlements or approvals from the City. As explained in Response to Comments A-14 and A-15, the existing buildings were occupied by warehouse and retail uses (Pic ‘n Save and Big Lots) from approximately 1983 to February 29, 2020. The existing buildings were briefly vacant from March 1, 2020, to October 29, 2020, at which time they were re- occupied by another warehouse user (Geodis). The NOP was published on October 2, 2020, only 27 days before the existing buildings were re-occupied by a warehouse user. The brief eight-month vacancy was a temporary condition that occurred during the COVID- 19 pandemic, which does not reflect the project site’s normal baseline. The commenter provides no substantial evidence to support its claim that operations on the Project site had ever “”completely ceased” or that the facility had been “completely vacated,” as the buildings were re-occupied by a warehouse user. The EIR was therefore prepared while the existing buildings were occupied, and their occupied use is a reasonable environmental baseline against which to compare Project impacts. Urban Crossroads employed a commonly used tool for estimating baseline vehicle trip generation utilizing a regionally and nationally recognized data source: ITE Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition (2017). It is not uncommon to use the ITE Trip Generation Manual rates when there is limited driveway data available as the use of the ITE rates would provide an average representation of the existing trip generation. CEQA allows for the impacts of a project to be assessed based on the incremental effects of the project taking into consideration the existing/baseline conditions. See Response to Comment A-14 and A-15. As the project site contains multiple structures that by right could be occupied and operated by both a retail and warehouse use, the decision to account for these uses as part of the baseline condition is supported by CEQA caselaw. See Response to Comment A-14 and A-15. In an effort to conduct a conservative analysis, the existing trip generation was estimated using ITE’s High-Cube Transload and Short-Term Storage Warehouse (ITE Land Use Code 154) and Free-Standing Discount Store (ITE Land Use Code 815) land uses. ITE Land Use Code 154 is the lowest generating land use of the various industrial-related land uses in the ITE Trip Generation Manual and ITE Land Use Code 815 is the best-fit land use when taking into consideration of the retail tenant that previously occupied the space. The daily rate for ITE Land Use Code 154 is 1.4 trips per thousand square feet as compared to the daily rate utilized for the proposed Project (1.81 trips per thousand square feet for ITE Land Use Code 155 and 2.12 trips per thousand square feet for ITE Land Use Code 157). The resulting trip generation for the existing use is intentionally understated in order to ensure the delta between the proposed Project and existing use is conservatively higher for evaluation in the applicable technical studies. It should be noted that another by- right warehouse user could occupy the space and generate more traffic than that credited for the Project. In other words, the delta in trips between the proposed Project and the existing baseline conditions is more than appropriate. ITE describes High-Cube Transload and Short-Term Storage Warehouse uses to include “at least 200,000 gross square feet of floor area (with an average of 798,000 square feet), has a ceiling height of 24-feet or more, and is used primarily for the storage and/or Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Final Environmental Impact Report Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 2-102 consolidation of manufacturing goods (and to a lesser extent, raw materials) prior to their distribution to retail locations or other warehouses.” These types of warehouses have a high level of automation and logistics management which allow for highly efficient processing of goods. In comparison, the ITE Land Use Code 150 for Warehousing generically indicates that these facilities are “primarily devoted to the storage of materials.” The average surveyed building size in the ITE Trip Generation Manual is 285,000 square feet for the Warehousing land use and has a daily rate of 1.74 trips per day. The High-Cube Transload and Short-Term Storage Warehouse use was utilized as it closely fit the description of the existing use relative to functionality and size and had the most conservative (lower) daily trip generation rate. The commenter is correct that the existing traffic counts were taken when the existing buildings were vacant. However, the existing trip count data at potentially impacted intersections is only used in the analysis of congestion-based traffic impacts (i.e., LOS), which are no longer considered an impact under CEQA. To provide a conservative analysis, in the non-CEQA portion of the traffic analysis, no credit was taken for the existing trips. Existing trip counts at intersections are not used in analysis of air or GHG impacts, only the total daily trips generated by the use occupying the building. As noted above in Response to Comment A-14, courts have explicitly upheld the use of general trip rates based on the historical occupancy or use of a site.65 As explained in Response to Comments A-14 and A-15, the trip generation data is not improper, and the discounting of trips as result of existing uses is entirely appropriate and allowed under the CEQA Guidelines and CEQA caselaw. A-34 See Response to Comments A-14 and A-15. As described above, the baseline condition that was the basis for the energy analysis presented in the Draft EIR accurately reflects the environmental condition of the site. Baseline energy consumption is property calculated based on operation of the existing buildings. The Draft EIR use of an existing conditions baseline complies with CEQA and CEQA caselaw and the fact that the NOP was issued at a brief moment in time when the building was vacant between tenants is immaterial. See also Response to Comment A-33, which addresses the baseline condition related to trip generation (and associated transportation fuel). Further, the baseline natural gas, electricity, and water consumption by the existing facility is based on historic conditions when the existing buildings were occupied by Big Lots, as presented in site- specific utility bills from the Southern California Edison, Southern California Gas, and the Cucamonga Valley Water District. It is expected that if a future tenant occupies the existing buildings, they would have similar utility consumption and therefore this data is appropriate to use as the existing conditions baseline. As explained in Response to Comments A-14 and A-15, the existing energy baseline is not zero and the analysis does not need to be revised. Therefore, the baseline energy consumption calculations, including building energy and transportation fuel estimates, do not need to be reduced and no changes to the analysis of energy consumption is required. The Project’s impacts remain less than significant. 65 North County Advocates, supra, 241 Cal.App.4th at 105. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Final Environmental Impact Report Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 2-103 It should also be noted that the determination of energy impacts is not wholly related to the estimated increase in energy demand. Rather, Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines also establishes that a project would normally have a significant adverse energy impact if it will: (1) result in a potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation; and (2) conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. As discussed in Draft EIR Section 4.5, Energy, the Project would be required to comply with the current energy standards, which would ensure that the Project energy demands would not be inefficient, wasteful, or otherwise unnecessary as compared to the existing buildings which were built in 1983 and do not meet the current energy standards. The commenter does not provide any substantial evidence that the Project would result in significant energy impacts based on the established CEQA thresholds of significance. A-35 ELMT Consulting (ELMT) prepared the Habitat Assessment for the Proposed Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project located at 12434 4th Street, City of Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County, California (Habitat Assessment) dated January 22, 2021, included in Appendix C1, and summarized in Section 4.3, Biological Resources, of the Draft EIR. ELMT has provided technical input for this response and Response to Comment A-37. ELMT’s responses are provided in their entirety in Attachment C of this Final EIR. The commenter incorrectly asserts that ELMT did not accurately assess burrowing owl habitat and potential presence of burrowing owls on the site. ELMT conducted the required assessment of potential impacts to biological resources. ELMT has extensive experience (more than 50 combined years) inventorying, assessing and mitigating, where required, potential impacts to burrowing owls. The CDFW NOP comment letter did not state that surveys were required. Instead, the CDFW letter stated that “[t]he Project site has the potential to provide suitable foraging and/or nesting habitat for burrowing owl” and then said the City should follow the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (Department of Fish and Game, March 2012) and follow the three progressive steps of 1) habitat assessment; 2) surveys; and 3) an impact assessment. As discussed in the Staff Report, burrowing owls are generally ground dwellers and need clear line-of-sight opportunities for hunting and predator avoidance. Additionally, burrowing owls usually do not dig their own nesting burrows and instead will occupy burrows created by other species such as ground squirrel. Therefore, as part of documenting the presence or absence of burrowing owls on a project site, the first task required by California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) guidelines is to determine if a site offers suitable habitat for the species. This includes determining if the vegetation on a site is open enough and low enough to allow line-of-sight opportunity for the burrowing owls and where there are sufficient existing burrows on a site (greater than 4 inches in diameter) that could be inhabited by a burrowing owl. ELMT followed the guidance in the 2012 Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation and conducted a habitat assessment (See Appendix C of the Staff Report) to determine if the site contained suitable foraging and/or nesting habitat. Following these protocols, Dr. Tom McGill (42 years of experience) and Travis McGill (12 years of experience) confirmed that baseline conditions did not provide line-of-sight opportunities and that no burrows were found of Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Final Environmental Impact Report Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 2-104 sufficient size to provide nesting opportunities for burrowing owls. Without these key biological feature present, as defined in the 2012 Staff Report, burrowing owls can be assumed to be absent. Because the habitat assessment concluded that the Project site contains no suitable foraging and/or nesting habitat potential, focused surveys were not required, consistent with the CDFW Staff Report. The initial site visit was conducted, according to protocol, and determined focused surveys were not warranted under the guidelines in the 2012 Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. It should also be noted that the Draft EIR was transmitted to CDFW for review; no comments from CDFW were received on the Draft EIR. As such, the analysis contained in the Habitat Assessment does not require any revision, and no revision to the analyses or conclusions based thereon in the Draft EIR is required. A-36 The commenter questions the qualification of the two surveying biologists to assess the site for the potential presences of burrowing owls and to make informed decisions. As identified above, Dr. McGill and Travis McGill have been conducting biological inventories of burrowing owls for over 50 years. Detailed resumes for these individuals are attached to this memo. These individuals have also worked closely with CDFW for managing populations of burrowing owls, including implementing avoidance and monitoring measures, as well as supporting passive and active relocation programs. Travis McGill has supported Jeff Kidd (Kidd Biological) one of the nation’s leading burrowing owl experts, for the last ten years, doing inventories throughout the state of California, developing management plans and implementing the recommended avoidance, minimization and mitigation measures. This level of expertise is more than adequate to determine if owls will be present or not and to effectively manage any burrowing owls found within a project site. All management activities are conducted in consultation with CDFW. For this project, the habitat assessment determined that the Project site contains no suitable foraging and/or nesting habitat and burrowing owls were determined to be absent. Therefore, no further actions, including focused surveys, were recommended or warranted. A-37 The CEQA Guidelines Appendix G checklist question asks, “Would the Project … [c]ause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?” This threshold was used by the City in the Draft EIR under Threshold 10.2 and the City properly concluded that implementation of the Project would not result in conflicts with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect and that no impact would occur (refer Draft EIR pages 4.10-10 to 4.10-28). A-38 The City agrees that its General Plan can be described as “the constitution for all future developments.” In its explanation of the function of the General Plan, the commenter fails to recognize that “A city’s findings that [a] project is consistent with its general plan can be reversed only if [they are] based on evidence from which no reasonable person could have reached the same conclusion.” San Franciscans Upholding the Downtown Plan v. City & County of San Francisco (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 656, 677. Courts recognize that “the body which adopted the general plan policies in its legislative capacity has unique Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Final Environmental Impact Report Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 2-105 competence to interpret those policies when applying them in its adjudicatory capacity. [citations] Because policies in a general plan reflect a range of competing interests, the governmental agency must be allowed to weigh and balance the plan’s policies when applying them.” Naraghi Lakes Neighborhood Preservation Assn. v. City of Modesto (2016) 1 Cal.App.5th 9, 18-9. A court “may neither substitute [its] view for that of the city council, nor reweigh conflicting evidence presented to that body.” Id. at 18. This comment does not address the environmental analysis presented in the Draft EIR, and no further response is required. A-39 The City agrees that the Project site is located in a part of the City that historically supported heavy industrial uses, including the former Etiwanda Power Plant. The City also agrees that a General Plan policy addresses other heavy industrial uses being located in proximity to the former power plant. There is, however, nothing in Policy LU-7.1 that restricts or prohibits the use of properties in the area immediately surrounding the former power plant to heavy industrial uses, only that other heavy industrial uses could be located in this area. Policy LU-7.1 is under the goal of “Goal LU-7: Encourage diverse employment-generating land uses that are clean and modern, and that incorporate green technologies.” The Policy has no mandatory language and only provides guidance to “[c]oncentrate heavy industrial and utility-related use in the area immediately surrounding the electrical power plant.” More importantly, the Project would continue to site an industrial use (a warehouse) within an area of the City designated for industrial uses. This policy is intended to prevent heavy industrial uses next to residential and other sensitive uses but does not prevent the City from allowing General Industrial uses in the area immediately surrounding the former power plant. A-40 This comment incorrectly identifies that the Project is inconsistent with Policy LU-7.1. The Project is indeed consistent with Policy LU-7.1, as identified in the Draft EIR (page 4.10- 19). As explained in the Draft EIR, in 2018, following the preparation of the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan (2010), the NRG Etiwanda Generating Station closed and there is no longer a need for the immediately surrounding areas to be developed exclusively with heavy industrial uses. Other heavy industrial uses, such as the CMT Steel Mill, have recently closed down in that area. The Project’s proposed high cube warehouse uses (an industrial use) are compatible with heavy industrial uses in the area and the Project would not preclude development of heavy industrial uses in the Southeast Focus Area, including at the NRG Etiwanda Generating Station site. The General Plan Land Use Map splits the Project site on an east-west axis with a “Heavy Industrial” designation on the northern portion of the Property and “General Industrial” designation on the southern portion of the Property. As thoroughly described in the Draft EIR Section 4.10, Land Use and Planning, the Project site is already developed with a warehouse use, and this use is consistent with both the Heavy Industrial and General Industrial General Plan designations. Redevelopment of the site with the same use will not limit the ability of other property owners to develop similar or more intensive heavy industrial uses in the area surrounding the former power plant. The General Plan Heavy Industrial designation has a maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 0.5 and “permits heavy manufacturing, compounding, processing or fabrication, warehousing, storage, freight handling, and truck services and terminals, as well as supportive service commercial uses. Heavy Industrial areas are located to take advantage of rail lines and arterial roadway access, and to minimize impacts on surrounding land uses.” (Refer to General Plan pages LU-17 LU-18). Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Final Environmental Impact Report Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 2-106 The General Plan General Industrial Designation has a probable FAR of 0.4 and a maximum FAR of 0.6, and “permits a wide range of industrial activities that include 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.” The Project therefore proposes a use that is allowed in both the General Industrial and Heavy Industrial land use designations. The City is in the process of updating its General Plan and has recognized that the Southeast area of the City “was designated for heavy industry in the 1980 General Plan and all subsequent updates.66 Heavy industrial uses, such as machinery, manufacturing, logistics, and warehousing, were established in former vineyards with very little planning or construction of streets and other infrastructure normally required for industrial districts. Given the area’s adjacency and good access to two interstate freeways and transcontinental railroads; the Southeast area is ideally positioned to receive a range of modern industrial uses.” Therefore, warehousing and logistic uses, as proposed by the Project, are consistent with the City’s historic vision of heavy industrial uses in the Southeast area. The City recognizes that “[t]he great opportunity in this area is to upgrade directly to modern industrial infrastructure, to capitalize on the prime location and untapped potential for jobs and wealth creation to support Rancho Cucamonga’s continuing ascent as a premier and diversified employment center of the current and future regional economy.” Therefore, a General Plan amendment to General Industrial, that continues to allow for logistics and warehousing in a modern industrial infrastructure is consistent with the General Plan. The fact that there are no other large undeveloped sites that can accommodate this Project is immaterial to the Project’s consistency with General Plan Policy LU 7-1. The statement cited by the commenter is from the alternatives chapter of the EIR and in full states: Under existing conditions, the majority of the Southeast Focus Area is developed, with the exception of several vacant parcels. There is no large, undeveloped site in this Focus Area that is similar in size to the Project site (approximately 91.4 acres) that can accommodate the same development proposed by the Project. Other parcels are developed with industrial or other non-residential uses. Consolidating an Alternative Site that is the same size as the Project site would require acquisition of contiguous property, demolition of existing operational structures, and discontinuing existing land uses, which is likely to disrupt existing businesses and operations, and would result in environmental impacts similar to those identified for the Project. These conditions also apply to other areas designated for industrial uses in the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan outside of the Southeast Focus Area. 66 City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan, Public Review Draft May 2021 available at https://www.cityofrc.us/sites/default/files/2021-06/PlanRC_Volume%201_PublicDraft_Final_web.pdf (refer to page 37). Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Final Environmental Impact Report Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 2-107 Nothing in this statement is evidence that other properties in the Southeast Area would be prevented from being redeveloped with heavy manufacturing or other heavy industrial uses simply because a portion of the Project site will be changed from Heavy Industrial to General Industrial as a part of this Project. The impact conclusions regarding land use remain unchanged from the Draft EIR. A-41 As identified in Draft EIR Section 4.11, Land Use and Planning, there is no longer a need for the area immediately surrounding the former power plant to be limited to heavy industrial uses. Furthermore, the Project’s warehouse uses are uses allowed in areas with a heavy industrial land use designation, and the General Plan amendment to General Industrial will still allow for a warehouse use on the Project site. As explained above, the General Plan policy only calls for a “concentration” of heavy industrial uses around the former power plant and does not limit the City’s ability in any way to change the land use designation of the Project site. The City has discretion to determine consistency with its General Plan, and “because policies in a general plan reflect a range of competing interests, the governmental agency must be allowed to weigh and balance the plan’s policies when applying them.” Naraghi Lakes Neighborhood Preservation Assn. v. City of Modesto (2016) 1 Cal.App.5th 9, 18-9. The City Council may reasonably conclude that the General Plan Amendment is consistent with the remainder of the General Plan because it permits a use that is permitted under both the Heavy and General lndustrial land use designations, and on a site that is currently occupied by a warehouse use. Therefore, the Project on a whole is still consistent with the General Plan and the City’s reasonable determination would be afforded great deference by a reviewing court. The “precarious health of the City’s heavy industrial community” is not threatened by a General Plan amendment for a portion of the project site from Heavy Industrial to General Industrial. As explained above, the General Industrial land use designation allows for a broad range of industrial uses. Importantly, “CEQA is concerned with physical changes in the environment …”’ Social and economic changes must be addressed under CEQA if they will cause changes in the physical environment. But an economic or social change by itself is not considered a significant effect on the environment.” Chico Advocates for a Responsible Economy v. City of Chico (2019) 40 Cal.App.5th 839, 847–48 (internal citations omitted). Preservation of heavy industrial land and a thread to the economic health of the industrial community is not an impact under CEQA. A-42 As explained in Response to Comments A-40 and A-41, the Draft EIR correctly concluded that the Project is consistent with the City’s General Plan and its determination is supported by substantial evidence in the record. The commenter has pointed to no evidence of an environmental impact that results from the alleged inconsistency. Therefore, the City is not required to revise and recirculate the Draft EIR. A-43 This comment addresses the Project’s consistency with the City’s tree preservation policies. The commenter incorrectly asserts that the Draft EIR does not include substantial evidence to conclude that no impact would occur related to conflict with tree protection policies or ordinances. The purpose of the City’s tree removal permit requirements outlined in Section 17.16.080 of the City’s Development Code is to provide a review process for the removal of heritage trees that are considered to be a community resource. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Final Environmental Impact Report Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 2-108 Development Code Section 17.16.080(D) identifies that (1) no person, firm, or corporation shall remove, relocate, or destroy any heritage tree within the city limits, including an applicant for a building permit, without first obtaining a tree removal permit from the planning director; and (2) no tree removal permit shall be issued for the removal of any heritage tree on any lot associated with a proposal for development, unless all discretionary approvals have been obtained from the City. As part of the CEQA review process, the City required preparation of a detailed tree inventory. The Tree Inventory Report for the Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project at 12434 4th Street, Rancho Cucamonga, California, is provided in Appendix C2 of the Draft EIR and includes a detailed description of each existing tree within the Project site and within the study area for the 6th Street at-grade crossing. The following information is provided for each tree, which is identified by number on exhibits and in the tree data summary matrix: common name, species, number of main trunks, diameter at breast height, tree height, canopy diameter, health rating, aesthetic rating, and whether or not the tree is a heritage tree. Where applicable, notes were provided regarding characteristics of the tree or is location that may be relevant (e.g., limb failure, location over light poles, etc.). In addition to the biological resource characteristics of the trees and associated biological resource impacts associated with removal of the trees addressed in Draft EIR Section 4.3, Biological Resources, the potential visual impacts associated with removal of trees is addressed in Draft EIR Section 4.1, Aesthetics. The conceptual landscape plan presented on Figure 3-13 of the Draft EIR (page 3-24) clearly identifies that based on the current site plan, 24 existing heritage trees would be protected in place, and the remaining heritage trees to be removed would be replaced at a 1:1 ratio with like trees. The tree information presented in the Draft EIR is extensive and will assist the City Council in making the required findings relative to removal of onsite trees, and whether or not to issue a tree removal permit. As noted herein, no findings associated with any Project approvals have yet been made. These findings will be appropriately made by the Planning Director at the time the tree removal permit is issued, based on final project design information, including the final landscape plan. It is at the discretion of the Planning Director to approve, conditionally approval or deny the application for a tree removal permit, and information in the Draft EIR about existing trees to be removed will be used to inform that decision making process but will not be the only information considered. Compliance with the City’s tree removal permit requirements is mandatory and, as identified above, tree removal cannot occur until a tree removal permit is issued ensuring compliance with the City’s tree protection policies. The commenter has not provided substantial evidence that the Project would conflict with the City’s tree protection policies. A-44 This comment correctly states the findings the City is required to make when it approves a Development Agreement. The Draft EIR includes the Development Agreement as one of the Project-related approvals. If the City approves the Development Agreement, it will support its approval with findings. Given that the City has not yet approved the Development Agreement, this comment requires no further response. A-45 As explained in Response to Comments A-40 and A-41, the Project is consistent with the General Plan and with Policy LU-7.1 As explained in the Draft EIR and in the responses to comments presented in this Final EIR, there are no unmitigated potentially significant Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Final Environmental Impact Report Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 2-109 impacts. As explained in Response to Comments A-27 through A31, the Project does not have unmitigated construction health impacts and also does not have unmitigated construction noise impacts. If the City adopts a Development Agreement for this Project, it will make findings supported by substantial evidence. A-46 The Draft EIR analyzes and discloses the potentially significant impacts of the Project, including approval of the Development Agreement. As the environmental document for the Project, the Draft EIR is not required to make any of the findings required to approve the Development Agreement. The City will use the EIR to determine if it can make the required findings. The commenter is prematurely criticizing findings that have not yet been made. All of the information required for the City to make its decision on the environmental impacts of the Project are included in the Draft EIR and Final EIR and the City is therefore not required to revise and recirculate the EIR. A-47 The commenter is correct that the Project includes approval of tentative map. This is listed in Table 3-4 of the Draft EIR as one of the Project approvals and was analyzed as a component of the Project. A-48 As in the comments on the Development Agreement, the commenter criticizes findings that have not yet been made. All of the information required for the City to make its decision on the environmental impacts of the Project are included in the Draft EIR and Final EIR. As explained in Response to Comments Response to Comments A-40 and A-41, the Project is consistent with the General Plan. And as identified through the analysis presented in the Draft EIR and further explained in this Final EIR, and throughout the administrative record for this proposed project, there are no unmitigated environmental impacts anticipated as a result of the Project. Therefore, should the City decide to approve the tentative map, it will make the required findings based on substantial evidence. A-49 This conclusion statement provides a summary of the incorrect assertions made throughout Comment Letter A and addressed in the responses to comments presented above. Potentially significant impacts have been adequately addressed in Draft EIR Section 4.1 through Section 4.15, and are summarized in Draft EIR Section 1, Executive Summary. Notwithstanding the Project’s less than significant impacts, in response to a generic comment letter from CARB, the Project Applicant has voluntarily agreed to incorporate additional mitigation measures during construction and operation that would further reduce the Project’s less than significant impacts (refer to modified MM 2-1 and new MM 2-2 presented in Response to Comment A-22 above). Responses to Clark & Associates – Comment Letter A Exhibit A A-50 This introductory comment summarizes information presented in the Draft EIR about the Project and the environmental setting. This comment does not raise any issues with the environmental analysis provided in the Draft EIR and thus no response is required. A-51 This general comment summarizes the topical issues addressed in the Draft and incorrectly asserts that the analysis of baseline conditions is incorrect. This comment provides a summary of the comments provided in the remainder of comment letter, which are appropriately addressed in Responses to Comments A-52 through A-69 below. A-52 Refer to Response to Comments A-14 and A-15 above, which address the baseline conditions evaluated in the Draft EIR. As identified, the baseline condition that was the Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Final Environmental Impact Report Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 2-110 basis for the air quality and GHG emissions analysis presented in the Draft EIR accurately reflects the site's environmental condition. Baseline emissions are property calculated based on operation of the existing buildings. The Draft EIR use of an existing conditions baseline complies with CEQA and CEQA case law. As discussed in more detail in Response to Comments A-14 and A-15, the NOP was issued at a brief time when the building was temporarily vacant between tenants. This vacancy occurred during the beginning of the COVID and pandemic and while the building owner sought a new tenant for the existing building. Therefore, the baseline emissions do not need to be reduced, and no changes to the analysis of air quality and GHG emissions impacts are required. The Project’s impacts would remain less than significant. Notwithstanding the Project’s less than significant impacts, in response to a generic comment letter from CARB, the Project Applicant has voluntarily agreed to incorporate additional mitigation measures that would further reduce the Project’s less than significant air quality and GHG emissions impacts (refer to modified MM 2-1 and new MM 2-2 presented in Response to Comment A-22 above). A-53 The commenter is correct that corrections to Draft EIR Table 4.2-13, Summary of Peak Operational Emissions, are required. These corrections are included in Section 3.0, Clarifications and Revisions, of this Final EIR, and are required to accurately reflect the TRU pollutant emissions calculations presented in Table 3-11 of the Air Quality Impact Analysis included in Appendix B1 of the Draft EIR, and resulting net emissions. The commenter incorrectly asserts that additional corrections are needed to remove the existing air pollutant emissions that are also considered. As discussed above, the existing air pollutant emissions are appropriately considered in the air quality analysis. These emissions have been left in Draft EIR Table 4.2-13 and subtracted from the Project’s estimated air pollutant emissions to determine the net emissions resulting from the Project. In response to this comment, the following corrections are hereby incorporated into the Draft EIR; revised Table 4.2-13 is presented in its entirety in Section 3.0, Draft EIR Clarifications and Revisions, of this Final EIR. These corrections do not change the Draft EIR air quality analysis conclusion and do not require recirculation of the Draft EIR. These corrections are included in the Errata. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Final Environmental Impact Report Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 2-111 Emissions (lbs/day) VOC NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5 Summer TRUs 0.26 1.03 0.26 8.79 0.26 11.44 0.26 0 0.26 0.21 0.26 0.19 Total Maximum Daily Emissions 63.18 63.96 133.14 141.67 179.52 190.71 1.19 0.94 64.48 64.44 18.64 18.58 Existing Emissions 47.97 153.26 160.24 0.95 51.03 16.22 Net Emissions (Project – Existing) a 15.21 15.99 -20.12 -11.59 19.28 30.47 0.25 -0.01 13.46 13.41 2.42 2.35 SCAQMD Regional Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55 Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO NO NO Winter TRUs 0.26 1.03 0.26 8.79 0.26 11.44 0.26 0 0.26 0.21 0.26 0.19 Total Maximum Daily Emissions 62.29 63.07 136.48 145.01 147.71 158.89 1.16 0.90 64.41 64.36 18.61 18.55 Existing Emissions 47.16 156.39 136.44 0.92 50.95 16.20 Net Emissions (Project – Existing) a 15.14 15.91 -19.91 -11.38 11.26 22.45 0.24 -0.02 13.46 13.41 2.42 2.35 SCAQMD Regional Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55 Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO NO NO A-54 This comment incorrectly asserts that Draft EIR Table 4.7-6, Project GHG Emissions, should be revised to remove the existing emissions calculations. See Response to Comments A-14 and A-15 regarding the baseline used for this Project. As discussed above, the existing GHG emissions are appropriately considered in the GHG emissions analysis. These emissions have been left in Draft EIR Table 4.7-6 and subtracted from the Project’s estimated GHG emissions to determine the net emissions resulting from the Project. No changes to the Draft EIR are required. A-55 This comment summarizes information presented in the mobile source HRA included in Appendix B-1 of the Draft EIR and introduces criticism of the air dispersion model. The responses to these issues are included in the Response to Comments A-56, A-57, and A- 58 below. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Final Environmental Impact Report Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 2-112 A-56 This comment incorrectly asserts that the HRA should consider emissions from building downwash. Refer to Response to Comment A-23, which addresses this comment. As identified, the commenter should be aware that building downwash effect does not apply to the volume source algorithm per US EPA and SCAQMD guidance and therefore is not applicable to the analysis for the Project. A-57 The commenter is incorrect and makes an unfounded statement that the number of receptors creates a “false sense of precision within the model.” The Draft EIR and supporting technical HRA report include the nearest 20 receptor locations representing the nearest residential, worker, and school child receptors, as illustrated in Exhibit 2-F of the HRA report. These receptors were placed geospatially at locations downwind from the Project site. The commenters assertion that a 100-meter receptor grid is required is unfounded and misleading. The purpose of providing a receptor grid is to determine the potential downwind extent of elevated risk levels and to develop a risk contour. In the case of the Project, none of the modeled receptors are found to be remotely close to the applicable thresholds, as such a 100-meter grid and contour map would not be useful and is not required. Lastly, the commenter actually states the reason why a gridded receptor map should be provided to determine “the area where impacts are greater than 1 in a million”. As shown in the Draft EIR and supporting technical HRA report, the Project’s risk does not exceed 1 in a million, Therefore, there is no impact area to be identified via a gridded receptor map. Therefore, the Draft EIR does not require revision. A-58 This comment addresses the construction assumptions that were the bases for the air quality analysis in the Draft EIR. Refer to Response to Comment A-24, above, which addresses this comment and corrects the Draft EIR text to accurately reflect construction occurring five days per week as presented in the Air Quality Impact Analysis included in Appendix B1 of the Draft EIR. A-59 This comment addresses the number of TRUs per day analyzed in the HRA included in Appendix B2 of the Draft EIR. Refer to Response to Comment A-25, which addresses this comment, and explains that the HRA indeed was based on 81 TRUs per day (not 80 TRUs per day as stated by the commenter). No changes to the analysis presented in the Draft EIR are required. A-60 This comment incorrectly asserts that the modeled emission rates for trucks in Table 2-4 of the Air Quality Impact Analysis (included in Appendix B of the Draft EIR) is incorrect. The commenter is referred to footnote “d” on the aforementioned Table 2-4 that the commenter cites in their comment. This footnote identifies that TRU emissions are included in the total modeled emissions rate. The column on truck emissions rate idling represents non-TRU sources. Accordingly, no changes to the Draft EIR or supporting Air Quality Impact Analysis are required. A-61 This comment incorrectly asserts that the Phase II Investigation failed to assess chemicals of concern related from the former Kaiser Steel Mill. This issue is addressed in Response to Comments A-27 and A-28 and in the letter from Ardent Environmental Group included in Attachment C of this Final EIR. As identified, Ardent concluded that aerially deposited chemicals from the Kaiser Steel Plant are not present at the Project site at levels that would impact redevelopment of the site. This is based on the distance of the former Kaiser Steel Plant from the site, prevailing wind direction, extensive studies completed at the Kaiser Steel property since 1976, the results of two independent Phase I ESAs completed for the site, and lack of arsenic (one of Kaiser Steel’s reported COPCs) detected during subsurface Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Final Environmental Impact Report Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 2-113 investigations completed at the site. Therefore, the Phase I ESA and subsequent Phase II investigation completed by Ardent are adequate to address the environmental concerns at the site. Further, none of the information provided by Mr. Clark indicates the presence, or even possible presence, of carcinogenic compounds at the site that could be disturbed during redevelopment. A-62 This comment is a conclusion statement that summarizes the commenters opinion that recirculation of the Draft EIR is required. As presented in the responses to comments above, there are no changes or revisions to the Draft EIR that would require recirculation of the Draft EIR. Responses to Smith Engineering Management – Comment Letter A Exhibit B A-63 This introductory comment summarizes the qualifications of the commenter. This comment does not raise any issues with the environmental analysis provided in the Draft EIR and thus no response is required. A-64 As noted by the commenter, the City adopted VMT significance thresholds for determining the significance of transportation impacts under CEQA. The City Council adopted these thresholds via Resolution 2020-056 on June 17, 2020. The thresholds were developed after a public review process consisting of a joint coordination between the San Bernardino County Transportation Authority and its member agencies. The guidelines were developed by an expert traffic consulting firm (Fehr & Peers) and are based on substantial evidence. Following an extensive public review process, the thresholds were adopted more than a year ago and were not challenged. Therefore, the City’s generally applicable thresholds cannot be challenged now. CEQA § 21167(e); California Code of Civil Procedure §1094.6. City Council staff report related to resolution 2020-056 is available online here: https://rcdocs.cityofrc.us/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=568102&dbid=0&repo=RanchoCuca monga and provides substantial evidence to support the City’s adoption of its VMT threshold. The City specifically noted that “The OPR recommended threshold of 15% below existing average VMT does not illustrate a connection to the other SB 743 objectives related to statewide goals to promote public health through active transportation, infill development, multimodal transportation networks, and a diversity of land uses. Recommending a reduction below baseline levels is consistent with these objectives, but the numerical value has not been tied to specific statewide values for each objective or goal. Reductions below the existing baseline is the usual way of analyzing environmental impacts under CEQA.” The City also noted that “The intent of SB 743 is to promote infill development and reduce GHGs by promoting development in VMT- efficient areas (i.e., Cities that have VMT per service population below the County average). As identified above, the City of Rancho Cucamonga land uses are currently more efficient on average from a VMT per service population perspective than the average of the County of San Bernardino as a whole; therefore, comparisons to the City average are more in line with the legislative intent of SB 743.” Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Final Environmental Impact Report Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 2-114 The City has discretion to adopt its own thresholds of significance, and the commenter is wrong to allege that the City must adopt OPR’s recommended threshold of 85% of average.67 First, the introduction to the OPR Technical Advisory explicitly states that “[t]he purpose of this document is to provide advice and recommendations, which agencies and other entities may use at their discretion. This document does not alter lead agency discretion in preparing environmental documents subject to CEQA.” Second, the OPR Technical Advisory recommends the use of screening thresholds that are consistent with those adopted by the City here. The City Guideline’s “Low VMT Area Screening” is consistent with the OPR Technical Advisory’s “Map-Based Screening for Residential and Office Projects.” As stated in the OPR Technical Advisory, “…projects that locate in areas with low VMT, and that incorporate similar features (i.e., density, mix of uses, transit accessibility), will tend to exhibit similarly low VMT” (OPR Technical Advisory pg. 12). The Project here is consistent with the underlying land use and does not propose to change other factors that would prohibit the use of map-based screening. Finally, the OPR Technical Advisory recommends its 85% of average threshold for residential, office, and mixed-use projects. But for “other project types” OPR notes that “Lead agencies, using more location-specific information, may develop their own more specific thresholds, which may include other land use types. In developing thresholds for other project types, or thresholds different from those recommended here, lead agencies should consider the purposes described in section 21099 of the Public Resources Code and regulations in the CEQA Guidelines on the development of thresholds of significance (e.g., CEQA Guidelines, § 15064.7).” OPR Technical Advisory page 17 (Emphasis added). The Project here is an industrial warehouse project, and OPR has not recommended or adopted any particular threshold that applies to this Project. Therefore, the City’s threshold (impacts are significant if the baseline project generated VMT per service population exceeds the City) as applied to this Project are entirely consistent with OPR’s Technical Advisory. A-65 This comment incorrectly asserts that the Project’s VMT analysis is inaccurate. Refer to Response to Comment 33, above, which addresses this comment based on technical input from Urban Crossroads. Additionally, as explained in Response to Comment A-64 above, the City used its discretion and adopted its own thresholds of significance, and these thresholds were not challenged. The commenter’s comparison to OPR’s recommended thresholds is therefore not applicable here and any allegation that the Project has a significant VMT impacts is baseless. Further, in an effort to conduct a conservative analysis and overstate as opposed to understate potential traffic impacts, the VMT analysis took into consideration 100% of the Project traffic and did not apply and reductions (take credit) for the existing uses on the site. 67 State of California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research. December 2018. Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA. Available: http://opr.ca.gov/docs/20190122- 743_Technical_Advisory.pdf Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Final Environmental Impact Report Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 2-115 The legislative intent behind SB 743 is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (OPR Technical Guidance, p. 1) and as shown in Draft EIR Section 4.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, the Project would result in less than significant GHG impacts. Moreover, in response to a generic comment letter from CARB, the Project Applicant has voluntarily agreed to incorporate additional mitigation measures that would further reduce the Project’s less than significant GHG emissions (refer to modified MM 2-1 and new MM 2-2 presented in Response to Comment A-22 above). A-66 This comment addresses the baseline condition analyzed in the Draft EIR; however, no evidence is given as to why the reviewer disputes the commonly used method of taking credit for the existing baseline. The commenter does not provide substantial evidence that the project site was underutilized. Please refer to Response to Comment A-34, above, which addresses this comment based on technical input from Urban Crossroads. Additionally, see Response to Comment A-33, above, regarding the Project’s trip generation. A-67 As described in Section 3.4.3G, Operational Characteristics, of the Draft EIR (pages 3-38 and 3-39), the Project is not intended to operate a high-cube fulfillment sort-facility warehouse, and the current site plan does not support this on-site use. For instance, a sort- facility operation on-site may not be feasible based on the parking accommodated as the design of the proposed Project does not adequately supply the required employee parking needed to support a sort fulfillment center use. Notwithstanding, and contrary to the commenter’s assertion that the Draft EIR does not analyze the potential impacts associated with a sort fulfillment center use, to provide a conservative analysis, the City analyzed the Project as a sort fulfillment center use and as a non-sort fulfillment center use. The Traffic Memo included in Appendix L2 of the Draft EIR) was prepared and included trip generation information for a sort-facility warehouse. To the commentor’s point, a sort-facility has high trip generation, which is largely associated with the high volume of employees required to support this type of facility. This is demonstrated in the Traffic Memo which identifies an average daily traffic (ADT) volume of 4,008 trips for a non-sort facility (4,804 PCE trips), and 13,070 ADT (13,914 PCE trips) with a sort facility (prior to consideration of trips generated by the existing buildings). This trip generation information was the basis for supplemental analyses included in the respective sections of the Draft EIR related to air quality, energy, greenhouse gas emissions, off-site traffic noise, and transportation/VMT. As identified through the supplemental analyses the Project, operated as a non-sort fulfillment center or a sort fulfillment center, would have less than significant impacts. Further, the Project Applicant has agreed as part of the proposed Development Agreement that the proposed buildings would not be operated as sort use fulfillment centers. A-68 This conclusion statement reflects the opinion that recirculation of the Draft EIR is required. As presented in the responses to comments above, there are no changes or revisions to the Draft EIR that would require recirculation of the Draft EIR. Responses to Wilson Ihrig – Comment Letter A Exhibit C A-69 This comment addresses the methods for conducting the conducting the Project’s construction-related noise impact analysis (use of reference noise levels and FHWA’s Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Final Environmental Impact Report Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 2-116 RCNM). Please refer to Responses to Comments A-29 and A-30, above, which address this comment based on technical input from Urban Crossroads. Page 2-117 Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Final Environmental Impact Report Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Comment Letter B B-1 Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Final Environmental Impact Report Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 2-118 Responses to Comment Letter B Mark Rush June 22, 2021 (Late Comment) B-1 The commenter expresses general concern regarding potential environmental impacts resulting from the Project, including air quality and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, but does not specifically comment on the analysis provided in the Draft EIR. Notably, this comment indicates that air quality and GHG emissions impacts are not addressed, while in fact they are evaluated in detail in Draft EIR Sections 4.2 and 4.7, respectively, and within the supporting technical studies appended to the Draft EIR. As identified in the Draft EIR, the Project’s operational air quality and GHG emissions impacts would be less than significant; therefore, no mitigation is required. As the impacts are less than significant, additional mitigation including mitigation suggested by the commenter, is not required. Notwithstanding the lack of significant impacts, in response to a comment letter from CARB (refer to Comment Letter C), the Project Applicant has voluntarily agreed to incorporate additional mitigation measures that have been determined feasible for the Project and that would further reduce the Project’s less than significant air quality and GHG emissions impacts during construction and operation. MM 2-1 has been expanded to include additional construction-related mitigation requirements, and MM 2-2 includes operational requirements. The expanded and new mitigation requirements are presented below and included in Section 3.0, Draft EIR Clarifications and Revisions, of this Final EIR. MM 2-1 Prior to grading permit and building permit issuance, the City of Rancho Cucamonga shall verify that the following applicable notes are included on the grading plans and building plans. Project contractors shall be required to ensure compliance with these notes and permit periodic inspection of the construction-site by City of Rancho Cucamonga staff or its designee to confirm compliance. These notes also shall be specified in bid documents issued to prospective construction contractors. • During construction activity, Project construction contractors shall ensure that off-road diesel construction equipment complies with applicable California Air Resources Board (CARB) emissions standards or equivalent and shall ensure that all construction equipment is tuned and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications. • The following off-road construction equipment shall be CARB Tier III certified or better, by construction phase as shown: ○ Demolition/Crushing:  Boom Lift  Concrete/Industrial Saws  Crusher  Skid Steer ○ Utilities/Infrastructure:  Trencher ○ Building Construction:  Forklifts Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Final Environmental Impact Report Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 2-119  Generator Sets  Welders ○ Paving:  Pavers  Paving Equipment  Rollers ○ Architectural Coating  Air Compressors • The following off-road construction equipment shall be CARB Tier IV Final certified or better, by construction phase as shown: ○ Demolition/Crushing:  Breakers  Excavators  Generator Sets  Rubber Tired Dozers ○ Grading:  Crawler Tractors  Excavators  Graders  Rubber Tired Dozers  Scrapers ○ Utilities/Infrastructure:  Excavators  Skip Loaders/Backhoes ○ Building Construction  Cranes  Crawler Tractors  Laser Screed  Scissor Loaders/Backhoes  Skip Loaders/Backhoes • Idling of heavy construction equipment shall be restricted to two minutes and electrical hook ups shall be provided to support use of zero and near-zero construction equipment and tools whenever feasible. • Off-road equipment with a power rating below 19 kilowatts (e.g., plate compactors, pressure washers) used during project construction shall be electric powered, provided that it is commercially available, which may be plug-in (electric) or battery powered. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Final Environmental Impact Report Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 2-120 • Heavy-duty trucks used for dirt and material hauling during construction shall meet the United States Environmental Protection Agency/California Air Resource Board truck engine standard for Model Year 2014 or later. MM 2-2 The Project Applicant shall include the following operational requirements in the final building design or stipulate the operational requirements for building occupants, as appropriate: Project Design • Make truck dock positions EV-ready by installing conduits at truck dock positions for future accommodation of light-duty and/or heavy-duty electric trucks and charging stations. Lease Agreement and Owner-Occupant Requirements • Those loading docks used by trucks with transport refrigeration units (TRU) as determined by a cold storage tenant shall be equipped with electrical hookups (applicable to cold storage tenant lease agreements only). • TRUs entering the Project site shall be plug-in capable (applicable to cold storage tenant lease agreements only). • On-site TRU diesel engine run time shall be no longer than 15 minutes (applicable to cold storage tenant lease agreements only). • Service equipment (e.g., yard hostlers, yard equipment, forklifts, and pallet jacks) shall be powered by alternative fuels, electrical batteries or other alternative/non-diesel fuels (e.g., propane) that do not emit diesel particulate matter, and that are low or zero emission. • Trucks and support equipment shall not idle longer than five minutes while on site. Additionally, the Project would incorporate solar energy facilities consistent with the Project’s approved Development Agreement. Finally, SCAQMD adopted Rule 2305 - Warehouse Indirect Source Rule - Warehouse Actions and Investments to Reduce Emissions (WAIRE) Program and Proposed Rule 316 - Fees for Rule 2305 on May 7, 2021. While these new rules are subject to a legal challenge, it is worth noting that the new Rules are currently applicable to the Project, and if upheld by the courts, would continue to be applicable to the Project when it is developed and operational. As a result, these new rules likely would result in reductions to Project operational emissions beyond those identified in the Draft EIR. Page 2-121 Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Final Environmental Impact Report Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Comment Letter C C-1 C-2 C-3 Page 2-122 Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Final Environmental Impact Report Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 C omment Letter e C-4 C-5 C-3(cont) Page 2-123 Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Final Environmental Impact Report Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 C omment Letter e C-6 C-5(cont) Page 2-124 Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Final Environmental Impact Report Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 C omment Letter e Page 2-125 Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Final Environmental Impact Report Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 C omment Letter e Page 2-126 Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Final Environmental Impact Report Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 C omment Letter e C-7 Page 2-127 Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Final Environmental Impact Report Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 C omment Letter e C-7(cont) Page 2-128 Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Final Environmental Impact Report Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 C omment Letter e C-7(cont) Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Final Environmental Impact Report Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 2-129 Responses to Comment Letter C California Air Resources Board June 24, 2021 (Late Comment) C-1 This comment accurately summarizes the Project and estimated trip generation. This comment does not raise any issues with the environmental analysis provided in the Draft EIR and thus no further response is required. C-2 This comment generally summarizes CARB’s remarks about air quality impacts associated with construction and operation of the Project and does not include specific comments. CARB’s specific comments are addressed in the responses below. C-3 This comment addresses the potential increased exposure to air pollution in disadvantaged communities. This comment does not specifically address the analysis of health risks to disadvantaged communities provided in Draft EIR Section 4.23, Air Quality. Specifically, the California Environmental Protection Agency’s (CalEPA) California Communities Environmental Health Screening Tool (CalEnviroScreen), and CARB’s Community Air Protection Program (CAPP) established by Assembly Bill (AB) 617, which are referenced by the commenter, are addressed in Draft EIR Section 4.2.1.B, State Regulations. Senate Bill (SB) 535, which targets disadvantaged communities in California for the investment of proceeds from the State’s cap-and-trade program to improve public health, quality of life, and economic opportunity in California’s most burdened communities is also discussed. Potential impacts to disadvantaged communities are addressed under Threshold 2.3 in Draft EIR Section 4.2 (page 4.2-50 and 4.2-51). In summary, and as identified in the Draft EIR, based on review of CalEnviroScreen, CalEPA designates the Project site and its immediately surrounding areas as being part of a disadvantaged community for the purpose of SB 535. However, as identified by the commenter, the nearest residential receptors are approximately 5,370 feet from the Project site. For purposes of assessing potential health risks, the West Valley Detention Center is identified as the nearest sensitive land use to the Project site where an individual could remain for 24 hours; this receptor is east of the Project (approximately 364-feet from the closest building facade) and is a short-term County jail facility. The Project entails the development of two high-cube warehouse buildings, which would bring jobs and other economic opportunities to the local area without State assistance. The environmental effects of the Project are fully evaluated in the Draft EIR. As discussed under Threshold 2.2 in Section 4.2, regional emissions associated with operation would be less than significant, and with the incorporation of mitigation, regional emissions associated with construction would also be less than significant. The Draft EIR provides a disclosure of localized impacts that may affect Rancho Cucamonga (a CalEPA-designated disadvantaged community). As indicated in the analysis presented under Threshold 2.3: the Project’s localized construction and operational emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD localized significance thresholds (LST) thresholds; (2) based on the Project- specific mobile source health risk assessment (HRA), the Project would not result in significant health impacts due to diesel particulate matter (DPM) emissions; and (3) the Project would not cause or contribute to any CO “hot spots.” Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Final Environmental Impact Report Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 2-130 With respect to cumulative health risks, Draft EIR Section 4.2.5, Cumulative Impacts, discusses the SCAQMD direction on how to address cumulative impacts from air pollution, including cumulative impacts for toxic air contaminants (TACs). The SCAQMD is the agency principally responsible for comprehensive air pollution control in the South Coast Air Basin. As identified in the Draft EIR, Projects that do not exceed the project-specific thresholds are generally not considered to be cumulatively significant. Because the Project would not result in cancer risk or health hazards exceeding the SCAQMD thresholds of significance of 10 in one million and 1.0, respectively, the Draft EIR concludes that that Project’s TAC emissions would result in a less than significant impact. Consistent with SCAQMD report on how to address cumulative impacts from air pollution, since the Project does not exceed the applicable health risk thresholds and does not result in a significant impact on an individual basis, the Project would not be considered to be cumulatively significant and a less than significant cumulative health risk impact would occur. The Draft EIR also identifies that the CAPP requires CARB’s governing board (Board) to consider selecting communities for participation in the CAPP on an annual basis. Communities are selected for developing community air monitoring systems, emissions reduction programs, or both in order to improve air quality in their community. Over the first two years of the CAPP (2018 and 2019), the Board selected 13 communities where these focused actions are underway. The City of Rancho Cucamonga is not one of the selected communities, and to date has not been nominated to participate in the CAPP. Therefore, as requested by CARB in this comment, the City has provided the necessary environmental analysis to demonstrate that the Project would not negatively impact neighboring disadvantaged communities. C-4 This comment acknowledges that the Draft EIR includes mitigation measure (MM) 2-1 to reduce the Project’s significant construction-related air quality impact to a less than significant level and recommends that additional mitigation measures be incorporated to further reduce the Project’s air pollutant emissions. CARB further provides a list of potential mitigation measures in Attachment A to its comment letter. CEQA does not require the lead agency to analyze every imaginable mitigation measure. Santa Clarita Organization for Planning the Environment v. City of Santa Clarita (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 1042. Nevertheless, and notwithstanding the Project’s less than significant air quality impacts, in response to this comment, the Project Applicant has voluntarily agreed to incorporate the following additional mitigation measures that have been determined to be feasible for the Project and would further reduce the Project’s less than significant air quality impacts. Specifically, as identified below, MM 2-1 has been expanded to include additional construction-related mitigation requirements, and MM 2-2 includes operational requirements. The expanded and new mitigation requirements are included in Section 3.0, Draft EIR Clarifications and Revisions, of this Final EIR. The inclusion of these additional measures does not change any of the analysis or conclusions in the EIR. The remaining recommended measures are already addressed through existing requirements or Project design; would be accomplished through adherence to mandatory regulations; or are not under the purview of the City or private developers, rather implementation is the responsibility of state or federal agencies. MM 2-1 Prior to grading permit and building permit issuance, the City of Rancho Cucamonga shall verify that the following applicable notes are included on the Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Final Environmental Impact Report Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 2-131 grading plans and building plans. Project contractors shall be required to ensure compliance with these notes and permit periodic inspection of the construction-site by City of Rancho Cucamonga staff or its designee to confirm compliance. These notes also shall be specified in bid documents issued to prospective construction contractors. • During construction activity, Project construction contractors shall ensure that off-road diesel construction equipment complies with applicable California Air Resources Board (CARB) emissions standards or equivalent and shall ensure that all construction equipment is tuned and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications. • The following off-road construction equipment shall be CARB Tier III certified or better, by construction phase as shown: o Demolition/Crushing:  Boom Lift  Concrete/Industrial Saws  Crusher  Skid Steer o Utilities/Infrastructure:  Trencher o Building Construction:  Forklifts  Generator Sets  Welders o Paving:  Pavers  Paving Equipment  Rollers o Architectural Coating  Air Compressors • The following off-road construction equipment shall be CARB Tier IV Final certified or better, by construction phase as shown: o Demolition/Crushing:  Breakers  Excavators  Generator Sets  Rubber Tired Dozers o Grading:  Crawler Tractors  Excavators  Graders  Rubber Tired Dozers Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Final Environmental Impact Report Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 2-132  Scrapers o Utilities/Infrastructure:  Excavators  Skip Loaders/Backhoes o Building Construction  Cranes  Crawler Tractors  Laser Screed  Scissor Loaders/Backhoes  Skip Loaders/Backhoes • Idling of heavy construction equipment shall be restricted to two minutes and electrical hook ups shall be provided to support use of zero and near-zero construction equipment and tools whenever feasible. • Off-road equipment with a power rating below 19 kilowatts (e.g., plate compactors, pressure washers) used during project construction shall be electric powered, provided that it is commercially available, which may be plug-in (electric) or battery powered. • Heavy-duty trucks used for dirt and material hauling during construction shall meet the United States Environmental Protection Agency/California Air Resource Board truck engine standard for Model Year 2014 or later. MM 2-2 The Project Applicant shall include the following operational requirements in the final building design or stipulate the operational requirements for building occupants, as appropriate: Project Design • Make truck dock positions EV-ready by installing conduits at truck dock positions for future accommodation of light-duty and/or heavy-duty electric trucks and charging stations. Lease Agreement and Owner-Occupant Requirements • Those loading docks used by trucks with transport refrigeration units (TRU) as determined by a cold storage tenant shall be equipped with electrical hookups (applicable to cold storage tenant lease agreements only). • TRUs entering the Project site shall be plug-in capable (applicable to cold storage tenant lease agreements only). Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Final Environmental Impact Report Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 2-133 • On-site TRU diesel engine run time shall be no longer than 15 minutes (applicable to cold storage tenant lease agreements only). • Service equipment (e.g., yard hostlers, yard equipment, forklifts, and pallet jacks) shall be powered by alternative fuels, electrical batteries or other alternative/non-diesel fuels (e.g., propane) that do not emit diesel particulate matter, and that are low or zero emission. • Trucks and support equipment shall not idle longer than five minutes while on site. C-5 This comment summarizes CARB’s previous comments regarding impacts to disadvantaged communities and the need for additional measures to minimize diesel PM and NOx emissions, as well as GHG emissions. Refer to Responses to Comments C-3 and C-4 above, which address these issues. C-6 This comment provides conclusory statements regarding CARB’s review of CEQA documents, and identifies CARB’s focus on substantive comments due to staff and resource limitations. CARB also requests to be included on the distribution list for the Project’s Draft EIR; however, it should be clarified that CARB’s comment letter is on the Draft EIR for the Project. CARB will be included on any future notifications sent by the City regarding the Project. C-7 This comment includes the recommended mitigation measures for warehouse and distribution center projects mentioned in Response to Comment C-4 above; additional mitigation that have been incorporated into the Project are identified in Response to Comment C-4. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Final Environmental Impact Report Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 3-1 SECTION 3.0 DRAFT EIR CLARIFICATIONS AND REVISIONS Any corrections to the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) generated by the City of Rancho Cucamonga or in response to comments received are stated in this section of the Final EIR. The Draft EIR has not been modified and published in its entirety as a single document to reflect these EIR modifications. The information included in these Draft EIR revisions do not constitute substantial new information that requires recirculation of the Draft EIR. Section 15088.5 of the CEQA Guidelines states in part: (a) A lead agency is required to recirculate an EIR when significant new information is added to the EIR after public notice is given of the availability of the draft EIR for public review under Section 15087 but before certification. As used in this section, the term “information” can include changes in the project or environmental setting as well as additional data or other information. New information added to an EIR is not “significant” unless the EIR is changed in a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of the project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect (including a feasible project alternative) that the project’s proponents have declined to implement. “Significant new information” requiring recirculation includes, for example, a disclosure showing that: (1) A new significant environmental impact would result from the project or from a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented. (2) A substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact would result unless mitigation measures are adopted that reduce the impact to a level of insignificance. (3) A feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others previously analyzed would clearly lessen the significant environmental impacts of the project, but the project’s proponents decline to adopt it. (4) The draft EIR was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful public review and comment were precluded. (b) Recirculation is not required where the new information added to the EIR merely clarifies or amplifies or makes insignificant modifications in an adequate EIR. The changes to the Draft EIR included in these modifications involve: an expanded mitigation measure to address construction-related air pollutant emissions, specifically to further reduce NOx emissions, which were already mitigated to a less than significant level in the Draft EIR; a new mitigation measure to further reduce the Project’s already less than significant operational emissions; clarification that proposed operational characteristics related to the restrictions on the amount of proposed refrigerated space and lack of natural gas usage are included as Conditions of Approval; a correction to the construction assumptions identified in the Project Description to be consistent with the Air Quality technical report, which does not affect the Draft EIR’s air quality conclusions; and, revisions to a table in the Air Quality section to correct air pollutant emission Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Final Environmental Impact Report Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 3-2 estimates which do not affect the Draft EIR’s air quality conclusions. These modifications, which expand previous mitigation requirements to further reduce NOx emissions, clarify information already provided, or make insignificant modifications or corrections to the Draft EIR do not constitute “significant” new information and serve to further reduce impacts already identified in the Draft EIR as less than significant, either before or after mitigation. These changes therefore do not require recirculation of the Draft EIR because: • No new significant environmental impacts would result from the project or from a new mitigation measure. • There is no substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact that would result unless mitigation measures are adopted that reduce the identified significant impacts to a level of insignificance. • No feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others previously analyzed has been proposed or identified that would clearly lessen the significant environmental impacts of the project. • The Draft EIR is not fundamentally or basically inadequate or conclusory in nature such that meaningful public review and comment were precluded. The EIR modifications contained in the following pages are in the same order as the information appears in the Draft EIR. Changes in text are signified by strikeouts (strikeouts) where text has been removed and by bold underline (underline) where text has been added. The applicable page numbers from the Draft EIR are also provided where necessary for easy reference. Section 1 – Executive Summary 1. Page 1-11, Table 1-1, Summary of Environmental Impacts for the Project – Mitigation measure (MM) 2-1 is hereby revised as follows, and new MM 2-2 is added: MM 2-1 Prior to grading permit and building permit issuance, the City of Rancho Cucamonga shall verify that the following applicable notes are included on the grading plans and building plans. Project contractors shall be required to ensure compliance with these notes and permit periodic inspection of the construction-site by City of Rancho Cucamonga staff or its designee to confirm compliance. These notes also shall be specified in bid documents issued to prospective construction contractors. • During construction activity, Project construction contractors shall ensure that off-road diesel construction equipment complies with applicable California Air Resources Board (CARB) emissions standards or equivalent and shall ensure that all construction equipment is tuned and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications. • The following off-road construction equipment shall be CARB Tier III certified or better, by construction phase as shown: ○ Demolition/Crushing:  Boom Lift  Concrete/Industrial Saws  Crusher Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Final Environmental Impact Report Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 3-3  Skid Steer ○ Utilities/Infrastructure:  Trencher ○ Building Construction:  Forklifts  Generator Sets  Welders ○ Paving:  Pavers  Paving Equipment  Rollers ○ Architectural Coating  Air Compressors • The following off-road construction equipment shall be CARB Tier IV Final certified or better, by construction phase as shown: ○ Demolition/Crushing:  Breakers  Excavators  Generator Sets  Rubber Tired Dozers ○ Grading:  Crawler Tractors  Excavators  Graders  Rubber Tired Dozers  Scrapers ○ Utilities/Infrastructure:  Excavators  Skip Loaders/Backhoes ○ Building Construction  Cranes  Crawler Tractors  Laser Screed  Scissor Loaders/Backhoes  Skip Loaders/Backhoes • Idling of heavy construction equipment shall be restricted to two minutes and electrical hook ups shall be provided to support use of zero and near-zero construction equipment and tools whenever feasible. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Final Environmental Impact Report Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 3-4 • Off-road equipment with a power rating below 19 kilowatts (e.g., plate compactors, pressure washers) used during project construction shall be electric powered, provided that it is commercially available, which may be plug-in (electric) or battery powered. • Heavy-duty trucks used for dirt and material hauling during construction shall meet the United States Environmental Protection Agency/California Air Resource Board truck engine standard for Model Year 2014 or later. MM 2-2 The Project Applicant shall include the following operational requirements in the final building design or stipulate the operational requirements for building occupants, as appropriate: Project Design • Make truck dock positions EV-ready by installing conduits at truck dock positions for future accommodation of light-duty and/or heavy-duty electric trucks and charging stations. Lease Agreement or Owner-Occupant Requirements • Those loading docks used by trucks with transport refrigeration units (TRU) as determined by a cold storage tenant shall be equipped with electrical hookups (applicable to cold storage tenant lease agreements only). • TRUs entering the Project site shall be plug-in capable (applicable to cold storage tenant lease agreements only). • On-site TRU diesel engine run time shall be no longer than 15 minutes (applicable to cold storage tenant lease agreements only). • Service equipment (e.g., yard hostlers, yard equipment, forklifts, and pallet jacks) shall be powered by alternative fuels, electrical batteries or other alternative/non-diesel fuels (e.g., propane) that do not emit diesel particulate matter, and that are low or zero emission. • Trucks and support equipment shall not idle longer than five minutes while on site. Section 3.0 – Project Description 1. Page 3-9, 1st partial paragraph – the text is hereby revised to clarify the operational restriction related to cold storage will be a Condition of Approval. This is not a new mitigation measure and is not associated with a new significant impact. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Final Environmental Impact Report Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 3-5 “…However, for purposes of analysis in this Draft EIR, and based on the proposed building design/site plan and associated parking layout, it is assumed that 90% of the building square footage would be operated as a high-cube non-sort fulfillment center warehouse 68 and the remaining 10% would be operated as a high-cube cold storage warehouse 69. A Condition of Approval will be included for the Project limiting any cold storage to a maximum 10% of building square footage.” 2. Page 3-32 of the Draft EIR, 3rd paragraph under “Dry Utilities” – the text is hereby revised to clarify the operational restriction related to natural gas use will be a Condition of Approval. This is not a new mitigation measure and is not associated with a new significant impact. “…However, natural gas service to the Project is not required and the Project does not include the installation of natural gas lines. Connections to existing gas lines in 4th Street and 6th Street could be made in the future if a tenant requires natural gas for operations subject to additional review pursuant to CEQA. This requirement will be included as a Condition of Approval for the Project.” 3. Page 3-38, 1st sentence, 2nd paragraph – this text is hereby corrected to reflect the construction equipment assumptions that were the basis of analysis in the Draft EIR: “For purposes of analysis in this Draft EIR, construction equipment is expected to operate on the Project site approximately eight hours per day, six five days per week (Monday through Saturday).” Section 4.2 – Air Quality 1. Page 4.2-35, Table 4.2-13, Summary of Peak Operational Emission – This table is hereby revised as follows to correct emissions estimates consistent with Table 3-11 of the Air Quality Impact Analysis included in Appendix B1 of the Draft EIR: 68 Fulfillment centers can be categorized as either sort or non-sort facilities. A non-sort fulfillment center typically ships large box items that use more automation than manual sortation. A sort fulfillment center typically ships out smaller items, requiring extensive sorting, typically by manual means. (Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Rate 155). 69 A cold storage warehouse has the ability to keep temperature sensitive items in a temperature-controlled environment. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Final Environmental Impact Report Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 3-6 Table 4.2-13 Summary of Peak Operational Emissions Emissions (lbs/day) VOC NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5 Summer TRUs 0.26 1.03 0.26 8.79 0.26 11.44 0.26 0 0.26 0.21 0.26 0.19 Total Maximum Daily Emissions 63.18 63.96 133.14 141.67 179.52 190.71 1.19 0.94 64.48 64.44 18.64 18.58 Existing Emissions 47.97 153.26 160.24 0.95 51.03 16.22 Net Emissions (Project – Existing) a 15.21 15.99 -20.12 -11.59 19.28 30.47 0.25 -0.01 13.46 13.41 2.42 2.35 SCAQMD Regional Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55 Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO NO NO Winter TRUs 0.26 1.03 0.26 8.79 0.26 11.44 0.26 0 0.26 0.21 0.26 0.19 Total Maximum Daily Emissions 62.29 63.07 136.48 145.01 147.71 158.89 1.16 0.90 64.41 64.36 18.61 18.55 Existing Emissions 47.16 156.39 136.44 0.92 50.95 16.20 Net Emissions (Project – Existing) a 15.14 15.91 -19.91 -11.38 11.26 22.45 0.24 -0.02 13.46 13.41 2.42 2.35 SCAQMD Regional Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55 Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO NO NO 2. Page 4.2-53 – Mitigation measure (MM) 2-1 is hereby revised as follows, and new MM 2-2 is added: MM 2-1 Prior to grading permit and building permit issuance, the City of Rancho Cucamonga shall verify that the following applicable notes are included on the grading plans and building plans. Project contractors shall be required to ensure compliance with these notes and permit periodic inspection of the construction-site by City of Rancho Cucamonga staff or its designee to confirm compliance. These notes also shall be specified in bid documents issued to prospective construction contractors. • During construction activity, Project construction contractors shall ensure that off-road diesel construction equipment complies with applicable California Air Resources Board (CARB) emissions standards or Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Final Environmental Impact Report Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 3-7 equivalent and shall ensure that all construction equipment is tuned and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications. • The following off-road construction equipment shall be CARB Tier III certified or better, by construction phase as shown: ○ Demolition/Crushing:  Boom Lift  Concrete/Industrial Saws  Crusher  Skid Steer ○ Utilities/Infrastructure:  Trencher ○ Building Construction:  Forklifts  Generator Sets  Welders ○ Paving:  Pavers  Paving Equipment  Rollers ○ Architectural Coating  Air Compressors • The following off-road construction equipment shall be CARB Tier IV Final certified or better, by construction phase as shown: ○ Demolition/Crushing:  Breakers  Excavators  Generator Sets  Rubber Tired Dozers ○ Grading:  Crawler Tractors  Excavators  Graders  Rubber Tired Dozers  Scrapers ○ Utilities/Infrastructure:  Excavators  Skip Loaders/Backhoes ○ Building Construction  Cranes  Crawler Tractors  Laser Screed  Scissor Loaders/Backhoes Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Final Environmental Impact Report Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga SCH No. 2020100056 Page 3-8  Skip Loaders/Backhoes • Idling of heavy construction equipment shall be restricted to two minutes and electrical hook ups shall be provided to support use of zero and near-zero construction equipment and tools whenever feasible. • Off-road equipment with a power rating below 19 kilowatts (e.g., plate compactors, pressure washers) used during project construction shall be electric powered, provided that it is commercially available, which may be plug-in (electric) or battery powered. • Heavy-duty trucks used for dirt and material hauling during construction shall meet the United States Environmental Protection Agency/California Air Resource Board truck engine standard for Model Year 2014 or later. MM 2-2 The Project Applicant shall include the following operational requirements in the final building design or stipulate the operational requirements for building occupants, as appropriate: Project Design • Make truck dock positions EV-ready by installing conduits at truck dock positions for future accommodation of light-duty and/or heavy-duty electric trucks and charging stations. Lease Agreement or Owner-Occupant Requirements • Those loading docks used by trucks with transport refrigeration units (TRU) as determined by a cold storage tenant shall be equipped with electrical hookups (applicable to cold storage tenant lease agreements only). • TRUs entering the Project site shall be plug-in capable (applicable to cold storage tenant lease agreements only). • On-site TRU diesel engine run time shall be no longer than 15 minutes (applicable to cold storage tenant lease agreements only). • Service equipment (e.g., yard hostlers, yard equipment, forklifts, and pallet jacks) shall be powered by alternative fuels, electrical batteries or other alternative/non-diesel fuels (e.g., propane) that do not emit diesel particulate matter, and that are low or zero emission. • Trucks and support equipment shall not idle longer than five minutes while on site. ATTACHMENT A ATTACHMENTS TO COMMENT LETTER A ADAMS BROADWELL JOSEPH AND CARDOZO EXHIBIT A James J. J. Clark, Ph.D. Principal Toxicologist Toxicology/Exposure Assessment Modeling Risk Assessment/Analysis/Dispersion Modeling Education: Ph.D., Environmental Health Science, University of California, 1995 M.S., Environmental Health Science, University of California, 1993 B.S., Biophysical and Biochemical Sciences, University of Houston, 1987 Professional Experience: Dr. Clark is a well recognized toxicologist, air modeler, and health scientist. He has 20 years of experience in researching the effects of environmental contaminants on human health including environmental fate and transport modeling (SCREEN3, AEROMOD, ISCST3, Johnson-Ettinger Vapor Intrusion Modeling); exposure assessment modeling (partitioning of contaminants in the environment as well as PBPK modeling); conducting and managing human health risk assessments for regulatory compliance and risk-based clean-up levels; and toxicological and medical literature research. Significant projects performed by Dr. Clark include the following: LITIGATION SUPPORT Case: James Harold Caygle, et al, v. Drummond Company, Inc. Circuit Court for the Tenth Judicial Circuit, Jefferson County, Alabama. Civil Action. CV-2009 Client: Environmental Litgation Group, Birmingham, Alabama Dr. Clark performed an air quality assessment of emissions from a coke factory located in Tarrant, Alabama. The assessment reviewed include a comprehensive review of air quality standards, measured concentrations of pollutants from factory, an inspection of the facility and detailed assessment of the impacts on the community. The results of the assessment and literature have been provided in a declaration to the court. Clark & Associates Environmental Consulting, Inc OFFICE 12405 Venice Blvd. Suite 331 Los Angeles, CA 90066 PHONE 310-907-6165 FAX 310-398-7626 EMAIL jclark.assoc@gmail.com Case Result: Settlement in favor of plaintiff. Case: Rose Roper V. Nissan North America, et al. Superior Court of the State Of California for the County Of Los Angeles – Central Civil West. Civil Action. NC041739 Client: Rose, Klein, Marias, LLP, Long Beach, California Dr. Clark performed a toxicological assessment of an individual occupationally exposed to multiple chemicals, including benzene, who later developed a respiratory distress. A review of the individual’s medical and occupational history was performed to prepare an exposure assessment. The exposure assessment was evaluated against the known outcomes in published literature to exposure to respiratory irritants. The results of the assessment and literature have been provided in a declaration to the court. Case Result: Settlement in favor of plaintiff. Case: O’Neil V. Sherwin Williams, et al. United States District Court Central District of California Client: Rose, Klein, Marias, LLP, Long Beach, California Dr. Clark performed a toxicological assessment of an individual occupationally exposed to petroleum distillates who later developed a bladder cancer. A review of the individual’s medical and occupational history was performed to prepare a quantitative exposure assessment. The results of the assessment and literature have been provided in a declaration to the court. Case Result: Summary judgment for defendants. Case: Moore V., Shell Oil Company, et al. Superior Court of the State Of California for the County Of Los Angeles Client: Rose, Klein, Marias, LLP, Long Beach, California Dr. Clark performed a toxicological assessment of an individual occupationally exposed to chemicals while benzene who later developed a leukogenic disease. A review of the individual’s medical and occupational history was performed to prepare a quantitative exposure assessment. The exposure assessment was evaluated against the known outcomes in published literature to exposure to refined petroleum hydrocarbons. The results of the assessment and literature have been provided in a declaration to the court. Case Result: Settlement in favor of plaintiff. Case: Raymond Saltonstall V. Fuller O’Brien, KILZ, and Zinsser, et al. United States District Court Central District of California Client: Rose, Klein, Marias, LLP, Long Beach, California Dr. Clark performed a toxicological assessment of an individual occupationally exposed to benzene who later developed a leukogenic disease. A review of the individual’s medical and occupational history was performed to prepare a quantitative exposure assessment. The exposure assessment was evaluated against the known outcomes in published literature to exposure to refined petroleum hydrocarbons. The results of the assessment and literature have been provided in a declaration to the court. Case Result: Settlement in favor of plaintiff. Case: Richard Boyer and Elizabeth Boyer, husband and wife, V. DESCO Corporation, et al. Circuit Court of Brooke County, West Virginia. Civil Action Number 04-C-7G. Client: Frankovitch, Anetakis, Colantonio & Simon, Morgantown, West Virginia. Dr. Clark performed a toxicological assessment of a family exposed to chlorinated solvents released from the defendant’s facility into local drinking water supplies. A review of the individual’s medical and occupational history was performed to prepare a qualitative exposure assessment. The exposure assessment was evaluated against the known outcomes in published literature to exposure to chlorinated solvents. The results of the assessment and literature have been provided in a declaration to the court. Case Result: Settlement in favor of plaintiff. Case: JoAnne R. Cook, V. DESCO Corporation, et al. Circuit Court of Brooke County, West Virginia. Civil Action Number 04-C-9R Client: Frankovitch, Anetakis, Colantonio & Simon, Morgantown, West Virginia. Dr. Clark performed a toxicological assessment of an individual exposed to chlorinated solvents released from the defendant’s facility into local drinking water supplies. A review of the individual’s medical and occupational history was performed to prepare a qualitative exposure assessment. The exposure assessment was evaluated against the known outcomes in published literature to exposure to chlorinated solvents. The results of the assessment and literature have been provided in a declaration to the court. Case Result: Settlement in favor of plaintiff. Case: Patrick Allen And Susan Allen, husband and wife, and Andrew Allen, a minor, V. DESCO Corporation, et al. Circuit Court of Brooke County, West Virginia. Civil Action Number 04-C-W Client: Frankovitch, Anetakis, Colantonio & Simon, Morgantown, West Virginia. Dr. Clark performed a toxicological assessment of a family exposed to chlorinated solvents released from the defendant’s facility into local drinking water supplies. A review of the individual’s medical and occupational history was performed to prepare a qualitative exposure assessment. The exposure assessment was evaluated against the known outcomes in published literature to exposure to chlorinated solvents. The results of the assessment and literature have been provided in a declaration to the court. Case Result: Settlement in favor of plaintiff. Case: Michael Fahey, Susan Fahey V. Atlantic Richfield Company, et al. United States District Court Central District of California Civil Action Number CV-06 7109 JCL. Client: Rose, Klein, Marias, LLP, Long Beach, California Dr. Clark performed a toxicological assessment of an individual occupationally exposed to refined petroleum hydrocarbons who later developed a leukogenic disease. A review of the individual’s medical and occupational history was performed to prepare a qualitative exposure assessment. The exposure assessment was evaluated against the known outcomes in published literature to exposure to refined petroleum hydrocarbons. The results of the assessment and literature have been provided in a declaration to the court. Case Result: Settlement in favor of plaintiff. Case: Constance Acevedo, et al., V. California Spray-Chemical Company, et al., Superior Court of the State Of California, County Of Santa Cruz. Case No. CV 146344 Dr. Clark performed a comprehensive exposure assessment of community members exposed to toxic metals from a former lead arsenate manufacturing facility. The former manufacturing site had undergone a DTSC mandated removal action/remediation for the presence of the toxic metals at the site. Opinions were presented regarding the elevated levels of arsenic and lead (in attic dust and soils) found throughout the community and the potential for harm to the plaintiffs in question. Case Result: Settlement in favor of defendant. Case: Michael Nawrocki V. The Coastal Corporation, Kurk Fuel Company, Pautler Oil Service, State of New York Supreme Court, County of Erie, Index Number I2001-11247 Client: Richard G. Berger Attorney At Law, Buffalo, New York Dr. Clark performed a toxicological assessment of an individual occupationally exposed to refined petroleum hydrocarbons who later developed a leukogenic disease. A review of the individual’s medical and occupational history was performed to prepare a qualitative exposure assessment. The exposure assessment was evaluated against the known outcomes in published literature to exposure to refined petroleum hydrocarbons. The results of the assessment and literature have been provided in a declaration to the court. Case Result: Judgement in favor of defendant. SELECTED AIR MODELING RESEARCH/PROJECTS Client – Confidential Dr. Clark performed a comprehensive evaluation of criteria pollutants, air toxins, and particulate matter emissions from a carbon black production facility to determine the impacts on the surrounding communities. The results of the dispersion model will be used to estimate acute and chronic exposure concentrations to multiple contaminants and will be incorporated into a comprehensive risk evaluation. Client – Confidential Dr. Clark performed a comprehensive evaluation of air toxins and particulate matter emissions from a railroad tie manufacturing facility to determine the impacts on the surrounding communities. The results of the dispersion model have been used to estimate acute and chronic exposure concentrations to multiple contaminants and have been incorporated into a comprehensive risk evaluation. Client – Los Angeles Alliance for a New Economy (LAANE), Los Angeles, California Dr. Clark is advising the LAANE on air quality issues related to current flight operations at the Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) operated by the Los Angeles World Airport (LAWA) Authority. He is working with the LAANE and LAX staff to develop a comprehensive strategy for meeting local community concerns over emissions from flight operations and to engage federal agencies on the issue of local impacts of community airports. Client – City of Santa Monica, Santa Monica, California Dr. Clark is advising the City of Santa Monica on air quality issues related to current flight operations at the facility. He is working with the City staff to develop a comprehensive strategy for meeting local community concerns over emissions from flight operations and to engage federal agencies on the issue of local impacts of community airports. Client: Omnitrans, San Bernardino, California Dr. Clark managed a public health survey of three communities near transit fueling facilities in San Bernardino and Montclair California in compliance with California Senate Bill 1927. The survey included an epidemiological survey of the effected communities, emission surveys of local businesses, dispersion modeling to determine potential emission concentrations within the communities, and a comprehensive risk assessment of each community. The results of the study were presented to the Governor as mandated by Senate Bill 1927. Client: Confidential, San Francisco, California Summarized cancer types associated with exposure to metals and smoking. Researched the specific types of cancers associated with exposure to metals and smoking. Provided causation analysis of the association between cancer types and exposure for use by non-public health professionals. Client: Confidential, Minneapolis, Minnesota Prepared human health risk assessment of workers exposed to VOCs from neighboring petroleum storage/transport facility. Reviewed the systems in place for distribution of petroleum hydrocarbons to identify chemicals of concern (COCs), prepared comprehensive toxicological summaries of COCs, and quantified potential risks from carcinogens and non-carcinogens to receptors at or adjacent to site. This evaluation was used in the support of litigation. Client – United Kingdom Environmental Agency Dr. Clark is part of team that performed comprehensive evaluation of soil vapor intrusion of VOCs from former landfill adjacent residences for the United Kingdom’s Environment Agency. The evaluation included collection of liquid and soil vapor samples at site, modeling of vapor migration using the Johnson Ettinger Vapor Intrusion model, and calculation of site-specific health based vapor thresholds for chlorinated solvents, aromatic hydrocarbons, and semi-volatile organic compounds. The evaluation also included a detailed evaluation of the use, chemical characteristics, fate and transport, and toxicology of chemicals of concern (COC). The results of the evaluation have been used as a briefing tool for public health professionals. EMERGING/PERSISTENT CONTAMINANT RESEARCH/PROJECTS Client: Ameren Services, St. Louis, Missouri Managed the preparation of a comprehensive human health risk assessment of workers and residents at or near an NPL site in Missouri. The former operations at the Property included the servicing and repair of electrical transformers, which resulted in soils and groundwater beneath the Property and adjacent land becoming impacted with PCB and chlorinated solvent compounds. The results were submitted to U.S. EPA for evaluation and will be used in the final ROD. Client: City of Santa Clarita, Santa Clarita, California Dr. Clark is managing the oversight of the characterization, remediation and development activities of a former 1,000 acre munitions manufacturing facility for the City of Santa Clarita. The site is impacted with a number of contaminants including perchlorate, unexploded ordinance, and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). The site is currently under a number of regulatory consent orders, including an Immanent and Substantial Endangerment Order. Dr. Clark is assisting the impacted municipality with the development of remediation strategies, interaction with the responsible parties and stakeholders, as well as interfacing with the regulatory agency responsible for oversight of the site cleanup. Client: Confidential, Los Angeles, California Prepared comprehensive evaluation of perchlorate in environment. Dr. Clark evaluated the production, use, chemical characteristics, fate and transport, toxicology, and remediation of perchlorate. Perchlorates form the basis of solid rocket fuels and have recently been detected in water supplies in the United States. The results of this research were presented to the USEPA, National GroundWater, and ultimately published in a recent book entitled Perchlorate in the Environment. Client – Confidential, Los Angeles, California Dr. Clark is performing a comprehensive review of the potential for pharmaceuticals and their by-products to impact groundwater and surface water supplies. This evaluation will include a review if available data on the history of pharmaceutical production in the United States; the chemical characteristics of various pharmaceuticals; environmental fate and transport; uptake by xenobiotics; the potential effects of pharmaceuticals on water treatment systems; and the potential threat to public health. The results of the evaluation may be used as a briefing tool for non-public health professionals. PUBLIC HEALTH/TOXICOLOGY Client: Brayton Purcell, Novato, California Dr. Clark performed a toxicological assessment of residents exposed to methyl-tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) from leaking underground storage tanks (LUSTs) adjacent to the subject property. The symptomology of residents and guests of the subject property were evaluated against the known outcomes in published literature to exposure to MTBE. The study found that residents had been exposed to MTBE in their drinking water; that concentrations of MTBE detected at the site were above regulatory guidelines; and, that the symptoms and outcomes expressed by residents and guests were consistent with symptoms and outcomes documented in published literature. Client: Confidential, San Francisco, California Identified and analyzed fifty years of epidemiological literature on workplace exposures to heavy metals. This research resulted in a summary of the types of cancer and non-cancer diseases associated with occupational exposure to chromium as well as the mortality and morbidity rates. Client: Confidential, San Francisco, California Summarized major public health research in United States. Identified major public health research efforts within United States over last twenty years. Results were used as a briefing tool for non-public health professionals. Client: Confidential, San Francisco, California Quantified the potential multi-pathway dose received by humans from a pesticide applied indoors. Part of team that developed exposure model and evaluated exposure concentrations in a comprehensive report on the plausible range of doses received by a specific person. This evaluation was used in the support of litigation. Client: Covanta Energy, Westwood, California Evaluated health risk from metals in biosolids applied as soil amendment on agricultural lands. The biosolids were created at a forest waste cogeneration facility using 96% whole tree wood chips and 4 percent green waste. Mass loading calculations were used to estimate Cr(VI) concentrations in agricultural soils based on a maximum loading rate of 40 tons of biomass per acre of agricultural soil. The results of the study were used by the Regulatory agency to determine that the application of biosolids did not constitute a health risk to workers applying the biosolids or to residences near the agricultural lands. Client – United Kingdom Environmental Agency Oversaw a comprehensive toxicological evaluation of methyl-tertiary butyl ether (MtBE) for the United Kingdom’s Environment Agency. The evaluation included available data on the production, use, chemical characteristics, fate and transport, toxicology, and remediation of MtBE. The results of the evaluation have been used as a briefing tool for public health professionals. Client – Confidential, Los Angeles, California Prepared comprehensive evaluation of tertiary butyl alcohol (TBA) in municipal drinking water system. TBA is the primary breakdown product of MtBE, and is suspected to be the primary cause of MtBE toxicity. This evaluation will include available information on the production, use, chemical characteristics, fate and transport in the environment, absorption, distribution, routes of detoxification, metabolites, carcinogenic potential, and remediation of TBA. The results of the evaluation were used as a briefing tool for non- public health professionals. Client – Confidential, Los Angeles, California Prepared comprehensive evaluation of methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) in municipal drinking water system. MTBE is a chemical added to gasoline to increase the octane rating and to meet Federally mandated emission criteria. The evaluation included available data on the production, use, chemical characteristics, fate and transport, toxicology, and remediation of MTBE. The results of the evaluation have been were used as a briefing tool for non-public health professionals. Client – Ministry of Environment, Lands & Parks, British Columbia Dr. Clark assisted in the development of water quality guidelines for methyl tertiary-butyl ether (MTBE) to protect water uses in British Columbia (BC). The water uses to be considered includes freshwater and marine life, wildlife, industrial, and agricultural (e.g., irrigation and livestock watering) water uses. Guidelines from other jurisdictions for the protection of drinking water, recreation and aesthetics were to be identified. Client: Confidential, Los Angeles, California Prepared physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) assessment of lead risk of receptors at middle school built over former industrial facility. This evaluation is being used to determine cleanup goals and will be basis for regulatory closure of site. Client: Kaiser Venture Incorporated, Fontana, California Prepared PBPK assessment of lead risk of receptors at a 1,100-acre former steel mill. This evaluation was used as the basis for granting closure of the site by lead regulatory agency. RISK ASSESSMENTS/REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS Client: Confidential, Atlanta, Georgia Researched potential exposure and health risks to community members potentially exposed to creosote, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, pentachlorophenol, and dioxin compounds used at a former wood treatment facility. Prepared a comprehensive toxicological summary of the chemicals of concern, including the chemical characteristics, absorption, distribution, and carcinogenic potential. Prepared risk characterization of the carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic chemicals based on the exposure assessment to quantify the potential risk to members of the surrounding community. This evaluation was used to help settle class-action tort. Client: Confidential, Escondido, California Prepared comprehensive Preliminary Endangerment Assessment (PEA) of dense non- aqueous liquid phase hydrocarbon (chlorinated solvents) contamination at a former printed circuit board manufacturing facility. This evaluation was used for litigation support and may be used as the basis for reaching closure of the site with the lead regulatory agency. Client: Confidential, San Francisco, California Summarized epidemiological evidence for connective tissue and autoimmune diseases for product liability litigation. Identified epidemiological research efforts on the health effects of medical prostheses. This research was used in a meta-analysis of the health effects and as a briefing tool for non-public health professionals. Client: Confidential, Bogotá, Columbia Prepared comprehensive evaluation of the potential health risks associated with the redevelopment of a 13.7 hectares plastic manufacturing facility in Bogotá, Colombia The risk assessment was used as the basis for the remedial goals and closure of the site. Client: Confidential, Los Angeles, California Prepared comprehensive human health risk assessment of students, staff, and residents potentially exposed to heavy metals (principally cadmium) and VOCs from soil and soil vapor at 12-acre former crude oilfield and municipal landfill. The site is currently used as a middle school housing approximately 3,000 children. The evaluation determined that the site was safe for the current and future uses and was used as the basis for regulatory closure of site. Client: Confidential, Los Angeles, California Managed remedial investigation (RI) of heavy metals and volatile organic chemicals (VOCs) for a 15-acre former manufacturing facility. The RI investigation of the site included over 800 different sampling locations and the collection of soil, soil gas, and groundwater samples. The site is currently used as a year round school housing approximately 3,000 children. The Remedial Investigation was performed in a manner that did not interrupt school activities and met the time restrictions placed on the project by the overseeing regulatory agency. The RI Report identified the off-site source of metals that impacted groundwater beneath the site and the sources of VOCs in soil gas and groundwater. The RI included a numerical model of vapor intrusion into the buildings at the site from the vadose zone to determine exposure concentrations and an air dispersion model of VOCs from the proposed soil vapor treatment system. The Feasibility Study for the Site is currently being drafted and may be used as the basis for granting closure of the site by DTSC. Client: Confidential, Los Angeles, California Prepared comprehensive human health risk assessment of students, staff, and residents potentially exposed to heavy metals (principally lead), VOCs, SVOCs, and PCBs from soil, soil vapor, and groundwater at 15-acre former manufacturing facility. The site is currently used as a year round school housing approximately 3,000 children. The evaluation determined that the site was safe for the current and future uses and will be basis for regulatory closure of site. Client: Confidential, Los Angeles, California Prepared comprehensive evaluation of VOC vapor intrusion into classrooms of middle school that was former 15-acre industrial facility. Using the Johnson-Ettinger Vapor Intrusion model, the evaluation determined acceptable soil gas concentrations at the site that did not pose health threat to students, staff, and residents. This evaluation is being used to determine cleanup goals and will be basis for regulatory closure of site. Client –Dominguez Energy, Carson, California Prepared comprehensive evaluation of the potential health risks associated with the redevelopment of 6-acre portion of a 500-acre oil and natural gas production facility in Carson, California. The risk assessment was used as the basis for closure of the site. Kaiser Ventures Incorporated, Fontana, California Prepared health risk assessment of semi-volatile organic chemicals and metals for a fifty- year old wastewater treatment facility used at a 1,100-acre former steel mill. This evaluation was used as the basis for granting closure of the site by lead regulatory agency. ANR Freight - Los Angeles, California Prepared a comprehensive Preliminary Endangerment Assessment (PEA) of petroleum hydrocarbon and metal contamination of a former freight depot. This evaluation was as the basis for reaching closure of the site with lead regulatory agency. Kaiser Ventures Incorporated, Fontana, California Prepared comprehensive health risk assessment of semi-volatile organic chemicals and metals for 23-acre parcel of a 1,100-acre former steel mill. The health risk assessment was used to determine clean up goals and as the basis for granting closure of the site by lead regulatory agency. Air dispersion modeling using ISCST3 was performed to determine downwind exposure point concentrations at sensitive receptors within a 1 kilometer radius of the site. The results of the health risk assessment were presented at a public meeting sponsored by the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) in the community potentially affected by the site. Unocal Corporation - Los Angeles, California Prepared comprehensive assessment of petroleum hydrocarbons and metals for a former petroleum service station located next to sensitive population center (elementary school). The assessment used a probabilistic approach to estimate risks to the community and was used as the basis for granting closure of the site by lead regulatory agency. Client: Confidential, Los Angeles, California Managed oversight of remedial investigation most contaminated heavy metal site in California. Lead concentrations in soil excess of 68,000,000 parts per billion (ppb) have been measured at the site. This State Superfund Site was a former hard chrome plating operation that operated for approximately 40-years. Client: Confidential, San Francisco, California Coordinator of regional monitoring program to determine background concentrations of metals in air. Acted as liaison with SCAQMD and CARB to perform co-location sampling and comparison of accepted regulatory method with ASTM methodology. Client: Confidential, San Francisco, California Analyzed historical air monitoring data for South Coast Air Basin in Southern California and potential health risks related to ambient concentrations of carcinogenic metals and volatile organic compounds. Identified and reviewed the available literature and calculated risks from toxins in South Coast Air Basin. IT Corporation, North Carolina Prepared comprehensive evaluation of potential exposure of workers to air-borne VOCs at hazardous waste storage facility under SUPERFUND cleanup decree. Assessment used in developing health based clean-up levels. Professional Associations American Public Health Association (APHA) Association for Environmental Health and Sciences (AEHS) American Chemical Society (ACS) California Redevelopment Association (CRA) International Society of Environmental Forensics (ISEF) Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC) Publications and Presentations: Books and Book Chapters Sullivan, P., J.J. J. Clark, F.J. Agardy, and P.E. Rosenfeld. (2007). Synthetic Toxins In The Food, Water and Air of American Cities. Elsevier, Inc. Burlington, MA. Sullivan, P. and J.J. J. Clark. 2006. Choosing Safer Foods, A Guide To Minimizing Synthetic Chemicals In Your Diet. Elsevier, Inc. Burlington, MA. Sullivan, P., Agardy, F.J., and J.J.J. Clark. 2005. The Environmental Science of Drinking Water. Elsevier, Inc. Burlington, MA. Sullivan, P.J., Agardy, F.J., Clark, J.J.J. 2002. America’s Threatened Drinking Water: Hazards and Solutions. Trafford Publishing, Victoria B.C. Clark, J.J.J. 2001. “TBA: Chemical Properties, Production & Use, Fate and Transport, Toxicology, Detection in Groundwater, and Regulatory Standards” in Oxygenates in the Environment. Art Diaz, Ed.. Oxford University Press: New York. Clark, J.J.J. 2000. “Toxicology of Perchlorate” in Perchlorate in the Environment. Edward Urbansky, Ed. Kluwer/Plenum: New York. Clark, J.J.J. 1995. Probabilistic Forecasting of Volatile Organic Compound Concentrations At The Soil Surface From Contaminated Groundwater. UMI. Baker, J.; Clark, J.J.J.; Stanford, J.T. 1994. Ex Situ Remediation of Diesel Contaminated Railroad Sand by Soil Washing. Principles and Practices for Diesel Contaminated Soils, Volume III. P.T. Kostecki, E.J. Calabrese, and C.P.L. Barkan, eds. Amherst Scientific Publishers, Amherst, MA. pp 89-96. Journal and Proceeding Articles Tam L. K.., Wu C. D., Clark J. J. and Rosenfeld, P.E. (2008) A Statistical Analysis Of Attic Dust And Blood Lipid Concentrations Of Tetrachloro-p-Dibenzodioxin (TCDD) Toxicity Equialency Quotients (TEQ) In Two Populations Near Wood Treatment Facilities. Organohalogen Compounds, Volume 70 (2008) page 002254. Tam L. K.., Wu C. D., Clark J. J. and Rosenfeld, P.E. (2008) Methods For Collect Samples For Assessing Dioxins And Other Environmental Contaminants In Attic Dust: A Review. Organohalogen Compounds, Volume 70 (2008) page 000527 Hensley A.R., Scott, A., Rosenfeld P.E., Clark, J.J.J. (2007). “Attic Dust And Human Blood Samples Collected Near A Former Wood Treatment Facility.” Environmental Research. 105:194-199. Rosenfeld, P.E., Clark, J. J., Hensley, A.R., and Suffet, I.H. 2007. “The Use Of An Odor Wheel Classification For The Evaluation of Human Health Risk Criteria For Compost Facilities” Water Science & Technology. 55(5): 345-357. Hensley A.R., Scott, A., Rosenfeld P.E., Clark, J.J.J. 2006. “Dioxin Containing Attic Dust And Human Blood Samples Collected Near A Former Wood Treatment Facility.” The 26th International Symposium on Halogenated Persistent Organic Pollutants – DIOXIN2006, August 21 – 25, 2006. Radisson SAS Scandinavia Hotel in Oslo Norway. Rosenfeld, P.E., Clark, J. J. and Suffet, I.H. 2005. “The Value Of An Odor Quality Classification Scheme For Compost Facility Evaluations” The U.S. Composting Council’s 13th Annual Conference January 23 - 26, 2005, Crowne Plaza Riverwalk, San Antonio, TX. Rosenfeld, P.E., Clark, J. J. and Suffet, I.H. 2004. “The Value Of An Odor Quality Classification Scheme For Urban Odor” WEFTEC 2004. 77th Annual Technical Exhibition & Conference October 2 - 6, 2004, Ernest N. Morial Convention Center, New Orleans, Louisiana. Clark, J.J.J. 2003. “Manufacturing, Use, Regulation, and Occurrence of a Known Endocrine Disrupting Chemical (EDC), 2,4-Dichlorophnoxyacetic Acid (2,4-D) in California Drinking Water Supplies.” National Groundwater Association Southwest Focus Conference: Water Supply and Emerging Contaminants. Minneapolis, MN. March 20, 2003. Rosenfeld, P. and J.J.J. Clark. 2003. “Understanding Historical Use, Chemical Properties, Toxicity, and Regulatory Guidance” National Groundwater Association Southwest Focus Conference: Water Supply and Emerging Contaminants. Phoenix, AZ. February 21, 2003. Clark, J.J.J., Brown A. 1999. Perchlorate Contamination: Fate in the Environment and Treatment Options. In Situ and On-Site Bioremediation, Fifth International Symposium. San Diego, CA, April, 1999. Clark, J.J.J. 1998. Health Effects of Perchlorate and the New Reference Dose (RfD). Proceedings From the Groundwater Resource Association Seventh Annual Meeting, Walnut Creek, CA, October 23, 1998. Browne, T., Clark, J.J.J. 1998. Treatment Options For Perchlorate In Drinking Water. Proceedings From the Groundwater Resource Association Seventh Annual Meeting, Walnut Creek, CA, October 23, 1998. Clark, J.J.J., Brown, A., Rodriguez, R. 1998. The Public Health Implications of MtBE and Perchlorate in Water: Risk Management Decisions for Water Purveyors. Proceedings of the National Ground Water Association, Anaheim, CA, June 3-4, 1998. Clark J.J.J., Brown, A., Ulrey, A. 1997. Impacts of Perchlorate On Drinking Water In The Western United States. U.S. EPA Symposium on Biological and Chemical Reduction of Chlorate and Perchlorate, Cincinnati, OH, December 5, 1997. Clark, J.J.J.; Corbett, G.E.; Kerger, B.D.; Finley, B.L.; Paustenbach, D.J. 1996. Dermal Uptake of Hexavalent Chromium In Human Volunteers: Measures of Systemic Uptake From Immersion in Water At 22 PPM. Toxicologist. 30(1):14. Dodge, D.G.; Clark, J.J.J.; Kerger, B.D.; Richter, R.O.; Finley, B.L.; Paustenbach, D.J. 1996. Assessment of Airborne Hexavalent Chromium In The Home Following Use of Contaminated Tapwater. Toxicologist. 30(1):117-118. Paulo, M.T.; Gong, H., Jr.; Clark, J.J.J. (1992). Effects of Pretreatment with Ipratroprium Bromide in COPD Patients Exposed to Ozone. American Review of Respiratory Disease. 145(4):A96. Harber, P.H.; Gong, H., Jr.; Lachenbruch, A.; Clark, J.; Hsu, P. (1992). Respiratory Pattern Effect of Acute Sulfur Dioxide Exposure in Asthmatics. American Review of Respiratory Disease. 145(4):A88. McManus, M.S.; Gong, H., Jr.; Clements, P.; Clark, J.J.J. (1991). Respiratory Response of Patients With Interstitial Lung Disease To Inhaled Ozone. American Review of Respiratory Disease. 143(4):A91. Gong, H., Jr.; Simmons, M.S.; McManus, M.S.; Tashkin, D.P.; Clark, V.A.; Detels, R.; Clark, J.J. (1990). Relationship Between Responses to Chronic Oxidant and Acute Ozone Exposures in Residents of Los Angeles County. American Review of Respiratory Disease. 141(4):A70. Tierney, D.F. and J.J.J. Clark. (1990). Lung Polyamine Content Can Be Increased By Spermidine Infusions Into Hyperoxic Rats. American Review of Respiratory Disease. 139(4):A41. SSSooouuuttthhh CCCoooaaasssttt AAAiiirrr QQQuuuaaallliiitttyyy MMMaaannnaaagggeeemmmeeennnttt DDDiiissstttrrriiicccttt 21865 E. Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765 -4182 (909) 396 -2000 • http://www.aqmd.gov Health Risk Assessment Guidance for Analyzing Cancer Risks from Mobile Source Diesel Idling Emissions for CEQA Air Quality Analysis August 2003 Health Risk Assessment Guidance for Analyzing Cancer Risks from Mobile Source Diesel Emissions Page 1 of 12 August 2003 Introduction In 1998, following an exhaustive 10-year scientific assessment process, the State of California Air Resources Board (ARB) identified particulate matter from diesel-fueled engines as a toxic air contaminant.1 Subsequent to this determination, the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) initiated a comprehensive urban toxic air pollution study, called MATES-II (for Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study).2 MATES-II showed that average cancer risk in the South Coast Air Basin (Basin) ranges from 1,100 in a million to 1,750 in a million, with an average regional risk of about 1,400 in a million. More over, diesel particulate matter (DPM) accounts for more than 70 percent of the cancer risk. Over the last several years, areas in the eastern portion of the Basin have undergone significant land-use transformation. Agriculture land has been converted into truck stops and warehouse distribution centers. The air pollution impacts from such development are dominated by the carcinogenic risk of the DPM emissions. The Governing Board Mobile Source Committee directed the AQMD staff to assess the health risks from truck stops and warehouse distribution centers. Based on this analysis, a prior version of this document (dated December 2002) was prepared to provide technical guidance to interested parties (i.e., our recommended procedures for preparing CEQA documents for applicable projects with mobile source diesel emissions). Later, staff also developed technical guidance for addressing potential DPM impacts from the following activities: truck idling and movement, ship hotelling and train idling. This document which constitutes the technical guidance report was reviewed by the Mobile Source Committee of the Board. It should be noted that CARB staff intends to issue statewide technical guidance for diesel toxic impact analyses for various source categories. Until such time, this document will serve as an interim technical guidance for estimating potential DPM impacts from the following activities: • Truck idling and movement (such as, but not limited to, truck stops, warehouse/distribution centers or transit centers), • Ship hotelling at ports, and • Train idling. AQMD staff is also available to work with project proponents to address unique project- specific applications. The remainder of the document provides guidance on the following components of a typical DPM risk analysis: project description, project emissions, dispersion modeling, estimation of health risks, and lastly, potential mitigation measures. Project Description The modeling analysis should contain a brief description of the facility and its activities. Table 1 lists the information on the facility and its surroundings that must be provided in the modeling analysis. The facility location is used to determine the most representative Health Risk Assessment Guidance for Analyzing Cancer Risks from Mobile Source Diesel Emissions Page 2 of 12 August 2003 meteorological data for the analysis. The nearby land use and topography information is needed to choose the appropriate model and its options (e.g., urban versus rural, simple terrain versus complex terrain) and to determine applicable exposure adjustments (e.g. residential or worker exposure). It should be noted that it is SCAQMD procedure to assume an urban setting for facilities in the Basin. Justification should be provided if the rural classification is used. Table 1. Required Source Information. Information on the Facility and Its Surroundings ■ Location (i.e., address) ■ Local land use (within 20 km) ■ Local topography (within 20 km) ■ Facility plot plan • Property line • Horizontal scale • Building height (for building downwash calculations if necessary) • Source locations ■ Operating schedule (i.e., hours/day, days/week, weeks/year) Point Source Information (i.e., Stationary Sources Associated with the Project) ■ Hourly emission rate ■ Annual emissions ■ Stack location on plot plan (UTM coordinates) ■ Stack height ■ Stack diameter ■ Stack gas exit velocity ■ Stack gas exit temperature ■ Building dimensions and location if applicable Fugitive Source or Mobile Source Information ■ Hourly emission rate ■ Annual emissions ■ Source location on plot plan (UTM coordinates) ■ Source height ■ Area or volume dimension The facility plot plan (including a length scale) is needed to determine the source location, building dimensions, and the property boundary or right-of-way boundary. The operating schedule (i.e., hours/day, days/week, weeks/year, etc.), the hourly DPM Health Risk Assessment Guidance for Analyzing Cancer Risks from Mobile Source Diesel Emissions Page 3 of 12 August 2003 emission rate, the annual DPM emissions, and the source parameters listed in the Table 1 are necessary to accurately characterize the source emission rate for modeling. One should keep in mind that the more information provided on the facility operating schedule the more appropriately the facility can be modeled. The same applies to the characteristics of the source, such as the release height of the emissions. Table 2. Information Necessary to Calculate Diesel Particulate Emissions from Truck Idling and Movement. Truck Traffic on Local Streets and/or Arterials ■ Number of trucks visiting the facility per day ■ Composite DPM emission factor (in grams per mile) based on project year and average vehicle speed ■ Travel distance on the local streets and/or arterials (in miles) On-Site Truck Movement ■ Number of trucks visiting the facility per day ■ On-site travel distance (in miles) ■ Composite DPM emission factor (in grams per mile) based on project year and vehicle speed On-Site Truck Idling ■ Number of trucks visiting the facility per day ■ Average idling time per truck ■ Composite idling emission factor (grams per minute) based on project year Transportation Refrigeration Units (TRUs) ■ Number of TRUs operating per hour ■ Operating time per hour (in minutes per hour) ■ TRU emission factor (in grams per minute) based on horsepower rating and load factor Auxiliary Power Units (APUs) ■ Number of APUs operating per hour ■ Operating time per hour (in minutes per hour) ■ APU emission factor (in grams per minute) based on horsepower rating and load factor Project Emissions Truck Idling and Movement Emissions of diesel particulates can occur from the following activities associated with diesel trucks: Health Risk Assessment Guidance for Analyzing Cancer Risks from Mobile Source Diesel Emissions Page 4 of 12 August 2003 • Truck traffic on local streets and arterials in transit to or from the facility (i.e., truck stop, warehouse/distribution center or transit center), • Truck idling and movement on-site at the facility (i.e., truck stop, warehouse/distribution center or transit center), and • Operation of Transportation Refrigeration Units (TRUs) at the facility (i.e., truck stop, warehouse/distribution center or transit center). Table 2 summarizes the information required to estimate DPM emissions from the facility. The latest version of EMFAC3 should be used to estimate the composite DPM emission factor for truck movement on local streets and truck movement and idling on the proposed facility property. EMFAC is ARB’s computer model to estimate past, present, and future on-road emissions of HC, CO, NOX, PM, lead, SO2, and CO2. Make sure EMFAC is run for a calendar year and county/air basin representative of the proposed project. From the output, select the DPM emission factor for the vehicle class and speed pertinent to the proposed project. DPM emission factors for transportation refrigeration units (TRUs) can be obtained from an appendix in ARB’s risk reduction plan for diesel particulate emissions.4 Ship Hotelling at Local Ports Emissions of DPM from ships are mainly concentrated in the San Pedro Bay Ports (SPBP) which includes the Port of Los Angeles and the Port of Long Beach. Ships that contribute to DPM emissions in the SPBP are oceangoing vessels, tugboats, fishing vessels, U.S. Navy vessels, U.S. Coast Guard vessels, and other harbor vessels such as work boats, pilot boats, and passenger cruise boats. Most DPM emissions, however, are generated by oceangoing vessels. DPM emissions vary depending on a ship’s mode of activity. Ships are on cruise mode when they enter or leave the South Coast waters which are approximately 100 miles from the coastline. While in Port, ships are either on “hotelling and berthing” mode or on maneuvering mode when ships move from one berth to another. The ships’ power requirements during hotelling or berthing are supplied by continuously operating its diesel-fueled auxiliary engines and boilers. The latest update on DPM emissions in the SPBP can be found in the report entitled , Marine Vessels Emissions Inventory Update to 1996 Report: Marine Vessel Emissions Inventory and Control Strategies.5 Table 3. Information Necessary to Calculate Diesel Particulate Emissions from Ship Hotelling at Local Ports. Hotelling Operations ■ Number of ships ■ Average hotelling hours for each ship type ■ Auxiliary power engine emission factor for particulate matter, lbs/hr Table 3 summarizes the information required to estimate DPM emissions from the shipping activities in the local ports. Health Risk Assessment Guidance for Analyzing Cancer Risks from Mobile Source Diesel Emissions Page 5 of 12 August 2003 Train Idling Emissions of diesel particulate matter from train idling occurs predominantly at railroad yards, train stations, and train stops. Most train idling emissions are concentrated at railroad yards, where switching engines and local yard service operations are performed. Train idling averages from 6 to 10 hours per train per day. Due to difficulty in cold starting and possible costly damage to the locomotive’s diesel-powered engine, train idling has been a common practice in the rail industry for decades. There are four railroad companies that serve the Basin. The companies are Amtrak, Metrolink, Santa Fe, and Union Pacific. Amtrak and Metrolink operate passenger trains solely for interstate/cross-country and local transportation, respectively. Train idling emissions are generated during stops made at each train station. Santa Fe and Union Pacific offer freight, yard, and local services. Idling emissions from these trains are emitted in several major railroad yards locations, namely: • Los Angeles - Taylor Yard • Los Angeles – 750 Lamar St. • Los Angeles – 8th and Santa Fe • Long Beach – Anaheim and Sampson • Long Beach – 2401 E. Sepulveda • Watson – West of Long Beach • City of Commerce – Indiana and Washington • City of Commerce – Washington and Oak • City of Industry – 650 S. Stimson • West Colton – 19100 Slover Ave. • San Bernardino – 4th and 15 Freeway • Riverside 3rd and Vine St. Table 4. Information Necessary to Calculate Diesel Particulate Emissions from Train Idling. Train Operations Data ■ number of trains idling per location ■ frequency of trains idling per location ■ average idle time per day per locomotive per location, hr/day Locomotive Engine and Fuel Data ■ locomotive horsepower rating, hp ■ fuel consumption while idling, gal/hr Health Risk Assessment Guidance for Analyzing Cancer Risks from Mobile Source Diesel Emissions Page 6 of 12 August 2003 ■ fuel density, lb/gal ■ brake specific fuel consumption, lb/hp-hr ■ DPM emission factor, g/hp-hr For the latest emissions data on locomotives in the SCAB, refer to the report entitled, Emissions from Locomotives in the Modeling Region for the South Coast Air Quality Management District.6 Emission factors for locomotives, can be found from the U.S. EPA’s report titled, Technical Highlights- Emission Factors for Locomotives.7 Table 4 summarizes the information required to estimate DPM emissions from train idling. Dispersion Modeling Model Selection The latest version of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) air quality dispersion model, called ISCST3 (Industrial Source Complex – Short Term, Version 3)8 should be used for estimating the impacts. ISCST3 is a Gaussian plume model capable of estimating pollutant concentrations from a wide variety of sources that are typically present in an industrial source complex. Emission sources are categorized into four basic types: point, area, volume, and open pit sources. ISCST3 estimates hourly concentrations for each source/receptor pair and calculates concentrations for user -specified averaging times, including an average concentration for the complete simulation period. ISCST3 should be executed using the urban dispersion parameters (i.e., URBAN control option), which is SCAQMD policy for all permitting in its jurisdiction. The U.S. EPA regulatory defaults options are implemented except that the calm processing option is disabled (i.e., NOCALM control option). Source Treatment The volume or area source options of ISCST3 are most appropriate for the DPM sources associated with truck idling and movement. Multiple, adjacent volume (or area) sources could be used to simulate a roadway. The reader is referred to the ISCST3 user’s guide for guidance in this area.8 Individuals preparing impact assessments are referred to ARB for guidance regarding source parameters and source activity assumptions.5 Significant deviations from the assumptions outlined in Appendix VII: Risk Characterization Scenarios should be justified. The point source treatment of ISCST3 is most appropriate for ship activity and train idling emissions. Multiple, adjacent point sources could be used to simulate ship maneuvering within local ports and train movement within railroad yards. Health Risk Assessment Guidance for Analyzing Cancer Risks from Mobile Source Diesel Emissions Page 7 of 12 August 2003 Meteorological Data District has 1981 meteorological data (i.e., hourly winds, atmospheric stability, and mixing heights) at 35 stations in the Basin, as shown in Figure 1 and listed in Table 5. These data are in a format which can be directly read by ISCST3. The nearest representative meteorological station should be chosen for modeling. Usually this is simply the nearest station; however, an intervening terrain feature may dictate the use of an alternate station. Individuals may contact District staff regarding the most representative meteorological station if necessary. The data are available on the SCAQMD’s website.9 Figure 1. Meteorological Monitoring Stations in the South Coast Air Basin LOS ANGELES RIVERSIDE ANAHEIM SCAQMDAIR MONITORING NETWORK M ILES 0 2 5 SOUT H CO ASTAIR BASIN (SCAB) CO UNTY LINES AIR MON ITOR INGSTATIO N 1981 VERSIO N LONG BEACH Federal Standard NEWHALL RESEDA BURBANK WEST LOS ANGELES HAWTHORNE LYNWOOD PASADENA PICO RIVERA AZUSA POMONA LA HABRA COSTA MESA EL TORO NORCO REDLANDSFONTANA UPLAND MALIBU CANOGA PARK LA CANADA VERNON WHITTIER KING HARBOR LOS ALAMITOS WALNUT SANTA ANA CANYON Receptor Grid The receptor grid should begin at the facility fence line or transportation right-of-way and extend to an adequate distance from the site to cover the facility’s impact area. The peak annual DPM concentrations should be identified using 100-meter receptor grid. A map showing the emission sources and the receptor grid with actual coordinates used in the modeling should be provided. Discrete receptors should also be located at sensitive receptors (e.g., schools, day-care centers, hospitals, etc.) in the impact area (i.e., the area where impacts are greater than 1 in a million). Health Risk Assessment Guidance for Analyzing Cancer Risks from Mobile Source Diesel Emissions Page 8 of 12 August 2003 Table 5. Locations of Meteorological Stations. UTM Coordinates (m) Lat./Long. Coordinates Station name E-W N-S Latitude Longitude Anaheim 415.0 3742.5 3349’16” 11755’07” Azusa 414.9 3777.4 3408’09” 11755’23” Banning 510.5 3754.5 3355’58” 11653’11” Burbank 379.5 3783.0 3410’58” 11818’27” Canoga Park 352.9 3786.0 3412’23” 11835’48” Compton 385.5 3750.3 3353’19” 11814’17” Costa Mesa 413.8 3724.2 3339’21” 11755’47” Downtown Los Angeles 386.9 3770.1 3404’02” 11813’31” El Toro 436.0 3720.9 3337’39” 11741’25” Fontana 455.4 3773.9 3406’24” 11729’01” Indio 572.3 3731.0 3343’06” 11613’11” King Harbor 371.2 3744.4 3350’00” 11823’30” La Canada 388.2 3786.1 3412’42” 11812’49” La Habra 412.0 3754.0 3355’28” 11757’07” Lancaster 396.0 3839.5 3441’38” 11808’08” Lennox 373.0 3755.0 3355’46” 11822’26” Long Beach 390.0 3743.0 3349’24” 11811’19” Los Alamitos 404.5 3739.8 3347’45” 11801’54” Lynwood 388.0 3754.0 3355’20” 11812’42” Malibu 344.0 3766.9 3401’59” 11841’23” Newhall 355.5 3805.5 3422’59” 11831’02” Norco 446.8 3749.0 3352’54” 11734’31” Palm Springs 542.5 3742.5 3349’25” 11632’27” Pasadena 396.0 3778.5 3408’38” 11807’41” Pico Rivera 402.3 3764.1 3400’53” 11803’29” Pomona 430.8 3769.6 3403’60” 11744’60” Redlands 486.2 3769.4 3404’00” 11709’00” Reseda 359.0 3785.0 3411’54” 11831’49” Riverside 464.8 3758.6 3358’10” 11722’50” Santa Ana Canyon 431.0 3748.4 3352’32” 11744’46” Upland 440.0 3773.1 3405’55” 11739’02” Vernon 387.4 3762.5 3359’55” 11813’10” Walnut 420.0 3761.7 3359’41” 11751’58” West Los Angeles 372.3 3768.6 3403’08” 11823’01” Whittier 405.3 3754.0 3355’26” 11801’28” Estimation of Health Risks Cancer Risks The cancer risks from DPM occur exclusively through the inhalation pathway; therefore the cancer risks can be estimated from the following equation: CRDPM = CDPM • URFDPM • LEA where, Health Risk Assessment Guidance for Analyzing Cancer Risks from Mobile Source Diesel Emissions Page 9 of 12 August 2003 CRDPM Cancer risk from diesel particulate matter; the probability of an individual developing cancer as a result of exposure to DPM. CDPM Annual average DPM concentration in μg/m3. URFDPM Unit risk factor for DPM; estimated probability that a person will contract cancer as a result of inhalation of a DPM concentration of 1 μg/m 3 continuously over a period pf 70 years. LEA Lifetime exposure adjustment; values range from 0.14 to 1.0; see the discussion below. The inhalation unit risk factor for diesel particulate was established by ARB as 300 in one million per continuous exposure of 1 μg/m3 of DPM over a 70-year period.1 The latest unit risk factors should always be used in the impact assessment (see reference #10 for a link to the latest toxicity values.) In order to protect public health, and in accordance with the recommendations of the State of California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), a 70- year lifetime exposure is assumed for all receptor locations except for off-site workers (i.e., receptor locations in commercial or industrial areas). The LEA for all residential or sensitive receptors is 1.0. It is recognized that exposures for off-site workers in commercial or industrial areas are less than 70 years. Exposure adjustments for these off-site workers are allowed as follows. When the facility and its equipment operate continuously (i.e., 24 hrs/day and 365 days/yr), the LEA for an off-site worker is 0.14 (i.e., [8 hr/day • 240 days/yr • 46 yrs]/[24 hrs/day • 365 days/yr • 70 yrs]). For all other facility operating schedules, the LEA for an off-site worker is 0.66 (i.e., 46 yr/70 yr). A cancer risk isopleth map showing risk contours of 1, 10, and 25 in a million should be included in the impact assessment. Non-cancer Risks The relationship for the non-cancer health effects of DPM is given by the following equation: HIDPM = CDPM/RELDPM where, HIDPM Hazard Index; an expression of the potential for non-cancer health effects. CDPM Annual average DPM concentration (μg/m3). RELDPM Reference exposure level (REL) for DPM; the DPM concentration at which no adverse health effects are anticipated. Health Risk Assessment Guidance for Analyzing Cancer Risks from Mobile Source Diesel Emissions Page 10 of 12 August 2003 The chronic REL for DPM was established by OEHHA as 5 μg/m3. The latest RELs should always be used in the impact assessment (see reference #10 for a link to the latest toxicity values.) Potential Mitigation Measures CEQA requires public agencies to take responsibility for protecting the environment. In regulating public or private projects, agencies are expected to avoid or minimize environmental damage. The purpose of an EIR is to identify the significant effects of a project on the environment, identify alternatives to the project, and indicate the manner in which significant impacts can be mitigated or avoided. To this end, below is a list of potentially applicable mitigation measures for truck idling facilities, shipping activities in local ports, and train idling. Truck Idling Facilities • Provide a minimum buffer zone of 300 meters between truck traffic and sensitive receptors; • Re-route truck traffic by adding direct off-ramps for the truck traffic or by restricting truck traffic on certain sensitive routes; • Improve traffic flow by signal synchronization; • Enforce truck parking restrictions; • Develop park and ride programs; • Restrict truck idling; • Restrict operation to “clean” trucks; • Electrify service equipment at facility; • Provide electrical hook-ups for trucks that need to cool their load; • Electrify auxiliary power units; • Use “clean” street sweepers; • Pave roads and road shoulders; • Provide onsite services to minimize truck traffic in or near residential areas, including, but not limited to, the following services: meal or cafeteria service, automated teller machines, etc; • Require or provide incentives to use low-sulfur diesel fuel with particulate traps; and • Conduct air quality monitoring at sensitive receptors. Ship Hotelling at Local Ports • Require the use of land-based power when berthed; Health Risk Assessment Guidance for Analyzing Cancer Risks from Mobile Source Diesel Emissions Page 11 of 12 August 2003 • Limit the sulfur content of fuel used by ships in the South Coast waters; and • Install add-on DPM control device to diesel-fueled auxiliary engines and boilers. Train Idling • Change Railroad Operating Practices - Reducing idle time would definitely reduce DPM emissions. Locomotives that are not in use generally idle. Locomotive manufacturers indicate that engines could be shut-down and restarted when ambient temperatures are above 50°F, which is nearly always the case in southern California. • Idle Reduction Technologies - The rail industry has developed and designed a new Auxiliary Power Unit (APU) system that provides power during idling conditions and shuts down the main locomotive engine. Installing APU system reduces locomotive PM emissions by 84 percent. Significant reduction in diesel fuel consumption also results when the main locomotive engine is shuts down automatically by the APU system. • Research and Development of New Engine Technologies - Modifying fuel injectors which includes fuel injection pressure, fuel spray pattern, injection rate and timing has been found to reduce emissions from locomotive diesel engines. Development of low NOX locomotive engine is based on similar principle used in low NOX engines for stationary power industry. Retardation of fuel injection can achieve significant NOX emission reductions. References (1) Proposed Identification of Diesel Exhaust as a Toxic Air Contaminant. ARB and OEHHA. April 22, 1998. (2) Final Report on MATES-II. SCAQMD. March 2000. (3) Refer to the following link to ARB’s website for the latest version of EMFAC and its documentation: http://www.arb.ca.gov/msei/on-road/onroad_index.htm. (4) Risk Reduction Plan to Reduce Particulate Matter Emissions from Diesel-Fueled Engines and Vehicles. Appendix VII – Risk Characterization Scenarios. ARB. October 2000. (5) Marine Vessels Emissions Inventory Update to 1996 Report: Marine Vessel Emissions Inventory and Control Strategies. Prepared for the South Coast A.Q.M.D by Charlotte Pera and Diana Popek of ARCADIS Geraghty and Miller, Inc., Mountain View, California. September 23, 1999. (6) Emissions from Locomotives in the Modeling Region for the South Coast Air Quality Management District. Final Technical Report III-H, Air Quality Management Plan 1991 Revision. Prepared by Booz-Allen & Hamilton Inc. July 1990. Health Risk Assessment Guidance for Analyzing Cancer Risks from Mobile Source Diesel Emissions Page 12 of 12 August 2003 (7) Technical Highlights - Emission Factors for Locomotives. EPA420-F-97-051. December 1997. Refer to the following link: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/nonroad/locomotv/frm/42097051.pdf (8) Refer to the following links to U.S. EPA’s website for the latest version of ISCST3 and its documentation: http://www.epa.gov/scram001/tt22.htm#isc. (9) Refer to the following link to SCAQMD’s website to obtain meteorological data for dispersion modeling: http://www.aqmd.gov/metdata/. (10) Refer to the following link to ARB’s website for the latest toxicity values: http://www.arb.ca.gov/toxics/healthval/healthval.htm. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT VISIBLE EMISSION OBSERVATIONS KAISER STEEL CORPORATION Fontana, California September 1975 May 1976 NATIONAL ENFORCEMENT INVESTIGATIONS CENTER -Denver, Colorado and REGION IX -San Francisco, California CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . 1 I I. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . 3 Visible Emission Observations . . . . . . . . 3 Compliance with Consent Order 5 III. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS . . . . 8 Visible Emissions . . . . 8 Emergency Variances . . . . . . 9 IV. VISIBLE EMISSION OBSERVATIONS . . . . 11 Study Methods ... . . . . . . . . . . 11 Environmental Data . 13 Facility Description . . . . 15 Blast Furnaces . . . 19 Si nterrng Pl ant . . 24 Coke Oven Batteries . . . . . . 25 Open Hearth Furnaces 35 Basic Oxygen Steel Process Furnaces 38 Rolling Mill Soaking Pits 49 Hot Strip Mi 11 . . . . . . . . . . . 50 Scrap Cutting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 V. ANALYSIS OF THE STATUS OF COMPLIANCE WITH CONSENT ORDER. . . 54 Appendix A Requirements . . 55 II B II 56 . . . . II C II 58 . . . . . II D II 59 . . . . . . . II E II 61 . . . . II F II 62 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . 62 APPENDIX -VEO RECORD 65 iii II-1 IV-1 IV-2 IV-3 IV-4 IV-5 IV-6 IV-7 IV-8 IV-9 IV-10 IV-1 IV-2 IV-3 IV-4 IV-5 IV-6 IV-7 IV-8 IV-9 IV-10 IV-11 TABLES Emissions Exceeding Applicable Regulations -Summary . . . . . . Sources of Visible Emissions . . . . Meteorological Data from Kaiser Steel Stack Characteristics . . . . . . VE0 1 s at Blast Furnace Process Area VEO's at Open Hearth Furnace Area VEO's at Coke Battery Sources. . VEG'S at Open Hearth Furnace Area VEO's at BOSP Furnaces . . . . . . VEO's at Rolling Mill Soaking Pits VE0 1 s at Scrap Cutting Areas . FIGURES Kaiser Steel Plant Vicinity Map Schematic of Stack Orientation Blast Furnace Process Flow . . Coke Oven Process Flow ..... . Observed Coke Oven Leaks ... . Open Hearth Furnace Process Flow BOSP Furnace Process Flow .... Smoke Density, Stack 23, 20 Sept. Smoke Density, Stack 23, 21 Sept. Smoke Density, Stack 21, 20 Sept. Smoke Density, Stack 21, 21 Sept. iv . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 12 14 17 23 29 31 39 43 50 53 16 18 20 26 32 36 41 45 46 47 48 I. INTRODUCTION Kaiser Steel Corporation operates a steel mill at Fontana, California, about 80 km (50 mi) east of Los Angeles. The facility is a fully integrated steel mill with basic coke, iron and steel production processes and a full range of finishing operations. It is the only integrated mill in California. The basic coke, iron and steel processes result in the emission to the atmosphere of excessive levels of particulate air pollutants, despite the instal- lation of various air pollution control devices. On 11 July 1974, the Corporation entered into a Consent Order with EPA-Region IX to control these emissions. The Order specif1ed various steps to be taken by the Corporation, including process modifications and installation of air pollution control devices. A compliance schedule for both interim and final compliance dates was also established. The Order was amended 11 November 1974, changing several interim dates but not affecting the final compliance dates. Subsequent to the amendment, the Corporation on 24 July 1975 submitted a $150 million Steelmaking Modernization Project Proposal to EPA. The proposal included significant changes from the schedule in the Consent Order. Among these were extended compliance dates, with the final EPA compliance date of 31 December 1977 advanced to 30 June 1981. To date no EPA action has occurred on this proposal. At the request of the Enforcement Director, EPA-Region IX, San Francisco, California, the National Enforcement Investigations Center {NEIC) conducted a study of the Kaiser facility in September 1975. The objectives of the study were to determine the status of compliance with the Consent Order and to observe sources of visible emissions to determine compliance with applicable County regulations. The field portion of the study was conducted 16-24 September 1975. This report presents the results of the study. Applicable visible emission regulations are presented in Section III. A dis- cussion of the results of the visible emission observations is con- tained in Section IV. The status of compliance with the Consent Order is evaluated in Section V. 2 II. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS A survey of Kaiser Steel Corporation's integrated steel mill at Fontana, California was conducted 16-24 September 1975. The survey was to determine the status of compliance with applicable visible emission regulations and with an abatement schedule of the Kaiser-EPA Consent Order. VISIBLE EMISSION OBSERVATIONS Observations were made of all major sources of visible emissions 3 in the blast furnaces, sinter plant, coke oven batteries, open hearth furnaces, basic oxygen steel process (BOSP) furnaces, rolling mill soaking pits, hot strip mill and scrap cutting areas. Visible emissions exceeding applicable regulations were observed at 29 stacks and numerous coke oven doors, standpipes and quench towers. These sources and the number of observations at each source are summarized in Table 11-1. Not all occasions were recorded during the study when emissions exceeded allowable limits. Excessive visible emissions were almost continuous from stack No. 6 serving coke oven Battery A, and from coke oven door leaks. Excessive emissions also occurred from scrap cutting operations while in progress. Charging procedures at the coke oven batteries had recently been changed from sequential to staged charging. Therefore, opera- tions were not normal and observations of emissions from the charging cycle were deferred until a later date. 4 Table II-1 SUMMARY OF OBSERVATIONS OF VISIBLE EMISSIONS ' EXCEE'DING APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Process Area Blast Furnaces Sinter Plant Coke Oven Batteries Open Hearth Furnaces Basic Oxygen Steel Process Source stack noH Cast House Roof 5 6 7 stack no. 8 9 10 11 Door Leaks StanJpipes Quench Towers 12 13 stack no. 16 20 Roof Monitors . (BOSP) stack no.{21 23 Rolling Mi 11 s Hot Strip Mill Scrap Cutting ESP t Bypass Roof Monitors 31 37 stack no 38 40 41 43 57 Main Area Near BOSP + electrostatic precipitator Observations Exceeding Limits 3 l 3 l l 10 8 3 8 6 6 29 2 3 8 5 l 8 5 7 2 3 7 l 2 l 1 1 2 l 6 2 Total 145 COMPLIANCE WITH CONSENT ORDER Compliance with the 11 July 1974 Consent Order to date has been minimal. This is best illustrated summarizing Corporation progress under each Appendix to the Order. Appendix A 5 Part A. An EPA contractor is studying control technology that may bring 11 A11 Battery stack into compliance. An experimental unit is presently processing half the stack emission as part of the study. Part B. The Corporation has requested an extension of up to 30 months for compliance with emissions from Battery stacks B through G. Appendix B Part A. The Corporation certified that pushing and charging at all batteries were in compliance with Rule 50A .• Part B. The Corporation certified that coke oven doors and stand- pipes in Batteries C through G were in compliance with Rule 50A. Part C. The Corporation has installed new doors on Batteries A and B but is not required to certify compliance until 31 December 1975. Part D. No action required. Part E. The final control plan to bring combined visible emissions from each coke oven into compliance was not submitted on 30 July 1975 as required. Appendix C Part A. The Corporation did not certify to compliance with Rule 50A. However, they did indicate meeting the necessary increment of progress for charging and tapping operations at furnaces No. l and 3 of the basic oxygen steel process {BOSP). Part B. A 7-1/2 month extension was requested due to delivery problems with the baghouse. Appendix D On 17 January 1975 the Corporation was advised that they are in violation of the Order. The Corporation has not met a later date for installing additional control equipment at the open hearth furnaces but has proposed an alternative Steelmaking Moderniza- tion Program. This would extend the final compliance date on these units for 17 months. Appendix E The Corporation has indicated they will not erect a scrap cutting building with control equipment as required by the Order. They were advised of being in violation of the Consent Order on 15 May 1975. The Steel Modernization Program included installation of a ball drop facility and machine torch cutting devices on the out- side as the alternative to an enclosure. These are in place but not in accordance with the Order. Appendix F 6 The Steelmaking Modernization Plan suggests a 3-1/2 year extension for compliance with the desulphurization of coke oven gas. 7 Progress thus far has led to the following conclusions: The Corporation has acted unilaterally in modifying elements of the Consent Order without consulting EPA. These modifications may or may not bring the particular operation into final compliance. The Corporation has certified to compliance with various elements of the Consent Order that appear to be out of compliance. Visible emission observations indicate that other facilities at the plant not covered by the Consent Order are exceeding Rule 50A. Operations and Maintenance procedures which will play a major role in meeting clean air objectives do not seem to receive the priority necessary. 8 III. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Emissions of air pollutants from the Kaiser steel mill are subject to regulations promulgated for the San Bernardino County Air Pollution Control Zone, Southern California Air Pollution Control District. Spe- cific regulations concerned with visible emissions and with upset or breakdown conditions are presented below. In addition, emissions from the steel mill are the subject of a Consent Order entered into by EPA and the Kaiser Steel Corporation on 11 July 1974. The Order specifies various abatement measures to be im- plemented by the Corporation on a specific time schedule. The require- ments of the Order and the Corporation's progress to date in complying with the Order are discussed in detail in Section V of this report. VISIBLE EMISSIONS Visible emissions are subject to the limitations specified in the .following San Bernardino County regulation: Rule 50A. Visible Emissions A person shall not discharge into the atmosphere from any single source of emission whatsoever, any air contaminant for a period or periods aggregating more than three (3) minutes in any one (l) hour which is: a. As dark or darker in shade as that designated as No. l on the Ringelmann Chart, as published by the United States Bureau of Mines, or b. Of such opacity as to obscure an observer's view to a degree equal to or greater than does smoke described in Section (a) of this Rule. This Rule is effective on l June 1972 for all sources which are not either in operation or under construction prior to that date, and Rule 50 shall not be applicable to such sources on or after that date. This Rule is to become effective for all other sources on l January 1975, and Rule 50 shall not be applicable on or after that date. Variances from compliance with Rule 50A have been granted to Kaiser Steel Corporation for several of their Fontana operations by the San Bernardino County Hearing Board. These variances have not been approved by EPA. Operations excepted and compliance dates are as follows: Scrap Cutting 31 May 1976 Open Hearth Stacks 31 July 1977 Coke Oven Battery A Stack 31 Dec. 1976 Coke Oven Batteries B to G Stacks 31 Dec. 1977 EMERGENCY VARIANCES 9 The regulations grant emergency variances for excessive emissions during upset or breakdown of control equipment under certain conditions. Rule 55. Upset Conditions or Breakdowns Emissions exceeding any of the limits established in this regu- lation as a direct result of upset conditions in or breakdown of any air pollution control equipment or related processing 10 equipment shall not be deemed to be in violation of the rules establish- ing such limits, provided the following requirements (a) and (b) of this section are met. a. Any upset condition or breakdown of equipment which causes a violation of the Rules and Regulations of the District or the Health and Safety Code of the State of California shall be reported to the office of the District within thirty (30) minutes. b. As soon as possible after notification, the District shall be informed of the estimated time for repairs; and 1f more than four (4) hours are required to repair the condition, the Control Officer shall request the source either to shut down the operation until repairs can be made or file immediately for an emergency or interim variance in accord- ance with Rule 85(d). In the event that the breakdown or upset condition occurs during other than normal working hours of the Air Pollution Control District, the intent to file for an emergency or interim varianre shall be transmitted by telephone for recording wit~,n four (4) hours after the violation is reported and tnat every reasonable effort is taken to minimize the emissions. Investigations will be made by a member of the District staff to verify the upset conditions. This Rule is effective 10 September 1974. Rule 55 has not been approved as part of the California State Implementation Plan. 11 IV. VISIBLE EMISSION OBSERVATIONS STUDY METHODS The primary purpose of the field study was to observe the major sources of visible emissions to determine the present status of compliance with applicable regulations. Detailed process information had previously been obtained by both San Bernardino County and EPA- Region IX personnel. Therefore, no detailed process evaluation was made. A limited walk-through reconnaissance of the plant was conducted by San Bernardino County personnel to familiarize study staff with the location and identification of emission sources to be observed. Actual observations of visible emissions were conducted 16-24 September 1975. Ten certified smoke readers from NEIC, EPA-Region IX, the California Air Resources Board, and the San Bernardino County Air Pollution Control Zone took visible emission observations (VEO's) during the study. Sources observed are listed in Table IV-1. The smoke readers used standard observation methods (EPA Method 9) for orientation of the observer with respect to sun position, wind direc- tion and viewing background. Environmental data, plume characteristics, source data, visible emission readings and other pertinent information for each set of readings were recorded on EPA-IX-Form 298 [Appendix], a modification of the California Air Resources Board visible emission observation record form. Environmental data collected by the ob- -servers included wind speed and direction, air temperature and relative humidity. Only summaries of the VEO records are included in this report. Individual VEO records are on-file at NEIC. 12 Table IV-1 SUMMARY OF SOURCES OF VISIBLE EMISSIONS EVALUATED PROCESS AREA Blast Furnaces Sinter Plant Coke Oven Batteries Open Hearth Furnaces Basic Oxygen Steel Process Ro 11 i ng Mi 11 s Hot Strip Mi 11 Scrap Cutting t electrostatic precipitator SOURCES Stove Stacks (3), Cast House Roof Monitors (3) Main Stack Main Stacks (6), Oven Doors, Standpipes, Quench Towers Main Stacks (8), Roof Monitors Furnace Stacks (3), ESPt Bypass, Roof Monitors Soaking Pit Stacks (19) Reheat Furnace Stacks (3) Open Areas (2) During the study, no attempt was made to record every visible emission that appeared to exceed applicable regulations. Instead, a number of VE0 1 s were systematically taken at major emission sources within each process area listed in Table IV-1. When practical, in- cidental emissions occurring in the area being observed were recorded. Smoke readers periodically switched sources so that several readers observed each major source of emissions at different times during the survey. Color photographs were taken to document visible emissions and to record a general overview of the plant. Several types of cameras were used and the photographs were taken from ground and roof level at the plant and from a low-flying light aircraft. The photographs are not presented in this report but are on-file at NEIC. ENVIRONMENTAL DATA In addition to the environmental data recorded by the study crew, data was obtained from a meteorological station at the plant operated 13 by Kaiser's Environmental Quality Control Department. The system includes wind speed and direction sensors mounted on a tower atop the galvanizing facility and temperature, pressure, and relative humidity sensors on the roof of the Environmental Quality Control office. Data are automatically scanned, printed, and punched every two minutes. Hourly readings were tabulated from this f1le for the period during which VEO's were being taken [Table IV-2]. Wind speed data are suspect because of problems with the sensor at the lower wind speed threshold, which will be corrected by Kaiser in the near future. Relative humidity also appeared to be inaccurate when compared on several occasions to EPA wet and dry bulb hygrometer readings. Tnble IV-2 METF:OROWCir,H, DATA FROM KAISF:R STF:F:T, FOf.'Tt.:IA, CAUFCR!IIA wind Relative Wind Relative Date T1r:e Hind S2eed Direction Temlerature Hur.11dlty Date Time Wind s2eed Direction Temrrature Ku::ndt ty {I ni7Fir {mpfiJ ( 0) ,~c (Cr) (X) \Km7hr} {mpliJ (·) r"""C {"i:'l (X) 9/16 1200 15 6 9 7 256 33 91 55 9/ZO 0800 0 6 0.4 128 22 71 65 1300 9.0 5.6 279 34 94 57 0900 0 6 0.4 192 24 76 62 goo 19.2 11. 9 256 36 97 57 1000 0 6 0 4 281 27 60 60 1500 25 2 15. 7 279 36 97 56 1 iOO 0 6 0 4 267 28 83 56 1600 19 3 12.0 276 36 96 56 1200 0 6 0 4 219 30 86 53 1700 26 2 16 3 274 36 96 57 1300 0 6 0 4 283 31 88 54 1800 19.6 12.2 260 34 94 57 1400 0 6 0 4 258 32 90 52 1900 23 2 14 4 257 31 88 57 1500 0 6 0 4 293 33 91 51 1600 0.6 0.4 254 33 91 51 9/17 0800 0 6 0 4 1~9 26 78 62 1700 0.6 0.4 252 3Z 89 51 0900 0 6 0 4 171 28 83 59 1800 0.6 0.4 284 30 86 54 1000 0 8 0.5 208 29 85 58 1900 0.6 0.4 277 28 82 53 1100 0 6 0 4 255 31 87 58 1200 0 6 0 4 283 32 90 58 tJ/'n 0800 0.6 0.4 076 27 79 51 1300 16.4 10.2 288 33 92 58 0900 0 6 0 4 077 35 95 (1 1400 19 5 12 2 Wl 34 94 58 1000 0 6 0 4 101 37 99 33 1500 24. 3 15. 1 250 35 94 58 1100 0.4 0 3 397 37 98 32 1600 21 6 13 4 299 34 93 59 1200 0 4 0 3 405 37 99 32 1700 30.4 18.9 280 33 92 53 1300 0 4 0 3 422 38 100 32 1400 1 1 0 7 (02 39 103 33 9/18 onoo 7.0 4 3 174 24 75 62 1500 0.4 0.3 403 39 102 32 0900 0 6 0.4 180 27 81 59 1600 0.4 0.3 413 39 103 28 1000 0 4 0.3 213 27 81 58 1700 0 4' 0.3 400 39 102 27 1100 0 4 0 3 266 29 84 57 1800 0.6 0.4 413 36 97 27 1200 0 4 0 3 238 31 87 55 1900 0 6 0 4 420 34 94 25 1300 0 4 0.3 262 31 88 51 l400 0 4 0.3 265 32 90 'l6 ·9/23 0800 0 6 0.4 52 24 76 31 1500 21. 8 13 5 278' 32 90 45 0900 0 6 0 4 147 29 85 30 16')0 9 8 6 2 264 32 89 47 1000 0 6 0 4 191 33 91 30 1700 33 2 14 4 280 32 89 46 1100 0 6 0 4 204 34 94 29 1800 19 0 11.S 269 29 85 46 1200 0 6 0 4 242 36 96 29 1900 0.6 0.4 259 27 81 45 1300 0.6 0 4 243 37 98 09 1400 0 4 0 3 400 38 101 10 9/19 0800 0 6 0 4 146 22 72 54 1500 0 4 0.3 401 38 101 10 0900 0.6 0.4 166 24 76 54 1600 0.4 0 3 391 39 102 11 1000 0 6 0.4 16~ 28 82 49 1700 0 4 0 3 411 38 101 11 1100 0.6 0 4 ~54 29 85 49 1800 0.4 0 3 261 35 95 10 1200 0 4 0 3 200 JO 86 50 1900 0.6 0 4 279 33 91 10 1300 0.4 0.3 251 32 90 51 1400 0.4 0.3 279 32 90 51 9/24 0800 0 6 0.4 l 03 27 81 • 38 1500 0.4 0.3 260 32 90 49 0900 0 6 0.4 165 29 85 39 1600 ,. 3 0.8 267 32 90 so 1000 0 6 0.4 191 33 91 39 1700 0.6 0.4 283 32 89 53 1100 0.6 0 4 167 35 95 37 1800 0.6 0.4 273 29 84 53 1200 0.6 0.4 111 37 98 37 1900 0.6 0.4 263 Z7 81 56 1300 0.6 0.4 110 37 99 37 1400 0.6 0.4 39 38 100 37 1500 0.4 0.3 167 38 100 36 1600 0,4 o.~ 147 38 99 36 ~ .::,. The data are useful, however, in showing the general environmental conditions prevail1ng during the study. FACILITY DESCRIPTION The large Kaiser facility is the only fully-integrated steel mill in California. Basic operations include coke making with by- product recovery, basic production of iron in blast furnaces, con- version of iron to steel in both open hearth and basic oxygen process furnaces, a sintering plant, and a full range of finishing operations including production of structural shapes, pipe, sheet metal, galvan- ized products and tin plate. Production of coke, iron and steel in 1972 was 1.36, 2.07, and 2.72 million metric tons (1.50, 2.28, 2.99 tons) respectively. Basic process units are compactly arranged in a rectangular area about 2.6 km 2 (1.0 mi 2 ) [Fig. IV-1]. The basic coke, iron and steel making processes are located in the north half of this area. Most of the emission points of interest are also in the north half. Fjnishing operations occupy most of the south half of the plant site. An inventory of stacks including sources of emissions and stack characteristics is presented in Table IV-3. The re1ative locations of the stacks are shown schematically in Figure IV-2. In the following sect1ons, the results of the visible emission observations are discussed by process area. A limited basic process discussion common to the industry is presented to orient the reader and to define what emission points were observed. Minor variations may be expected throughout the industry. Detailed process information 15 Stacktt l. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. l 0. 11. 12. 13.:.tt 14: 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. Type Furnace Blast F11rnace #1 Blast Furnace #2 Blast Furnace #3 Blast Furnace #4 Sinter Pl ant Coke Oven, Battery A Coke Oven, Battery B Coke Oven, Battery C Coke Oven, Battery D Coke Oven, Battery E Coke Oven, Batteries F&G Open Hearth #1 Open Hearth #2 Open Hearth #3 Open Hearth #4 Open Hearth #5 Open Hearth #6 Open Hearth #7 Open Hearth #8 Open Hearth #9 Oxygen Furnace Oxygen Furnace Oxygen Furnace Soaking Pits 21 & 22 Soaking Pits 19 & 20 Soaking Pits 17 & 18 Soaking Pits 15 & 16 Soaking Pits 13 & 14 West preheating pits Soaking Pits 11 & 12 Soaking Pits 9 & 10 Soaking Pits 7 & 8 Soaking Pits 5 & 6 Soaking Pits 3 & 4 East preheating pits Soaking Pits 23 & 24 Soaking Pits 25 & 2G Soaking Pits 27 & 28 Soaking Pits 29 & 30 Soaking Pits 31 & 32 Soaking Pits 33 & 34 Soaking Pits 35 & 36 Soaking Pits 37 & 38 Soaking Pits 39 & 40 TabZe IV-3 STACK CHARACTERISTICSt Height Type Stack Stack Type Furnace Height Type Stack 200' 200' 200' 200' 300' 225' 225' 225' 225' 225' 250' 175' 175' 175' 175' 175' 175' 175' 175' 175' 150' 150' 150' 110 I 11 0' 110' 110' 110' 75' 11 0' 11 0' 110' 110 I 11 0' 75' 110 I 110' 11 0' 110' 110' 11 0' 110 I 110' 110 I Concrete Concrete Concrete Concrete Concrete Concrete Concrete Concrete Concrete Concrete Concrete Concrete Concrete Concrete Concrete Concrete Concrete Concrete Concrete Concrete Steel Steel Steel Concrete Concrete Concrete Concrete Concrete Steel Concrete Concrete Concrete Concrete Concrete Steel Concrete Concrete Concrete Concrete Concrete Concrete Concrete Concrete Concrete 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. Merchant Mill (Skelp line) Plate Hill (Slab Fee. #2) Plate Mill (Slab Fee. #1) Plate Mill (Slab Fee. #3) C.W.Pipe Mill (Skelp Fee.) C.W.Pipe Mill (Galv.Dept.) C.\-1.Pipe Mill (Galv.Dept.) Merchant M111 (Roughing) Structural Mill (29") Tm Plate Mill (Scruff) Tm Plate Mill (Pickle) 86" Hot Strip Mill (Fce.#3) 86" Hot Strip Mill (Fce.#2) 86" Hot Strip M111 (Fee. #1) P011er House Power House Power House Po11er House Power House Power House Po11er House Flare Fla re Sheet Galv. Pickle Line Hot Scarfer 62" Pickle Line Alk. Cln. Line Sheet Galv. Walking Beam Furnace 135 I 159 I 175' 175' 125' 52' 60' 125 I 159 I 75' 70' 150' 150 I 150' Concrete Steel (Abandoned) Steel Steel Steel Steel Steel Steel (Removed) Steel Steel Steel Steel Steel Steel Type R Rotoclone Exhaust Type N Rotoclone Exhaust Type N Rotoclone Exhaust Stack (Foundry) Stack (Foundry) Stack (Foundry) t Table prepared by the San Bernardino County Air Pollution Control Zone staff and current through 15 October 1975 tt See Figure IV-2 for stack locations. ttt Abandoned ..... -., ,,. 720 o,s 0 0 " • 0 O 0 .. .. -.. .. .... .. .. .. .. .. .... cs llU(RUt llllt 0 0 u SIILP LIU .,' 0cv PIPI rrnt SlllP fCI • (11 PIPr lllU Glll ~lPT SI 11 n u " • 0 OIYUII ran El II .. • .. .. .. 0 ! • • J 0 O 0 ... .... ... .. ... .. .. .. .... -.. --sourx'; PITS u • 72 " Ill UI fUI STlUCTUIU IIIU NOTE: See Table IV-3 for stack characteristics &7 e '111 Ho fll fUU '• s1an1 Q ... .. ... J.,.,oo ooee :::;::::::: "o HOT SCUIII HT SUIP Rill .... -...... 0 0 0 94 0 It 0 u " • 0 0 IS 0 SI 0 TIRJUTI llllt 7 • ' 10 • • • 0 • • COIi OYIAS t s • 0 C, 0 IUST fU21UCU .. 0 .. .. .. ... ..... = ... .. .. .. • 0 0 • 0 0 0 POWEi HOUSI 16 17 II " 10 • 0 " 0 0 OPIN RUITII 70 PICltl UIII • NOT TO SCALE Figure IV-2. Schematic of Stack Orientation 11 e .. • o 71 £LI CII -J co is on-file at the San Bernardino County Air Pollution Control Zone and EPA-Region IX offices. Observations of visible emissions ex- ceeding applicable regulations are surrunarized and evaluated. BLAST FURNACES Basic Process Blast furnaces are used to reduce iron ore to metallic iron. The basic process flow is shown schematically in Figure IV-3. Raw materials including coke, iron ore, limestone and sinter are inter- mittently charged to the top of the blast furnace through a hopper equipped with air locks. Hot air blown into the bottom of the furnace causes the coke to burn, producing high temperat~res and large volumes of carbon monoxide (CO). The combination of heat and the reducing atmosphere in the mid-level of the furnace converts the iron ore to metallic iron that collects in a molten state at the bottom of the furnace. Impurities in the ore combine with the limestone to form slag that collects as a liquid on top of the molten iron. This re- duction process proceeds continuously. Periodically the furnace is tapped during casting operations and the molten iron is drawn off to hot metal cars for transfer to the steelmaking operations. Slag is also drawn off periodically. In many blast furnace operations, the slag flows to ladles for transfer to disposal points at other plant locations. At Fontana, the slag is discharged directly to pits adjacent to the blast furnaces. After cooling, the solidified slag is removed mechanically for byproduct processing. The gas that flows upward in the furnace has a useful fuel value because of its high CO content. Before use, the gas is cleaned in a dust catcher and a wet scrubber to remove flue dust. The flue dust 19 (primarily iron fines) is sent to the sinter plant for processing and recycle to the blast furnace. About one-third of the blast furnace gas is used to heat stoves as discussed below. The remainder is primarily used to fire powerhouse boilers that drive turbines that compress the air for the hot b1ast. Each b1ast furnace is equipped with three stoves used to heat air for the hot blast. Blast furnace gas is burned in the stoves to heat a checkerwork of refractory material filling the stove. Com- bustion gases are vented to the atmosphere through a single stack serving all three stoves. Normally, while two stoves are being heated, cold air is blown through the third (preheated) stove and heated by the' refractory material before entering the blast furnace. Blast furnace gas is usually cleaned before burning in the stove. However, periodically the blast furnace is "back drafted." During this operation, gas is drawn off the bottom of the furnace and, without being cleaned, it is burned in a stove. Emission Sources Visible emissions may occur from the stove stack, from the hopper at the top of the furnace during charging operations, from bleeder valves on the blast furnace gas lines, and from the cast house roof monitors during hot metal transfer and slag drawoff opera- tions. Air Pollution Controls There are no air pollution control devices on the stove stack, the furnace hopper or the bleeder valves. The blast furnace cast house encloses the base area of the furnace where hot metal transfer 21 and slag drawoff operations take place. Emissions from these sources are thus semi-confined in the building but vent directly to the at- mosphere through roof monitors. Observations The Fontana mill has four blast furnaces numbered 1 through 4 22 from west to east [Fig. IV-2]. The stove stacks have the same numbers. Furnaces No. 2 and No. 4 were in continuous operation during the survey. Furnace No. 3 was out of operation for relining. Furnace No. l was being reheated and was placed in operation on 22 September. Furnace No. 2 was casting on a 3-1/2 hour schedule beginning at 3:00 a.m. daily; iron from the unit normally supplies the basic oxygen steel process fur- naces. The No. 4 furnace was casting on a 4-hour schedule starting at 12:30 a.m. daily. This unit supplied iron to the open hearth furnaces and the foundry. Observations of the stove stacks for the three operating furnaces documented seven occurrences of visible emissions in excess of allow- able limits. These are summarized in Table IV-4. The table lists the total time during each observation period that emissions were equal to or greater than 20% opacity. Rule 50-A limits emissions to 20% opacity; however, since an average deviation not to exceed 7.5% opacity is al- lowed during certification readings, Region IX Enforcement Division con- siders 30% opacity to be in violation of Rule 50-A for purposes of en- forcement actions. Thus the table also includes the time readings ex- ceeded 30% opacity. Actual observation periods varied in length and ranged from a minimum of the time shown in the table to a maximum of 60 minutes. In cases where the emissions were essentially in excess of limits continuously, observation periods of 10 to 15 minutes were used. The emissions thus continued beyong the recorded time. For intermittent emissions or occasional emissions in excess of limits, longer observa- tion periods were necessary. 23 Table IV-4 also lists the maximum opacity observed and the average opacity of readings exceeding the 20% and 30% values. These give an indication of how excessive the observed emissions were. For stack No. 1 serving stoves on blast furnace No. 1, one obser- vation of excessive emissions was made while the furnace was being heated and two more observations after the furnace began operating. The Corporation indicated that visible emissions from the stacks result from "back draftrng 11 during casting. This practice draws dirty furnace gases back through the stoves where the gases are burned and exhausted through the stove stack. Table IV-4 SUMMARY OF VISIBLE EMISSION OBSERVATIONS AT THE BLAST FURNACE PROCESS AREA Emission Date Time (min) Avg. OQacit/ Max. Source ( 1975) Observed >20% >30% >20% >30% Opacity Stack 1 9/17 l 0. 75 10. 75 10. 75 79 79 100 9/23 13 12 .50 8.50 29 32 35 9/23 9.75 9.75 9.75 63 63 70 Stack 2 9/20 12 12 12 72 72 90 Stack 4 9/17 11.5 11. 5 11. 5 74 74 90 9/19 20 20 20 84 84 100 9/20 12 12 10 36 38 40 #4 Blast Furnace Cast House 9/19 9 9 9 68 68 95 t Average opacity of emissions observed in excess of stated value. (%) Visible emissions occasionally were observed originating from roof monitors on blast furnace cast houses during casting and slag drawoff activities. One such excessive emission recorded during slag drawoff is shown in Table IV-4. SINTERING PLANT Basic Process The primary function of a sintering plant is to agglomerate and recycle fines back to the blast furnace. Fines, consisting of iron- bearing wastes such as m1ll scale from finishing operations and dust from the basic oxygen open hearth and blast furnaces, are blended with coke fines that serve as fuel in the sintering process. The material is spread on a moving down-draft grate and ignited. Com- bustion of the coke produces heat that fuses the material together. The fused sinter is crushed, screened and air-cooled. 24 The material handling, crushing and cooling operations are very dusty. In addition, dust and volatized oil are present in the pro- cess gases. The sinter machine, crusher, cooler and part of the material-handling equipment are contained in the sinter plant building. Emission Sources Visible emissions may occur as fugitive dust emissions from material handling operations outside the sinter plant building or as process gas emissions from the sinter plant stack (stack No. 5). At 91 m (300 ft), this stack is the tallest in the steel mill. Air Pollution Controls Process gases from the sinter emissions and dust emissions from other points within the sinter plant building are exhausted to a large baghouse before discharge to the plant stack. Observations Visible emissions from the sinter plant stack were infrequent. 25 When visible, the plume was white and detached. The visible emissions probbably originated from volatization of oil from mill scale fed to the process. A single 9.25-minute observation of stack No. 5 on 16 September documented excessive emissions. Emissions of greater than 20% opacity were recorded for the total of 9.25 minutes of which 7.50 minutes were in excess of 30% opacity. The excessive emissions averaged 32% opacity for the 9.25-minute period and 34% opacity during the 7.5-minute period. The maximum capacity observed during the interval was 40%. COKE OVEN BATTERIES Basic Process The primary function of the coke ovens is to convert bituminous coal to coke. This is accomplished by heating the coal in special ovens to drive off the volatiles, leaving the residue coke. The vola- tiles are collected and processed to yield a number of byproduct chemi- cals and coke oven gas. The gas is used to fuel burners in the ovens and other furnaces in the steel mill complex. Figure IV-4 is a schematic diagram of a typical process flow for coke ovens. The ovens are rectangular and constructed of silica brick. Each oven is usually about 45 cm wide, 4.5 high and 12 m long (18 in x 15 ft x 39 ft). The ovens are arranged side-by- side in groups called batteries. The Fontana installation has seven batteries designated A through G from west to east. Each battery has 45 ovens. The ovens are numbered sequentially from west to east as l through 349 except that numbers ending in Oare not used. Coal is charged through holes (ports) in the roof of each oven from hopper bottom (larry) cars that run on tracks on top of the battery. A leveler bar on the push machine that runs on t~acks parallel to the battery is inserted into the oven through the small chuck door to level the top of the coal. Heat is applied by burning coke oven gas in flues in the walls between ovens. Combusion pro- ducts are collected from all flues in a battery and discharged through one stack. During the coking period, volatile materials are distilled from the coal and are collected through standpipes passing out through the roof of the oven at either end. These materials are processed in the byproducts plant and coke oven gas is recovered. When the coking period is completed, the doors at both ends of the oven are opened and the red-hot coke is pushed from the oven irto the quench car by the ram on the push machine. The quench car moves the coke to the quench tower where it is sprayed with water to cool it. The cooled coke is delivered to handling equipment for subsequent movement to point of use, normally the blast furnaces. Once the coke has been removed from an oven, the doors are closed and the charging cycle is repeated. Emission Sources Combustion gases from the flues are exhausted to the atmosphere through the main battery stack. If there are leaks in the oven walls, 27 volatile material from the ovens may also vent through this stack. Visible emissions occur when the coke is pushed into the quench car, and from the quench car, as it is moved to the quench tower. The quench produces visible emissions from the tower, along with large volumes of steam. Volatile materials in the ovens may escape to the atmosphere through leaks around the charging ports and oven doors and from leaks at blowoff valves on the gas standpipes or around the base of the standpipes. Emissions also occur from the charging ports dur- ing charging operations. Air Pollution Controls There are no control devices on any of the sources of emissions with the exception of a TRW charged droplet scrubber installed on Battery A for a pilot study of control of flue gas emissions. Observations 28 Batteries A through E are served by stacks #6 through 10. Bat- teries F and Gare served by stack No. 11. During this survey, the coking period for Batteries A through E was 40 hours while for Batteries F and G, the period was 15.7 to 17.l hours. Batteries A and E are op- erated at lower temperatures than are F and G. Each oven was charged with 12,200 kg (26,800 lb) of coal. Visible emissions from the battery stack normally occur only when leaks into the flues from the ovens are present. Since the batteries are never shut down, maintenance to seal the leaks must be done while the ovens are hot. A silicone sealer is used for this purpose. Observations of excessive visible emissions from coke battery stacks are summarized in Table IV-5. The worst emissions occurred Table IV-5 29 SUMMARY OP 11JSifl[,f J:IIJSSJON OlJSCRVATIONS AT COKE IJll1'1'f:RY 5TM.:xs Date Time (!!!_1..!:!.) t Max. ~g_. Opac1 ty Battery ( 1975) Observed >20'... >30% -.20:t >30i Op.1c1ty (%) A 9/17 18.25 18.25 18.25 98 98 100 (Stack 116) ?8 25.75 25.:iO 79 80 100 9/18 24.75 24.75 24.75 94 94 l 00 12.25 12.25 12.25 50 50 60 25 25 25 91 91 100 9 9 9 55 55 65 9/20 10 10 10 88 88 100 13 13 13 57 57 65 9/22 23.50 23.5 23.5 98 98 100 20 20 20 80 80 100 B (Stack 117) 9/17 8 7.75 7 67 72 80 17 .25 17.25 17.25 82 82 100 9/18 22.50 22.50 22.50 74 74 100 13 13 12.50 43 44 65 20 20 20 93 93 100 9/20 10 10 10 84 84 100 9/22 19 19 19 86 86 100 9 9 9 74 74 95 C 9/17 9.75 9.75 8.75 53 56 100 (Stack 08) 9/18 16.25 16.25 16.25 75 75 100 9/19 10 10 9.25 48 50 65 0 9/17 6 5.5 3.75 44 55 85 (Stack 1/9) 13.75 13.75 12. 75 52 55 100 9/18 15 15 15 56 56 85 7.25 7 5 60 75 95 9/19 15 13 8.5 34 44 60 19 18.75 15.75 48 63 80 12 12 12 80 80 100 9/22 10 10 8.75 43 46 70 E (Stack #10) 9/18 26 25.75 24.50 61 63 95 16. 75 15 13 42 46 80 9/19 23 22.5 17.25 35 39 70 13 13 10. 5 55 63 100 12.25 11. 75 11 51 53 80 9/20 22.25 22.25 18.75 49 54 95 F, G 17 10.25 9.5 5.5 49 68 100 (Stack #11) 19 18.75 16 45 49 80 6 4.75 3.5 37 42 50 9/18 4.25 4.25 4 48 50 65 9/19 8 8 8 85 85 100 9/20 10.5 9 4.25 28 33 40 t Average opacity oh6erved in Cjcess of stated value. 30 from stack #6 serving Battery A, the oldest battery in the installation. Excessive visible emissions also occurred from other coke battery operations. The most significant emissions were from oven door leaks. Observations of excessive door emissions are summarized in Table IV-6. Door leaks occurred both immediately after charging and later during the coking period. Doors on the A through E Batteries (oven numbers less than 250) appeared to take longer to seal. The company indicated that this was due to the lower operating temperatures in these batteries. Observations were made of all ovens on three days to determine the frequency of occurrence of door leaks without regard to the opacity of emissions. The results of these observations are shown graphically in Figure IV-5. On 20 September, only the coke side of the battery was observed during the first five time periods. Be- ginning at 1555 hours, both sides of the battery were observed, as was the case for all three periods on 23 September. On 24 September, only the push side was observed. These observations indicated that door leaks occurred much more frequently on the push side, probably due to additional wear produced by the pushing ram and leveling bar striking the rim of the oven and chuck doors. Changes in pressure within the coke oven gas collecting system was the probable cause of changes in the number of door leaks. This is shown in Figure IV-5 for 1130 hours on 23 September and 1135 hours on 24 September when a large increase in door leaks occurred. Closer examination of individual doors after charging indicated that in some cases the initial leakage emissions were from 20 to 40% opacity and sealed within 15 minutes. Others took longer to seal or were of a higher opacity. These high opacity emissions are summarized in Table IV-6 for the observations of leaks immediately after charging. Emissions from doors that took longer to seal are summarized under the observations taken during coking. 31 Table IV-6 SUMMARY OF VISIBLE EMISSION OBSERVATIONS AT MISCELLANEOUS COKE BA'l'TERY SOURCES Date Oven Oven Time {Min.) Avg. Oeac1tyt Max. ( 1975) No. Side Observed >20% >30¾ >20% >30% Orac1ty (%) Door Leaks Immed1ately After Charg1ng -------- - ------ --- - ---- - -- ---- - ------ 9/23 204 Coke 8.25 8.25 8.25 48 48 80 244 Coke 7 7 7 64 64 80 9/24 75 Coke 22 22 20.75 66 70 100 85 Coke 20.25 19.25 14.75 38 43 60 267 Coke 11. 75 11. 75 11 52 53 100 277 Coke 8.25 8.25 6 36 41 60 283 Push 9.25 9.25 9.25 65 65 70 25 Coke 6.25 6.25 6.25 41 41 50 35 Coke 9 9 9 45 45 55 45 Coke 9.75 9.75 9.75 48 48 60 285 Coke 14 13 11.25 39 42 60 333 Push 9 9 9 61 61 70 - - - --- ----- - ------- --- - - ------- - - -------- Door Leaks After Coking - - - ----- - - - - --- --- ---- -- -- --- - - - - --- ---- - 9/17 24 Push 9 9 9 82 82 100 9/20 157 Push 15 14.5 14.25 44 44 60 14 Coke 9 9 9 56 56 85 9/22 186 Push 11. 75 11 .75 11. 75 74 74 80 124 Push 6.75 6. 75 6.75 64 64 80 9/23 74 Coke 8.75 8.75 8.75 74 74 80 9/24 53 Push 10 10 10 80 80 90 143 Coke 7.75 7.75 7.75 74 74 80 15 Push 10 10 10 83 83 90 13 Coke l 0.25 l 0.25 l 0.25 61 61 80 l 01 Coke 13 13 13 48 48 65 65 Push 10 10 10 70 70 80 213 Coke 10 10 9.5 43 44 65 47 Coke 10 10 9 48 50 70 315 Coke 13 13 12.75 53 54 100 127 Coke 11.25 9.75 7.5 33 36 45 157 Coke 9 9 8 58 62 100 - - - - ---- --- - -- ----------- - - - - --- - --- - --- - Standpipe Leaks ------ - --- - - - - - - - - - - -- --- - ------- ---- --- - 9/20 129 Coke 10 10 10 85 85 100 187 Push 15. 75 14.75 14.25 49 50 65 -- - - ----- -- --- - ------ - --- ----------- ----- Quench Tower Emiss1ons - ---- - -- ------ - - - - --- ---- ----- --- --- -- --- 9/18 East 23.25 20.25 16.50 41 46 100 9/19 East 17 17 16.75 54 54 80 9/20 East 14.50 13.50 12.25 47 49 100 t Average opac1,ty obsel'ved in excess of stated value. 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 Oven Nurr,ber figure IV-5. Observed Coke Oven Leaks 260 280 JOO 320 340 w 1') Excessive emissions from standpipe leaks on top of the coke batteries were observed on several occasions [Table IV-6]. The optimum location for observing these leaks, however, is from on top the batteries as discussed below. Excessive emissions were also observed from the quench towers [Table IV-6]. When the quench car arrived at the quench tower, emis- sions could be observed before quenching began. During quenching, large steam clouds were produced but dissipated about 30 m (100 ft) downwind leaving a visible white plume. About 3 minutes were required from the time the car arrived at the tower until the quench was com- pleted, during which time reading was possible.* On several occasions, a delay occurred between arrival of the quench car at the tower and the start of the water spray. This resulted in excessive smoke emis- sions. For Batteries F and G, processing coke on a 15 to 17 hour cycle, about six quenches per hour would be expected. However, during one 60-minute period, eight quenches were observed. Each process associated with the pushing and charging cycle was timed to examine the range of these variables. The push cycle was separated into the period between the coke door opening and time the coke began to move; into the coke car; quench tower. the time during which the coke was being pushed and the time of travel of the coke car to the Charge time was measured from the time the larry car moved into place until it moved from over the oven. This may not correspond in all cases to the actual charging time. However, to determine actual charge time would have required personnel to be on top of the battery. * Deterioration of baffles in the tower and the poor quality of quench water probahly contributed to these emissions. 33 The company instituted stage charging quite recently, 5 September, on Batteries A through E and 25 August for Batteries F and G. Only one larry car had been completely modified for this new procedure and it was out of operation. The company indicated that this change was being resisted (as most changes will be) by operating personnel. Thus, while sequential charging required about 2-1/4 minutes, stage charging was presently requiring between 3 and 6 minutes but should reduce to about 2-3/4 minutes when accepted. The break-in period, plus the hazards and heat associated with monitoring the process from top-side during high ambient temperature conditions, suggested that timing and evaluation of visible emissions from the push-charge cycle would be more productive and meaningful at a later date. The heat and hazardous conditions also suggested that standpipe and charge port leaks would best be evaluated at that time as well. The largest time variable in the push cycle (27 observations) was the time between door opening and the push. This ranged from 30 seconds to 14-1/2 minutes, with a median of 2-3/4 minutes. The push time into the coke car was relatively uniform, between 25 and 50 seconds, with a median of 30 seconds. The time to reach one of the three quench towers largely depended on the towers in use relative tQ the location of the particular oven. This ranged between 15 seconds and 2-1/3 minutes with a median of 55 seconds. Total time for the push varied from 2 to 17-1/4 minutes with a median of 4-1/4 minutes. Charging time as measured required from 2-1/4 to 12-3/4 minutes (23 observations) with a median time of 4-1/4 minutes. Four of these observations (17%) were below 3 minutes, indicating either that stage charging was beginning to be accepted or that sequential charging was still occurring. 34 35 OPEN HEARTH FURNACES Basic Process For many years, the open hearth furnace process was the major means of converting iron to steel. In most steel mills, the open hearths are being replaced by basic oxygen steel process {BOSP) furnaces. At Fontana, both processes are in use but additional conversions from open hearth to BOSP furnaces have been proposed as discussed in Section V. The open hearth furnace is basically a shallow rectangular refractory basin or hearth enclosed by refractory lined walls and roof. A typical process flow diagram is shown in Figure IV-6. Scrap iron and steel, iron ore, and limestone are charged into the furnace, and fuel from a burner at one end of the hearth is ignited to produce heat over the scrap to melt it. Combustion gases are drawn off at the other end of the hearth through a chamber filled with a checkerwork of refractory materials that absorb heat and cool the gas. An identical chamber at the burner end of the furnace preheats combustion air. Periodically the air flow direction is reversed. When meltdown of the scrap has been completed, molten iron from the blast furances is charged. The iron is poured from the hot metal transfer car into a hot metal ladle which, in turn, charges it into the furnace. As heating continues, carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide are re- leased from the iron ore and limestone to produce the ore and lime boils. Further heating refines the steel by removing impurities. The refining period can be speeded up by lancing the surface of the hot metal with pure oxygen. When the proper steel composition and temperature are reached, the furnace is tapped and the molten contents drawn off to a teeming ladle. Slag is floated off the metal surface in the teeming ladle to slag ladles for disposal. The molten steel is ladled into ingot molds and is air cooled. Emission Sources The primary emission source is the stack that conveys combustion gases and fumes from the hearth to the atmosphere. In addition, various operations produce emissions in~ide the furnace building that are vented to the atmosphere through roof monitors. These include the charging of scrap and hot metal, the transfer of hot metal to the charging ladle, and the tapping of steel into the teeming ladle. Air Pollution Controls Emissions from the hearth are controlled by electrostatic pre- cipitators (ESP) before release to the furnace stack. There are no controls on roof emissions. Observations 37 There are currently eight operable open hearth furnaces at Fontana. These are numbered 1 through 9 with unit No. 3 disassembled. The corre- sponding stack numbers and locations are shown in Table IV-3 and Figure IV-2. Stack No. 14 that fonnerly served furnace No. 3 is still in place. During the survey only furnaces No. l, 2, 5 and 9 were operating. Excessive visible emissions were observed to originate from both furnace stacks and roof monitors. These are summarized in Table IV-7. 38 Excessive stack emissions generally occur as a result of mech- anical or electrical problems with the ESP or when rapid fluctuations in process emissions cause the ESP to be operated outside design specifications. Process data (heat reports) made available by the company indi- cated that the overall time from charge to tap was between 5 and 7 hours. Charging of raw materials required between 30 and 90 minutes, followed by the addition of hot metal between 30 minutes to 2-1/2 hours later. Comparison of stack emission observations with these heat records showed that the excessive visible emiss1ons occurred during the working period follo,~ing hot metal addition, except for one instance when emissions were observed during the melt1ng period. The emissions during the working period probably occurred during oxygen lancing. For those cases checked, no excessive visible emissions from the stacks occurred during scrap charging or hot metal a9dition. BASIC OXYGEN STEEL PROCESS FURNACES Basic Process The basic oxygen steel process, through the use of large volumes of oxygen, condenses the process for converting iron to steel from 5 to 7 hours in the open hearth furnaces into a period of less 39 Table IV-? SUMMARY OF VISIBLE EMISSION OBSERVATIONS AT OPEN HEARTH FURNACE /1.REA Emission Date Time (min) Avg. QQaci !_y~ Max. Source ( 1975) Observed >20% >30% >20% >30% Opacity (%) Stack Emissions - - - - - - --- ---- ---- --------------- ---- Hearth #1 9/18 9 9 6.50 33 36 45 (Stack #12) 8.25 8 6.75 36 39 50 2J 22.75 21 .50 40 41 60 26.75 25.50 19.25 32 36 45 21. 75 21. 75 18.75 42 45 70 9/20 19. 75 15.25 6.50 28 35 45 9/22 18 15. 25 7.75 28 34 50 9/23 10 10 9.75 41 43 60 Hearth #2 9/18 7.5 7.5 7.5 58 58 90 (Stack #13) 9/19 16. 75 14. 5 12.25 42 45 80 18.75 18 13 31 34 50 9/20 12.25 12 11 . 50 53 55 70 9/22 10 10 10 54 54 75 Hearth #5 9/24 10 10 10 43 43 55 (Stack #16) Hearth 119 9/17 28. 75 18.5 11. 5 29 33 45 (Stack #20) 13.75 10. 75 9 34 37 60 7.5 6 5.5 45 47 60 9/18 22 19. 5 16.75 42 45 70 7.25 5.75 5 42 45 60 9/19 17 11. 25 5 28 36 50 9/20 14 14 12.25 57 61 95 9/22 11 11 11 53 53 60 - --- - --- ------- ---------- ----- - - Roof Monitors -- ---------- --- - - --- ----- - ---- - - Hearth #2 9/17 21.25 8 4 28 35 40 II #4 6.25 5.25 4.25 32 35 80 II #4 9/18 17.50 13. 25 9.75 34 38 50 II #6 25.75 24.50 18. 50 44 53 90 II #6 9/19 9 6 4.75 43 48 80 t Average opacity obser~ed in excess of stated value. than 1 hour. The process is carried out in a refractory-lined, pear- shaped, open-mouthed furnace mounted on trunnions so that it may be tipped for charging and pouring of melted metal. A typical process flow design is shown in Figure IV-7. Iron from the blast furnace is poured from the hot metal transfer car into the hot metal ladle for subsequent charging into the furnace. Scrap metal up to 30% of the melt weight is also charged into the furnace. Limestone and other fluxes are added. Oxygen is then blown into the furnace at supersonic velocities through a water-cooled lance. This produces an exothermic reaction that releases enough heat to melt the scrap metal without adding fuel. After about 20 minutes of oxygen lancing, the steel has been refined and reaches the desired temperature. Off gases from the furnace ~re collected in a hood that fits over the mouth of the furnace. The furnace is tilted and the molten steel is tapped into the teeming table for subsequent ingot casting. Slag remaining in the furnace is then poured into slag ladles and the process cycle can be repeated. Emission Sources The major off-gas emissions from the furnace are collected in the hood, cleaned in an ESP and then discharged to the atmosphere through 40 a stack. Emissions can also occur from pressure relief or bypass hatches on the ducts from the furnaces to the ESPs. There are three BOSP fur- naces at Fontana, Nos. l, 2, 3, served by stacks Nos. 21, 22, 23, re- spectively. Emissions from each ESP can be vented through any of the three stacks. Various operations in the BOSP building including hot metal re- ladling, charging, tapping, and oxygen lancing of ladles to remove residual metal from the refactory lining produce emission that reach the atmosphere through roof monitors and other building openings. Some of these emissions are captured by a series of ducts that convey them to the ESP serving furnace No. 3. Air Pollution Controls The major off-gas emissions are controlled by large electrostatic precipitators. Partial control of emissions within the building is also achieved by an ESP. A baghouse is scheduled to be installed to control building emissions as discussed in Section V. Observations During the survey, furnace No. 2 was not in use. Excessive 42 visible emissions were observed originating from stacks No. 21 and 23 and from roof openings. These observations are summarized in Table IV-8. The emissions were generally rust-red although yellow emissions charac- teristic of scrap cutting were observed from roof openings on five occasions. The 23 September observation of stack No. 23 was taken when furnace No. 3 was not in operation. This emission thus originated from either furnace No. l or from other operations within the building. Company representatives indicated that visible emissions from the stack could result from several causes. If the ESP was operating cooler or hotter than its design range, or if any of the steam or water sprays in the hood duct were inoperative, continuous emissions could be expected. Each of the main stacks is equipped with a Bailey Smoke Density Meter and an integrator to measure the total time the emissions exceed 20% opacity. Table IV-8 SUMMARY OF VISIBLE EMTSSION OBSERVATIONS AT TllE BASIC OXYGEN STl!,'EL PROCESS FURNACES Da t e Ti me (mi n ) Avg. Opacity 1 43 Max. Emission Source (1975) Observed >20% >30% > 20% > 30% Opacity(%) Stack #21 Stack #23 Roof Openings Roof Openings 9/19 tt 9/22 9/23 tt tt 9/19tt 9/23 13.75 5.25 14 22 9 12 12 14.75 19 Stack Emissions 12 4.5 14 19. 5 5.75 10 12 13.5 15.25 11. 25 3.75 12. 75 17.25 3.25 8.75 7.25 11. 75 4.75 ---- -- ----- 9/19 9/23 9/17 9/18 18.25 8.25 12 8.75 13.5 11 .75 14.75 7.5 ESPtit Bypass Hatches 12.5 8.25 l 0. 25 10 8 8.5 Yellow Smoke Emissions 8.5 13.5 l 0. 5 14.5 7.5 8 13 9.5 12. 75 7.5 40 45 58 41 30 47 33 83 27 51 59 54 47 42 42 49 54 White and Rust Emissions 9/17 16 5.25 12 5.25 7.75 4.75 44 38 t Average opacity observed in excess of stated value. 41 50 61 42 35 50 40 93 40 57 60 61 49 43 45 53 55 65 39 60 60 l 00 60 45 100 60 100 l 00 100 100 95 60 55 65 85 85 80 45 tt Upset Condition reported to the San Bernardino County Air PoUution Control Zone. ttt Electl?ostatic precipitator. 44 Examination of the smoke density recordings [Figs. IV-8, IV-9] in- dicates that emissions from stack No. 23 varied only slightly and were within acceptable opacity limits on both days illustrated, 20-21 Septem- ber. The charts also show that the meters are kept in good repair since they continue to return to a 2% minimum, indicative of routine main- tenance and the use of a live zero. On the other hand, similar charts for stack No. 21 [Figs. IV-10, IV-11] show that emissions from this stack were in excess of the Rule 50A limitation for about six periods each day. This is probably indicative of poor operation or maintenance of the ESP, but it is also directly related to the cyclical operation of the BOSP furnace. Reddish-brown emissions were observed when leaks occurred at the seals on the pressure relief or bypass hatches mounted on the roof in the exhaust stream from the furnace to the ESP. This occurred when the hatches were not closed and sealed properly. These emissions were re- lated to the cyclical operations of the furnaces. Visible emissions in the building were also observed during charging and tapping opera- tions. The most significant visible emissions within the BOSP furnace ~uilding that eventually reached the atmosphere through roof openings resulted from hot metal reladling and lancing of ladles. Emissions were produced when molten iron was poured from the hot metal transfer car into the hot metal ladle at the reladling station. Emissions also resulted when ladles were lanced as part of regular maintenance to re- move metal deposits remaining on the refractory lining. Both activities produced emissions that appeared to far exceed those produced by charg- ing and tapping operations. 46 ,..,,, •. ~, 211m Ool• 1Ln 1.1EH.R_ CO!.\P figure IV-9. Smoke Density Readings-Slack No. 23, 21 September 1975 2 1, 20 Septem No. 47 ber 1975 49 ROLLING MILL SOAKING PITS Basic Process Steel ingots from the BOSP or open hearth furnaces must be passed through hot forming processes before they can be converted to finished steel products. The ingots are heated in special furnaces called soak- ing pits before they are fed to the primary rolling mills for forming into intermediate forms such as slabs, blooms and billets. Coke oven gas or natural gas is usually burned in the pits with combustion gases and exhausted to the atmosphere through furnace stacks. Emission Sources There are 38 soaking pits serving the rolling mills at Fontana. Each pair of soaking pits is served by a single 34 m (110 ft) tall stack. Stack locations and designations are shown in Figure IV-2 and listed in Table IV-3. Air Pollution Controls There are no air pollution controls on soaking pit emissions. Observations Excessive visible emissions were observed from six of the soaking pit stacks [Table IV-9]. The emissions were gray to black and resulted from improper fuel combustion. Because of the location of the stacks with respect to the rolling mill buildings, many were virtually impos- sible to observe from ground level while meeting EPA Method 9 require- ments. Emission Date Source ( 1 97 5) Stack No. 33 9/17 37 40 37 9/18 31 9/19 41 9/20 43 43 9/22 Tabie IV-9 SUMMARY OF VISIBLE EMISSION OBSERV11TIONS AT ROLLING MILL SOAKING PITS Time (min1 Avg. O~acit}'.t Observed >20% >30% >20% >30% 6 6 5.5 38 39 31 30.25 30 56 57 12.75 11 3.25 25 32 10 10 10 58 58 19. 25 16. 5 8.5 27 32 18.5 16.5 6.75 26 31 11 9 3.75 26 31 9 9 9 45 45 t Average opac-i ty obse1•ved in excess of stated vaiue. HOT STRIP MILL Basic Process Max. Opacity {%) 50 60 35 85 40 35 35 55 Hot strip mills reduce slabs formed from ingots in primary rolling mi 11 s to flat strip steel generally less than 30 cm (12 in) thick. The 50 slabs are heated in reheating furnaces and then conveyed to a rolling train for forming and finishing to size. The furnaces heat the slabs to a temperature of about 1 ,100° to l,300°C (2,010° to 2,370°F). Coke oven gas or natural gas is generally used to fire the furnaces. Emission Sources The 218 cm (86 in) hot strip mill has three reheat furnaces (Nos. l, 2, 3). Each furnace is served by a 46 m (150 ft) tall stack. Furnace No. 1 1s served by stack No. 58, furnace No. 2 by stack No. 57 and furnace No. 3 by stack No. 56. With the exception of minor emissions released to the hot strip mill building when slabs are removed from the furnace, all combustion products are exhausted to the atmosphere through the stacks. Air Pollution Controls Emissions from the stacks are monitored by Bailey Smoke Meters set to sound an alarm whenever the opacity exceeds 10%. This re- portedly permits sufficient time for operating personnel to adjust the combustion characteristics of the furnace before emissions exceed the 20% opacity limit. The stack emissions are not visible from within the mill; thus the need for the automatic alarm. There are no other air pollution controls on the furnaces. Observations On 23 September, excessive visible emissions were observed from stack No. 57 serving Furnace No. 2 when the alarm failed to operate. Emissions exceeded the 30% limit for 10 minutes during the period of observation. The maximum opacity observed was 60%, with a 49% average. SCRAP CUTTING Basic Process Basic iron and steel production processes and the finishing mills generate scrap iron and steel that can be recycled through the steel making process without waste. This scrap ranges in size from large ladle "skulls" to small sheet scraps. Scrap steel is also imported 51 to the plant from other locations. The large pieces must be cut or broken into smaller sizes before they can be charged into the basic oxygen and open hearth furnaces. This can be accomplished by cracking the pieces by impacting with a large steel ball, by shearing plates or more commonly by cutting with gas torches. When torches are used for cutting ingots and other thick scrap, visible emissions in the form of yellow-brown or green smoke are released to the atmosphere. Emission Sources The major scrap cutting operation is conducted ,n the open on the east side of plant property. On several occasions, scrap cutting was observed at other locations on plant property. For these open air operations, the smoke is released directly to the atmosphere. Scrap cutting inside buildings produces emissions that are released to the atmosphere through roof monitors. Air Pollution Controls 52 There are no air pollution controls for the scrap cutting operations. Observations Excessive visible emissions from scrap cutting operations were observed on several occasions at both the main scrap area and south of the BOSP area. These are summarized in Table IV-1O. 53 Table IV-10 SVMMIIRY OF VISIBLE EMISSION OBSERI1ATIONS AT SCRAP CUTTING AREAS Emission Date Time {min) Avg. Qpacit/ Max. Source (1975) Observed >20% >30% >20% >30% Opacity (%) South of BOSP 9/17 9.25 7.5 5.75 34 37 50 9 7.5 6.75 57 61 80 Main Area 9/18 18.25 10 6.5 37 45 75 19. 50 10. 5 9.25 46 49 80 11. 75 10 9.5 52 54 80 13.25 7.5 6.75 44 46 80 9/19 28 20 18 56 60 90 9.5 9.5 9.5 79 79 95 t Average opacity observed in excess of stated value. V. ANALYSIS OF THE STATUS OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE CONSENT ORDER On 11 July 1974, the EPA and the Kaiser Steel Corporation entered into a Consent Order (Docket No. 9-74-9) under which the Company agreed to an implementation plan and schedule for reducing air pollution from that facility. This Order was revised on 11 November 1974 to adjust intermediate increments to Appendix E of the Order without affecting final compliance dates. The Order included these six Appendices dealing with various processes at the plant: A Coke Oven Battery Stacks B Coke Oven Batteries C Basic Oxygen Steel Processing Shop D Open Hearth Furnace Stacks E Scrap Metal Cutt1ng Operation F Desul fun zation of Coke Oven Gas Subsequent to this revision, the Company proposed a $150 million Steelmaking Modernization Project contingent upon securing financial commitments and obtaining the necessary concurrence and permits from regulatory agencies. This plan would extend the compliance dates of portions of the air quality control program past those contained in the Consent Order. On 17 September 1975 progress toward compliance Nith the Consent Order was discussed with a representative of the Company. Present were: Mr. John H. Smith, Director, Environmental Quality Control, Kaiser Steel Corporation Ms. Lois E. Green, Enforcement Division, EPA-Region IX Dr. Jules B. Cohen, EPA-NEIC Mr. Karl Krause, California Air Resources Board Information obtained during that discussion is contained below. Every milestone in each Appendix to the Order to date has been listed, followed by Company progress in meeting that milestone. 54 EVALUATION OF APPENDIX A REQUIREMENTS The Kaiser Steel Corporation, Steel Manufacturing D1vision, shall complete the following acts with respect to its coke oven battery stacks, l1sted below, on or before the dates spec1fied: A. 11 A11 Battery Stack. (1) 1 November 1971 -submit progress repor>t on status of research and development program. 55 By letter dated 30 October 1974 the Company transmitted "TRl~ Systems Group Progress Report No. 15 11 prepared for EPA. TRW is conducting a research and development program on a Charged Droplet Scrubber for Fine Particle Control. The pilot plant portion of the program included a proposal to process one-half the normal output of 11 A11 Battery stack at the Kaiser coke ovens. (2) 1 May 1975 -submit final control plan. The Corporation submitted a control plan on 10 June 1975 confirming the system in (1) above. But the plan only addressed installation of the prototype unit designed to process up to half the normal capacity of the stack. A submittal on 23 April 1975, including drawings of the unit, did not meet the requirements of the Order. The Company was so advised on 23 May 1975. (3) 1 July 1975 -let contracts fo1• the purchase of control equipment or process modification. On 25 June 1975 the Company advised they had let a contract for pur- chase of the Charged Droplet Scrubber and for installation of the unit. However, the only contract that had been let at that time was a contract from TRW to Kaiser Steel for installation of the prototype Charged Drop- 1 et Scrubber. The Consent Order has no requirements to date; however, the Kaiser Steel Modernization Program proposes to extend the EPA compliance date of 31 December 1977 until 31 December 1978 on two stacks, and 30 June 1980 on the remaining three stacks. This assumes the success of the TRW project discussed above. Should this not be successful, a Wet Precipitrol by Fluid Ionics would be considered; however, this could extend dates even further. EVALUATION OF APPENDIX B REQUIREMENTS The Kaiser Steel Corporation, Steel Manufacturing Division, shall complete the following acts with respect to its coke oven operations on or before the dates specified: A. Pushing and charging operations at each coke oven in coke Batteries 11 A11 , 11 B", 11 C11 , 11 011 , "E 11 , "F" and 11 G11 • For the purposes of this paragraph, visible emissions from the pushing and charging operations at each coke oven shall be combined for determining interim compliance as re- quired by sub-paragraph (5). (1) 31 July 19?4 -submit approvahle operating and maintenance progi'con. Either certify compliance as required by sub-parag1°aph ( 5) or submit final control plan. 56 By letter dated 30 July 1974 the Company submitted an operating and maintenance program and certified compliance with San Bernardino County Air Pollution Control District (SBAPCD) Regulation IV, Rules 50 and 50A. The above action precluded the necessity for further activity under this paragraph. B. Coke oven doors and standpipes at each coke oven in coke oven Batteries 11 C11 , 11 D11 , 11 E11 , 11 F11 and 11 G11 • For purposes of this paragraph, visible emiss1ons from the doors and standpipes at each coke oven shall be combined for deter- mining interim compliance as required by sub-paragraph (5). (1) 31 July 1974 -submit app1°ovahle operating and maintenance program. Either certify conrpliance as required by sub-paragraph (5) or submit final control plan. By letter dated 30 July 1974 the Company submitted an operating and maintenance program and certified compliance with San Bernardino County Air Pollution Control District Regulation IV, Rules 50 and 50A. The above action precluded the necessity for further activity under this paragraph. C. Coke oven doors and standpipes at each coke oven in coke oven Batteries 11 A11 and 11 811 • For the purpose of this paragraph, visible emissions from the doors and stand- pipes at each coke oven shall be combined for determining interim compliance as required by sub-paragraph (6). (1) 31 July 1974 -submit approvable final control plan to include installation of new doors as well as operating and maintenance program. A final control plan to replace all doors on 11 A11 and 11 B11 Bat- teries was submitted on 30 July 1974. The operation and maintenance program was included in the A(l) submittal above. (2) 30 August 1974 -let contracts for the purchase of control equi-p171ent or process modification. On 4 September 1974 the Company advised that contracts were awarded for new coke oven doors. 57 (3) 30 September 1974 -co,ronence on-site const'I'Uction or installation of control equipment or p1°ocess modification. The Company did not certify to completion of this increment of progress. (4) 31 December 1974 and 30 June 1975 -submit progress repoY't. Progress reports were submitted on the dates required. The report of 30 June 1975 indicated no foreseeable problem in meeting the com- pliance schedule. D. Such approvable operating and maintenance programs as are required by paragraphs A, Band C above, shall be incor- porated into and made a part of this Order. No action required. E. Program designed to bring combined visible emissions from pushing and charging operations, doors and standpipes at each coke oven in coke oven Batteries "A 11 , "B", 11 C11 , 11 D11 , 11 E11 , 11 F11 and "G 11 into compliance with San Bernardino County Air Pollution Control District Regulation IV, Rules 50 and 50A. (1) 31 August 19?'1 -submit plan for engineering studies. A plan for conducting engineering stud1es, prepared by Battelle, Columbus Laboratories~ was submitted on schedule. (2) 31 December 19?4 -submit progress report on status of engineering studies. The Corporation advised that Battelle had completed the first portion of their report to EPA on 30 December 1974. On 26 March 1975, Kaiser submitted the Battelle report to EPA. The report, dated 31 December 1974 was a state-of-the-art review on control of emis- sions from coke ovens. (3) 31 July 19?5 -submit results of engineering studies and either certify compliance as defined above with 58 San Bernardino County Air Pollution Cont1?ol District Regulation IV, Rules 50 and 50A, or submit an approvable final control plan reflecting the state-of-the-art in technology to achieve compliance. Such approvable control plan shall be incorporated into and made a part of this Order. On 30 Ju1y 1975 the Corporation submitted the final portion of the Battelle study resulting from field trips to a number of steel com- panies throughout the country. The San Bernardino Air Pollution Control Officer has indicated by letter (6 August 1975) to the cor- poration that the report contained certain errors and drew some in- correct conclusions. The transmittal of 30 July 1975 did not certify compliance nor did it contain an approvable final control plan as required. EVALUATION OF APPENDIX C REQUIREMENTS The KAISER Steel Corporation, Steel Manufacturing Division, shall complete the following acts with respect to its basic oxygen steel processing shop building on or before the dates spec1f1ed: A. Charging and tapp1ng operations at furnaces No. land 3. 15 October 1974 -achieve compliance with San Bernardino County Air Pollution Control District Regulation IV, Rules 50 and 50A. On 18 October 1974 Kaiser Steel advised that the required in- crement of progress regarding the charging and tapping operation had been completed. They did not certify to compliance with SBAPCD Regulation IV, Rules 50 and 50A as required. B. Hot metal transfer operationj. (1) 31 December 19?4 -submit final contY'ol plan. The Company submitted an engineering drawing depicting the bag- house and ductwork location with some details, in fulfillment of this requirement. (2) 15 February 1975 -let contY'acts fay, purchase of control equipment or pY'ocess modification. 59 On 18 February 1975 Kaiser advised that contracts had been let as required. Kaiser stated that delivery was not possible until January 1976 and requested an extension of the final compliance date from 15 De- cember 1975 until 31 July 1976. (3) 1 Maij 19?5 -commence on-site construction or in- stallation of control equipment or process modification. Kaiser Steel advised the Agency on 8 May 1975 that on-site prepa- ration and installation of utilities had begun in order to comply with this increment. The final compliance date has not yet been extended by the Agency. EVALUATION OF APPENDIX D REQUIREMENTS The Kaiser Steel Corporation, Steel Manufacturing Di- vision, shall complete the following acts with respect to its open hearth furnace stacks Nos. l, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9, on or before the dates specified: * For purposes of Appendix C, the hot metal transfer operation at the basic oxygen steel processing shop shall include the hot metal trans- fer station which results in emissions from the sides and roof moni- tor>s of the basic o:rygen steel processing shop building. The hot metal t1°ansfer> station includes pouring of molten pig iPon fr>om tor- pedo car>s into ladles which carr>y the molten ir>on to the basic oxygen fia>naces. (1) 31 JuZ.y 1974 -submit final control. plan for upgrading of existing electrostatic precipitators as well as an operating and maintenance program therefor and for the constr>uction of additional control equipment (eZ.ectro- static precipilators). On 24 July 1974 the Corporation submitted a final control plan which included modifications to the precipitators, included an op- eration and maintenance (O&M) program, and called for installation of a balloon flue between the furnaces and prec1pitators to average the flow. (2) 30 November 1974 -let contracts for the purchase of control equipment or process modification. Continue to upgrade existing electrostatic p1?ecipitators and implement operating and maintenance p1?ogram as re- quired by Decision No. 86-D of the Heru?ing Board, Air Pollution Cont1•ol District, County of San Ber- nardino, California, which is incorporated into and made a part of this Append-ix. On 14 November 1974 Kaiser Steel requested a revision in the compliance date to 21 December 1974. This was followed on 4 De- cember by a letter advising that the increment of progress had not been met. After a meeting on 7 January 1975 at the EPA offices, the Agency could find no justification for a delay. Kaiser Steel was advised on 17 January 1975 that they were in violation of the Order and must let contracts forthwith. (3) 15 May 1975 -complete construction or install.ation of all process modifications as required by the Decision 1?eferenced in subparagraph (2) above. 60 The Corporation certified completion of all construction and pro- cess modifications required by Decision No. 86-D of the Hearing Board, SBAPCD, on 21 May 1975. (4) 1 September 1975 -commence on-site construction or installation of additional control. equipment. The date was not met. Instead, the Company has proposed their Steelmaking Modernization Program which includes two new basic oxygen steel furnaces. These furnaces would replace five open hearth fur- naces, leaving two in operation and one for standby. The open hearth furnaces would be operated at reduced rates so as not to exceed ex- isting precipitator capacity. The Kaiser Steel plan calls for a final compliance date of 31 December 1978, 17 months later than required by the Consent Order. EVALUATION OF APPENDIX E REQUIREMENTS The Kaiser Steel Corporation, Steel Manufacturing Division, shall complete the following acts with respect to its ~crap metal cutting operation on or before the dates specified: (1) 31 July 1974 -submit final control plan to include a building enclosu1°e and bag house. The Company submitted design drawings of a scrap cutting build- ing with baghouse control on 24 July 1974. (2) 30 September 1974 -let contract for purchase of building and control equipment (baghouse). Commence off-sile fabrication of building and control equip- ment (baghouse). On 4 October 1974 the Company advised that they had "initiated contract awards" for the scrap cutting operation. As stated, this did not indicate that the contract had been let as required by the Consent Order. This was clarified on 28 October 1974 when the Company indicated awarding contracts for fabrication of the building and for design and fabrication of a baghouse. (3) 1 April 1975 -commence on-site construction or instal- lation of building and control equipment (baghouse). 61 No certification was received; this date was missed. The Company indicated by letter of 24 March, 1975 that they would not erect a building and baghouse for this facility. The Company was advised by the agency on 15 May 1975 that they were in violation of this provision of the Consent Order. A new proposal is included in the Steelmaking Modernization Program. By 5 October, machine torch cutting devices were anticipated to be in place, along with a ball drop facility. Compliance by this facility will take advantage of the increased size of the charging boxes on the oxygen furnaces that have been proposed. However, the anticipated completion date for those is 31 December 1978, 31 months after the compliance date in this Order. 62 The Company anticipates that using the machine torches will reduce emissions enough to negate the requirement for a building and the neces- sary air pollution control equipment. However, while the torches and ball drop facility will process an estimated 13,970 m. tons (15,400 tons)/month, an additional 9,070 m. tons (10,000 tons)/month remains to be processed by as yet undetermined means. EVALUATION OF APPENDIX F REQUIREMENTS The Kaiser Steel Corporation, Steel Manufacturing Division, shall complete the following acts with respect to the sulfur content of its coke oven ga~ on er before the dates specified: (1) 31 October 1974, 30 April 19?5, and 30 September 19?5 -submit progress repoPts on status of the research and development program. Progress reports regarding similar installations at other steel plants were submitted on 30 October 1974 and 30 April 1975. The Company is considering two alternative processes for desulfur- ization, the Firma Karl Still and the Sulfiban Process, but a decision has not been made to date. While the Consent Order requires a final compliance date of 31 December 1977, the Steelmaking Modernization Program is suggesting 30 June 1981 for achieving compliance with SBAPCD Regulation IV, Rule 62. DISCUSS ION Review of the Consent Order documentation, coupled with in-plant observations and VEO's, indicates that the Kaiser Steel Corporation has made progress in air pollution control at the plant but still has much to accomplish. 63 Analysis of the documentation required by the Consent Order in- dicated that in some cases the Corporation submitted plans which they did not follow. Thus, they submitted plans for (1) modifying the ESP's on the open hearth furnaces, which they now propose to eliminate through the Steelmaking Modernization Program, and (2) for a scrap metal cut- ting building which they now plan to negate by use of machine cutting torches which may or may not be effective. A major problem appears to be that those certifying compl lance at Corporate headquarters are not those complying at Fontana. Thus, compliance will be elusive and certification meaningless unless: (1) plant employees in the shops comprising the steel making operation are aware of the necessity for following O&M procedures, submitted as a requirement of the Consent Order to control air pollution, and (2) plant employees are advised of Corporate determination to comply with Federal, State and local requirements. For example, O&M programs have been submitted for coke oven Batteries 11 C11 through "G" (Appendix 8, Part 8} and 11 A11 and 11 811 (Appendix 8, Part C); yet the field study documented numerous door leaks, including 29 VEO's that recorded excessive emissions from doors and two VEO's that sho\'1ed excessive emissions from standpipes. If observations had been made from top-side, additional excessive emissions from standpipes would have been documented. Without rigid requirements for the O&M necessary to bring in- dividual portions of the coke oven door emission problem under con- trol, it will certainly be impossible to bring combined emissions from pushing and charging operations, door and standpipes into compliance. Thus, even if pushing and charging operations can be modified to curtail emissions to within the 3-minute limitation, leaking standpipes, doors or charge ports (operating and maintenance problems) will negate this effort. 64 The survey a1so indicated air pollution contributions from fa- cilities that were not covered by the Consent Order. Most of these could be improved by additional instrumentation or by better O&M pro- cedures, but some need a1r po11ution contro1 equipment or a combination of these methods. Excessive visible emissions were recorded from blast furnace cast house roofs and stove draft stacks (8), from the ESP stacks of the basic oxygen steel furnaces (9), and from the soaking pits (8). Only those indicated earlier were reported as emergencies, so others msut be considered as routine. In the case of the basic oxygen steel furnace, it would appear that with three ESP's available and only two furnaces operating, gen- erally not concurrently, that sufficient ESP capacity is available to control these emissions. Since soaking pit stacks are probably not visible from within the facility, smoke detectors with alarms could indicate when fuel mixtures must be adjusted. This approach has been used successfully at other locations at the plant. In the absence of Federal scrutiny in these areas, Complaint Citations issued by the SBAPCO against those sources not covered by APCD variances may provide some impetus for control. However, with nominal assessments this may not be the case. APPENDIX VISIBL[ EMISSION OBSERVATION RECORD Symbols Sun=.«" Plume direction= --r- MAP + Point where plume observed= Observer = 4 Water Vapor Condensate --------------------- Photographs: S&A File ( ) Enclosed ( ) None ( ) Comments ----------------·------------- Signature Date --------------------------- \} r>-J,J ,.; n,r "°'-,. ~t:,,1""/ /~~,,. .. ,...,.~ /J•/ ,k.",c.1<1 "2,-1, ~,.,,.,•,. ::ft::######################################~ ::ft:: ::ft:: - ~ ~ ::ft:: ~ ::ft:: ~ ::ft:: ::ft:: : AN INVENTORY OF CARCINOGENIC SUBSTANCES RELEASED : ~ INTO THE AMBIENT AIR OF CALIFORNIA ~ ::ft:: ~ ..... ::ft:: ~ ::ft:: ~ ::ft:: ~ ::ft:: TASK I I ~ ~ ~ ::ft:: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ::ft:: ~ ::ft::. i ::ft:: CONTRACT No, 1-068-32-221•12 t ::ft:: : ::ft:: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ! ~ 7F PREPARED FOR ~ ~ ~ SCIENCE APPLICATIONSJ INC, ~ ~ ~ ~ Los ANGELESJ CALIFORNIA =it- ::ft:: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ CONTENTS (Continued) Section 3.4 Cadmium 3-61 3.4.1 Summary of Utilization and Releases 3-61 3.4.2 Steel Production 3-62 3.4.3 Coal Consumption 3-63 3.4.4 Automobile Emissions 3-64 3.4.5 Secondary Zinc Smelters 3-65 3.4.6 Secondary Copper and Copper Alloy Smelters 3-65 3.4.7 Cadmium Emission Factors 3-65 3.5 Carbon Tetrachloride 3-72 3.5.1 Summary of Production and Usage 3-72 3.5.2 Emission Factors 3-78 3.6 Chloroform 3-80 3.6.1 Summary of Distribution and Usage 3-80 3.7 Ethylene Dibrornide 3-82 3.7.1 Production-Usage Summary 3-82 3.7.2 EDB Use in Gasoline 3-82 3.7.3 EDB Use in Pest Control 3-87 3.7.4 EDB Use in Other Applications 3-91 3.7.5 Emission Factors 3-92 3.8 Ethylene Dichloride 3-99 3 .. 8 .1 Production-Usage Summary 3-99 3.8.2 EDC Use in Gasoline 3-99 3.8.3 EDC Use in Pest Control 3-100 3.8.4 EDC Synthesis 3-101 3.8.5 Other Industrial EDC Use 3-103 3.8.6 Emission Factors 3-105 3.9 Nitrosamines 3-110 3.9.1 Occurrence Summary 3-110 3.9.2 Secondary Sources 3-111 3.9.3 Atmospheric Survey of Nitrosamines 3-115 3.10 Perchloroethylene 3-118 3.10.1 Production-Usage Summary 3-118 3.10.2 Pere Production 3-119 3.10.3 Dry Cleaning 3-119 3.10.4 Metal Cleaning Operations 3-121 3.10.5 Emission Factors 3-126 3.11 Polycyclic Organic Matter 3-134 3.11.1 General Nature of the Pollutant Category 3-134 3.11.2 Emission Factors 3-140 3.11.3 Ambient Levels of BaP and BSO 3-143 iii KVB 26900--836 4-1 CONTENTS (Continued) Section 4.0 POPULATION DENSITIES RELATIVE TO POLLUTANT SOURCES 4.1 Source Mapping 4-1 4.2 Inorganic Pollutants 4-2 4.2.1 Arsenic 4-2 4.2.2 Asbestos 4-2 4.2.3 Cadmium 4-2 4.3 Organic Pollutants 4-6 4.3.l Benzene 4-6 4.3.2 Halocarbon Pollutant Sources 4-10 4.4 Selection of Candidate "Hot Spots" for Task IV Source Testing Plan 4-11 REFERENCES 4-15 APPENDICES: A-1 A. MAJOR MANUFACTURERS OF ASBESTOS CONTAINING PRODUCTS IN CALIFORNIA A-2 B. HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS MEASURED AT THE DOUGLAS OIL COMPANY REFINERY IN PARAMOUNT, CALIFORNIA ON KVB HYDROCARBON SURVEY PROGRAM B-1 C. ESTIMATION OF SOURCE STRENGTH USING REVERSE DIFFUSION CALCULATIONS C-1 iv KVB 26900-836 Figure 1-1 l-2A 1-2B 3-1 3-2 3-3 3-4 3-5 3-6 3-7 3-8 3-9 3-10 3-11 3-12 3-13 3-14 3-15 3-16 3-17 3-18 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS ARB Carcinogenic Materials Study 1-3 State Highway Traffic Density Pattern 1-6 Agricultural Growing Areas 1-6 Estimated Release by Drift of Arsenicals Applied to Aricultural Areas in Seven California Counties in 1978 3-12 Estimated Maxirm1m Arsenic Releases from California Secondary Lead Smelters 3-16 Estimated Arsenic Emissions Associated with Utility-Class Steam Generators 3-20 Map of California Showing Principal Asbestos Deposits 3-25 Flow Diagram for Typical Asbestos Mill 3-28 Location of Asbestos Mining and Milling Facilities in the State and Emission Factors 3-31 Overall Benzene.Production Process 3-38 Benzene Production and Major User Sites and Estimated Annual Emissions 3-49 Estimated Benzene Emissions Associated with Oil Refinery Operations 3-55 Estimated Cadmium Emissions from Steel Production Plants 3-68. Estimated Cadmium Emissions (lb/yr) for Smelters 3-71 Process Flow Diagram for the Production of Carbon Tetrachloride (and Perchloroethylene) 3-74 Flow Diagram of Process for Conversion of Carbon Tetrachloride to Fluorocarbons 3-76 Ethylene Dibromide A.gricultural Applications for 1977 by County 3-90 Estimated EDB Evaporation Rates from Fumigated Soil Under Different Moisture Conditions 3-97 Ethylene Dichloride Agricultural Applications in 1977 by county 3-102 Process for the Production of EDC and VCM 3-104 Estimated EDC Evaporation Rates from Under Different Moisture Conditions Fumigated Soil 3-107 KVB 26900-836V LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS (Continued) Figure 3-19 Swnmary of DMN Air Concentrations in Health District Areas of Los Angeles County 3-117 3-20 Location of 14 Degreaser-Operating Firms Estimated to be Contributing 22% of the Perchloroethylene Released in Los Angeles County by Such Operations 3-132 4-1 Location of Inorganic Carcinogen Emission Sources Relative to California Population Concentrations 4-3 4-2 Location of Organic Carcinogenic Emission Sources Relative to California Population Concentrations 4-7 KVB 26900-836vi 1-1 (, I ...... Table ..... 2-1 3-1 ,...,_ 3-·2 3-3 3-4 3-5 3-6 3-7 3-8 3-9 3-10 3-11 3-12 3-13 3-14 3-15 3-16 3-17 3-18 LIST OF TABLES Page Eleven Suspected Carcinogenic Substances_ Selected for 1-2 Specific Study on Task II Summary of 11 Hot Spots" Identified in Task II and Their Relative Scaling Using an Arbitrary Hazard Formula 2-6 Estimated 1974 Arsenic Emissions in the U.S. from Various Sources 3-2 Arsenicals Used in California Agricultural Activities During 1978 3-6 Counties Using Over 5000 lbs Arsenicals in Agricultural Applications During 1978 3-8 Residual Fuel Oil Sales in California During 1977 3-18 National Market Areas for Asbestos: Demand Changes Over Two Year Period 3-26 Dust Emissions from the Environmental Information Sub­ system for Three Asbestos Mining and Milling Facilities 3-30 Estimated Benzene Emissions in the U.S. From Various Sources 3-36 Principal Benzene Consumers in State of California - 3-401977 Data Exhaust Emissions of Benzene from Automobiles Burning Three Unleaded Gasolines of Varying Aromaticity 3-43 Estimated Benzene Emissions from Two Benzene Producing Gasoline Refineries 3-46 Estimated Benzene Emissions from Three Conve~sion Plants 3-47 Petroleum Plants Producing Asphalt But Not Gasoline Estimated Benzene Emission Rates for Oil Refineries 3-52 Estimated Benzene Emissions from Gasoline Refineries and Asphalt Plants Operating in the State of California 3-53 Consumption versus Environmental Loss in the U.S. for 3-59Benzene in Solvent and Other Minor Uses Benzene in the Ambient Air of Southern California 3-60 Estimated Cadmium Release Rates for Secondary Steel Mills in California 3-66 Estimated Cadmium Emission Rates for Secondary Zinc 3-69Smelters vii KVB 26900-836 LIST OF Table 3-19 3-20 3-21 3-22 3-23 3-24 3-25 3-26 3-27 3-28 3-29 3-30 3-31 3-32 3-33 3-34 3-35 3-36 3-37 3-38 TABLES (Continued) Gasoline Refineries Operating in the State of California Estimated Leaded Gasoline Production and Associated EDB Usage in California During 1977/1978 EDB Usage in California for Various Types of Pest Control During 1977 EDB Usage for Pest Control in California Counties in Amounts Exceeding 1000 lb/Yr During 1977 Atmospheric Concentration of EDB at Urban Roadway Sites General Climatological Data for Fresno County in 1976 .Estimated Leaded Gasoline Production and Associated EDC Usage in California During 1977-197$ EDC Usage in California Counties in Significant Amounts for Pest Control During 1977 Vinyl Chloride Polymerization Plants in California Reported Applications of Three Thiuram Pesticides in California During 1978 Estimated Consumption of Pere in the U.S. Estimated Number of Dry Cleaning Plants Using Pere in the U.S. and California Estimated Consumption of Pere for Dry Cleaning in California During 1978 Estimated Fractional and Individual Plant Perch­ loroethilene Usage for Degreasing in California by Plant Size and SIC Type Estimated Total Perchloroethylene Usage in California Degreasers by Plant Size and Type Estimated Pere Emissions for Manufacturing Industry Degreasing Operations for 1976 Estimates of Ratios for BaP, BSO and Ten PNA's for Various Processes Based on Geometric Means of Col­ lected Data Estimates of Total BaP Emissions in the U.S. by Source Type Summarization of National Ambient BaP and BSO Data from National Air Surveillance Network Chronological BaP Averages for Selected U.S. Cities 3-84 3-:86 ·;:~·:X·\. 3-86 3-89 3-94 3-98 3-100 3-101 3-109 3-114 3-118 3-120 3-121 3-124 3-130 3-137 3-139 3-144 3-144 viii KVB 26900.,..836 LIST OF TABLES (Continued) Table 3-39 Atmospheric BaP and BSO Concentrations for 3-145 Chess and Champ Sites in California 4-1 Inorganic Pollutant Source Information corresponding 4-4 to Figure 4-1 4-2 Organic Pollutant Source Information Corresponding 4-8 to Figure 4-2 4-3 Organic Pollutant Source Information Corresponding 4-9 to Figure 4-2 4-4 Task I Rating Factor Assignments 4-12 KVB 26900.-836ix SECTION 1.0 INTRODUCTION ..... The development of an inventory of carcinogenic substances released into the ambient air of California involved a four-element program. Science Applications, Inc. (SAI) performed Task I and III, while KVB, Inc. performed Task II, the results of which are being described in this volume, and Task IV. The overall objectives of the program have been to: 1) Identify a limited number of carcinog~ns posing the greatest potential hazard as ambient atmospheric pol­ lutants in California (Task I -SAI); 2) Locate major sources of and estimate emission factors for this list of carcinogens (Task II -KVB); 3) Determine usage patterns, release rates, and population exposures for the sixteen substances regulated by the Occupational Carcinogens Control Act and investigate sub­ stances of concern by incorporating into the Task I evalua­ tion (Task III -SAI); and 4) Develop a field test plan to verify the more significant emission factors estimated on Task II (Task IV -KVB). As discussed in the Task I volume, 114 substances regarded by the EPA as having carcinogenic potential were screened. By rating these under the criteria of: (1) annual U.S. production; (2) fraction lost during production; I (3) volatility; and (4) carcinogenicity, the group was reduced to 35 sub- stances (compounds or clct~ses of compounds). Further reduction of the list was done through semi-objective quantitative algorithms based upon adding and multiplying rating factors. These included all of the factors listed above (except applied to the State rather than National level) plus rating factors for: (1) projected growth in usage; (2) stability in ambient air; and (3) potential for dispersion after release. 1-1 KVB 26900-835 Application of this refinement resulted in a ranked list of 22 substances. The final selection process involved a review of an ad hoc panel of experienced scientists convened by SAI. This two-day meeting produced an in­ dependent ordering of the 22 substances. From these three fina_;l listings the eleven highest scoring substances were then selected for study in Task II. These are listed, alphabetically, in Table 1-1. TABLE 1-1. ELEVEN SUSPECTED CARCINOGENIC SUBSTANCES SELECTED FOR SPECIFIC STUDY ON TASK II Arsenic Ethylene Dibromide Asbestos Ethylene Dichloride Benzene Ni trosamines Cadmium Perchloroethylene Carbon Tetrachloride Polycyclic Organic Matter (POM) Chloroform Effort was then initiated on Task II of the study to identity areas where the highest concentrations of emissions might be expected to occur resulting from the use or manufacture of these substances in California. As the materials of greatest concern were identified in Task II, test plan strategies and technical requirements were developed for follow-on field monitoring and detection of actual releases to the environment~ Design of the source sampling program comprised Task IV of the overall study and is reported separately. Emissions resulting from use of the candidate substances listed in Table 1-1 can be expected to be present in the surrounding environment at levels determined by many factors, including release rates from mobile and stationary sources. The approach to Task II, which is summarized in Figure 1-1, was to investigate the suspected areas within the state, verify the releases in these locations whenever possible, and prepare a map showing these "hot spot 11 areas. 1-2 KVB 26900-836 The "hot spot" areas were determined taking the following characteristics into account: Number of substances present Expected concentrations and flow rates of emissions Potential population exposure Physical characteristics of the area {topography, meteorology). Consideration was also given to the monitoring and detection requirements posed by source types, although specific definition of sampling systems were developed during Task IV. Contacts were made with government agencies and major producers and users of these materials to develop an inventory of emissions. Sources, ·recognized as "hot spots" , were then displayed on maps whenev.:::r practical and coded according to ranges of estimated quantities released per unit of time. A pair of composite maps was then prepared to provide quantitative indication of the major "hot spot 0 areas for these substances in California (see Section 4.0). The mapping was arbitrarily separated into inorganic and organic pollutants. Wherever sufficient data were available, information was collected regarding quantities of Table 1-1 materials used; process flow, material handling and control systems; and measured or estimated release of emissions. Where there was a lack of sufficient data, assumptions had to be made concerning process characteristics; these are documented in the report. On completion of Task II, the areas of concern (according to substances and sources) and the quality of the available data had been reasonably identified or the need for more in-depth study specified where sufficient data were lacking. A number of the pollutants studied were associated with area or chspersed sources. These would not thus emerge as "hot spots" although comparatively large total releases were involved. In many cases, the areas sources are coincident with population density distributions. 1-4 KVB 26900-836 ......... This is generally true, for example, with dry cleaning establishments and degreaser works (perchloroethylene emitters) and home fire places (POM emitters). Other distribution patterns are se~n where the pollutants are released during vehicular travel (benzene, cadmium, ethylene dibromide and dichloride and POM) and agricultural operation (arsenic, ethylene dibromide and dichloride and, possibly, nitrosamines). Because such emissions cannot be mapped as "hot spots," Figure 1-2 is introduced here for reference when these source types come under consideration under the various carcinogen headings. Figure 1-2 provides population density for the State of Cali­ fornia together with overlays showing traffic density (for the State Highway System) and principal agricultural zones of the State. Occasionally in this report, comparisons are made between ambient levels of the pollutants and OSHA maximum allowable concentrations (MAC'S). These data should be construed in their proper contexts. MAC'S are intended for healthy, adult, usually male workers for 40-hour work-weeks, with 8-hour work days, and with weekends and vacations included as time available for detoxification in the absence of exposure. Furthermore, MAC'S are designed primarily,al though certainly not exclusively, to protect the worker from the noncarcinogenic consequences of exposure to substances that may also happen to be carcinogenic, mutagenic ~r teratogenic. The present report deals exclusively with Task II results and is organized into four sections. Following this introduction are the summary of findings and conclusions reached (Section 2.0). The main body of the report (Section 3.0) considers, in alphabetic order, each of the eleven suspected carcinogens in separate subsections. The last part of the report (Section -4.0) is addressed to the superpositioning of the "hot spots" on demographic maps of the State. References and appendices follow Section 4.0. 1-5 KVB 26900-836 - "- ( ~ ...._ 1....__, "-•' :.._1 t •,._. \....,. URBAN POPULATION URBANIZED AREAS 20,000,000 15,000,000 10,000,000 5,000,000 2,500,000 1,000,000 500,000 250,000 50,000 SECTION 2.0 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 2.1 ACCURACY OF FINDINGS The main body of infonnation tapped in this study consisted of four categories. The principal source was EPA-sponsored studies dealing specifi­ cally with one or more of the eleven subject carcinogens. Several CARB re­ ports dealing with source or pollutant types, which incidentally included data on some of the carcinogens, was a second useful category accessed. The third category was comprised of government publications furnishing emission or commodity data [e.g., EPA's Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors ( AP-42i the Emission Inventory Subsystem (EIS) , etc.] . The last category con­ sisted of miscellaneous publications furnishing emission or commodity data developed within the private sector (e.g., API reports, Chemical Marketing Reporter, etc.). The emission data available from this mix of literature were often engineering estimates and not derived from actual source tests~ In comparing emission estimates for the same substance and source made by different · authors', i.t is obvious that the values reported can be in error by as much as a.n order of magnitude. Thus, in a derivative manner, this report furnishes emission data that are highly uncertain in many cases. Where this is not pointed out, the reader is cautioned to remind himself that the data presented are predominately estimates of considerably varying quality. It is just this condition that lends emphasis to the need of implementing the Task IV source testing plan. Then the emission factors reported here will be verified or displaced with more credible information. The present Task II analysis is nonetheless a big step in moving torwards that achievement. It not only specifies which sources should be tested, but r 2-1 \ KVB 26900-836 furnishes a first-cut ranking of the identified sources in terms of their potential hazard to receptor populations. Whatever the error band this ranking incorporates, the process will still permit test events in future field efforts to be sequenced or prioritized to accommodate ftm,,?i'ng and other resource limitations. In the following two subsections, the findings and conclusions of the study are summarized first in terms of the sources or 11 hot spots, '1 then, (in alphabetical order) for each of the eleven carcinogens. These comments are presented without literature citations to promote clarity. All statements made in this section are supported by appropriately referenced analyses and discussions that are developed in the pertinent portions of Section 3.0. 2.2 MAGNITUDE OF POLLUTION All eleven of the studied carcinogens occur as air pollutants in the State of California. Based on the estimates developed or used, two halocarbons constitute the extremes on the scale of pollutant burdens. Perchloroethylene emissions from the principal sources identified are estimated to be 58.2 million lbs/yr. By contrast, chloroform has not been identified with any industrial or commercial processes (outside of test laboratories) for which any quantity of emissions could be assigned. Perchloroethylene releases occur from hundreds of urban industries (dry cleaners and degreasers), such that the net effect is that of an area source. Benzene, which accounts for the next largest weigbt of pollutant release (55 million lbs/yr), is also a highly dispersed pollutant. An estimated 98. 6 96 of all the benzene released in the state is from mobile, area (oil fields), and scattered small point sources. Thus, the "hot spots" -the production or conversion plants -associated with these two solvents involve only small fractional amounts of the total material released. In contrast, the next two largest releases of pollutants pre­ dominately are concentrated in only a few point sources. over 91% of the 0.3 to 3.2 million lbs of ethylene dichloride estiMated to be released in the State annually is associated with one vinyl chloride plant in Carson. All of the estimated 677,.000 lbs of carbon tetrachloride released per year occurs at two chemical plants within several miles of each other on the San Joaquin River. 2-2 KVB 26900-836 The fifth largest quantity of emissions (515,000 lbs/yr) is estimated for ethylene dibromide. Essentially all of this is evaporated from fumigated farm land, losses from gasoline usage being regarded as negligible. Asbestos is estimated to be discharged into the ambient California air at a rate of about 460,000 lbs/yr. Over 90% of these emissions are associated with our three asbestos mining and milling operations. Asbestos­ consuming industries, which must release no visible asbestos from vents, nonetheless do emit some of this mineral but the effect is scattered among hundreds of minor point sources. Of the other two inorganic carcinogens, some 93,000 lbs of arsenic and 30,000 lbs of cadmium are estimated to be ~mitted annually. About half the cadmium and over 92% of the arsenic are released from a small number of stationary sources processing molten materials. Of the eleven materials investigated, the greatest survey uncertainty attaches to the nitrosamines and polycy?lic .organic matter (POM) findings. Neither of these classes of compounds per se is consumed in California commerce in a manner that would result in their direct release to the atmosphere in significant quantities. Because nitrosamines are known to form in atmospheric processes from related species, notably secondary amines and amides, sources for the releases of such precursors were identified. This, however, does not constitute an adequate base for estimating nitrosamine formation. In the case of POM, which arises pyrogenically in inefficient flame processes, releases are poorly quantified because of the complex chemical nature of this very large class of compounds. The single, very carcinogenic member, benzo[a]pyrene (BaP), has been used as an indicator for POM, but the ratios of POM/BaP are apparently variable. Burdens of BaP are estimated at 38,000 lbs/yr, over three quarters of this issuing from area and highly dispersed point(e.g. forest fires and fireplaces) and mobile sources. Some 5,400 lbs/yr are estimated to be emitted from the Kaiser steel mill, Fontana. The amount of total POM which that release of BaP representes could range from 10 to 100 times greater. 2-3 KVB 26900-836 2. 3 THE PRINCIPAL IUHOT SPOTS '0 On the program, a number of stationary sources were identified as emitting significant quantities of the materials surveyed. These constituted "hot spots" or releases posing possible health hazards potentially susceptible to improved control. As pointed out in the previous subsection, far greater amounts of some of the materials are emitted by dispersed or area sources. So that "hot spots" identified can be roughly graded or prioritizE::d for source testing planning, an arbitrary scaling factor was applied. This was arrived at in a manner similar to that (multiplicative approach) used in Task I for the comparison of suspected carcinogens with one another. The formula employed for the present purpose is as follows: R Scaling factor= Exp x R2 x R4 x Rs x e 6 Where: E specific pollutant emissions, tpy p population content of 10 km grid with "hot spots'0 at center, 310 people R n rating factors (see definitions in Task I report section); briefly defined, these rank on a scale of 1 to 5 the following parameters: R2 -use growth of chemical in CA R4 -stability of chemical in ambient air R5 -dispersion potential of chemical R -evidence of carcinogenicity6 Exponentiation of the carcino9enicity rating factor was introduced to provide emphasis for this property. It is recognized of course that such exponentiation may have limited value, given the coarseness of the scaling (1 to 5) . Populations for the 100 sq km tracts were mostly averaged from CARB data for Universal Tranverse Mercator (UTM) decade coordinates. Some data were developed from census Bureau maps. This is further explained in Section 4.4Q KVB 26900-836 2-4 The results of this "hot spot" or hazard ranking process are shown in Table 2-1. It will be noted that two of the sources are listed as emitting more than one of the eleven carcinogens. What is not obvious is that several of the emission factors for some of the sources involve contributions from different types of processes in which the same pollutant is emitted. An example of this is the Chevron USA plant at El Segundo. Benzene emissions estimated for this plant include those from: (1) normal petroleum operations; (2) benzene manufacturing and marketing; and (3) internal benzene consumption for cumene synthesis. The formula used in preparing the Table 2-1 ranking is of course quite arbitrary. For this reason, the broad range of scaling factors that resulted was accepted without culling. Some of the sources having small factors could have actual health impacts highly disproportionate to the ranking given. The actual range of the scaling factors is almost 5000. This then was considered to have an adequately broad working base for approach­ ing the Task IV source testing plan development. KVB 26900.,..8362-5 TABLE 2-1. SUMMARY OF 11 HOT SPOTS" IDENTIFIED IN TASK II AND THEIR RELATIVE· SCALING USING AN ARBITRARY HAZARD FORMULA -3 R (Scaling Factor= (Emissions, tpy) X (pop. dens. X 10 )x R2 x x x e 6)R4 R5 Pop. density Estiraated 11 3ound site * Rating Factors t Scalin_g _6Site Pollutant Annual Emissions, Tons 10 People/100 sq, km Factor x 10R2 R4 RS R6 Kaiser Steel Corp., Fontana Benzene 112 43.7 5 5 5 54.5 Cadmium 7.0 s s 5 3.4 Arsenic 1.6 5 5 0.5 POM 27 § 5 5 17.5 Tctal 75.9 Stauffer Chemical, Carson Ethylene dichloride 150 I 89.9 5 4 55.2 Dov Chemical USA Pittsburg carbon tetrachloride 160 t 63.8 5 4 41.8 Perchloro­ ethylene 22 t 63.8 5 4 5.7 Total 47.5 DuPont de Nemours & Co, Antioch Carbon tetrachloride 250 "* 63.8 5 5 4 41.8 Chevron USA, Richmond Benzene 50 62.8 3 5 5 5 35.0 tv ARCO, Carson Benzene 25 75,9 s s 21.l I °' Allied Chemical, El Segundo carbon tetracnloriae 133° 3:L 7 3 5 5 4 17.tl Witco Chemical. Co., Carson tsenzena 14 89.9 5 5 14.0 Chevron USA, El segw,do Benzene 30 35.9 5 5 12.0 Gould Inc . , v,nnon A.rll&nic 22 23.6 5 3 5 3.S RSR Corp., Indu•tey An1enic 3,3 59.5 5 3 5 1.3 ALCO-Pacific, Carson .Arsenic 2.2 88.1 3 5 1.3 Pacific Gas, Elec, Pitts. Arsenic 1.0 63.8 5 3 5 0.4 Johns-Ma.nville, Stockton Asbestos 2.9 28.5 5 5 5 0.3 :;,:: tJ Calavaras Asbestos, Copperopolis so. Cal. Edison, Long Beach Asbestos Arsenic 148 0.8 0.5 50.0 5 5 s 3 5 5 0.3 0.3 N °' Pacific Ga•, Elec, Salinas hrsenic 1.0 0.3 5 3 5 0.02 \.0 0 0 I ()) w NOTES: (j'I • Point source geographically located in center of 100 sq. k~ t Rating factors defined in Task I discussion: R "' 2 growth in use of pollutant in California; R4 stability of pollutant in air; RS"' pollutant di$persion potential; R6 = evidence of pollutant carcinogenicity Assumes POM/benzo(a)pyrene (BaP) "'10; BaP actually measured H A minimum estimate + Procei:s fucturs suyyest Llut thw larye diffcrenc:'-' l.Jt>Lwe1:n CT and perc emissions is susooct (See Sec. 3.S.2 (1')] May l>e high by an order c,f rnaqnitude ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2.4 POLLUTION SIGNIFICANCE OF THE INDIVIDUAL MATERIALS 2.4.1 Arsenic The State's four largest secondary lead smelters appear to be the major emitters of arsenic. All are located in the SCAB and are estimated to release a combined weight of almost 60,000 lbs/yr of this pollutant. The Kaiser coking plant in Fontana is estimated to emit less than one tpy of arsenic while all the secondary steel mills together emit less than one seventh that amount. Although no significant amounts of opal or lead (arsenic recipe) glass is produced in the State, at least one plant adds arsenic to flint glass melts. Emissions of 4,690 lbs/yr were calculated for this plant (identification confidential). The manufacture and application of agricultural arsenicals, including their secondary emission from cotton gins, are not significant sources of ambient air pollution. Ambient arsenic measurements made during the four quarters of 1974 in 15 California cities included in the National Air Sampling Network (NASN) 3failed to show any arsenic (detection limit= 1 ng/m ) in most cases. For just one quarter each, NASN arsenic measurements averaged above detection limits at Long Beach, Ontario, and San Bernardino. The highest such average 3quarterly concentration was 14 ng/m (Long Beach). As of July 13, 1979, CAL OSHA declared arsenic a regulated carcinogen and set the maximum allowable concentration (MAC} for an eight-hour time weighted average (twa) day at 310 µg/m . Conclusions: Arsenic emission factors for one or more of the secondary lead smelters in California should be verified by source testing. Because of I._, relative capacity, the Gould plant in Vernon is estimated to be the largest such "hot spot 11 and should be included in this testing. Sampling of the coking ovens at the Kaiser mill in Fontana should also be undertaken. Although arsenic release during coking may prove minor, three other pollutants (benzene, cadmium, and POM) need to be tested for there., as is explained in those sec­ tions o thus justifying the inclusion of arsenic in the survey. 2-7 KVB 26900-836 Manufacture of flint glass may involve the deliberate incorporation of arsenic. The practice is shielded by proprietary considerations. Samples of output of flint glassware should be obtained and analyzed for arsenic to determine which plants use the element. Atmospheric release rates ca~ th~n be estimated using the emission factor already developed from the source testing of one such plant. Asbestos Operations at the three California asbestos mines at Copperopolis, Coalinga, and King City probably predominate in tenns of emission of this particulate material. At these low population density sites, dust releases are estimated at 148, 56 and 3 tpy, respectively. It is further estimated that an additional 23 tpy of dust are emitted :Erqm all California plants manu­ facturing asbestos-containing products. The actual fractional amounts of these dust releases that comprise asbestos is unknown. Although never measured, outdoor releases from building demolitions and disturbances of asbestos ores by natural and human (e.g., recreationists) forces also contribute to the air­ borne asbestos burden. Ambient levels of asbestos have been determined in various California areas. The California Department of Health reported 24-hour asbestos levels for various 3stations in the Berkeley-San Francisco area that averaged 35 ng/m. Applying the Health Department's conversion to give a fiber count (0.4 fibers/cc), this is equivalent to 20% of OSHA ma."Cimum allowable concentration (MA.C). The accuracy of airborne asbestos counting is highly controversial, a situation that has not yet been resolved. Conclusions: EIS *dust emissions record,ed for plants manufacturing asbestos-containing products are comparatively small and probably conformative with the zero visible asbestos emissions required by regulation. Mass-wise, however 1 the tonnages involved are large enough in the case of a few of the larger plants to warrant conc,ern if most of the dust released consists of asbestos. Source testing of a large asbestos product plant (e.g., Johns­ Manville, Stockton) should thus be undertaken to measure asbestos specifically rather than total dust release. * Emission Inventory Subsystem 2-8 KVB 26900-836 Further sampling of any of the asbestos mines would probably only confirm previously developed data. A more meaningful approach would be to measure airborne asbestos in one or more of the three individual towns near the mines. Coalinga would be the logical choice because of the scaling factor of the nearby Atlas Asbestos Co. relative to the other two mines. 2.4.3 Benzene Release of this very common and vital chemical is widespread. over 27,500 tpy are estimated to be emitted by mobile and point sources in the State. Of this estimate, over 94% is attributed to the automobile (exhaust and tank venting). Gasoline distribution and marketing is identified as the next largest source of benzene release, with somel,100 tpy estimated for such activities. Thus, the balance or only 1.6% of the total benzene relea~ed is ident_fied with stationary sources. Among the stationary benzene-emitting sources, the greatest output (194 tpy) is estimated for the State's 29 gasoline refineries and asphalt plants which do not produce or consume industrial-grade benzene. About 43% of this is released in the SCAB, 45% in the area of the industrial waterside belt running from Richmond to Martinez, and 10% in the Bakersfield/Oildale area. Coking at Fontana accounts for the next largest point release (112 tpy) estimated, while benzene conversion (to detergent alkylate and phenol) accounts for an estimated 76 tpy of which 66% is associated with Chevron USA-Richmond and the balance with two SCAB plants. Benzene production is identified with an estimated release of 55 tpy at two SCAB refineries, one of which (Chevron USA-El Segundo) consumes part of its own production. The estimates of the benzene releases for Chevron USA-El Segundo in benzene production and conswnption are isolated and therefore additive. Based on National data, benzene releases from solvent and other minor industrial uses were considered to be too small to warrant in­ vestigation. 2-9 KVB 26900-836 Ambient levels of benzene measured by the CARB, the EPA, and the API in various urban areas of California are considerably higher than values obtained for other of the studied materials. Los Angeles levels averaged about 140 µg/m3 in three measurements, while levels in reasonably ventilated ar~fl.S (e.g., Palm 3Springs) were a surprising 30 µg/m . _ Although this is 1000 times lower than OSHA MAC, the current direction of this agency is to a MAC of 3000 µg/m.3 Conclusions: On the basis of total emissions and resulting ambient levels of the pollutant, benzene emerges as the carcinogen of greatest concern of all the materials studied. This judgment is also supported by the Table 2-1 hazard-ranking of 11 hot spots. 1 ' Five of the top nine stationary sources are benzene emitters. At least three of these five should be characterized such that the steel mill, one of the two benzene producers and one of the two benzene converters are included. Further automobile testing for specific determination of benzene emissions is urgently needed. 2.4.4 Cadmium The principal emitter (estimated at 7.0 tpy) of this metal is found to be the Kaiser steel mill at Fontana. An equivalent amount (7.3 tpy) is estimated to be released by automobile tires most of which (80-90%) precipitates about the roadbeds. Secondary steel and zinc operations involve negligible cadmium venting. Together, the secondary copper smelters in the State (three in the SCAB, one in San Francisco) are ,estimated to emit about one tenth the amount of cadmium emissions produced at the Kaiser plant. Conclusions: The Kaiser mill is probably the principal 11 hot spot" for cadmium emissions in the State. Sampling at this site has already been indicated for quantitating arsenic and benzene releases. Thus, the inclusion of cadmium analysis in the samples appropriate to this measurement would be a facile additional step. Sampling of secondary steel mills for cadmium should perhaps be deferred until results for scrap-fed furnaces at Fontana have been developed. KVB 26900-8362-10 .2.4.5 Carbon Tetrachloride (CT) Almost all of the releases of this halocarbon are associated with its production and conversion to fluorocarbons. The Dow plant at Pittsburg, which produces CT, is estimated here to release up to one-third million pounds of this carcinogen annually. The two consuming plants are associated with estimated releases over twice that the duPont Antioch Works 500,000 lbs/yr and the Allied Chemical plant in El Segundo 175,000 lbs/yr. At least one of the operators place the levels considerably lower. Because the estimates, which are based on National Academy of Sciences' emission factors, may indeed be on the high side, source testing is clearly needed to resolve these differences. 3Ambient levels of CT have ranged as high as 38 µg/m , in brief (<l hour) spotchecks made in industrial Los Angeles. This can be compared with the world 3background of 0.8 1.lg/m. Some atmospheric CT probably derives from water bodies where it is known to form through chlorine addition to organic solutes. The OSHA MAC for CT is 65 mg/m.3 Conclusions: The principal "hot spots" are the one CT production plant and the two CT consuming plants mentioned above. Because of their nearness to one another, the Dow CT plant and the du Pont freon works would be logical sources to sample. 2.4.6 Chloroform Use of this halocarbon in California commerce was not detected. The Allied Chemical plant in El Segundo did convert l?rge quantities of chloroform to Genetron 22 up until recently. Today, laboratory use of the material is the only known application. Like CT, chloroform is also released to the atmosphere by aqueous systems. Chlorine in drinking and reclaimed water is associated with this effect. The world background for chloroform is less than 3 30.2 µg/m , with urban levels averaging about 1.5 µg/m • Conclusions: No known "hot spots" for chloroform release exist in California. Ambient or source testing for this pollutant is therefore not indicated. 2-11 KVB 26900-836 2.4.7 Ethylene Dibromide (EDB) The principal release paths for EDB are through the automobile and in its application as a pesticide. Air ambient to heavily trafficked (25,000- 330,000 vehicles/day) roadways near gasoline stations averaged only 0,_.08 µg/m of EDB for measurements taken in three cities. This is considerably lower than the world (troposphere) background for carbon tetrachloride and chloroform 3(0.8 and 0.2 µg/m , respectively). In pesticide application, the permitted usage of EDB was recorded at 806,695 lbs for 1978. This is an increase of 57% over the previous year. An unknown but probably large fraction of this fumigant reaches the atmosphere producing acute high local levels in rural areas. Conclusions: No "hot spots'0 for EDB were identified, such that point source testing does not appear warranted. Sampling for EDB under controlled or field conditions while and after being applied as a pesticide would be desirable from an industrial hygiene viewpoint. 2.4.8 Ethylene Dichloride {EDC) The focal point for this suspected carcinogen is the Stauffer Chemical Co. plant in Carson, which synthesizes this material. Annual EOC release to the atmosphere there is estimated to be between 150 and 1600 tpy. Most of the EDC produced is converted internally to vinyl chloride. Because of the wide range in the values (resulting from somewhat disparate emission factors independently developed for the EPA) the need for source testing is emphasized. Solvent uses of EDC in the State are limited. Total annual EDC con­ sumption is probably around 250 tpy in this application. Only two users could be identified --Keyser-Century, Saugus (vinyl chloride polymerization tank cleaning) and EMCON, Carmel Valley (vehicle for ceramic paste used in making electronic circuit systems). There are probably fewer than ten plants in the State using EDC in solvent applications. Emissions of EDC, a lead scavenger, from gasoline handling and con­ sumption processes are considered to be minor. This is also the case for its limited use in agricultural applications as a fumigant. Data for EDC ambient levels in either urban or rural areas, however, could not be found. KVB 26900-8362-12 Resorting, then, to BaP data, the largest PCM-emitting point ...... source identified was the coking plant of the Kaiser steel mill in Fontana. The estimated release is 5,500 lbs/yr (BaP)~ Larger weights of POM are emitted by home fireplaces (16,000 lbs/yr BaP estimated) and forest fires (~10,000 lbs/yr BaP). The former source type is, however, highly dispersed while the latter source category is probably susceptible to no more control than is currently available. Tire wear is believed to result in the release of some 3,000 lbs/yr of BaP. Motorcycles, which are predominately powered by two-cycle engines, are estimated to emit some 2,000 lbs/yr BaP. Gasoline engine automobiles emit about half that amount, even though automobiles consume over 150 times the gasoline burned in motorcycles. Diesel engined vehicles, because of their lower populations, are involved in only minor releases of BaP. Ambient levels of BaP in 7 Southern California stations averaged 3 31.8 µg/m with se~sonal levels ranging to highs of 7.5 µg/m . The average 3 can be compared with 1.2 µg/m which is the National average for cities in or near which steel mills operat~. Conclusions: Characterization of POM releases from the Kaiser coking plant should be undertaken. Particulate catches shoula be analyzed in as much detail as practical. State of the art methodology should also be applied in the continuing efforts to characterize POM releases from Diesel and gasolj_ne engine vehicles. 2-15 KVB 26900-836 SECTION 3 .0 INVENTORY FINDINGS 3.1 ARSENIC 3.l.l Occurrence and Release Summary A considerable number of sources for potential emissions of arsenic compounds exist. These include thermal operations in which the relatively volatile arsenic (sublimes at 615 °C.) would be released as a minor constituent of the bulk material processed, as in metal and alass production, coal and Petroleum combustion. and waste incineration. A major source of Potential arsenic release is the manufacture and application of arsenic-containinq Pesticides. both of the inorqanic and orqanometallic types. The levels of arsenic measured in ambient air by the National Air ' 3 .Sampling Network (NASN) showed an annual National average of 0.020 µg,m in 1964-1965 and 0.003 µg/m 3 10 years later (1974). The difference was probably due more to an improvement in the analytical chemistry applied than to air quality enhancement occurring. Eighteen California cities are covered by the . 3 NASN. Arsenic was reported for 1974 at Long Beach (1st Qtr. = 0.014 µg;m ), . 3 . 3 Ontario (2nd Qtr. = 0.011 µg/m )and San Bernardino (3rd Qtr. = 0-006 µg/m ). 3All other quarters, no arsenic was detected (limit= 0.001 µg/m) at these or the other 15 California cities covered by the NASN. Researchers at Union Carbide ( Ref. 1) and Versar (Ref. 2) have pub­ lished their estimates of atmospheric releases or arsenic. These are compared TABLE 3-1. ESTIMATED 1974 ARSENIC EMISSIONS IN THE U.S. FROM VARIOUS SOURCES Arsenic Emissions, 10 31bs/yr Emission Source Union Carbide Versar Corp. Estimates (Ref. 1) Estimates (Ref. 2) w I I\.) Mining Primart Smelters Copper .::inc Lead Iron & StP.el Nonferrous Alloys (Sec. Smelters) Cotton Ginning & Burning Glass Manufacture Wood Preservatives Nonpesticide Arsenicals Pesticide Production Pesticide Application Coal Utilization Incinerators Water & Waste Water Treatment Manganese Ore Processing Petroleum Combustion Feed Additive Production 5,400 2,780 752 194 Negligible 690 1,276 Negligible 6 392 5,850 1,180 No Estimate No Estimate No Estimate No Esti!llate No Estimate 10,580 419 529 71 287 (Lead Alloys) 391 463 No Estimate No Estimate 287 5,069 1,433 No Estimate 2.2 22 238 4.4 TOTAL 18,536 19,795.6 KVB 26900-836 ) ) ) ) J J ) _) ) _) Agriculture comprises the major source of potential arsenic emissions in California. In 1978, 101 tons of a.rsenicals were applied in California. Most of it was applied for the top defoliation of cotton plants. Thus, the emission of arsenic from the State's 233 cotton gins (Ref. 4} comes to question. These devices broadcast considerable particulate matter, which would still retain residues of the arsenical defoliants, if these were previously applied to the cotton plant matter being ginned. Other published information to the contrary (Ref. 4), manufacturers of agricultural arsenicals is confined to one plant in California --the Los Angeles Chemical Company of South Gate. This company produces only sodium arsenite, a material in limited usage by California grape grow,ers. In summary, then, attempts to identify specific arsenic emission sources will therefore focus on the following operations~ Pesticide application and secondary mobilization (cotton ginning) Primary steel mill (coking) Secondary steel and le'ad production Oil combustion Pesticide manufacture Glass Manufacturf 3.1. 2 Emission Factors A. Pesticide Application and Secondary Mobilization-- 1. Dc1to. Sourcc--thc pesticide usage data tabulated in this .section and the sections dealing with carbon tetrachloride, ethylene dibrornide and ethylene dichloride were extracted or derived from: . 1978 Pesticide Use Report (PUR) . Pesticide Use Report By Commodity 1978 These publications are prepared and issued annually by the Pest Management, Environmental Protection and Worker Safety Division (Pesticide Registration and 3-4 KVB 26900-836 Application of arsenicals in quantities over 5,000 lb/yr occurred in only seven of the California counties. These counties and their usage of arsenicals are enumerated in Table 3-3. The total weight of arsenicals used in these seven counties (158,305 lbs) amount to less than 0.25% of the National consumption, usage being heavily centered in Texas and Oklahoma cotton areas. Emissions from the application of arsenicals are set at about 10% of the amount.applied (Ref 2). This figure appears to be high, since none of the compounds in question are appreciably volatile. Cacodylic acid (m. pt -200 °C) would exhibit the highest vapor pressure of any of the major arsenicals employed in the State. This is in the micrometer range of mercury pressure according to a spokesman of the Vineland Chemical Company, a New Jersey firm making this and other arseno-organics. Arsenic emissions associated with pesticide applications are thus likely to be predominately the aerosol drift occasioned during the actual spraying of the fields. Subsequent releases are probably at such low rates as not to be of concern beyond the immediate perimeters of the receptor crop fields. Nost of the arsenic pesticides are applied to cotton {64.3%) and grapes (10.4%), the balance of spraying being for dispersed targets. Based on the estimates offered by University of California ag~onoJ'l'list_p, a drift loss of 5% of the amount applied was assumed. Spray equipment dealers felt that 2% was a maximum loss value and that very little of this drift could possibly ever survive as an atmospheric hazard. In any case, factoring the 5% drift loss with application rates given in Table 3-3 for the seven counties of interest, the following acute release data were calculated. ESTIMATED ACUTE RELEASE FACTORS FOR ARSENICALS, TOTAL GRAMS/ACRE Cotton Grapes cacodylic Acid DSMA MSMA Sodium Cacodylate Sod.i um Arseni te 2.3 44.7 45 .. 8 13. 4 130.9 TABLE 3-3. COUNTIES USING OVER 5000 LBS ARSEN~-tALS IN AGRICULTURAL APPLICATIONS DURING 1978* ARSENICAL ~ AI2~lication lbs -Acres lbs -Acres A. FRESNO COUNTY Cacodylic Acid Cotton 4,701 40,349 4,701 40,349 DSl'.A Cotton 1,237 776 1,237 776 Lead Arsenate Grapes 15.2 8 Other 14 Total 29 8 MSMA -~, Cotton 797 545 Oranges JL82 216 Other 7 Total 986 761 Sodium Cacodylat.e Cotton 27,562 40,349 Other 7 Total 27,.569 40,349 --., Sodium Arseni te Grapes _8,955 ~ County Tot,111ls 43,477 84,077 B. IMPERIAL COUNTY Cacodylic Acid Cotton 572 4,373 Other 104 Total 676 4,373 DSMA Cotton 816 468 816 468 MSHA Cotton 1,373 718 Other 2,174 Total 3,547 718, Sodiwn Cacodylate Cott.on 3,354 4,373 Other 602 Total ~ ~ County Totals 8,995 9,932 c. KERN COUNTY ~-i Cacodylic Acid Cotton 3,440 36,121 Other 1415 Total 3,585 36,121 DSMA Cotton 23,871 10,340 23,871 10,340 -~""\ MSMA Cot.ton 6,831 3,454 Other 1,394 Total 8,225 3,454 .Source: California Department of Food G Agricul·ture KVB 26900-836 3-8 I I TABLE 3-3. (Continued) ARSENIOJ, P.pplicat1on lbs -Acres Totals l~es """' Sodium A.rsenite Gr11pes 911 175 Sodium Cacodylat,e Cotton Other Total 20,171 847 36,121 ~ 36,121 .--, County 'Totals 57,610 86,211 D. KINGS COUNTY Cacodylic Acid Cotton Other Total 583 6,848 2 585 6,848 .....,, OSMA Cott.on <i,172 2,767 MSMA Cotton Other Total 292 15 226 307 226 Sodium Jl\rsenite Grapes 52 10 Sodium Cacodylate Cotton Other Total 3,419 8 6,848 ~ ~ County Totals 8, 5,13 16,699 E. MADERA COUNTY ...., Cacodylic .'\cid Cotton Other Total 857 9,272 41 898 9,272 DSMA Cotton Other Total 4,043 136 2,484 4,179 2,484 ,..,, MSMA Commissioners 2,580 Sodium Cacodylate Cotton Other Total 5,023 105 9,272 S.128 ~ ...,, County Totals 12,785 21,028 F. MERCED COUNTY Cacodylic Acid Cotton Other Total DSMA Cotton 933 9,859 4 937 1,928 9,859 1,119 ""'r, 3-10 KVB 26900-836 ---,, Applying the actual usage values to the total acreage involved, the distributions of material released can be geographically organized as shown in Figure 3-1. Because of the size distribution of the aerosol involved, durations of airborne pesticide releases are probably very brief. Also, application to produce defoliation is undertaken in any given area no more than once a year. 3. Secondary Mobilization of Arsenical Spray Residues--Cotton ginning and the inceration of gin trash become sources for arsenic release if the gin input material had been contacted with arsenicals while in the field. In California, gin-trash burning occasionally occurs illicitly, but most trash is returned to the fields and plowed under. There are 233 operating gins in California according to listings obtained from the three Cotton Division offices of the USDA Agricultural Marketing Service. Particulate emissions from well-controlled gins have been estimated at 2.6 lbs/bale by EPA's Youngblood (Ref. 5). A Texas Air Control Board spokesman advised that arsenic levels as high as 0.7% have been measured in gin dust in that State. This would suggest an arsenic release as high as 0.02 lb/bale. Y'oungblood's particulate emission factor was checked to determine its appropriateness with State gins. Using Imperial County as the site having the most normal weather in 1978, production of individual gins were ob­ tained and compared with the particulate release rates on file with the local ~PCD. With seasonal throughputs for 10 of the 13 gins operating there, it was calculated that the average emission of particulate was 2.7 lbs/bale. This value, which agrees very well with Youngblood's, included extremes of 1.3 and 4.5 lbs/bale. Excepting the Texas value, data on the arsenic content of gin feed or emissions were not found. It was apparent from the usage rate of arsenicals that the value would have to be quite low. According to the USDA Agricultural Marketing Seravice (Cotton Division), cotton defoliation in California is pre­ dominately done using nonarsenicals, notably Paraquat and DEF. A preliminary scenario was therefore tested. Data for Fresno KVB 26900-836 3-11 ~ CA-43 Merced DSMA-202 CA-47 SC-251 DSMA-96 MSMA-23 SC-273 SA-78 Fresno CA-ill Kings DSMA-62 CA-29 DSMA-209 MSMA-15 SC-171 SA-3 Kern · Tulare CA-172 ~98 DSMA-119'1 MSMA-12 MS~lJ\-411 SA-73 SC-1009 SA-46 Legend: SC-348 Cotton Defoliants County, the largest cotton producer (252 million lbs) and largest applier of arsenicals on cotton (34,297 lbs), were used. It was assumed that all the arsenicals applied eventually went into the gin. The elemental arsenic content (47.7%) was derived from the usage data for the four arsenicals used in Fresno County (predominately sodium cacodylate). The calculated arsenic input was then distributed over the mass of input material, of which about 30% typically resuits as the baled lint. The balance is seed, trash, and moisture. An arsenic content of only 6.5 x 10-3 wt% is calculated. Further, it was assumed that the dust emitted to the atmosphere from the gin's cyclone had the same composition as the feed material. Then, given the particulate emission factor of 2.7 lbs dust/bale produced (from 504,000 bales) the total arsenic release for all the Fresno County gins in 1978 was found to be 88 lbs. Thus, gins may be dismissed as arsenic sources here. B. Primary Steel Production-- According to the Versar report {ref. 2), arsenic is emitted during the basic ore reduction process (13.2 tons/yr) and later {22.0 tons/yr) during casting operations. In the case of the ore reduction, an APc* efficiency of 99% was assumed. These data are for the National steel industry. The only integrated steel plant in California is the mill at Fontana operated by Kaiser Steel, Inc. According to a company spokesman, Kaiser's output of steel and iron products was just under two million tons in 1978. This represents about 2.1% of the national production, so the arsenic emission factor for ore working {555 lbs) and iron casting (9i5 lbs) would be 1,480 lbs/yr, based on the Versar release data cited above. Arsenic emission from coal coking release rate associated with coal combustion (Ref 2), an additional 1,635 lbs of arsenic are calculated. This is based on Kaiser 1 s coal capacity·2,336,000 tons/yr containing 1 ppm arsenic, 35% of which is released to the atmosphere. The overall emission factor for the Kaiser Fontana plant is t~,us estimated as follows: ESTIMATED ARSENIC EMISSIONS FROM THE KAISER STEEL MILL, FONTANA Iron Ore Foundry Reduction 0Eerations Coking Total Total Arsenic Emitted, lbs/yr 555 925 1635 3115 C. Secondary Metal Processing-- 1. Steel Mills--Besides the Kaiser plant, five other mills are operated in the State that work scrap and pig iron .. These secondary mills together with their estimated outputs (furnished by an industry representative) are itemized as follows: Estimated 19~8 Output, Company Location 10 tons Bethlehem Steel Vernon 400 U.SG Steel Torrance 100 Soule Steel Carson 110 Ameron Etiwanda 300 Judson Steel Emeryville 90 Because these mills do not process coke or iron ore, arsenic release would be associated only with pig iron usage. This burden was estimated at 26,500 lbs for the nation in the Verser report. Considering the production fraction of the l~tional total represented by the five secondary plants, an annual release of only 279 lbs arsenic total is calculated for all five mills .. KVB 269-0-836 3-14 2. Secondary Lead Smelters--With the exception of scattered, much smaller smelters, four secondary lead plants essentially represent that industry in California. These are listed together with production figures which represent rough estimates furnished by the technical manager of one of the smelters. SECONDARY LEAD SMELTERS IN CALIFORNIA Estimated Annual Lead Production,3Company Location 10 Tons Gould Inc. Vernon 50 RSR Corporation City of Industry 7.5 Southwest Smelting San Bernardino 5 ALCO-Pacific Carson 5 Total 67.5 Much of the lead scrap processed by these smelters, all of which y operate blast and/or rotary furnac~s, is antimonial lead. This alloy contains up to 0.5% arsenic. For such feed, SRI. (Ref. 4) speculates that arsenic emissions may be about the same as for primary lead smelters. The emission factor imputed to the latter, is 0.88 lb/ton including fugitive emissions at 10% of the amount released from the stack (Ref. 6). From this, one could infer that the above four smelters are responsible for a combined arsenic release of 59,400 lbs arsenic per year. This, however, is based on uncertain technical information since there is relatively little arsenic data for secondary lead smelters. Clearly, source testingwill clarify this situation. Considering the above emission factor as an estimated maximum, the calculated releases for the four plants are geographically located on Figure 3.2. KVB 26900-836 ( 3-15 Gould Inc.-~=~- 44,000 w I,_, 0, ALCO-Pacific 4,400 1....,, ( D. Oil Combustion-- Consideration of naturally occurring arsenic in combusted fuel oils led the Union Carbide and Versar analysts to disparate conclusions (Ref. 1,2). The former regarded the arsenic emissions associated with this process as in- . 5significant. The Versar associated an annual National release of 2.36 x 10 lbs/yr from fuel oil combustion. The Versar estimate was based on an average arsenic level of 0.14 ppm in crude oil processed in this country. That arsenic concentration fortuitously happened to be based on analytical data obtained for California crude. They 12then oointed out that of the 1.85 x 10 lbs of crude processed in 1974, 90.1% was combusted as fuel. They further assumed that all the arsenic present in the oil was emitted in some form or_other to the atmosphere. Updating the Versar data from 1974 to 1978 at an assumed increase in oil consumption rate of 6%, current national demand would be about 2.33 12 6 x 10 lbs/yr in 1978. Burning 90.1% of this would release some 0.3 x 10 lbs of arsenic, according to Versar. Because of the comparative volatilities of petroleum hydrocarbons and the arsenic compounds present, processing of crude should tend to concentrate roost, if not all, of the arsenic into the reeidual oil, asphalt, and coke produced. Thus arsenic emissions would have to be associated with only those of these products (as well as any unprocessed crude) that are combusted. It can be assumed that asphalt and coke are accounted for in the unburned or 9.9% fraction of the petroleum product pool. Thus, if California's share of the national arsenic burden is 10%, some 30,000 lbs would be in­ volved in the combustion of nondistillate fuel oils. 'I1he consumption of residual fuel oils in California during 1977 was dominated (73%) by the utility companies. Data on sales of this commodity obtained from a DOE spokesman are tabulated as follows: KVB 26900-836 3-17 TABLE 3-4. RESIDUAL FUEL OIL S,hl.ES IN CALIFORNIA DURING 1977 (Source: Dept. of Energy, Washington, D.C.) Fue~ Purchased, Vol % User Category 10 Bbls. of Total Space Heating 2,540 1 .. 4': Industry 3,941 2 .. 2 Oil Companies 5,349 2.9 Railroads 9 Vessel Bunkering 35,893 19.9 Military 343 0.2 .-.\, Elect:!:"icity 132,555 73.4 Miscellaneous 54 Total 180,684 100 Actually, the utilities purchased 4.2% more fuel than they burned in 1977, but that difference has been absorbed since then by increased power demand. The electrical utilities and maritime trade consume over 93% of the residual fuel oil purchased in the State. Focus therefore rests on the power plants, since most of the maritime fuel use occurs on the high seas. Thus, 73.4% of the arsenic imputed to California oil (30,000 lbs), or some 22,020 lbs, would be going into utility-class boilers. It is moot whether all of this is emitted as Versar (Ref. 2) estirnatesu however. Estimates for arsenic emissions from coal are about 27% of the arsenic input (Ref. 4). This would average out somewhere around 80% if the bottom ash were hy­ pothetically mobilized. The arsenic retained apparently condenses on surfaces in the flue path and could be assumed to do this regardless of the fuel used. The value of 80% was therefore applied to oil combustion, where the soot is effectively all mobilized. This would suggest a release of 17,600 lbs arsenic per year or an emission factor of 0.13 lb arsenic per 1000 bbl residual fuel fired. KVB 26900-836 3-18 acid was never made there, only jobbed. The production of sodium arsenite may also be discontinued in the near future. Although the Los Angeles Chemical Company spokesman who provided the information given here declined to offer production data, the use of sodium arsenite in the State (20,539 lbs in 1978) would not suggest a major market. Since most (99.0%) was applied to grape vineyards for an agricultural industry in which California is nationally dominant, company out~-of-state sales of the arseni te were probably minor. Assuming that Los Angeles Chemical's sodium arsenite production amounted to half of what was consumed in the Stat~ and 1% of that were emitted, the annual release (59 lbs as arsenic) would still be equivalent to that estimated for a small power plant. Suta (Ref. 4) estimates the releases for this firm at 50 to 2000 lbs/yr depending on the {undetermined) degree of APC being practiced. This estimate, however, is based on an erroneous product line of seven arsenicals, as discussed above. P.~ Glass Manufacture-- On a recently completed CARE-sponsored program (Ref. 3), KVB sampled two glass plants. The names of the owners are confidential. Plant A (test 20J) operated side-port continuous, regenerative furnaces and incor- 1 • porate~ APC equipment on the units tested. Arsenic release was insignificant from the ESif ~ontrolled units. At that plant, uncontrolled units were also operated and produced flint glass. These were not tested. Plant B (tests 28S, 35S, and 35J) employed end-port fired units that were not controlled. The plant output is over 110 tons/day of glass products. Arsenic was added to the flint glass melts. Plant B operated four units, one of which was tested by KVB three times. This unit was melting for flint production. The particulates emitted averaged 10.32:_0.4 lbs/hr. The arsenic content of the particulate catches averaged 2.6%. * Two sampling trains were used simultaneously to sample the inlet and exit of the ESP. A trace of arsenic was found but only in the lµm cyclone and filter of the inlet sampler. KVB 26900-8363-21 In Plant B, two of the four units were running flint melts. Althougi, the fraction of flint glass produced was not specified, it was probably greater than 50%. Using that fraction nonetheless, the annual arsenic output from Plant B would then be calculated to be 4,690 lbs/yr. Because of the confidentiality of these data, a mapping of glass plants will not be attempted. The CARB is, of course, aware of the identities of these plants and their locations. G. Coal-Fired Facilities-- 1. Kerr-McKee Trona Works--This facility operates two boilers (each rated at 600,000 lbs/hr steam) for the production of plant electricity, process steam and high-Sox flue gas that is also needed for the process. The units are fired with a mixture of coal and high sulfur petroleum coke. The SOx and co in the flue2 gas is removed by contacting it with Trena brine to induce the preciptation of sodium carbonate. SOx removal is better than 98%. It is thus highly unlikely that any arsenic could penetrate this effect. 2. Cement plants--Combustion gas from coal-fired furnaces are used to decarbonate limestone in countercurrent kiln flow. Thus all the volatiles and particulate matter in this gas stream is heavily contacted by this assorptive counterflowing process. Then, at the cooler sections of the kiln, the moist combustion gas, laden with elutriating lime fines, is passed through a bag house to remove the latter. It is thus again quite unlikely that arsenic released by the fired coal could survive to vent. In any case, what are believed to be the seven largest cement plants in California were identified. These are: KVB 26900-8363-22 - Company Riverside Cement Company Monolith Portland Cement Company Southwestern Cement Company General Portland Cement Company General Portland Cement Company Calaveras Cement Division, Flintkote Kaiser Portland Cement Company Location Riverside Tehachapi· Victorville Mojave Colton San Andreas San Jose 3-23 KVB 26900-836 3.2 ASBESTOS 3.2.1 Production-Usage Summary California has some of the richest deposits of asbestos in the Nation ~ see Figure 3-4). These are occluded principally in serpentine rock str~1ta, which yield the commonest form of commercially usable asbestos, chrysotile. Production of asbestos in the State reached 78,390 tons in 1978, which is a major fraction of the National output. This represents a drop of about 40% from the 1966 annual production. This reduced demand reflects an on-going trend to replace asbestos with safer materials. The dynamics of the situation can be seen in the marked changes in the distribution of asbestos within the various product areas (see Table3-5 ). Five asbestos mines have operated in California, of which two now have been closed down. The remaining three mii:ies and the estimated annual production furnished by mine executives are tabulated as follow~-,;: Approx. Annual Asbestos Output, Company Mine Location 103 Tons Atlas Asbestos Co. Coalinga 15-20 Calaveras Asbestos Co. Copperopolis 32-36 Union Carbide Corp. King City 22-31 The Copperopolis mine is the largest asbestos producer in the U.S. All three facilities have extensive AFC systems that have been tested by EPA teams. All three facilities are regularly visited by APCD inspectors (as well as OSHA and Bureau of Mines representatives). Asbestos is used in over 4000 different applications. Plants handling and producing such materials must protect workers by reducing air levels below two fibers of asbestos per cc of air breathed. The National E~issions KVB 26900-8363-24 TABLE 3-5. NATIONAL MARKET AREAS FOR ASBESTOS: DEMAND CHANGES OVER TWO YEAR PERIOD ·:_.' Asbestos Use, :f, Product(s) Percent of Total 1976 1977 Asbestos Cement Pipe Flooring Products Friction Products Paper Roofing Products Asbestos Cement Sheet Packing & Gaskets Insulation Textiles Other 25 22 11 11 8 7 35 1 1 11 19 16 9 4 35 3 3 1 1 8 Source: U.S. Bureau of Mines., uuMineral Commodity Summaries 1977 and 1978" KVB 26900-8363-26 Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, (NESHAP -Code of Federal Regulation Part 40, Sec. 6122) requires that any vents from such works exhibit no visible emissions. Thus, industrial operations involving the conversion of asbestos into marketable products is under the control of specific State and Federal regulations, unlike other of the hazardous substances considered here. Activities involving asbestos released that are not controlled or may not be amenable to complete control (in accordance with NESHAP) are limited. In the latter category are mining (but not the associated milling) opera- tions. In the former are: (1) demolition of buildings containing fire proofing or acoustic and/or thermal insulation; (2) the periodic maintenance of industrial facilities incorporating such materials; (3) activities promoting erosion (natural or man-made) of asbestos-bearing open land structures; and (4) the disposal of asbestos-containing solid wastes at land fill sites. These categories were developed as a consensus of the views expressed by the following individuals contacted by the project: Dr. w. M. Nicholson, Director Environmental Health Laboratory Mt. Sinai Hospital, N.Y. Robert Fowler, Associate Director Western Institute of Occupational and Environmental Sciences, Inc. R. w. Mason, Chief Research & Quality Assurance Branch USEPA Region II, Edison, N.J. 3.2.2 Emission Factors A. Mining and Milling Operations-- Release of asbestos dust in mining and milling was largely associated with the latter activity. Figure 3-5 shows-the typical elements of the milling process. Under uncontrolled conditions, milling is estimated to release 100 lb asbestos for every ton of asbestos output. All other uncontrolled opera­ tions (mining, loading, hauling, unloading -or collectively, "mining") amounts to less than 10% of that release (Ref. 7). In reaction to economic incentives to reduce such losses and with the later institution of NESHAP, milling operations have come under more effective control, which is achievable considering the configuration and confinability of the process. 3-27 KVB 26900-836 The mining phases of asbestos production are not similarly amenable to control since many stages are carried out in the open. The EPA report cited above estimates emissions under 50% control conditions for all mining operations to be 5 lbs per ton of product. This would be equivalent to emissions in the amount of 196 tons per year based on the 1978 output from the three asbestos production facilities in the State. It would probably be much closer to the truth, however, to reckon that control is nearer 90%. This estimate would still imply asbestos emissions of 39 tons/year. Monitoring efforts in the vicinities of the asbestos mining and milling operations unfortunately tend to predate the upgrading of APC capabilities of the California asbestos mines. John (Ref. 8), however, has published fairly recent data for atmospheric levels near the Union Carbide asbestos mine/mill at King City. Asbestos concentrations ranging from 6,000 3 3 to 1,600,000 fi.bers/m downwind and 200 to 1,000 fibers/m upwind were measured. The maximum downwind value, which is equivalent to 1.6 fibers/cc, approaches the OSHA MAC to 2.0 fibers/cc/. The latter, however, is a time-weighted- average (twa) for an 8-hour work shift. The twa equivalent for the ambient release downwind of Union Carbide may have been considerably lower than 1.6 fibers/cc but then the duration of the release is typically over three shifts, 5 days per week. Additional testing at these sites is clearly suggested. The emission factors obtained from the EIS are shown in Table 3-6. I,_, It can be seen that if the ratio (49.3) of emissions for the King City/ Copperopolis operations proves valid, asbestos levels in the latter town could be quite high. It should be pointed out, however, that the data are expressed as particulate rather than asbestos release rates, the fractional amount of the latter in the former not being known. In the case of the Copperopolts situation, emissions are predominately from hard rock blasting. There the serpentine contains only a few percent asbestos such that the particulates could be predominately dusts from the host mineral. Geographic locations of the three asbestos mining and milling sites are shown in Figure 3-6 together with the associated emission factors from the EIS. KVB 26900-8363-29 TABLE 3-6. DUST EMISSIONS FROM THE ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION SUBSYSTEM FOR THREE ASBESTOS MINING AND MILLING FACILITIES Particulate Point Source Emissions, tons/yr Atlas Asbestos Co. Asbestos drier 20 Conveying & tailings handling 24 Milling & crushing 12 Calaveras Asbestos Co. Pit blasting 126 Ore crushing 19 Milling and grinding 1 Storage 2 Union Carbide Corp. Asbestos drying 3 KVB 26900-842 3-30 B. Random Uncontrolled Releases-- 1. Demolition of buildings--The release of asbestos from industrial and commercial buildings (family houses typically contain little asbestos) being razed depends on a number of factors, including of course the ~punt •',,' of asbestos containing materials used in the original construction. Since the machine-induced collapse of a structure is hardly a reproducible process, and other variables such as site, condition of insulation and weather condi­ tions will also have an effect on the amount of asbestos released, emission factors would be difficult to estimate. It is doubtful, in fact, whether there would be any point in attempting it. It would probably be far more cost­ effective to sample airborne asbestos from two or more demolitions, then design suitable control strategies if the magnitude of asbestos release does prove dangero~s-Techniques that could control asbestos releases from collapsing structures would include external water sprays, draping outside walls with plastic sheeting, and selectively saturating insulated areas with dilute wetting agents. 2. Maintenance and installation of insulated materials--Refineries, natural gas compression stations v chemical process plants, cientralized energy plants, shipyards, and many other facilities are continuously maintaining or installing fireproofing materials or thermal and even acoustical insulations. This entails handling of asbestos-containing materials through cutting, sawing, spraying (wet or dry) and various other mechanical operations. Based on comments offered by CALOSHA inspectors, such practices are now highly controlled. It is therefore unlikely that significant atmospheric releases can initiate from areas that are acceptable in terms of occupational hazards. 3. Erosion of serpentine deposits--There can be no question that very large quantities of asbestos become airborne due to wind erosion of the bearing serpentine deposits. Studies have been conducted to determin~ the compositions of windborne dusts impacting various type areas. An example of this is the work of Murchie, et al, (Ref. 9), of the University of California, Berkeley. They studied asbestos levels in the Clear Creek area, where extensive serpen­ tine deposits occur. KVB 26900-8363-32 \..- It is obvious that any sampling effort directed towards establishing emission factors for naturally occurring asbestos releases would leave no practical corollary in terms of fashioning a source control mechanism. If, however, dangerous levels of asbestos are transported into urban or even rural populated areas by prevailing winds, the people affected should be warned. The opportunity would at least then exist for some kind of self­ protection against such insalubrious conditions. This could range from staying indoors during dust storms to leaving the area permanently. Another phenomenon closely related to wind erosion is the release of asbestos dusts by recreational vehicles and even hikers traversing remote serpentine areas. Although such activities probably do not impact populated areas, the levels of asbestos inhaled by the recreationists themselves could be extremely high. 4. Solid waste disposal--The solid wastes produced during the manufacture and use of asbestos-containing products and the demolition of structures are typically buried at dumps. In California, these disposal sites are pre­ dominately land-filled so that emissions are much lower than for open (particularly burning) dumps. Emissions would. expectedly occur during actual dumping and waste burial. Regulation of land-fill operations is handled by the Solid Waste Management Board, the county solid waste enforcement agency, the State Water Resources Department, the Health Department (Hazardous Materials Section}, and CALOSHA. The net effect has been that asbestos--containing wastes must be wetted down and drummed before dumping is allowed. The drums are then immediately covered with earth. Class 2 sites may be used, although most asbestos wastes are going into Class 1 dumps. Asbestos releases from such operations are probably now quite minoro Co Utilization of Asbestos in Manufactured Products-- A number of use points exist where asbestos in refined or formed condition is used in the manufacture of asbestos-bearing products. A break­ down of the principal consumption areas is as follows: KVB 26900-842 3-33 Floor coverings Ready-mix insulation Fire-resistant cloth tape, rope and miscellaneous Asbestos cement piping Roofing products Filters, fibers, felt, and paper Filled rubbers, coatings, plastic resins Gaskets, packings, frictional shapes A list of the major users of asbestos in the State was prepared for the U.S. EPA in 1973. This list, although in obvious need of correction and updating, is included as Appendix A. All of these businesses would be ex­ pected to evince no visible asbestos emissions if compliant with regulations. The question then is what release rate of asbestos from an industrial complex would still furnish Ringelmann measurements of zero. In addition to the data shown in Table 3-6, the EIS provides emission factors for two of the largest asbestos processing pla.nts in the State. These are both Johns Manville operations; one is at Long Beach (asbestos-cement pipe) and the other at Stockton (transite and plastic pipe). The former is listed to have an annual particulate release of 1 ton/yr while the latter is rated at 1~; tons/yr. As in the case of mining operations, the fractiopal amount of this dust that is asbestos is uncertain. In any case, a range of dust releases from 0.2 to 4 lbs/hr from plants equipped with multiple exhaust ducts would seem consistent with an invisible atmospheric release. Dust rclca3c points are in the blending rooms where asbestos is mixed with lime, sand and other ingr•edients. The dry-basis asbestos content of this mix is about 15% • If the dust released contained this amount of asbestos, then the release would be 300 and 5700 lbs/yr for the Long Beach and Stockton plants respectively. In investigating the Johns-Manville releases, the South Coast AQMD and the San Joaquin county APCD were consulted. In the latter case, it was stated that no attempt baa been made to determine what fraction of the dust released from the Stockton plant (bag house) was actually asbestos. The SCAQMD had attempted to do this in the case of the Long Beach plant but the results 3-34 KVB 26900-836 3.3 BENZENE 3.3.1 Summary of Utilization and Releases California is a minor producer and user of benzene. Of the 11,,i4 billion lbs consumed in the U.S. in 1977, only 1.5% of this was produced in California. The consumption of benz,ene in the state about equalled production. Two refineries were responsible for this output, while three plants constituted the major consumption points. A large amount of the benzene produced was converted to cumene (a phenol intermediate) and detergent alkylate (dodecylbenzene). Some 22 million lbs were estimated to be exported. Solvent uses for benzene have diminished greatly because of hygienic concern. Apart from the benzene market itself, the chemical also occurs in gasoline, which poses the greatest emission problem. Another source of TABLE 3-7. ESTIMATED BENZENE EMISSIONS IN THE U.S. FROM ~ARIOUS SOURCES . . 6 IBenzene Emissions, 10 11:.<: yr PEDCO GCA Emission Source Estimate (ReL 11) Estimate (Ref.12) Gasoline Engines 443.6 909 Petrolewu Refineries 4 .. 1 58 Coke-Oven Operations 7.8 No Estimate Benzene-Based Syntheses 60.0 58 Storage and Distribution of 24.8 69 Gasoline & Benzene Solvent Operations Unknown 55 Other Miscellaneous 4.0 No Estimate TOTAL EMISSIONS 544.3 1,149 benzene emission is the coking oven, which points to the Kaiser steel mill in Fontana. Benzene releases from all sources are sho~NTI in Table 3-7. KVB 26900-836 3-36 Inver_tcries of emission from these and other sources have been estimated in two recent EPA reports. The data posited by PEDCO (Ref. 11) ._. and GCA corporation (Ref. 12) in their independent studies are compared in Table 3-7. While these data reflect obvious differences, the authors agree only too well that above 80% of the total benzene emissions derive from the automobile. \.... 3.3.2 Benzene Production and Major Uses A. Producers-- According to the Benzene Annual, the only producers of benzene in California are the ARCO refinery, Wilmington, and the Chevron U.S.A. refinery, El Segundo. Production for 1977 was listed at 87.5 million lbs at each, 6 which is well below capacity, particularly for Chevron (160 x 10 lbs/yr). With the exception of some 22 million lbs exported by ARCO, all of this production is consumed in California. No industrial benzene was produced in California from coal or coke retorts. Both the Chevron U.S.A., El Segundo, and ARCO, Carson, refineries produce benzene by the catalytic dehydrogenation of naphthenic stocks, followed by the refin.i,ng of the aromatic product. A simplified schematic of one version of this proce!ss is shown in Figure 3-7. By definition, naphthene is cycloparaffinic and because of comparative ease of formation, predominates in five-and-six-carbon rings. Dehydrogenation of cyclohexane produces benzene and three mols of hydrogen or the alkyl­ benzene corresponding to any alkylated cyclohexane starting form. The catalyst promoting this effect is platinum or an alloy thereof. At Chevron, platinum­ rhenium catalyst (Rheniforming process) is used while at the ARCO plant, a straight Platinum catalyst is employed. In the Rheniforrning process used at Chevron, El Segundo, the reformate is disti1led. Following the dehydration or reforming process the benzene­ rich cut is then extracted to feed back undesired naphthenic and paraffinic material acquired in the same boiling cut. Benzene is then stripped from the extraction solvent, the latter being recycled in the process. At Chevron, solvent refining involves the use of phenol, while at ARCO, the solvent is a mixture of glycols and water (Udex process). KVB 26900-836 3-37 ---- With the exception of benzene storage, which is done in floating roof tanks, emissions from the enclosed, benzene processes must occur through fugitive sources, such as valves, flanges, pump and compressor seals and related devices. B. Major Users-- The principal users of benzene in California are listed in Table 3-8. The benzene inputs are about stoichiometric with respect to the rated output capacities of the Chevron (El Segundo) and WITCO plants but well below capacity in the case of the Chevron-Richmond phenol/detergent alkylate operation. Chevron, Richmond, was contacted about this who pointed out that their benzene feedrate 6 for 1977 was 36,000 gals per day. This is equivalent to a usage rate of 96.3xl0 lbs/yr. Chevron, Richmond, also pointed out that all of its benzene feed is con­ verted to detergent alkylates, none being used for phenol synthesis as stated in Benzene Annual. Other consumers have been listed (Ref. 13) in the literature (together with benzene emission factors, in one cas·e) that do not input benzene at all. Ferro Corporation, Santa Fe Springs, produces phenol but from crude phenolic wastes, not benzene. Specialty Organics Co., Irwindale, separates dichloro­ benzene into its isomers but does not synthesize the mixture from benzene. 6Montrose Chemical Co., Torrance, purchases over 50 x 10 lbs of benzene per year but converts it to chlorobenzene in Henderson, NV. This material is then shipped to Los Angeles where it is converted to DDT (for export). The above information was obtained by telephoning various executives of the companies concerned. KVB 26900-836 3-39 TABLE 3-8. PRINCIPAL BENZENE CONSUMERS IN STATE OF CALIFORNIA -1977 DATA SOURCE: Benzene Annual Benzene End Product Company Consumed Supplier ·Pl,ant Capacity and Location 610 lbs/yr End Product (s) 610 lbs/yr Chevron U. S . A. , El Segundo 65.6 Internally Made Cumene 100 Chevron U. S. A. , 1Richmond t 21.9 36.5 Chevron, El Segundo ARCO, Wilmington Phenol Detergent 55 200 Witco, Carson 29.2 ARCO, Wilmington Detergent 55 * According to Chevron, these data are incorrect; see Section 3.3.2. 3.3.3 Coking Operations The thermal conversion of coal to coke expectedly releases large quantities of hydrocarbons. With appropriate equipment and process conditions 1· yields of light oils and tar (the "benzol condensate") can be recovered in commercial quantities. In steel production§ the coking oven design provides poor vapor containment. Emissions occur from various points during charging, pushing and quenching operations; from doorsduring the coking cycle; and from the waste-gas stack. The Kaiser Steel Company mill at Fontana is the only coal-coking operation in the State. This plant operates 7 coking batteries incorporating a total of 315 ovens having a coke production capacity of 1,547,000 3 tpy. The benzol condensate amounted to some 57xl0 lbs in 1977. The tar fraction is sold to Koppers Co., Fontana. The secondary light oil, rich in benzene, goes to Western Fuel Oil, San Pedro, where it is blended with fuel stocks. This information was supplied by a company executive at Kaiser. KVB 26900-8363-40 3.3.4 Petroleum Production, Storage & Marketing Two refineries were discussed earlier in the context of industrial benzene production. While benzene emissions must be associated with such operations, other refineries (including ones that do not produce gasoline) need also be considered. Benzene is a natural constituent of crude oil and persists in the refining processes. For example, Runion (Ref. 14)reports an average of 1.25 Vol.% benzene in three grades of Gulf Corporation gasolines obtained from six different refineries. Similarly, NIOSH (Ref. 15) tested several different brand gasolines of different grades and reported a range of benzene contents from 0.88 to 1.49 Vol.%. At the present time, CARB estimates that the average benzene level in all gasolines is between 1.24 and 2.5 Vol. %. This higher value is believed to reflect the current trend to increased aromaticity in gasoline production. This is required to compensate for government-directed decreased usage levels of tetraethyllead (TEL). Benzene emissions from a refinery include both process and non-process emissions. The former include those emanating from: (1) light and heavy naptha streams from the crude unit; (2) fluid catalytic cracking units; (3) hydro-cracking units; (4) gasoline mixing tanks; and (5) fugitive sources. Non-process emissions originate from wastewater treatment systems, heaters, boilers, and product storage tanks. In the case of refineries that produc~ benzene as well as gasoline, emissions of the former are bound tu increase as a result of storing the refined benzene itself. Finally, emissions of ber.zene are associated with the in-and-out flow of crude and product to and fiom the refineries. Radian estimated a total U.S. evaporative hydrocarbon emission 9 rate of 1.77 x 10 lbs/yr from crude oil (oil field) production and transporta­ I.... tion (Ref" 16) .. Transportation of gasoline (and industrial benzene) is also an obvious source for additional emissions. A complex system of pipelines, 3-41 KVB 26900-836 tank trucks, rail tankers, barges, and ocean tankers connects bulk terminals, bulk plants, service stations commercial yards, and trans-6 6shipment points. It is estimated (Ref. 11) that 3. 75 X 10 lbs/yr benzen~l_l' are emitted in the U.S. from gasoline transportation operations, and an 6additional 6.6 X 10 lbs/yr from the operation of service stations. 3.3.5 Automobile and Other Vehicular Traffic Hydrocarbon, including benzene, emission from gasoline engines (and even Diesel engines, but at lower levels) is a well studied and published subject and need not be reviewed here. In cars with and without catalytic converters, benzene appears to enrich in the exhausted hydrocarbons. Unfortunately, only one set of data is available (Ref. 171 in which the benzene contents of both the fuel and the exhaust hydro- carbons were determined. In this case, only one car not equipped with a catalytic converter was tested (with nine newer models). The benzene content of the unleaded fuel used in all was only 0.03 wt%. In any case, the results of the standard dynamometer testing showed that the average benzene/~HC ratio for the fuel Vs. th~t of the exhaust gas increased 84 times for the older car (1972 Chevrolet) and an average of 70 times for the. catalyst­ equipped cars. The latter group emitted about 40% on the average of the THC exhausted by the older car. This benzene enrichment effect is consistent with the refractory nature of benzene, but obviously cannot be extrapolated to fuels containing "normal" levels of benzene (l'\.,2 Vol.%). Data obtained by Olson Laboratories (Ref. 18) for three gasolines of graded aromaticity burned in six variously APC-equipped automobiles are * itemized in Table 3-9. Although only a PONA analysis was available for the gasolines used 1 it can be seen that the benzene content of the THC's emitted by cars burning a typically aromatic rich fuel averages about 5%. 3.3.6 Solvent Operations and Other Miscellaneous Sources of Benzene Emissions A. Solvent Uses-- SRI's Mara and Lee (Ref. 13) identified 13 types of operations which consumed benzene as a sol vent. This list was reduced to f i v,e, based on Class analysis for: paraffins, olefins, naphthenes, and aromatics.* KVB 26900-8363-·42 employee count, as representing the solvent sector of benzene users. These in­ dustries (the number of plants in California are shown in parentheses) are involved in the manufacture of the following items: Tires and Innertubcs (22) Rubber & Plastic Footware (3) Plastic Materials & Synthetics (51) Floor Coverings (62) The authors state that 32% of such operations, based on employee counts, are located in California and Georgia (146 and 270 plants total, respectively). Because of the declining usage of benzene in such applications, the SRI authors declined to estimate emission factors. .....,,B. Miscellaneous Other Sources-- Other sources of benzene emissions have been identified (Ref. 11). These include coal gasification, refuse incineration, forest and structural fires, and agricultural burning. The first two operations are not practiced in the State. Benzene emissions from uncontrolled fires have yet to be measured. Emissions from the burn-off of agricultural wastes have only been perfunctorily considered. The practice, however, is considerably restricted in the State. Burning of ligneous substances can be expected to produce benzene .. In studies sponsored by the CARB and conducted at UC Riverside (Ref. 19) 1• emissions were analyzed from the burning of the following eight crop wastes: barley, wheat, sorghum, almond, grape, corn, rice, and peach. The benzene content in the volatile hydrocarbons speciated in the flue of the portable incinerator ranged from 19 to 51% and averaged 33% for the eight types of crop-wastesw Because of the difference in the combustion effects involved, development of emission factors from these data that would be applicable to open-field burns would not be acceptable. 3-44 KVB 26900-836 3.3.7 Emission Factors Benzene Production and Major Uses-- 1. Benzene production--In the PEDCO study (Ref. 11),benzene emissions were derived from AP-42 data and estimated compositions of emitted vapors. Based on the degree of APC practiced, a weighted estimate of 0.759 lb/1000 bbl crude fed was derived. Fully controlled refineries were assigned a fac­ tor of o.415 lb/1000 bbl crude. This factor, however, is basically a gasoline refinery factor and does not take into account benzene production. It was, therefore, considered appropriate to add to the PEDCO estimate by \,... 3assuminq an additional benzene loss of 0.5 lb/10 gals benzene produced in the manufacture of that chemical. Benzene losses occurring during storage and handling of crude oil were excluded from refinery emissions and were treated as an isolated topic by the PEDCO authors. They used factors developed at Radian (Ref. lG) for total hydrocarbon releases involved in crude oil storage and working,proprr­ tioning these to benzene factors. These estimates in lbs of benzene emitted per 1000 bbls of crude input were 0.125 for storage and 0.071 for working losses. These factors were included in the estimates for total refinery benzene emissions given here. Emission factors for gasoline storage and withdrawal are also applied. -4 -6Based on PEDCO's estimates these were found to be 1.66 X 10 and 1.95 X 10 lb benzene per thousand gallons of gasoline, respectively. Standing and withdrawal losses of benzene from fixed-roof storage tankage were also derived. Based on the National usage of tanks .and assuming 30 days product residence time in tanks normally 75% full, an emission factor of 0.01 lb/day per 1000 gals of product was estimated. Withdrawal losses were estimated at 0.0074 lb/day per 1000 gals of benzene. ..... The above sets of factors were then applied to furnish the estimated emissions shown in Table 3-10 for the two Los Angeles refineries producing 6benzene (12 X 10 gals/yr each). These mass values are considerably lower than those that were calculated from the benzene emission factors that were KVB 26900-836 3-45 Considering their benzene consumption data, it appeared reasonable to assume full-capacity ope rat ion for Chevron,, El Segundo, and Witco In the case of Chevron, Richmond, it is possible that the plant is operating at well above (50-60% KVB estimate) its rated capacity. Not included in the Table 3-11 emission estimates were values for the loading, transit and off-loading for benzene. Benzene flow between Witco and ARCO is by pipeline. Chevron, El Segundo produces its own benzene used in cumene production and the benzene losses calculated (PEDCO emission factors) for the suppliers of and the Chevron plant at Richmond were too small to be noted. Comparing the Table 3-11 values with those reported by SRI (Ref-13) very close agreement is noted for the Chevron, El Segundo plant (24,255 vs. 24,500 lbs/yr). In the case of the other Chevron plant, SRI's estimates are about five times higher. Siting of benzene production and consuming plants is shown in Figure 3-8 together with estimated benzene emissions. B. Coking Operations-- Emission factors for benzene released during steel mill coking are hardly reliable. Based on European (USSR and Czechoslovakia) experience, the values clearly demand validation by domestic source testing. This need is particularly emphasized in considering the higher benzene release rates calculated for the Kaiser Steel mill at Fontana: ES'l'IMATED BENZENE EMISSION FROM KAISER STEEL YI.ILL, FO!lTANA Reference Plant Emission Factor, g/sec Benzene Emitted lbs/year Average Pr::DCO (Ref. 11) 4.4 307,740 SRI (Ref. 13) 2.0 139,048 } 223,400 The differences in the two emission factors largely result from the benzene content in the hydrocarbon effluents assigned by each group. SRI estimated 1.32% and PEDCO 2.23% as the benzene content for the hydrocarbons released. KVB 26900-836 3-48 c. Petroleum Production, Storage and Marketing-- 1. Crude oil operations--Excluding offshore production on Federal lease sites, 1978 production of crude in California is estimated by the California Division of Oil and Gas at 334 million bbls. This is based on a linear extrapolation of data for nine months of production. The total yield includes about 45 million bbls of off-shore production from state leased plots. Th:is fraction was retained for emission calculations while production of the Federal 6lease-holders (13.3 X 10 bbls) was excluded. This arbitrary distinction was based on the relative distances of the two types of operations with respect to shore line. Data obtained in oil fields in Monterey and Santa Cruz Counties (Ref. 21) indicated a net emission rate for crude production operations of 107 lbs hydrocarbons for every 1000 bbl of crude produced. Assuming, as PEDCO did, that these emissions contain 0.06 wt. % benzene (pro½ably overly conservative), the emission rate for benzene would be 0.064 lb/1000 ~bl crude. This would be increased to 0.164 when evaporation losses associated with crude transportation are factored in {Ref. 16). Based on the State's oil production for 1978, this would i~ply a release of only 54,776 l~s of benzene fro □ t)1e entire population of oil producing facilities in the State. Because of the dispersion factor, impact on adjacent urban areas would probably not be warranted. It would be 'i-Jell, however, to check the esti­ mated factors by conducting specific benzene measurements in selected fields. 2. Refinery operations--The inventory of gasoline refineries in the State includes the two refineries (Cl-:evron, El Segundo and ARCO, Carson) considered earlier which also produce industrial benzene, six petroleum plants that produce asphalt but not gasoline and 24 gasoline refineries. The asphalt plants are identified in Table 3-12. KVB 26900-836 3-50 ---------- *TABLE 3-12. PETROLEUM PLANTS PRODUCING ASPHALT (But Not Gasoline) Crude oil Input Capacity3Firm Location 10 bbls/day Road Oil Sales Bakersfield 1.6 Edgington Oil Co. Long Beach 29.0 Newhall Refining Co. Newhall 7.5 Golden Bear Division, Oildale 10.5 WITCO Chemical Corp. San Joaquin Refining Co. Oildale 17.0 Lunday-Thagard Oil Co. South Gate 5.0 3TOTAL 70.6 X 10 bbls/day· =-====== Source: Oil & Gas Journal Added to the input capacities of the gasoline-refining plants, asphalt pro­ ducers represent an additional 3.6% to the State's crude oil consumption. Although operations at asphalt plants are considerably different than at gasoline refineries, the small population of these plants did not warrant the development of type-specific emission factors. They are, therefore, treated as gasoline refineries. The benzene emission factors for refineries have actually been intro­ duced previously under the section dealing with benzene producers. Benzene * emission rates were based on both gasoline· operations and benzene production. Releases associated uniquely with the latter were isolated so that the balance of the emissions would be identified with normal gasoline refining. These emission rates are tabulated below again for convenience (Table 3-13). *See Table 3-10 KVB 26900-836 3-51 TABLE 3-13. ESTIMATED BENZENE EMISSION RATES FOR OIL REFINERIES Emission Rates, Source lbs.Benzene Crude Oil -3Storage 3 X 10 Working Loss 1.7 X 10-3 -3 3Combined 4.7 X 10 /10 gals crude -? 3Refinery Operations 1 X 10 ~/10 gals crude Gasoline -4Storage 1.66 X 10 -6Withdrawal 1.95 X 10 -4 3Combined 1.68 X 10 /10 qals qasoline ... -···-. ···--·· ·=================================== * Source: PEDCO (Ref. 11) The emission assignments for the California refineries are itemized on Table 3-14 and these data are mapped sectionally on Figure 3-9. Again, these values are considerably lower than the estimates offered by other workers (Refs. 13 & 16) who acknowledged a lack of test information on refinery emissions. Fortunately, on its survey of hydrocarbons in the South Coat Air Basin (Ref. 22), KVB was able to conduct an extensive hydro­ carbon survey at one gasoline refinery. This was the Douglas Oil Company facility in Paramount. Testing there was not entirely comprehensive but extensive enough to permit fairly reliable extrapolations. Results of the sampling program are tabulated in Appendix B. Points sampled included hydrocarbon rr,easure- ments of the following: Stack Emissions Heaters Boilers Flaring Asphalt Blowing scor.r Incinerator KVB 26900-836 3-52 f ( ( ( -( ( ( ( ( ( TABLE 3-14. ESTIM1\TED BENZENE EMISSIONS FROM GASOLINE REFINERIES AND ASPHALT PLANTS OPERATING IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Crude Oil Gasoline Prod. Benzene Emissior.1, Operating c1pacity, sapacity, 10 bbl/day 310 lbs/yr ComE_anx_ Location 10 bbl/day J\RCO C:irson 185 87.4 See Fig. 3-8 Beacon Oil Co. Hanford 12.4 2.6 2.8 Champlin Petroleum Co. Wilmington 30.7 3.0 6.9 Chevron U.S.A. Bakersfield 26.0 2.6 5.9 Chevron U.S.A. El Segundo 230 125.4 See Fig. 3-8 w I Chevron U.S.A. Richmond 338 145.8 '76.4 U1 w Douglas Oil Co. Paramount 46.5 8.5 10.5 Edgington Oil Co. Long Beach 29.0 0 6.5 Exxon Co., U.S.A. Benicia 88.0 73.8 20.0 Fletcher Oil & Ref.Co. Carson 20.0 4.2 4.5 Golden Bear Div,WITCO Oildale 10.5 0 2.4 Gulf Oil Corp. Santa Fe Springs 51.5 28.5 11. 7 Kern County Refinery Bakersfield 15.9 2.6 3.6 Lion Oil Co. Avon 126 74.3 28.5 Lion Oil Co. Bakersfield 40.0 33.2 9.1 Lunday-Thagard Oil Co. South Gate 5.0 0 1.1 l-bbil Oil Co. Torrance 123 88.4 50.8 l-bhawk Petroleum Corp. Bakersfield 22.1 2.2 5.0 Newhall Refining Co. Newhall 7.5 o 1.7 ·----------------- KVB 26900-836 TABLE 3-14 (Continued) Crude Oil Gasoline Prod. Benzene Emissions, Operating c1racity, 35apacity, 10· bbl/day 10 lbs/yr Company Location 10 bbl/daJ'. Pacific Refining Co. Hercules 53.3 17.7 12.0 Powerine Oil Co. Santa Fe Springs 44.1 13.4 9.9 Road Oil Sales Bakersfield 1.E, 0 0.4 San Joaquin Refining Co. Oildale 17.0 0 3.8 Shell Oil Co. Martinez 87.4 43.3 19.7 Shell Oil Co. Wilmington 90.0 45.0 20.4 w Sunland Refining Bakersfield 15.0 1.0 3.4 I U1 ,!:::,, Texaco, Inc. Wilmington 62.5 74.4 14.2 USA Petrochem Corp. Ventura 15,0 5.0 3.4 Union Oil Co. of Calif. Arroyo Grande 41.0 4.2 9.2 Union Oil Co. of Calif. Rodeo 70.0 51.0 15.9 Union Oil Co. of Calif. Wilmington 108 79.5 24. 5 West Coast Oil Co. Bakersfield 16.0 2.0 3.6 TOTAL 1957.4 TTiT9.o 387.8 KVB 26900-836 ViJ.lves, Flange & Pump Inventory Reformer Unit Naptha Unit Crude Unit Other Fugitive Emissions Reformer Unit Naphtha Unit Crude Units Asphalt Plant Oil-Water Separators Cooling Towers Tank Storage & Transfer Crude Storage Gasoline Storage Other Petroleum Storage Gasoline Transfer Other Petroleum Transfer Based on the mass of data obtained, an emission factor (24 hr average) 6of 162 lb/hr or 1.4 X 10 lb/yr was derived. Applying the benzene concentra- tion factor used by PEDC0(0.6 wt%*), which is slightly higher than SRI 0 s (0.5 wt.%), benzene emission of 8,514 lbs/yr is obtained. The value shown in Table 3-14 for Douglas is 10,500 lbs/yr. Thus, the use of the PEDCO emission factor estimates, as amended here, appears to be justified. 3. Gasoline distribution and rnarketing--The process of moving gasoline and other petroleum products to user networks, including the extensive system of State service stations, occasions hydrocarbon and thus, benzene, emissions. Nationally, the benzene emissions from distributional operations (including marinas) is estimated at 3.8 million lbs annually. Losses at service stations and commercial fleet fueling facilities is estimated at an additional 14.6 million lbs. The much larger loss at service stations includes not only loading and refueling but tank vent losses and spillage. *Notto be confused with value (0.06 wt%) given on Paqe 3-50, which is for oil field emissions. KVB 26900-836 3-56 6Thus, an estimatE:d 18.4 x· 10 lbs benzene is dispersed to the atmosphere in what are largely urban areas. Based on 1977-1978 FY gasoline consumpticn in California (11.7 of the 100 billion gals consumed nationally), 62.2 X 10 lbs of this benzene was vented in the State. This, however, does not include losses occurring after vehicles are filled and back on the street. The distribution of these vapor rel~ases follow trucking lines, but are predominately patterned by the 16,135 (as of January 1979) service stations in the State. This pattern can be assumed to fit reasonably well with the human population distribution within the State. This is shown in Figure 1-2. D. Automobile and Other Vehicular Traffic-- Estimates derived for benzene emissions from vehicular operations (Refs. 11 & 13) show this to be the greatest source of all those existing. The assumed average release rates for benzene varied considerably, SRI using a release rate about 10 times higher than the composited value adopted by PEDCO. Tl:e latter authors used test-stand measurements (Ref. 18) that included the specific determination of benzene in the exhaust stream. Thus, their estimates appear better supported and were therefore used. Based on a 1976 automobile population, PEDCO calculated total benzene . 6emissions from gasoline engine exhaust (373.5 x 10 lbs/yr) and car-tank 6 6 6evaporation (70.1 x 10 lbs/yr) at 443.6 x 10 lbs/yr. An additional 3.7 x 10 lbs were imputed to Diesel-engine traffic. This emission burden would be ex­ pected to decline over the past few years with the enrichment of the vehicular population with more catalyst-cars. Yet PEDCO did not take into account the present trend to use leaded gas in catalyst cars. This is now variously esti­ mated by the media to have rendered from 15 to 35% of such rolling stock worse emitters than the precatalyst vehicles. In view of this, the estimated National vehicular benzene emission burden for 1976 was assumed to have remained un­ changed for this study. KVB 26900-836 3-57 Using California's fraction (11. 7 90) of the National gasoline consumption rate, gasoline and Diesel engine vehicular emissions of benzene were thus estimated 6 at 52 X 10 lbs/yr or about 2.9 lbs/yr per vehicle. Dissemination of this released benzene is a complex traffic function which involves standing (tank evaporation) as well as movement. For 1978, 9the DMV reports (Ref-23) 80.7 X 10 vehicle miles driven on the State highway 9 . . . . system and 69.6 X 10 miles on road beds administered by local State Jur1_s- dictions. The traffic intensity for the State system (for 1977) is shown on Figure 1-2. This mapping includes only 54% of traffic flow and must be further increased by the other 46% of the traffic miles travelled on municipal and county road beds and parking areas. The city and county roads are of course predominately in urban locations. E. Solvent Operations and Other Miscellaneous Sources of Benzene Emissions-- In a recent EPA report (Ref-24), the minor uses of benzene were considered. The estimated amounts of benzene consumed and released in the U.S. for such applications are shown in Table 3-15. The dramatic drop in consumption between 1976 and 1978 is attributed to the imposition of the OSHA Emergency Benzene Standard of May 1977. The trend is continuing towards elimination of benzene in those applications that are known to still involve its us,e. Of the remaining minor users of benzene, only 2% of this consumption is reported to occur in the Pacific 1 Mountain 1 South Atlantic and New England States. This corresponds to 418y362 lbs annually consumed and an associable emission of benzene of 17,840 lbs/yr for this large area (Ref. 24). Because of this comparatively small and widely distributed release, a survey was considered unwarranted. Nonetheless, one of t~e authors of the EPA report cited above was contacted. Mr. Marcus Sittenfield acknowledged that any benzene still used in California for solvent and other minor applic0tions would have to be minuscule. KVB 26900-8363-58 •• TABLE 3-15. CONSUMPTION VERSUS ENVIRONMENTAL LOSS IN THE U.S. FOR BENZENE IN SOLVENT AND OTHER MINOR USES (1,000 GAL} SOURCE: REF. 24 Estimated Estimated Consumption Area Consumption Environmental Loss ·.._ A. B. 1. 2. 3. 1976 Chemicals Production General Organic Synthesis 2,962 Pharmaceutical Synthesis 650 Small Volume Chemicals Aluminum Alkyls 312 Alcohols 465 Bisphenol-A*• 0 Ethyl Cellulose 0 Formulated Industrial & Consumer Products Ad}:)esives Rubber Based Adhesives 0 Tire Manufacture 0 Tire Retreading 0 Industrial Rubber 0 Products Tire Patch Repair Kits 100 Miscellaneous Automotive 0 Shoe 0 Paints and Allied Produ~ts Paints & Coating 0 Removers 300 to 500 1978 2,213 220 312 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 4,789 TO 4 98 2,845 1976 691 200 312 225 100 300 to 500 1978 309 66 312 55 0 150 1,828 898 To *Use in 1976 was 2,990,000 gallons **Estimated amount in product made prior to May 1977 and sold in 1978 KVB 26900-8363-59 3.3.8 Ambient Benzene Levels Benzene has been measured in the ambient air of California, all in the southern portion of the State, on a nwnber of studies (Refs. 25-29). The results obtained are shown in Table 3-16. After comparison with ambient data obtained for other volatile organics studied on this program, it will be seen that benzene is present at considerably higher levels. This is particularly true of the stations in the highly urbanized areas of the SCAB. TABLE 3-16. BENZENE IN THE AMBIENT AIR OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA Benzene Level, ppb Location Average Maximum Reference Azusa 10 18 · 25 Azusa 3.3 11 29 Banning 2.3 11 25 Camarillo 0.6 1. 9 29 Death Valley < 0.5 < 0.5 29 Downey 2.6 4.8 29 El Monte 11 19 25 Long Beach 7.3 13 25 Los Angeles 10 21 25 Los Angeles 15 57 26 Los lmgeles 40 60 27 Palm Springs 2.1 10 25 Redlands 3., 5 12 25 San Luis Obispo < 0.5 < 0.5 29 San Nicholas IS. < 0.5 < 0.5 29 Torrance 4.1 (One Sample) 28 Upland 7.5 18 25 Source: Refs. 25-29. KVB 26900-836 3-GO 3.4 CADMIUM 3.4.1 Summary of Utilization and Releases In 1970, according to the Bureau of Mines, California ranked 18th of the 23 zinc-ore producing states in the United States. Lead-zinc, zinc-lead, and lead ores occur in the Eastern border of California, ranging south from Mono County through the Eureka and Death Valleys into northeast Mojave. Such ores are the major source of cadmium, most of which is recovered from dusts or precipitates collected at zinc production plants. Some cadmium is also recovered from lead smelters and waste recovery oper­ ations {e.g., involving spent nickel cadmium batteries). Primary zinc smelting, which is not practiced within the State, ac­ counts for the greatest airborne cadmium releases. Goldberg (Ref. 30) also noted that mining operations do not invol~e airborne cadmium releases. He did suspect secondary zinc and copper smelters of emitting cadmium fumes. Such operations are basically recycling processes, working scrap of the metal or alloy of interest. Because of the nature of the feedstock (clean scrap), cadmium emission factors (particularly in the case of copper smelters) should be low. Goldberg, however, rates the cadmium releases from secondary zinc and copper smelters at about one-tenth that of the primary zinc smelter. Utilization of cadmium in the State is fairly prevalent and involves electroplating, cadmium-pigmented paint manufacture and use, cadmium stabil­ ized plastics production, Ni-Cd battery assembly, and such miscellaneous uses as in alloying, nuclear engineering applications, and in various elec­ tronic devices (e.g., solar cells). Air release from all of these cadmium­ consuming activities is considered to be negligible (Ref. 31 and 32). Significant cadmium emission sources are actually not involved with the cadmium market. Refuse and sludge incineration, neither of which is prac­ ticed to any extent in California, is the second largest source of cadmium ....., release according to Yost (Ref. 31). He estimates that primary smelters and refuse incinerators account for over 96% of the airborne cadmium released in the United States. 3-61 'Thus, California's principal concern is with the minor ( in the National context) remaining cadmium source-types, two of which are indus­ trial in nature: steelmaking and coal-based processes. Another area is the emission of cadmium from automobiles. This particular emission effect results from the wear of automobile tires and the exhaust of lube oil resi­ dues. Cadmium occurs in the former as a rubber additive and in the latter as a natural constituent. ,i, 3.4.2 Steel Production 'The production of steel is associated with cadmium releases through two pathways: (1) coke production; and (2) use of scrap containing pieces that are cadmium-plated. Thus, in considering steel manufacture, cold rol­ ling operations (U.S. Steel, Pittsburg) and certain types of specialty steel production that do not utilize scrap or c9ke are not of concern. In California, only one integrated ·...teel mill (ore to finished steel products) exists: the Kaiser Steel facility at Fontana. This plant is responsible for about two-thirds of the steel made in the State, pro­ ducing just under two million tons last year. This facility produces its own coke on-site, operating 315 ovens in seven batteries. Five other mills are operated in the State that input scrap and pig iron. These secondary steel mills are itemized as follows: Approximate •'"""" Company Location Output (1978) 10 3 Tons Bethlehem Steel Vernon 400 u. s. Steel Torrance 100 Soule Steel Carson llO A..meron Etiwanda 300 ,Judson Steel Emeryville 90 *Much of the information in this subsection was introduced in Section 3.1, q.v. for references, etc. 3-62 - One mill, the Pacific States Steel Company's Union City Plant, was shut down last November. Reactivation is not anticipated. . * 3.4.3 Coal Consumption The three identified types of coal-consuming processes operating within the State are: (1) coke-forming; (2) Portland Cement production; and (3) steam generation. A. Coke-forming-- The Kaiser Steel plant in Fontana is the only known coal-coking operation within the State. Annual coal consumption, based on coke feed rate, should be in excess of two million tons. The rated coal capacity is 2,336,000 tons. Because of the relatively low boiling point of cadmium, most of this metal in the feed coal is volatilized o,ff during coking, such that the steel furnaces themselves do not emit much of the metal unless scrap containing cadmium plate is used. Steelrnakers try to avoid the inclusion of cadmium plate in feed scrap since it deteriorates the quality of the melts produced. B. Portland Cement Production-- Coal and coke are used to produce the hot gas feed for the production of lime in counter-current rotary kilns. A number of such facilities were identified, including the following larger ones: Riverside Cement Company, Riverside Monolith Portland Cement Company, Tehachapi Southwestern Cement Company, Victorville General Portland Cement Company, Mojave and Colton Calaveras Cement Division, Flintkote, San Andreas Kaiser Portland Cement Company, San Jose Coal/coke consumption data were not available, although the use of 100,000 tpy total was specified in one case as being typical. In all of the works contacted, efficient air cleaning systems were described. These typically involved bag-houses for the last-stage of exhaust cleaning, al­ though an electrostatic precipitator was employed in at least one kiln. * See previous footnote 3-63 C. Steam Generation-- The only coal-fired steam generators operating within the State of California are in Trana. These two boilers are rated at GOgjOOO lbs/hr steam production each and are at the Kerr-McGee Chemical Company facility. Feed is New Mexican coal and petroleum-derived coke produced in California. The generators are equipped with an electrostatic precipitator (98.~~i efficient). The cleaned E.P. output, however, is sent through liquid scrubbers to extract co which is used to carbonate brine and thus promote yields of the2 end product, soda ash. The co removal also results in an SOX removal that is2 98% efficient. 3.4.4 Automobile Emissions According to the Department of Motor Vehicles, the 1978 population of vehicles utilizing the roads in California was: Vehicle Type Quantity Passenger Cars 12,219,230 Trucks 3,012,150 Motorcycles 672,162 Trailers 2,080,746 17,984,288 This rolling stock consumed over 11 billion gallons of gasoline in 1978 and in the neighborhood of 400 million quarts of lube oil. The estimated tire rubber abraded away by this California vehicle inventory is 54,000 tons per year (based on Ref. 33). While gasoline contains only traces of cadmium, it is present in various natural amounts in petroleum-derived lube oils. Cadmium soaDs (usuallv stearates) ctre often used in tire rubber recipes. Cadmium release mechanism has been speculated (Ref. 33). Lube oil cadmium emission probably occurs in the combustion chamber of the engine. The formed oxidation products of organic cadmium then exit through the exhaust system. Tire rubber attrition is probably a more complicated process but apparently involves the generation of fine particulate matter and some vapor. Williams and Cadle (Ref. 33) found that between 1 to 20% of the wear-loss dispersed in the atmosphere, while the balance largely settled near the roadbed. Harrison and Winchester (Ref. 34) implicate the automobile (including its gasoline combustion products) for some contribution to the airborne cadmium found in urban areas. KVB 26900-8363-64 3.4.5 Secondary Zinc Smelters Aside from zinc slab melters/casters, which are not considered to be cadmium emitters (Ref. 26), only three secondary zinc smelters operate in the State. These were identified by the Bureau of Mines as: ..__ Aetna Metals Company, City of Industry . Pacific Smelting & Refining Company, Torrance . ASARCO* Federated Metals Division, San Francisco Such facilities rework zinc scrap in sweat furnaces to produce ingot metal (sows). After chemical analysis, the sows are remelted and realloyed to specifications. Unlike primary zinc smelters which work ore, no cadmium dust is produced and collected. Because of the prior removal of cadmium from marketed zinc, rework of scrap in secondary zinc smelters is not likely to occasion air releases of cadmium that approach those produced in zinc ore roasting, sintering and smelting (Ref. 31). 3.4.6 Secondary Copper and Copper Alloy Smelters There are no primary copper (ore) smelters located in the State of California, according to the Bureau of Mines. Facilities that melt scrap or prepare alloys from scrap and/or pure ingot metals are few in number. The possibility of cadmium releases from these plants would have.to be considered on a case by case basis. 3.4.7 Cadmium Emission Factors A. Steel Production-- 1. Integrated steel plant--The cadmium emission factor for the Kaiser inte­ grated steel mill at Fontana is estimated at 0.2 g/sec or 7.0 metric tons cadmium/yr. This is derived from Yost's estimate (Ref. 35) for all steel mills of 266 metric tons cadmium/yr. Kaiser's contribution was factored from this on the * American Smelting and Refining Co. KVB 26900-836 3-65 6 6 basis of rated coal capacity (2.336 x 10 tons/yr vs. 97.298 x 10 tons/yr for all U.S. Steel plants). It should be recognized that variations of con­ siderable degree exist in the coal ash and iron ore cadmium content, the manu­ facturing processes and feed compositions employed, and in the type of APC 1equipment typically in place throughout our Nation's steel mills. These factors will significantly influence cadmium emissions. The cadmium release estimated for Kaiser, Fontana, represents the potentially highest rate identified for that metal on this study. It should be noted also that the atmospheric cadmium concentrations for the nearby City of San Bernardino were the highest of any recorded in California by the National Air Sampling Network (NASN). The data cited are for 1973 in which 3 year average cadmium levels of 0.013 pg/m were.measured. This is over twice 3the average (0.006 µg/m ) for the 15 other California cities monitored. 2. Secondary steel mills--Data on the release of cadmium from mills working scrap with pig iron are limited. Yost's (Ref. 35) values estimated for controlled and uncontrolled furnaces are 0.05 and 2.62 g, respectively, per ton of steel produced. This assumes an APC efficiency of 98%. The five mills in California are all equipped with AFC systems, bag houses in most cases (U.S. Steel 1, Torrance, employs an E,. P.) . It can be assumed that cleaning efficiency is 98% or better. Thus, using Yost's release factors for controlled mills and factoring in production data, the following releases (Table 3-17) are estimated: TABLE 3-17. ESTIMATED CADMIUM RELEASE RATES FOR SECONDARY STEEL MILLS IN CALIFORNIA Estimated Cadmium Company/Location Release Rate, lbs/yr Bethlehem Steel, Vernon 45 U.S. Steel, Torrance 11 Soule Steel, Carson 12 Ameron, Etiwanda 33 Judson Steel, Emeryville 10 KVB 26900-836 3-66 3. Geographic distribution of California steel mills and associated cadmium release estimates--Figure 3-10 sites the steel mills in Cali­ fornia and the estimated emission rates calculated for each. B. Coal Consumption-- 1. Coke forming--See integrated steel plant. 2. Portland cement production--Cadmium (and arsenic) release in calcining is not only controlled by the APC equipment installed but by the nature of the process itself. Countercurrent flow of the dehydrating cement powder and coal/coke combustion gases promotes the capture of cadmium-containing particulates and condensation of cadmium vapor on elutriated fines in the colder (cement input) sections of the kiln. For the above reasons, an insignificant emission of cadmium from cement kilns is probably the case. 3. Steam generation--The two Kerr-McGee coal/coke-fired boilers at Trona are rated at 98% efficient for so removal. This stage, which is actually a2 critical step in the soda ash production scheme and is not intended for APC per se, follows an E.P. rated at 98.5% efficiency. As in the case of arsenic, it is therefore believed that cadmium release is insignificant (see Section 3.1). c. Automobile Emissions-- Subramani (Ref. 31) estimates that the loss of particulate tire matter from t_he average automobile is 0. 918 lb/1000 miles of travel. Assuming a conservative mileage of 10 miles/gal, tire-wear loss would be 54,000 tons in 91978, based on the 11.8 x 10 gals consumed in the State from July 1977 to June 1978. Goeller et al (Ref. 37) estimated the national emissions of 3cadmium from tire-wear and lube oil to be 12.8 x 10 lbs/yr. Assuming (conservatively) that California contributed 10% of this, and correcting for the ensuing increase in gasoline consumption (13.5%), roadbed cadmium ,_ 3emissions would now be about 1.5 x 10 lbs/yr. KVB 26900-836 3-67 Judson St,eel', Emeryville Vernon -...... Distribution of this cadmium tends to concentrate about the roadbed itself. Somewhere between 80 to 99% of it is particulate and this fraction probably incorporates all or most of the released cadmium (Ref. 33). D. Secondary Smelters-- Secondary Smelters--Unlike primary zinc smelters and secondary1. copper smelters, the secondary zinc smelter has apparently not been characterized for cadmium emissions. Because of the primary process from which it was formed, zinc scrap, the feed for the secondary smelter should be low in cadmium content. Furthermore, the nature of the primary process is far more con- ducive to cadmium release than is the secondary process. Thus, lacking any survey data or related estimates, the cadmium emission factor*for the scrap steel/pig iron mill was assumed to apply. This was arbitrarily increased by a factor of twenty and was multiplied by pro­ duction figures. The latter were rough approximations furnished by a technical manager of one of the smelters. The resulting releases computed, which proved quite small, are shown in Table 3-18. TABLE 3-18. ESTIMATED CADMIUM EMISSION RATES FOR SECONDARY ZINC SMELTERS Estimated Cadmium Emission Mill/Location Rate, Lbs/yr Aetna Metals, City of Industry 200 Pacific Smelting Torrance & Refining Co., 300 ·.._ n~n~rn FPdPr~~Pd San Francisco Metals Division: 60 2. Secondary copper smelters--The Bureau of Mines identifies four secondary smelters that process scrap copper and copper alloys in the State. They are: * 0.05 lb per ton of metal produced (See Sec. 3.4.7.A.2) KVB 26900-836 3-69 Federated Metals Division, ASARCO, Inc., San Francisco H. Kramer &c Company, El Segundo Pacific Trading Corporation, Carson Weiner Metals Division, Weiner Steel Corporation, Paramount Factors have not been derived for cadmium emissions, although Goldberg (Ref. 30) estimates that, nationally, such installations release as much as 70 tons per year of cadmium. This would suggest fairly large releases for the four smelters itemized. All, however, operate APC systems and it is doubtful that releases exceeding 10% of what would be estimated from Goldberg 0 s data for secondary smelters would be likely. This should be verified, of course, by actual testing on-site. For the purposes of this report, it was assumed that the output of California's secondary copper metal/ alloy smelters would be 10% of the National product, which is undoubtedly an overcredit. Then, using Goldbergns factor and applying a 90% reduction for APC benefits, an emission of 1,400 lbs cadmium per year was estimated. Since the specific production figures for the four smelters could not be obtained, the release was equally divided. From the comments offered by their representa­ tives, it is believed that ASARCO and Kramer merit larger fractions. Geographic distribution of cadmium emissions from nonferrous secondary smel ters--The potential release points of cadrnitnn from secondary zinc and copper metal/alloy smelters is shown on Figure 3-11. ·KVB 26900-836 3-70 3.5 CARBON TETRACHLORIDE 3.5.1 Summary of Production and Usage A. Production-- The role of carbon tetrachloride (CT) as an industrial chemical has been diminishing. Following the announcement of its suspected carcinogenicity in 1974, use of the material in solvent and related applications particularly declined. The surviving and principal use of CT is for conversion to trichlorofluorornethane and dichlorodifluorornethane ( fluorocarbon -11 and -12, respectively). These materials have been used primarily as aersol propellants, which usage now has given way to LPG mixtures that are deemed environmentally more acceptable. National CT production was 770 million lbs in 1978, a drop of 34% from the 1974 peak. Annual CT production is expected to~rop further to 500 million lbs by 1982, according to the Chemical Marketing Reporter (April lOr 1978). ~uPont has closed its Freon plant in East Chicago; Union Carbide stopped all fluorocarbon production by shutting down its plant at Institute, West Virginia; Stauffer ceased CT production at its Niagara Falls facility; and FMC expects to discontinue CT manufacture at its Charleston, West Virginia plant by the end of this year. The only CT made in California is by Dow Chemical Co. at its Pittsburg plant on the San Joaquin River. Capacity is 80 million lbs/yr. Production varies considerably, however, since Dow depends on sales to the nearby Du Pont freon plant at Antioch I which also receives CT from du Pont 1• Corpus Christie, TX. Fluctuations in CT demand are compensated for by Dow by varying the output of perchloroethylene, which is a coproduct in the synthesis, the comparative yield of which can be varied by altering the feed stock composition. All of Dow's CT output is used as intermediate in fluorocarbon syntheses. The above information was furnished by Dowus Mr. Bryant Fischback who was a member of the Panel of Experts convened for this program by SAI. According to Dow's Daniel (Ref. 38h CT and perc are produced in equirnolar amounts by the chlorination of methane at 550 to 650 °C without need 26900-836 3-72 of a catalyst: CH + Cl .., CC1 + c c1 + HCl4 2 4 2 4 (Methane) (Chlorine (CT) (Pere) + excess Cl 2 Ethylene can be substituted for methane or combined with it to increase the yield of perc with respect to CT or, by eliminating methane produce no CT at all. The process flow described by Deshon of Dow (Ref. 39) is shown in Figure 3-12. The reaction is exothermic and so rapid that undesired products will form unless heat is absorbed in the reactors. This is done by feeding back through the evaporator cooler vapors of the halocarbon products along with recycled (excess) chlorine and unreacted ~ydrocarbon feed. Hot gases leaving the reactor are similarly cooled by contacting them with liquid product in the quench column. The condensate from the quench tower is sent on to the fractionation column while the vapors are passed through the condenser system to furnish the recycle liquid for the quench tower and the evaporator supplying cooling vapor to the reactor. Distillation cuts of CT and perc are further purified to remove traces of chlorine and acid. The products are then held in check tanks until passed by QC for removal to regular storage. Being an entirely closed system, volatile losses are likely to occur at pump seals, valves, flanges, and the vents of the check tanks and dis­ tillation column. External to the process, additional losses can be expected at the storage tank and in handling the materials for shipment. B. Usage-- 1. Fluorocarbon synthesis--The du Pont Antioch Works was consulted as to CT usage and emissions in the production of Freons 11 and 12. They advised by letter that the CT consumption at Antioch was 50.2 million lbs during 1978. This value proved to be a fair validation of the KVB estimate of 60 million lb which was developed from an assumptive scenario for use had not du Pont been so cooperative. KVB 26900-836 3-73 - Liquid CT and Pere CT, Pere etc. vapors Condensor Cooling quench column crude stream containing CT and Pere Cl 2 Evaporator Distillation _____.Other chlorinated hydrocarbons column(including Pere) CT ~....__s_t_o_r_a_g_e__ COMPRESSOR HYDROGEN DISTILLATION CHLORIDE ~ Freon Hydrogen ABSORBERCOLUMN The mixture of F-11 and F-12 is then compressed and passed through two condensation stages. The first removes liquid F-11, passing off F-12 vapor for final drying and condensation. The F-11 is vaporized in the last distilla­ tion stage, any condensate (predominately CT) being recycled back to the reactor. Because the process largely converts a bulk of the feed CT in the first stage of this closed process, release of CT from the system will be restricted to the input piping. External to the process, storage and handling of CT would represent the most likely points for atmospheric release of CT. 2. Other uses of CT--In other uses of CT, agricultural fumigation opera­ tions consumed 6,802 lbs in 1977 according to the Pesticide Usage Reports. Most (68\) of that amount was reported by the Food and Agriculture Division as controlled by "other agencies". These were primarily in San Francisco and Alameda Counties. This indicates probable use in grain ships and elevators, the principal use-points for CT in agricultural operations. In any case, ....... the total amount was quite small and does not warrant further attention. Other CT uses in California could not be identified. With one ex­ ception, none of the manufacturers of CT acknowledged sales of the chemical ......, in California for other than use as a flurocarbon synthetic-intennediate. The one exception was Vulcan Materials Co. who declined to divulge any CT marketing information that "would be available to public scrutiny". This also applied to the three other halocarbons (chloroform, ethylene dichloride, and perchloro­ ehylene) Vulcan manufactures that were also studied on this program. C. Ambient CT Levels-- The many atmospheric values obtained for this pollutant (predominately in the Los Angeles Basin) show rather low levels. Pellizzari (Ref. 28) found 3 a ::hot spot;; concentration of 38 µgjm CT at ground level in the city ot Torrance. The sampling point was in the vicinity of the Montrose Chemical Co. pesticide plant and within a two mile radius of the Mobil Oil Refinery, a PPG Industries paint factory, and a Dow Chemical Co. plant. The CT level at ....., this "hot spot" can be compared with the National Academy of Sciences value 3(0.82µg/m) for world background, which was derived from tropospheric CT data reported by various scientists (Ref. 34). The Torrance level can also be 3compared with the OSHA MAC (65 mg/rn ,8 hr twa), three orders of magnitude higher. KVB 26900-8363-77 3.5.2 Emission Factors A. Production Losses-- The amount of carbon tetrachloride lost to the atmosphere during synthesis is estimated at 1.6 wt % by the National Academy of Sciences (Ref. 41). Thus, using that fractional loss and assuming production at 25% 6of capacity, the Dow plant could be responsible for a release of 0.32 x 10 lbs/yr (4.75 g/sec). These losses would occur during production itself, storage of the output, and shipping of material. This same plant also manufacturers perchloroethylene (see Section 3.10). 6Production of this solvent {22xl0 lbs/yr) is estimated to be about the same as 6has been assumed here for CT (20xl0 lbs/yr) .. Using the release factor (Ref. 6 7) estimated by a different source, the total plant emissions of perchloroethylene turn out to be about one seventh those of CT. The latter has a considerably lower boiling point (75 °C vs. 121 °C) than perchloroethylene, but it is doubtful that this property would account for such a large difference in the losses of the two compounds. This matter will best be clarified through source testing. Because Dow did not wish to comment on perchloroethylene release estimates (see Section 3.10.5.A) made by others, they were not consulted in the CT emission matter. B. Conversion Losses-- Carbon tetrachloride loss during conversion to fluorocarbons is estimated estimated at 3 wt % by A. D. Little, Inc. (Ref. 42). Monsanto put the factor at 1.7 wt % (Ref. 41). On the basis of other estimates (Ref. 44-46), the NAS estimated (Ref. 41) atmospheric losses at 1.0 wt % of CT input. This would impute an annual CT release at du Pont, Antioch, of 502,000 lbs/yr and at Allied, El Segundo, of 265,000 lbs/yr based on the CT consumption data1 cited earlier. Du Pont stated that their CT atmospheric releases were in the range of 20,000 to 40,000 lbs/yr, arising almost entirely from CT off- loading and storage (20,000 to 30,000 lbs/yr) with smaller losses (~3200 lbs/ yr) occuring at the reactor vent, a device that is utilized only about six times 3-78 KVB 26900-836 - a year to accommodate maintenance. Allied stated that no chloroform could be detected at the Genetron tails tower (the principal process emission source} when working that halocarbon. They further stated that the same result would occur when CT was the processed chemical. KVB's sampling results (Ref. 22) at the Genetron plant in 1977 confirm this assessment. In terms of storage and offloading, however, the more diffused nature of any emissions occurring at these points may have escaped detection. The instruments used were not highly sensitive in CT measurement. Based on du Pont's emission estimate and factoring for comsurnption rate, the CT release at El Segundo would be less than 7,000 lbs/yr. This is equivalent to a release of 0.1 g/sec. Although KVB is inclined to agree with du Pont that the NAS emission factor is far too high, a range (with the NAS and du Pont estimates as the extremes) is tabulated as follows: ESTIMATED CT LOSSES FROM TWO FLUOROCABRON PLANTS Annual CT Estimated RangePlant 6Consumption, 10 1bs of CT Emissions, lbs/yr Du Pont, Antioch 50.2 20,000-502,000 Allied, El Segundo 26.5 10,000-265,000 C. Natural CT Formation-- Trace amounts of CT are known to form in water bodies where organic solutes are broken down to'halomethanes. As explained in Reference 47, these progressively add chlorine, producing CT, chloroform and other halo­ carbon species. D. Geographic Distribution-- Because only three point sources are identified, two of which are in adjacent towns, a map is not shown here. The demographic CT impact is, however, mapped in Section 4.0. KVB 26900-836 3-79 3.6 CHLOROFORM 3.6.l Summary of Distribution and Usage As with CT, the usage of chloroform has become considerably restricted because of health considerations, including carcinogenicity factors. The single major end-use of chloroform is in the production of chlorodifluoromethabe (Fluorocarbon-22). This refrigerant/propellant has recently absorbed some of the diminishing markets for F-11 and F-12, such that chloroform production has increased in the past few years. According to the Chemical Marketing Reporter (September 25, 1978), the six month periods ending June 1977 and 1978 saw National chloroform production at 130 and 172 million lbs, respectively. The same report shows F-22 production during the latter six month period at 99 million lbs. This would require 80% of the chloroform produced during that same period, assuming stoichiometry and no process losses. No chloroform is produced in the State but one F-22 plant was operated at El Segundo. This is owned by Allied Chemical Corp. and was on F-22 stream a relatively short time. The plant former+y produced F-11 and F-12. As of March, 1979, Allied switched back to F-11 and F-12 production and now no longer consumes chloroform (see Section 3.5.1. B-1). Solvent and other minor uses of chloroform in the State were quite limited. According to CALOSHA officers, the only known users of chloroform in the State are laboratories. The Rancho Los Amigos, for exanple, uses hundreds of gallons each year in testing inmate urine specimens for narcotics. Significant industrial uses, other than at El Segundo, are virtually unknown. The principal minor use of chloroform is in pharmaceuticals synthesis, little of which is done in this State according to trade contacts. Chloroform is produced in natural and in sanitary water systems where the effect is certainly not sought. Chlorine in drinking water, for example, can produce up to 90% conversions of trace carboxylic acids to chloroform (Ref. 47). Sources of this type, the oceans, and other natural processes account for a world chloroform background (tropospheric) of about 32 ppt according to KVB 26900-836 3-80 the NAS (Ref. 41). This same source estimates a typical urban level of chloroform at about ten times that concentration. The CALOSHA MAC (8 hr twa) is 25 ppb, which is about 75,000 higher than the urban average. Further consideration of this compound is felt not to be warranted for the following reasons: No "hot spots" could be associated with its very small usage. Usage is not likely to increase. Present ambient levels of chloroform are relatively low. - -KVB 26900-8363-81 3.7 ETHYLENE DIBROMIDE 3.7.1 Production-Usage Summary Ethylene di.bromide (EDB) is produced by some 23 firms, although some 59 firms have registered as manufacturers of the material in the U.S. None are located in California. Most EDB production goes into leaded gasoline. In this role, its use is declining in proportion to the diminishing use of tetraethylleact. This market nonetheless constitutes about 80% of the national demand for EDB. In agriculture, EDB is used for the control of fruit fly larvae, wire worms, and nematodes. The first mentioned application comprises the largest pesticide use of EDB but is only practiced in Florida and Texas. The principal agricultural use of EDB in California has been on fields on which beans, watermelon and carrots have been grown. Because of its demonstrated toxicity, EDB is not allowed in home-used pesticide formulations. Other markets for EDB include its use as an organic synthetic intermediate and as a specialty solvent for certain resins, gums and waxes. No significant comsumption of EDB in California for either of these applica­ tions could be identified on this study. 3.7.2 EDB Use in Gasoline A. Gasoline Refineries-- Antiknock solutions that are added to gasoline typically contain tetraethyllead (TEL), EDB, and ethylene dichloride (EDC), the last item being subject to separate consideration in this report. The weight ratios reported 1_-0 KVB by the Eth:yl Con_)oratibn for these mixtures are 1. 000: 0.294:0.304, respectively. On an elemental basis, this is equivalent to an atomratio of 1:1:2 for Pb:BR:Cl. The function of the two haloethanes is to provide available halogen with which combustion-formed lead oxide KVB 26900-836 3-82 may react and thus produce volatile lead halides that will then pass through the exhaust system. In preventing lead build-up in the engine, the additives are thus called lead scavengers. The ccmsumption of EDB in gasoline production is fixed to the amount of TEL that is incorporated. Thus EDB purchases by refiners have dropped as the permissable levels of TEL have been set lower by regulation. In the summer of 1978, the following average TEL contents were reported by DOE (Ref.48) for gasolines sampled at refineries and service stations. TEL Content (As Pb) in Gasoline, g/gal Regular Premium Northern California 1.13 1.63 Southern California 1.10 2.03 Present usage, according to the CARB, is 1.00 g Pb/gal. This is based, how­ ever, on total gasoline production. If the unleaded gasoline volume (about 34% of the total according to the Franchise Tax Board)is omitted, the average lead content would be 1.52 g.gal for the leaded types of gasoline. According to the California Energy Commission, total gasoline pro- 9duction in California for July 77 -June 78 was 12.7 X 10 gals. This includes imports and exports, which amounted to a net export of about 8%. 9This called for the use of 12.7 X 10 g of Pb in that portion of that 9gallonage that was leaded. This is equivalent to 19.8 X 10 gas TEL or 5.8 9 6X 10 g EDB or an annual demand of 12.8 X 10 lbs of EDB for gasoline doping in the state. Distribution of this demand is among some 26 refineries in the state. A listing of these facilities and their capacities are shown in Table 3-.19 .. 9The total capacity reflects an annual gasoline output _of 15.6 x 10 gals. 9Since the annual (July 77 -78) recorded production was 12.7 X 10 gals, operations were 81% of capacity. The relative amount of leaded gasoline that is produced at each of the refineries listed in Table 3-19 of course varies. Most refineries produce KVB 26900-836 3-83 TABLE 3-19 GASOLINE REFINERIES OPERATING IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Crude Oil Gasoline Prod. Operating C1pacity, Cfpaci ty, 10 bbl/day Company Location 10 bbl/day ARCO Beacon Oil Co. Champlin Petroleum Co. Chevron USA Chevron USA Chevron US.i'.\ Douglas Oil Co. Exxon Co., USA Fletcher Oil & Ref. Co. Gulf Oil Corporation Kern County Refinery Lion Oil Co. Lion Oil Co. Mobile Oil Co. Mohawk Petroleum Corp. Pacific Refining Co. Powerine Oil Co. Shell Oil Co. Shell Oil Co. Sunland Refining Texaco, Inc. USA Petrochem Corp. Uni,-)n Oil Co. of Calif. Union Oil Co. of Calif. Union Oil Co. of Calif. Oest Coast Oil Co. Carson Hanford Wilmington Bakersfield El Segundo Richmond Paramount Benicia Carson .Santa Fe Springs Bakersfield Avon Bakersfield Torrance Bakersfield Hercules Santa Fe Springs Martinez Wilmington Bakersfield Wilmington Ventura Arroyo Grande Rodeo Wilmington Bakersfield TOTAL 185 12.4 30.7 26.0 230 338 46.5 88.0 20.0 51. 5 15.9 126 40.0 123 22.1 53.3 44.1 87.4 90.0 15.0 62.5 15.0 41.0 70.0 108 16.0 1957.4 87.4 2.6 3.0 2.6 125.4 145.8 8.5 73.8 4.2 28.5 2.6 74.3 33.2 88.4 2.2 17.7 13. 4 43~3 45.0 1.0 74.4 5.0 4.2 51.0 79.5 2.0 1019.0 Source: Oil & Gas Journal KVB 26900-836 3-84 two grades of leaded gasoline, the premium grade typically containing higher concentrations of TEL, EDB, and EDC than the regular grade. In contrast Union Oil offers only one grade, their premium. Not all of the refineries operating within the state produce unleaded gasoline. Thus the amount of TEL added per output gallon of gasoline varies somewhat from refinery to refinery and within the same refinery as demand and reserves fluctuate. Determining by canvass the actual amount of TEL and, thus, EDB and EDC blended into production by each refinery was not practical. The adopted simplification was to apply the statewide TEL doping level (1.00 g Pb/gal) for all gasoline (including lead-free) to each of the individual producers. In terms of the end consideration (EDB emissions in populated areas), this approach does not pose serious inaccuracies. Most of the California refineries are grouped in three discrete geographical areas: (1) the Los Angeles basin; (2) Carquinez Straights; and (3) the Bakersfield area. With the exception of the Chevron-Richmond refinery, which is only about 12 miles from the Carquinez refineries centerpoint, all of the other refineries in the state account for less than 2% of the total gasoline production in the state. Because of this grouping, any variations in TEL usage-ratios from plant to plant within each area should only be discernible in the associated emissions on a very localized basis. Variations in TEL doping levels between the three State refining areas was also assumed to be minor. This is supported by the DOE lead data tabulated earlier. Observing these assumptions, Table 3-20 lists the State refineries in the geographic grouping cited. The estimated leaded gasoline production is derived from total production data that was shown earlier in Table 3-i9, the assumption that the average refinery production was 81% of capacity, and that· 34% of the resultant gallonage is unleaded. The TEL doping level is assumed to be 1.52 g Pb/gal of leaded gasoline produced, and that 0.445 g of EDB is added.to the composite gallon of leaded gasoline. KVB 26900-836 3-85 '1,,... B. Gasoline Marketing and Combustion Although the largest potential point-source releases of EDB would be expected to be the refinery (during mixingL the marketing paths for gasoline and the roadbeds over which gasoline is carried and its combustion by the vehicular traffic must also be considered. Gasoline vapor emissions associated with transport, transfer, vehicle fitting and operation of the latter have been reasonably well estimated. Because EDB has a much lower vapor pressure than gasoline, (12 vs '\., 400 Torr at 25° C), only slight losses ........ can be expected. With the increasing population dominance of the newer production, controlled-·vent automobile and the introduction of vapor re­ covery systems at gasoline and other pumping stations, this source of EDB emissions may not be significant. (See Section 3.7.5.B) 3.7.3 EDB use in Pest Control The data examined on the consumption of EDB for pest control were for the calendar year 1977. In that year, the Pesticide Enforcement Branch of the California State Food and Agriculture Department recorded applications totalling 515,378 lbs. This includes the use of EDB in both the neat form and as constituent in compounded products. The breakdown of this usage by types of applications are shown in Table 3-21 • ....... The usage of EDB is restricted by law and it is not permitted in products used in households. No exemptions are allowed in use, as is common with other pesticides, so that applications made either by commercial operators or by the farmers themselves must be reported to the State. Despite this requirement, the usage repo:cts are probably on the lm-:: side c; nr,=,. c::nm,=, i 11 i ri t- usage probably occurs. KVB 26900-836 3-87 The quantity recorded for pest control is 0.75% of the amount consumed in doping gasoline in 1977. This agrees with the 0.5% fraction estimated by Johns for 1975 {Ref. 49). In view of the directed reduction of TEL con­ centration in gasoline, one would expect a higher relative farm usage of EDB after the two intervening years. California is not a heavy user of EDB. Texas and Florida use considerably more of the chemical because of their problems in the control of fruit flies. These are exterminated in the larval stage by fumigating citrus fruit. This is done in confined structures, including transport trailers, sometimes near populated areas. California has yet to employ this technique, according to information reported to the State. If present trends in fruit fly populations within the State should worsen, EDB usage in California could greatly increase. Because of the way the chemical is handled for this particular application, special consideration of the associated emission factors would then have to be given. Of the 58 counties in California, only 6 reported EDB usage to the Food and Agriculture Department in amounts that exceeded 1,000 lbs for the year 1977. Data for these counties and the type of application reported are given in Table 3-22. Usage data for all counties reporting EDB applications are mapped on Figure 3-14, which also outlines the major growing areas within the State. Most of the material applied involved one-time disinfection. It would be noted from these data that almost 70% of the EDB reported for 1977 in pest control applications was used in two counties: Stanislaus and Imperial. Over 10% of the EDB used in pest control was applied to only 465 acres of watermelon fields in Imperial County.. The .A.gricultural Commission of that county pointed out, however, that this small acreage was probably scattered in 40 to 80 acre plots throughout the county. The application rate of 120 lbs/acre involved there was exceeded in Fresno and Merced Counties, where 190 lbs/acre was applied to fallow farm land. KVB 26900-836 3-88 TABLE 3-22. EDB USAGE FOR PEST CONTROL IN CALIFORNIA COUNTIES IN AMOUNTS EXCEEDING 1000 LB/YEAR DURING 1977 SOURCE: California Department of Food and Agriculture Files Acreage County Application EDB Applied, Lbs. Treated Fresno Fallow Farm Land 5,400 30 --.., Imperial Carrots 66,354 1,773 Lettuce 10,577 135 Parsnips 3,408 100 Watermelon 55,676 465 -TOTAL 136,015 Merced Fallow Farm Land 3,240 18 Solano Other Agencies* 2,457 Stanislaus Beans 147,821 7,644 Tomatoes 71,027 1,354 TOTAL 218,848 Ventura Beans 4,729 82 Tomatoes 1,584 ll5 \.,( '!'O'rAL 6. 313 *Material use controlled by other agencies, exact use not known. KVB 26900-836 3-89 ..... ....,. 0 _,-..I---z--o Figure 3-14. Ethylene dibromide agricultural applications for31977 by county {10 lbs). KVB 26900-836 3-90 In considering these data, it should be borne in mind that the use of soil fumigants is much less regular than for other types of pesti­ cides. The areas infected that must be treated vary considerably in both time and space. Thus the usage data for EDB maintained by the state can be expected to change considerably from year to year. 3.7.4 EDB use in Other Applications According to Johns (Ref. 49), some 14% of the National EDB pro- duction in 1975 was used as intermediate in production synthesis (5%) and in miscellaneous applications (9%),including that of specialty solvent. ~recesses in which ~DB h~s been or may be utilized ns a eolvent or intermediate include the following: Manufacture of some drugs Fat processing Fire extinguishermanufacture Processing of certain gums and resins Wool reclamation Specialty-wax production Synthesis of some chemicals Attempts to locate any of these EDB use-points in the State were not rewarded. CALOSHA knew of no users for EDB aside from the gasoline producers and pesticide appliers. Representatives of the major EDB producers listed by·Johns (Ref. 49) ~ere also contacted with the following results: KVB 26900-836 3-91 MANUFAC':'URER COMMENT Ethyl Corporation Manufacturing point -Magnolia, AR; all used in aasoline additive product PPG Industries Manufacturing point -Beaumont, TX: all used in gasoline Northwest Industries Discontinued production (Velsecol Division) Dow Chemical Jl-!anufacturing points -Magnolia, AR and Midland, MI; no solvent sales for EDB, no EDB shipped into California for intermediate synthetic use. Great Lakes Chemical Corporation Manufacturing point -El Dorado, product used in pest control; lit if any used in solvent or inter­ mediate applications AR; tle 3.7.5 Emission Factors A. Gasoline Production-- On an EPA-sponsored study (Ref.SO), the atmospheric consentration of EDB was measured at 50 and 400 ft downwind of bulk transfer and ~ank trunk loading operations at an oil refinery of unspecified capacity. Levels of 1. 65 and O. 23 ug /rrf EDB were determined, respectively. Based on the diffusion equation and using reasonable estimates for wind speed and vector coefficients, emission rates were calculated. 'rhese came to 65 mg/sec at 50 ft. and 1. 7 1ng/sec at 400 ft. or 4520 and 118 lb/yr P respectively. The calcula·- tions are shown in Appendix C. On the KVB hydrocarbon survey of the South Coast Air Basin (Ref .. 22) 1 it was calculated from actual measurements at the Douglas refinery that the 'IHC release from gasoline mixing, transfer, and storage operations was 38 lb/hr (24 hr-average). KVB 26900-836 3·-92 Assuming from the statistics already discussed [an average EDB content of 0.46 g/coMposite gal (regular, premium and unleaded)], one -5calculates a mol-fraction for EDB in gasoline of 8.4 X 10 An average mol wt of 114 (octane) is applied to the gasoline itself. For an ideal solution, the partial pressure of the EDB over the liquid would then -4 -4 be 9.3 X 10 Torr, according to Henry's law. This corresponds to 3.8 x 10 wt % of the organic vapor phase, if one assumes a partial pressure .of 400 Torr for the gasoline. Then, if a homogenous evaporatiun process operates (zero plate effect) in the ducts, vents and other loss-paths, the fraction of EDB in the THC releases can be calculated. In the case of the Douglas refinery, the EDB emission factor would be l.3lbs/yr, assuming no downtime. Factoring on the basis of relative gasoline capacities, the release rate for the State's largest refinery (Chevron U.S.A.-Richmond) would be 22 lbs/ yr. The Douglas estimate agrees poorly with those derived by reverse di:f;:eu$j_on calculc3:tions. (118 to 4520 lbs/yr) . In ,=,it.her c.:i.se. tl1e release rates may be too small to ½~ 0 f concern. Because of the limited work that has been done in monitoring EDB anywhere,further air sampling should probably be conducted around refineries. It does not appear, however, that the levels will be found to be high. The 3a.mhient levels cited above, 0:23 -L65 µg/m , are about a thousand-fold lower than the new stringent MAC (0.13 ppm or 1.0 mg/m3 ) proposed by OSHA. B. Gasoline Marketing and Consumption-- The only work done in this area that pertains to EDB was on the same EPA effort cit.ed above (Ref. 50) . Atmospheric concentrations of EDB were detennined at urban roadway sites in three cities: Phoenix, Los Angeles, and Seattle. Each roadbed selected handled 25,000 to 30,000 vehicles per day and each site was situated within 200-300 ft downwind of two or more gasoline service stations. The results reported were: 26900-836 ( 3-93 ...... TABLE 3-23. ATMOSPHERIC CONCENTRATION OF EDB AT URBAN ROADWAY SITES City Measured EDB 3]Jg/rn Phoenix, Arizona 0.07 Los Angeles, California 0.11 Seattle, Washington 0.08 Source: Ref. 50 These levels ranged to about one-tenth of the highest value reported for the refinery survey. Agreement between the urban sites was quite good and probably do not need to be validated with additional tests unless it is desired to quantitate traffic and gasoline station effects separately. C. Pest Control-- EDE application rates of 100 lb/acre are reasonable (see Table 3-22)._ 2This is equivalent to a loading of about 2 mg/cm, or maximum (ideal flat surface)film thickness of only lOµm. Saturation volume would be about 16 2cc/cm. Typically, application is subsurface using hollow-shank fumi,gant applicators. After introduction into the infected fields, the furrows may be soil-filled to retard loss of the EDB. In tenns of air pollution, the characterization of agricultural plots tr,eated with EDB has not been undertaken. A m:unber of models have been developed for the estimation of pesticide release rates from various agricultural media. Those involving fumigants, include hydrological parameters as well as soil diffusion coefficients. Eureka Laboratores (Ref. 51) have reviewed these and, while acknowledging the difficulty of calculating pesticide evaporation from a hydrolytically active soil process, have recommended Hartley's equation (Ref. 52). This states that the pesticide release rate,. &n./dt, is as follows: l KVB 26900-836 3-94 In any case, KVB plotted in Figure 3-15 the relationship of Hartley's pesticide release rates against Epan· Potential EA values are assigned for fumigation with and without soil covering the furrows in the treated fields.* For reference purposes, the Epa.n values for Fresno County for 1976 are listed in Table 3-24 together with the monthly average climatic conditions (Ref. 52) • It can be seen from Figure 3-15 that EDB release rates are greatly influenced by Epan and the corresponding EA, which is determined to a large degree by soil moisture (covering being absent). If all assumptions (particularly for EA) are correct, for a covered field, all of the EDB would evaporate from the average Fresno field in less than two hours during the coldest month of the year. The loss would occur in a few minutes in July if the field were uncovered and wet enough to germinate seeds. An application rate of 100 lbs EDB/acre is still assumed. *According to U. of Calif., Div. of .Ag. Sciences leaflet 2903, less volatile fumigants should be chiseled in 12 to 14-inch in moist soil. Immediately after treating, the furrowed area should be cultipacked twice to retard fumi­ gant loss. 3-96 ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( "~ 40 z H ~ 30I i:zl p::; u .< .......... C/.l Ill H .. H H 0 U) 20 ~w I @ 1.0 ...J ~ :z 0 H 8 o1 0 ~ 10~ ~ Ill 0 li.l 0 TABLE 3-24. GENERAL CLIMATOLOGICAL DATA FOR FRESNO COUNTY IN 1976 Month Wind Speed (mph) R.H. (%} Pan Evaporation (inches) Temperature ( op) ( oc) January 3.4 75 1. 76 44.3 6.8 February 5.1 80 ,2. 39 49.6 9.8 March 6.7 65 4.13 52.4 11. 3 April May 6.2 6.9 60 44 5.49 10.81 57.2 69.7 14.0 20.9 -., JW1e 8.4 41 12.48 73.0 22.8 July 9.0 44 14. 71 79.4 26.3 August 8.1 58 10.07 72. 7 22.6 September 6.4 62 7.96 72. 2 22.3 October November 4.3 4.1 65 80 4.98 2.33 65.1 53.4 18.4 11.9 ..., December 4.0 69 1. 72 46.5 8.1 Source: Eureka Laboratories (Ref. 52) KVB 26900-836 3-98 EXHIBIT B Mr. Aidan Marshall Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo June 16, 2021 Page 5 Mr. Aidan Marshall Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo June 16, 2021 Page 6 Transportation Centers. Project manager for Daly City Intermodal Study which developed a $7 million surface bus terminal, traffic access, parking and pedestrian circulation improvements at the Daly City BART station plus development of functional plans for a new BART station at Colma. Project manager for d esign of multi-modal terminal (commuter rail, light rail, bus) at Mission Bay, San Francisco. In Santa Clarita Long Range Transit Development Program, responsible for plan to relocate system's existing timed -transfer hub and development of three satellite transfer hubs. Performed airport ground transportation system evaluations for San Francisco International, Oakland International, Sea-Tac International, Oakland International, Los Angeles International, and San Diego Lindberg. Campus Transportation. Campus transportation planning assignments for UC Davis, UC Berkeley, UC Santa Cruz and UC San Francisco Medical Center campuses; San Francisco State University; University of San Francisco; and the University of Alaska and others. Also developed master plans fo r institutional campuses including medical centers, headquarters complexes and research & development facilities. Special Event Facilities. Evaluations and design studies for football/baseball stadiums, indoor sports arenas, horse and motor racing facilities, theme parks, fairgrounds and convention centers, ski complexes and destination resorts throughout western United States. Parking. Parking programs and facilities for large area plans and individual sites including downtowns, special event facilities, university and institutional campuses and other large site developments; numerous parking feasibility and operations studies for parking structures and surface facilities; also, resident preferential parking . Transportation System Management & Traffic Restraint. Project manager on FHWA program to develop techniques and guidelines for neighborhood street traffic limitation. Project manager for Berkeley, (Calif.), Neighborhood Traffic Study, pioneered application of traffic restraint techniques in the U.S. Developed residential traffic plans for Menlo Park, Santa Monica, Santa Cruz, Mill Valley, Oakland, Palo Alto, Piedmont, San Mateo County, Pasadena, Santa Ana and others. Participated in development of photo/radar speed enforcement device and experimented with speed humps. Co-author of Institute of Transportation Engineers reference publication on neighborhood traffic control. Bicycle Facilities. Project manager to develop an FHWA manual for bicycle facility design and planning, on bikeway plans for Del Mar, (Calif.), the UC Davis and the City of Davis. Consultant to bikeway plans for Eugene, Oregon, Washington, D.C., Buffalo, New York, and Skokie, Illinois. Consultant to U.S. Bureau of Reclamation for development of hydraulically efficient, bicycle safe drainage inlets. Consultant on FHWA research on effective retrofits of undercrossing and overcrossing structures for bicyclists, pedestrians, and handicapped. MEMBERSHIPS Institute of Transportation Engineers Transportation Research Board PUBLICATIONS AND AWARDS Residential Street Design and Traffic Control, with W. Homburger et al. Prentice Hall, 1989. Co-recipient, Progressive Architecture Citation, Mission Bay Master Plan, with I.M. Pei WRT Associated, 1984. Residential Traffic Management, State of the Art Report, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1979. Improving The Residential Street Environment, with Donald Appleyard et al., U.S. Department of Transportation, 1979. Strategic Concepts in Residential Neighborhood Traffic Control, International Symposium on Traffic Control Systems, Berkeley, California, 1979. Planning and Design of Bicycle Facilities: Pitfalls and New Directions, Transportation Research Board, Research Record 570, 1976. Co-recipient, Progressive Architecture Award, Livable Urban Streets, San Francisco Bay Area and London, with Donald Appleyard, 1979. EXHIBIT C DEREK WATRY Principal & President Mr. Watry is experienced in all aspects of acoustics, including environmental noise, building acoustics, and mechanical system noise. He has measured and analyzed both noise and vibration for hundreds of projects. He has served as an expert witness at trial and mediation sessions related to noise disputes and accidents. Examples of community noise issue experience includes construction noise and vibration, highway and rapid transit noise, sports facility noise, and low-frequency music noise. He has both created and critiqued dozens of environmental assessment documents over his 28-year career. He has helped resolve complex community noise issues, interpreted local Noise Ordinances, established acceptability criteria, and analyzed sound transmission both in the outdoor environment and in buildings. He has been with Wilson Ihrig since 1992. Education • M.B.A., Saint Mary's College of California, Moraga, California • M.S. Mechanical Engineering, University of California at Berkeley • B.S. Mechanical Engineering, University of California at San Diego Professional Associations • Member, Acoustical Society of America • Member, National Council of Acoustical Consultants Legal Case Experience Trial Testimony: Anderson v Carneiro, Calif. State Sup. Ct., Solano County (Case No. N/A) Noise complaint in multifamily building regarding replacement of carpet with oak floor. Testified for plaintiff. Result of bench trial unknown. Trial and Deposition Testimony: Frost v Sweeney, Calif. State Sup. Ct., Alameda County (Case No. VG05218793) Noise complaint regarding new, backyard basketball court. Testified for plaintiff. Plaintiff prevailed at jury trial. Trial Documents: Scott v Mex Rico, Calif. State Sup. Ct., San Francisco County (Case No. CGC08-471804) Resident Scott sued landlord Mex Rico over noise from upstairs neighbor. Prepared defense documents for defendant. Case dropped by plaintiff. Trial and Deposition Testimony: Weisbrot v Lewin, Calif. State Sup. Ct., San Francisco County (Case No. CGC-09-488562) Tenant Weisbrot sued landlord for relief from noisy neighbor. Testified for plaintiff. Plaintiff prevailed at jury trial. Binding Arbitration Testimony: Pham v Robson Homes, Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Service, San Jose, Calif. (JAMS Ref. No. 1110013181) Homeowners filed for rescission of homes purchase contracts on grounds that developer and real estate agents failed to disclose excessive train vibration. Testified for claimants. Matter settled. Curriculum Vitae Derek L. Watry 2 Trial and Deposition Testimony: Dhillon v Tersini, Calif. State Sup. Ct., Santa Clara County (Case No. 109CV137134) Condominium owner Dhillon sued for rescission of home purchase contracts on grounds that developer and real estate agents failed to disclose noise issues. Expert witness for plaintiff. Bench rulings in favor of plaintiff. Expert Consultant: Shaughnessy v Raintree HOA, Alameda Co. Sup. Ct., Calif. (Case No. VG10534464) Downstairs condo owner Shaughnessy sued both HOA and upstairs owner to compel replacement of hardwood flooring with carpet. Expert witness for defense (both upstairs owner and HOA jointly). Claim dropped at mediation session. Trial and Deposition Testimony: Brady v Snapp, Calif. State Sup. Ct., Kern County (Case No. S-1500-CV-271675-SPC) Motorist Brady was struck by in-service ambulance at 60 mph at intersection. Acoustical opinion of whether Brady could have reasonably heard siren with time to react. Expert witness for plaintiff. Plaintiff prevailed at jury trial. Expert Witness: Cobb v TEC, Calif. State Sup. Ct., San Mateo County (Case No. CIV 505670) Plantiff Cobb making various damage claims stemming from noise emission from Tyco Electronics facility. Expert witness for defendant. Matter settled; settlement details not disclosed. Expert Consultant: Tjandra v Kang, Calif. State Sup. Ct., San Francisco County (Case No. CGC-13-528647) Downstairs condo owner Tjandra suing upstairs owners Kang, et al over increased noise exposure resulting from the replacement of wood floor with marble floor. Expert consultant for defense. Matter settled. Trial & Deposition Testimony: Garbar v CHT HOA, Calif. State Sup. Ct., San Francisco County (Case No. CGC-04-432069) Plaintiff claiming excessive heat and noise from penthouse mechanical room above 24th floor condominium. Cross-complaint claims effects due to plaintiff altering ceiling, encroaching on condo common space. Expert for defense. Bench ruled for defense. Expert Consultant: Keating v Omran, Calif. State Sup. Ct., San Francisco County (Case No. CGC-13-531010) Upstairs tenant Keating complaint about construction (remodel) noise and music noise from downstairs owner/defendant unit. Expert for defense. Matter settled. Expert Consultant: Train Grade Crossing Accident, Iowa Freight train struck automobile at a grade crossing with complex visual, aural, and situational environment. Assessed ability of automobile driver to hear train horn. Expert for defense. Matter settled before formal claim was filed. Expert Consultant: Marin v Westech, Fresno, Calif. (E2B85677) Construction worker Marin was struck by a piece of heavy equipment that was backing up. Assessed ability of Marin to hear backup alarm. Matter settled. Expert Consultant: Frazier v Quinn/CCSF, Calif. State Sup. Ct., San Francisco County (Case No. CGC-13-535089) Motorcycle rider Frazier was struck by a CCSF firetruck with lights and sirens at a blind intersection. Assessed ability of plaintiff to hear siren. Expert for defense. Matter settled. Curriculum Vitae Derek L. Watry 3 Expert Consultant: Cevasco v Amtrak, Martinez, Calif. Cevasco was trespassing on Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way when she was struck by a passing Amtrak train. Assessed ability of plaintiff to hear train horn. Expert for defense. Matter settled. Expert Consultant: Escobar v Asplundh Tree Expert, Calif. State Sup. Ct., Los Angeles County (Case No. BC504541) Deputy Sheriff Escobar was driving with lights and siren and is claiming he lost control of his vehicle because an ATE truck failed to yield. Assessed ability of truck driver to hear siren. Expert for defense. Matter settled. Expert Consultant: He v Belfor, Calif. State Sup. Ct., Alameda County (Case No. RG15777451) Belfor was hired to restore He’s condominium after a flooding incident. Belfor deployed many large fans and dehumidifiers. He, who is elderly, claimed the noise from these precluded her from sleeping which led to a damaging fall. Advise plaintiff’s attorney on the effects of noise on sleep disturbance. Matter settled. Expert Consultant: Woods v CCSF, Calif. State Sup. Ct., San Francisco County (Case No. CGC-14-537042) Woods became snagged by a passing SF Municipal Railway historic streetcar and dragged for hundreds of feet while passengers and people outside the train tried to signal operator to stop. Retained to assess operator’s ability to hear various audible signals. Expert for defense. Matter settled. Expert Consultant: Perez-Lopez v CCSF, U. S. District Ct., Northern District of Calif. (Case No. CV15-01846-HSG) Perez-Lopez was ordered by S.F. police officers to drop a large kitchen knife and was then fatally shot. Assessed ability of officers to hear sound of dropped knife hitting the road surface. Expert for defense. Matter settled. Expert Consultant: Tieu v Valaris, Calif. State Sup. Ct., San Francisco County (Case No. CGC-15-549624) Motorcycle rider Valaris struck a pedestrian who was crossing the street at midblock. Retained to assess ability of pedestrian to hear approaching motorcycle. Expert for defense. Ongoing. Expert Consultant: Bulstrode v BNSF, Okla. Circuit Court., County of Garfield (Case No. CJ-2015-161) Motorist Bulstrode was struck by a train at a rural grade crossing in Oklahoma. Retained for technical review of work by others. Expert for defense. Matter settled. ATTACHMENT B MARCH 24, 1982 STAFF REPORT FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 82-01 – PIC “N” SAVE o CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT TO: Members of the Planning Commission FROM: kick Gomez, City Planner BY: Dan Coleman, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL Ust Ytmmli 8K -UI - PIC 'N' SAVE - The development or a ubu,uuu square -roo- warehouse distribution center, offices, trick service center, and a 25,000 square foot retail storet'on 91.4 acres of land in the General Industrial category to be located on the north side of 4th Street, 2300' writ of Etiwanda - APN 229 - 283 -50, 51 SUMARY: This project has been reviewed by the rk sign and Development Te-view Committees and has undergone revisions per those Committee's com- ments and is ready for the Commission's consideration. The following Staff Report and Conditions of Approval are provided for your review. BACKGROUND: The proposed development consists of an 850,000 square foot warehouse distribution center, offices, truck service center, and a 25,000 square foot retail store to be located on 39. 34 acres of 91.4 acres of land. The remainder of the project site is not proposed for development at this time. The project site is located on the north side of 4th Street, approximately 2300' west of Etiwanda (Exhibit "A "). The site presently has no existing structures and is utilized as a vineyard. The Natural Features Map, Exhibit "H ", indicates the existing natural drainage channel that runs diagonally through the site from the northeast to the swthwest. pith the exception of the drainage channel, the property naturally slopes from the north to the south at approximately a 1;% grade. The project site is bounded on the west by the Southern California Edison right- of-way and on the east by undeveloped land. To the south is 4th Street and un- developed land, and an the north is the future 7th Street and undeveloped land. The property is designated as General Industrial and Heavy Industrial in the Industrial Specific Plan. The south 39.34 acres proposed fcr devel- opment at this time lies entirely within the General Iac11strial category, which requires a Conditional Use Permit for retail sales. ITEM C Conditional Use Permit 82 -01 /Pic 'N' Safe Planning Commission Prgenda March 24, 1982 Page 2 PNA.''YSIS: The Site Devel%pment Plan, Exhibit "B ", has been developed in accordance with the Industrial Specifiir: Plan requirements. The warehouse distribution center is placed 475' fro:i 4th Street. All loading docks and truck senofce areas are located on the south and east elevations and screeced from public view by 14' screen walls, !perming and landscaping. The retail store will front on 4th Street and wiii have separate access and parking lot. The primary access point for the warehouse distribution center will be along the east property line. A se:ondary access point is being pro- vided along the west property line prilarily for fire department access and truck deliveries to the retail store. In addition, a fire access lane will be required at the east end of the retail store parking lot. The parki. ^.; w Mc fvr the warehouse distribution center is located adjacent to the office portion of fire building. This parking area wall consist of 228 parking stalls in order to accommodate the estimated 100 employees and visitors. The retail store parking lo; is designed in accordance with the Industrial Specific Plan. The Applicant intends to construct 7th Street along the north project bouncsry, and it is recommended that this includ4 parkway landscaping and irrigation. The Grading and Drainage Plan, Exhibit "G ", proposes to drain on -site water into catch basins and storm drains that will connect with the storm drain system in 4th Street. The Grading Committee has approved the Conceptual Gradinq Plan. This project will be regiired to provide all on -site and off -site drainage facilities in order to accommodate the drainage flows that would result from this project. The Design Review Committee has met witt the Applicant to discuss the desig3 of this facility. After revisions, the design is now being presented to tht Planning Commission for their consideration. The elevations for the ware- house building, Exhibits "F -1" and "F -2", indicate a precast concrete panel. building. The Design Review Committee his recommended approval of the design subject to providing a color band along the upper 3ne- thir(i of the south, east and west building elevations The precast concrete panels should include an indentation or rib at :he top and bottom of the colored band. Because of the scale of the build ng, the Committee recommends that the color band be approximately thn a feet in width. Conditional Use Permit 82 -01 /Pic 'N' Save Planning Commission Agenda March 24, 1982 ' Page 3 The retail store building, as shown in Exhibit "E ", proposes a precast concrete with a natui*ai finish, stucco walls, glass, and supporting columns. The south and east elevations of the retail store will include planter beds at the top of screen walls with cascading plant material. The Design Review Committee was concerned with the screening of the truck dock. and 'loading area on the west elevation of the retail store. The Committee recommended that the screen wall and planter bed be extended from the loading dock for the full length of the loading ramp. Detailed colored renderings and building elevations will be available at the Plannino Commission meeting for your review. The project has been designed to minimize the visual impact of the large warehouse distribution,center by a combination of increased setbacks, screen walls, berming, and landscaping. Exhibit "J" provides line -of -sight cross sections through the project site at three locations. This illustrates how vehicular or pedestrian traffic on 4th Street.will not be able to see the entire warehouse building because of the la' high screen walls. The truck loading area on the south side of the warehouse building will not be visible from 4th Street. However, the loading dock along the east elevation of the warehouse building could be.visible from west bound traffic on 4th Street; therefore, it is recommended that landscaping be emphasized along the east property line. The cross sections contained in Exhibit "I" illustrate the use of berming and different varieties of plant material for maximum buf- fering and screening. The attached Illustrative Site Plan, Exhibit "C ", indicates the abundant use of landscaping throughout the project site and the types of plant materials to be used. Landscaping on 4th Street will be provided in accordance with Special Boulevard landscaping standards and the Industrial Specific Plan requirements. A blow -up of the Illustrative Site Plan, Exhibit "D ", shows the landscaping treatment at the entry to the office portion of the distri- bution center. Texturized paving, accent trees, mounding, outdoor furniture, and a basketball court are proposed. a' :.• Part I of the initial Study, as completed by the Applicant, is provided for your review and consideration. Staff has completed Part. H of she Initial Study and determined that although the project could have a significant adverse impact on : he environment, adequate mitigating measures have been proposed to elisnnate any significant adverse impact. If the Commission concurs with such findings, then the issuance of a Negative Declaration would be in order. i Conditional Use Permit 82 -01 /Pic 'N' Save' Planning Commission Agenda March 24, 1982 Page 4 CORRESPONDENCE: A Notice,of Public Hearing was placed in The Daily Report newspaper. In addition, approximately five public hearing notices were sent to property owners within 300 feet of the project site. To date, no corres- pondence has been received either for or against this project. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission conduct a public hearing to consider public input and elements of ;`.his project. If, after such consideration the Commission concurs with the €indings and Condi- tions of Approval as recommended, then the adoption of the attached Resolution and Negative Declaration would be appropriate. R pectfully submitted, F RI K GO EZ Ci y Planner RG.DC:jr Attachments: Exhibit "A"'- Location Map Exhibit "8" - Detailed Site Plan Exhibit "C" - Illustrative Site Plan Exhibit "D" - Office Detail Exhibit "E" - Retail Store, Elevations, and Site Plan Exhibits "F -1" & "F -2" - Elevations Exhibit "G" - Conceptual Grading Plan Exhibit "H" - Natural Features Map Exhibit "I" - Sections Exhibit "J" - Line -of -Sight Part I, Initial Study Resolution Conditions I I' i $$ u a. s 1• t .- o•.a•1•AC : t -} u• Ac F" n 0 I own DoW. CAN it i 0WANO I 4 1 1 1 O YI w.r N 1 1 CITY ®F R , \CH J CSC AM 7 \TGA J4- PI..3.NNI.`dG DIVLSION U IMwr .I. • V NORTH uw al ... — _ r uaw •c1 f - _ . - - M bb CM 7iC 1 -. - 0 x •IOACI 014W apt MV IN•/D•fY h1 MD@ SL)ND M/ JF 1404c, 1 1 dl.Cl 4 Ib•CI • 4iDAC1 1 Z6 r I$?AC y Ii0•CI IKA6 C 11 , d ..Y OD10 1SIMAL 1 w 2 1 ti M' n' Ac 4 sum tu ' Pw. tti f TIJi 4 7 05.70 AL a. t II I own DoW. CAN it i 0WANO I 4 1 1 1 O YI w.r N 1 1 CITY ®F R , \CH J CSC AM 7 \TGA J4- PI..3.NNI.`dG DIVLSION U IMwr .I. • V NORTH i? 4 s I f la• Aid w N CITY OF RAI'CIIO CL'CA,NIO \'GA PLANNING DIV1SI0` 1ly 1 1 G5 NORTH6H I , INR Mv G ry i •, ... r 'r/ /.,. rte; f'!`_ ' may . A ,'1., re WOMCF76, Ow WIN It I I w r 7 / /S' OO FFICE :'LOW - UP `• 0 1 r i r , 1, /, `.. v r Ll.-:L 1r r I by w 1 i 1 1{ 4 y , ^ I r y. , ff 7 m FsJ y' NORTI i CITY Or, RAti'CHO CL'CAyI ®1'GA ow— TITLE: ii (fA f PLANNING DIVISIOQ \' E,YI I 1I roc ¢ '' L - '_ I ' _ f•;' - R . . - , I • _ ((( yam -} M ',. ... — pYer—• .. II ir al d vq fia NORTH I 3 SCE.• "_: :•; _ ••e ". Q fi CITY Or, ITEND . cue 427oyi j ` PLANNING DIV S10iN , EXHIBIT. Sc LE i; yV, M O i 0 V NORTH ITEM: e UQS`ji °C: TITLE: i We 9 EXHIBIT -SC.AM 16 K 1 i U CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA INITIAL STUDY PART I - PROJECT INFORMATION SHEET - To be completed by applicant Enviro.:nental Assessment Review Fee: $87,00 For all projects requiring environmental review, this form must be completed and submitted to the Development Review Committee through the department where the project application is made. Upon receipt of this application, the Environmental Analysis'staff will prepare Part lI of the Initial Study. The Development Review Committee will meet and take action no later than ten 10) days before the public meeting at which time the project is to be heard. The Committee will.,make one of three determinations: 1) The project will have no significant environmental impact and a Negative Declaration will be filed, 2) The project will have a significant environmental impact and an Environmental Impact Report will be prepared, or 3) An additional information report should be supplied by the applicant giving further information concerning the proposed project. 7. PROJECT TITLS: PIC.N SAVE DISTRIBUTION FACILITY APPLICANT'S NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE: West Coast Liquidators 2430 E. Del AmO. BL•vd. Carson, CA 2.13) 537 -9220 NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE OF PERSON TO BE CONTACTED CONCERNING THIS PROJECT: Mike Schau or Douglas A. Lowe, AIA 1419 Second Street Santa Monica, CA 90.101 (213) 451 -8491 LOCATION OF PROJECT (STREET ADDRESS AND.ASSESSOR PARCEL NO.) raa. coi M. c. . — cow — w C 71 on 4Ln JLreer- 2372 East of Etiwanda on the North side LIST OTHER PERMITS NECESSARY FROM LOCAL, REGIONAL, STATE AND FEDERAL AGENCIES AND TIM AGENCY ISSUING SUCH PERMITS: rrr PV 1-I PROJECT DESCRIPTION f I i DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The pro ect consists of an 850,000 SF Distribution Center, a 10,000 SF office Building, and a ore ` i ACREAGE OF PROJECT AREA AND SQi'ARE F007AGE OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED BUILDINGS, IF ANY: Q& ACra yarcml with no exi; ;tina_buildinas. DESCRIBE THE ENVIRON+IENTAL SET "ING OF THE PROJECT SITE INCLUDING INFORMATION ON TOPOG MPIiY, PLANTS (TREES) , ANIMALS, ANY CULTURAL. HISTOP.h:AL OR SCENIC xASPECTS, USE OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES, AND THE DESCRIPTION OF ANY EXISTING STRUCTURES AND THEIR ITSE (,ATTACH NECESSARY SHEETS):'' The site presently. has no ex.sting structures and is utilized as a vineyera. The property naturally abount 13,e% from North to Soui.h. The South side fronts on 4th Street; proposed 7th Street on the North; a Santa L Fe lead track and Edison easement border is on the West; and the property to the East boundry is zoned General I Industrial% 1 P I I f Is the project, part Sf a larger project, one of a series' of cumulative actions, which although individually small, may as a whole have significant environmental impact? ect will ha WILL THIS PROJECT: Create a substantial change in ground contours? Create a substantial change in existingnoiseorvibration? Create a substantial change in demand for municipal services (police, fire, water, sewage, etc.): Create changes in the existing zoning orgeneralplandesignations? Remove any existing trees? How many? Create the need for use or disposal of potentially hazardous materials such astoxicsubstances„ flammables or explosives? Explanation of any YES answers above: The retail store on the Southwest co'-""'rneT said Property requires C_U_p_ IMPO`RTAW : If the Project involves the construction ofreside,,qtial units, complete the form on thenextpage. CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that the statements furnished . above and in the attached exhibits present the data andinformationrequiredfor this initial evaluation to thebestofmyability, and-that the facts, statements, andinformationpresentedaretrueandcorrecttothebest ofETknowledgeandbelief. I further understand thatadditionalinformationmayberequiredtobesubmittedbeforeanadequateevaulationcanbemadebythe .DevelopmentReviewCommittee. Date i ,Zg gZ Signature /gwm h• AP2 . ATTACHMENT TO INITIAL STUDY PART II CUP 82 -01 lc. The proposed project will involve substantial grading to eliminate the existing natural drainage channel running through the site. However, the proposed Grading Plan has been designed to accommodate the changes in the surface water drainage pattern. 2a,b,c. The project may have significant changes in drainage patterns, alter the course of flood waters,, or change the course ''of directions of ephemeral stream channels. Adequate irrigation measures have been incorporated into the Grading and Drainage Plan. Hydrology calcu- lations will be required prior to issuance of Grading Permits to ensure that the proposed drainage structures can accommodate on and off -sits surface water runoff. 8a,c. Significant impacts may result in terms of additional vehicular movement and demand for new .parking facilities as a result of this project. 4th Street has been designed and constructed to accommodate traffic generated by this project. Adequate off street parking has been provided. a E RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGAa PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 82 -01 FOR A WAREHOUSE DISTRIBUTION CENTER AND RETAIL STORE LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF 4TH STREET, APPROXIMATELY 2300' WEST OF ETIWANDA IN THE GENERAL. INDUSTRIAL LAND USE CATEGORY WHEREAS, on the 29th day of January, 1982, a complete application was filed by West Coast Liquidators for review of the above- described project; and WHEREAS, on the 24th day of March, 1982, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the above- described project. NOW, THEREFORE, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission . resolved as follows: SECTION 1: That the following findings can be met: 1. That the proposed use is in accord with the General. Plan, and the purposes of the zone in which the use is proposed; and Z. That 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; and 3. That the proposed use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. SECTION 2: That this project will not create adverse impacts on the environment and that a Negative Declaration is issued on March 24, 1982. SECTION 3: That Conditionzi Use Permit No. 82 -01 is approved subjectct to the following conditions: PLANNING DIVISION 1 A color band, approximately three feet in width, shall be provided along the upper one -third of the south, 2. east and west elevations of the warehouse building. The screen wall and planter bed for the retail store truck dock shall be extended to screen the loading, dock. Resolution No. i.. Page 2 3. A texturized treatment shall be used on the street side of the 14' screen walls. 4. The landscaping requirements of the Industrial Specific Plan shall be included in the detailed landscape and irrigation plans. 5. Along the east property line, 15 gallon size trees shall be planted every fifteen feet to screen the truck loading docks. 6. The landscaping and irrigation design shall tike into account water and energy conservation in .accordance with General Plan policies, through the use of drought tolerant plant material, alluvial rocksr_ape, and special irrigation techniques such as drip irri- gation. 7. The fire access lane for the retail store parking area shall be constructed of a layer.of decomposed granite, and overlaid with top soil and turf. 8. The construction of 7th Street street improvements shall include parkway landscaping and irrigation. Separate detailed landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted for Planning and Engineering Division approval prior to instal:ation. 9. A sand and grease interceptor shall be installed on the sewer line for the truck service building. The truck wash area must drain into the sand and grease interceptor. 10. Detailed plans for the landscaping and irrigation of the 4th Street median island shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning and Engineering Divisions prior to installation. ENGINEERING DIVISION 11. Developer shall be required to submit a detailed hydrologic and drainage study.for,the entire area tributory to the project, 'to the City Engineer for review prior to issuance of any grading or building permits. 12. Developer shall install 7th Street easterly to Etiwanda Avenue with a minimum of 26 -foot wide pavement within a 40 -foot wide dedicated right-of- way., u E r Resolution No. Page 3 13. All pertinent requirements of Parcel Map 6658 shall also apply. 14. Trprovement plans for the diversion channel retention bLair with its outflow devices prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and approved by the City Engineer shall be required prior to issuance of building and grading permits. 15. A maintenance agreement and bonds foi• the retention . basin, executed by the owner of the proper'v on which the basin is to be constructed, shall be required prior to issuance of building permits. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 24TH DAY OF MARCH, 198?. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA F t BY: Jeffrey King, Chairman ATTEST: Secretary of the Planning Commins on I, JACK LAM, 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 24th day'of March, 1982, by the following vote to-wit- AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: , ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: I I I. it v Y O rGlr V V r L e M N r V yC C O L p V yV• K^ Pte O V q q C N U • C J j D^ q crN V NOFyM vim JC pq L rnyLCaCnLl3 4 4 N C! V LTfCO LW q• ^ N O Ci0L ONN V' Y J n YuA Ld« C uy r O C V r '• C rr N I• rr L pnVG^ rGj ` P L O O Nq AL Y W dq • N Y bV O< O4LqGn O` p ON a A rrJ• u Y mil G VA y <CYC.r a v y V'w Y OjL a V +G• NGrC. 4 1./O G N 6 V O q rC• r V W N q L y r b 0. A A C b C L V W rLVq p y nn C 0 4 U V N V ON NqC M a b !!!••• C V u uCC A A Y q0 J L J 6 p J r b N V N 2 C Y y'^ C y a O WO b ._. . G C Cr0DSNUqN6 lC'rS O• V >. U O O O C Y 4 C AC ru C 06 0Y C C V P irS N q.J.uN p. V••• Vq •r n>•b dL J4 yy''U+ N•r Vp N r O O D V CY(_]Y Y Yo u q qr u C Tua UL..D— p YCrq L L l C LMN 9 A• Y Z M C O s3 C l L NnY• LLO b_AZL O d • b a UYp b L6 MW Va K ypr It ti C C Nu C O GVL NV O bxG rF C rf 1Ltp n Y YNgb q6q C y> u0LYC C9 Z TO L/.'A O C LU C L Ni W JL >( q bG VA 1 G OO N Y p dW b00 bL+ l^ L Y CL dL J OC QV OC W 4A a p0 q Vr bCFZq CVN V^ O VL VLS L P L r b L N J .`. y. •_ q .r A C Gr 0 A O L N r Y` a_ NLr M aG+eo G Z P g G q cc : D.A. p4 V V 6Ld _ V A ` W P O N LM p 6SZ VaV= CC L Y LO 6V rb N Cr ^r Y q4 .qu N q'N COV Vl.r CC h NO Yi> O J Ny Y..C• M qA 6a cJ cW yb e ^ V w^it <>. . irV V K yNi i 1 Od Lb r` qq Lui.Y.r O UGCU r»irI Y p' AO CN Yr NyNa C Y n6 2 gV CbO y0Y N S V O Y Nr C V6 yV V VI L j CL V OJ uq VLV >_ d VO GC obV yl Uq Aq^ a`YVr ICb LI qN ^ 0. JO gypfr 6JNODE Orgb' N YA OcV yV Vn L 0q L.id < 37 L Pw ^ •• py rY yy P q q b 4 J yO NV • YVOG Nu i qV+ y Nd WGiy uyp• N N OyL n Q N6 z VOIO N W.5 t GA V A O L LC d La yLr C C' Yp LI 10 iQ •Oir 2 1-Y 4V7 r>. Jr - x NZ 0y V r VGUq L w p O m ••r N N N N R N1p NI NI NI NI 7• yJ1 I6II m Tr r y Y i P 00 q Lp• a 0 Z O yJr ter V C d Y Y 4 V a C, 4 L atAfCOYY N y V q V O q > tY Ga^ Y le 3 6LY 0.0 Cq SNCM VT u D6VNVG = L OrV bLG cc L NN . A•"'IM 4 q q L A C L L qaC a q G4 C' N 1=• Yr' q6 yVC A`..}• t 0 C•_ Cc S2 U V O GO O 4_ ps DI pL C L Y f' N C C P 6 u C O y n 4• W C+ nq O V> r D` O u^ b 4y N U ..C. q V V E Y q y w qy LrrO LV pY bL Ja Cam^ rNrrrCO 4 -Y by yyyOJyyy O m YY Od VNCrN AC b J Y. tl . 3^ C Y w r N M w V CNA CDu Y Y q r b N O C =^r V YET O Ep iGC V Y M• 1r YS q q u G L` 04 0 O C.q L YO tp q z c$ u° N G oL 2N'_r4 Nr O V a>° Abq yuu n` O L OL bLY YL O d OC C O C ^+'• q Ou•^ A PG• q O Np} C4 PO d O4 , C y p = Vy Py CL01 J V C NY C_g0. qq r0 D7G 3 Ge ' u C. .4. oe ae b 1•L Yn.°. L r o MT LL e Ypu ea r cu ip V• O V O O rp rJUb N ^NA' d ^ L_Y V> OqL C 'qb SAO ^V L q Q SFW2nor 0. Ta LL•.. 600 yV F O V^ 9 NJ CVC L4 C Q O d d2 aP dA5 LO N qEa^ bV Y Y ter q 4 qnpp yW L O Na„ PYC pN q Ya > Y L JCL 6G. a•L• e YYY i +^ pQ cevi W Y»g- rQCrCWiOCVLC6AYqPqn6OCOHOj ^_ O C O tiT V y C O OY yb T Aar _C• QQ> L 6qNVJ C+ Y Y..Y. L vAC C AL V J q j VC p` C L V L Vr p N Y N L Y.. yb• n p by6r' L'J GN ^ JV- ppp b y '0 q LL''• V A q G V z 4 e V G n•A NNp 0 10 04 G6 CJ CL. tn L q6 m O A0Y qAV l b 0 Lf' rY ay C Y V wY U>C. ACV. ONO iY LaN 0r OAL O+C p.^ CC S aC Mr fJJ °. J Y 4u" O b d q O V Py v O L r O N Ou~ A G/ G' C L C 7iVC L F+ yG+ Y11 L rLrr L +Vi A` i y N t N A 9 " N U+ G'•,'^ N L rJ V NN C lMKey dV qYa NL C Y l 14 b}q OL L NY 4 rQ: }.Jir 6 6 q py F4 Q V J <O N Li. w ry nL. w L. F~ Y rq yO I '. q p yp I I I I. it IU VVy O6 L• 9 J O O O° P V 4 ' w.q ' Or V•rY PNL V G ..>. °trp 9 1.6 w denWACyip 'Or y tQ i4Y C Pi u+ 2 + L GV °r.r •°..y W a a r.' Fl qY G ° Oy V d Rlr n Y' uL". 6 8§51eJ Nj u O RL W 4 W ^ L 6 y h n y V C r t L 4 y • e L d P Y C q u O •rOi d C C. g F C b q = 01°r w .O •• • M V O O y 0 • oGC t...i4 q W y i m YY Y Y+ >aL O OY n q C•y -9 44Y °i LYC N U yLL•06V•O L' V O 94"'ry OC^RA YTSry ^V O L OG O•ar]i Err V_4 WL:O ~ OX r n ^S Nr..Q L`•CY a4O YY 4-. 6rbt .n0 n gy 2 ^+rb0. 61 I I ml w 9 v i W r ^ p A n S V O c n C- V i r rc A- L V N U L C96L y• O NuV _G v ev'b .Y4CO4N A C yuy 4+ aNY Pro N_3a°rC C8 O y V riir L + p OpV g M ^ C C U6 -Va V d' 0 d U L 0 C acu.Libc o' N 4 g r rNfij b i 30 L b4 up c L S Y W N 4 a r I o c Y O i V L .G •. R v C C G R O =a O • C V V N u L % • V fij „ 9 r N • rA • r V rLN O 40b V u mC.O gL L `ir V C V 4ui f,G..N '•N 3-s P OaJ r-• u+T. C 9.,L..G O^ C• G ' V l^ V G y Y A C L A J L O u b v Q L P P9 r n r L V 9 r5 L Py y R rr HUG O.Y p L- b `.r na aced •: vm..b .Lr]r L VOi I A8 HcO.•• rte rCrr P+ A rr yy yt•O^ pCN C OL C'+gVLrGr NRrN < rG/. P 40 6LLlGrG+rrirE CUC ¢g9V Z w a C Ov Y f j wu 4 4 G 9 qO VvWcRC nLC V S V 4 C Vb4 O L 4 m N 0 Pc C C r + b r boy o L C Y a c pecyc C A V C iu O L 4`C A OIL V Y r Snib V N V LP q n OA O J O O O V b d a°• O OI-) ClG N V g n V pL u Y15cyrr..L. Asy+ C 9 yw LyW r r SS V rnp r4qyyVV i " N C y W J u.,0.• V z c c o Gr y. 4V o cr L v m N ao re uYuL'b L C d G W Y CP rcow dry O Y u d+ l G y Pb y° N} y O• MvL VOO E LLA firpay Yw COL yL Mf°b• Cv b 2 L Y, Lr SA Q C rp L 9 O I C• P N b C P'r 9 VC. q C b U d O C • uIY NR? r W WYLw• d 9.i^ L 9M Vr'v O'y'. Oo.G Gar r f wc 2 pC c CRrVCOInrodOP0y6c C c iN NLVZaabVb•y.• C a' Lb•2'n Qrrni Cam c u yC d C Sa <601 r ^ u C L 69 V t Np SQ>' D L• 9 J O O O° P V 4 ' w.q ' Or V•rY PNL V G ..>. °trp 9 1.6 w denWACyip 'Or y tQ i4Y C Pi u+ 2 + L GV °r.r •°..y W a a r.' Fl qY G ° Oy V d Rlr n Y' uL". 6 8§51eJ Nj u O RL W 4 W ^ L 6 y h n y V C r t L 4 y • e L d P Y C q u O •rOi d C C. g F C b q = 01°r w .O •• • M V O O y 0 • oGC t...i4 q W y i m YY Y Y+ >aL O OY n q C•y -9 44Y °i LYC N U yLL•06V•O L' V O 94"'ry OC^RA YTSry ^V O L OG O•ar]i Err V_4 WL:O ~ OX r n ^S Nr..Q L`•CY a4O YY 4-. 6rbt .n0 n gy 2 ^+rb0. 61 I I ml w 9 v i W r ^ p A n S V O c n C- V i r rc A- L V N U L C96L y• O NuV _G v ev'b .Y4CO4N A C yuy 4+ aNY Pro N_3a°rC C8 O y V riir L + p OpV g M ^ C C U6 -Va V d' 0 d U L 0 C acu.Libc o' N 4 g r rNfij b i 30 L b4 up c L S Y W N 4 a r I o c Y O i V L .G •. R v C C G R O =a O • C V V N u L % • V fij „ 9 r N • rA • r V rLN O 40b V u mC.O gL L `ir V C V 4ui f,G..N '•N 3-s P OaJ r-• u+T. C 9.,L..G O^ C• G ' V l^ V G y Y A C L A J L O u b v Q L P P9 r n r L V 9 r5 L Py y R rr HUG O.Y p L- b `.r na aced •: vm..b . Lr]r L VOi I A8 HcO.•• rte rCrr P+ A rr yy yt•O^ pCN C OL C'+gVLrGr NRrN < rG/. P 40 6LLlGrG+rrirE CUC ¢g9V Z w a C Ov Y f j wu 4 4 G 9 qOVvWcRC nLCV S V 4 C Vb4 O L 4 m N 0 Pc C C r + u o L C YY V C c p C A V C iu O L 4`C A OIL qrZ u My y 9 V N V LP q n OA O J O O V b d a°• C • V V n pL u Y15cyrr..L. Asy+ C 9 yw LyW L r r SS V rnp r4qyyVV N C y W J u., 0.• V L L P a E3 4V o cr L v m N ao re uYuL'b N` CP rcow W + N G 9 L u^ q g2 Cv b 2 L SA Q rp 9 O E NR? r W WYLw• d L 9M V O 2 N E> C R r Or > 4 $ VCOI n ro d OP0y6c C c iN q C qLC y L F r•• Y f, L V d y r ^ u C L 69 V t Np SQ>' L• 9 J O O O° P V 4 ' w.q ' Or V•rY PNL V G ..>. °trp 9 1.6 w denWACyip 'Or y tQ i4Y C Pi u+ 2 + L GV °r.r •°..y W a a r.' Fl qY G ° Oy V d Rlr n Y' uL". 6 8§51eJ Nj u O RL W 4 W ^ L 6 y h n y V C r t L 4 y • e L d P Y C q u O •rOi d C C. g F C b q = 01°r w .O •• • M V O O y 0 • oGC t...i4 q W y i m YY Y Y+ >aL O OY n q C•y -9 44Y °i LYC N U yLL•06V•O L' V O 94"'ry OC^RA YTSry ^V O L OG O•ar]i Err V_4 WL:O ~ OX r n ^S Nr..Q L`•CY a4O YY 4-. 6rbt .n0 n gy 2 ^+rb0. 61 I I ml w 9 v i W r ^ p A n S V O c n C- V i r rc A- L V N U L C96L y• O NuV _G v ev'b .Y4CO4N A C yuy 4+ aNY Pro N_3a°rC C8 O y V riir L + p OpV g M ^ C C U6 -Va V d' 0 d U L 0 C acu.Libc o' N 4 g r rNfij b i 30 L b4 up c L S Y W N 4 a r I o c Y O i V L .G •. R v C C G R O =a O • C V V N u L % • V fij „ 9 r N • rA • r V rLN O 40b V u mC.O gL L `ir V C V 4ui f,G..N '•N 3-s P OaJ r-• u+T. C 9.,L..G O^ C• G ' V l^ V G y Y A C L A J L O u b v Q L P P9 r n r L V 9 r5 L Py y R rr HUG O.Y p L- b `.r na aced •: vm..b . Lr]r L VOi I A8 HcO.•• rte rCrr P+ A rr yy yt•O^ pCN C OL C'+gVLrGr NRrN < rG/. P 40 6LLlGrG+rrirE CUC ¢g9V Z w a C Ov Y f j wu 4 4 G 9 qO VvWcRC nLC V S V 4 C Vb4 O L 4 m N 0 Pc r + u L• 9 J O O O° P V 4 ' w.q ' Or V•rY PNL V G ..>. °trp 9 1.6 w denWACyip 'Or y tQ i4Y C Pi u+ 2 + L GV °r.r •°..y W a a r.' Fl qY G ° Oy V d Rlr n Y' uL". 6 8§51eJ Nj u O RL W 4 W ^ L 6 y h n y V C r t L 4 y • e L d P Y C q u O •rOi d C C. g F C b q = 01°r w .O •• • M V O O y 0 • oGC t...i4 q W y i m YY Y Y+ >aL O OY n q C•y -9 44Y °i LYC N U yLL•06V•O L' V O 94"'ry OC^RA YTSry ^V O L OG O•ar]i Err V_4 WL:O ~ OX r n ^S Nr..Q L`•CY a4O YY 4-. 6rbt .n0 n gy 2 ^+rb0. 61 I I ml w 9 v i W r ^ p A n S V O c n C- V i r rc A- L V N U L C96L y• O NuV _G v ev'b .Y4CO4N A C yuy 4+ aNY Pro N_3a°rC C8 O y V riir L + p OpV g M ^ C C U6 -Va V d' 0 d U L 0 C acu.Libc o' N 4 g r rNfij b i 30 L b4 up c L S Y W N 4 a r I o c Y O i V L .G •. R v C C G R O =a O • C V V N u L % • V fij „ 9 r N • rA • r V rLN O 40b V u mC.O gL L `ir V C V 4ui f,G..N '•N 3-s P OaJ r-• u+T. C 9.,L..G O^ C• G ' V l^ V G y Y A C L A J L O u b v Q L P P9 r n r L V 9 r5 L Py y R rr HUG O.Y p L- b `.r na aced •: vm..b . Lr]r L VOi I A8 HcO.•• rte rCrr P+ A rr yy yt•O^ pCN C OL C'+gVLrGr NRrN < rG/. P 40 6LLlGrG+rrirE CUC ¢g9V Z w a C Ov Y f j wu 4 4 G 9 qOVvWcRC nLCV S V 4 C Vb4 O L 4 m N 0 Pc r + o LC YY V C c p C A V C iu O LL, • OIL r uu a L ] OO OO C V C 99N > w rr SS V rnp r4qyyVVVyyyyyW J V LL L V C 9 v i W r ^ p A n S V O c n C- V i r rc A- L V N U L C96L y• O NuV _G v ev'b .Y4CO4N A C yuy 4+ aNY Pro N_3a°rC C8 O y V riir L + p OpV g M ^ C C U6 -Va V d' 0 d U L 0 C acu.Libc o' N 4 g r rNfij b i 30 L b4 up c L S Y W N 4 a r I o c Y O i V L .G •. R v C C G R O =a O • C V V N u L % • V fij „ 9 r N • rA • r V rLN O 40b V u mC.O gL L `ir V C V 4ui f,G..N '•N 3-s P OaJ r-• u+T. C 9.,L..G O^ C• G ' V l^ V G y Y A C L A J L O u b v Q L P P9 r n r L V 9 r5 L Py y R rr HUG O.Y p L- b `.r na aced •: vm..b . Lr]r L VOi I A8 HcO.•• rte rCrr P+ A rr yy yt•O^ pCN C OL C'+gVLrGr NRrN < rG/. P 40 6LLlGrG+rrirE CUC ¢g9V Z w a C Ov Y f j wu 4 4 G 9 qO VvWcRC nLC V S V 4 C Vb4 O L 4 m N 0 Z w a C Ov Y f j wu 4 4 G 9 qOVvWcRC nLCV S V 4 C Vb4 O L 4 m N 0 r' N L O V y P C O L d v 1^ V N p ' O' F cone b_ Loa a = c A G V q D P -• C' n+ O' Y_ G P V^ L N a L N I r O •• L VFW 6•P YuT G r>•+2 rC iO J+ CJ P I y IOOV =.• t N>L OIiSUo cL L..c u OC V u LE N SwVy }jG i.Vi C T PO vau SMVA O V d 9 1isyy ca i• O_ MFYc 6 n nbL di . C qV n2•rC 4 V V 6 Y • a. N G' i u t^° G A 0 1 OD U a N L L W NLVY°n L V A V 9 L P L N N N y 02V N UDNq4J pp V P >LU C 4NN A^ uCU... Y uCt'JC V% L L 9b vV0t 4_ OL L q L nACp Y+ M-tI L1yA C L 0 PqyU9ANr V O AOLL x d q C L i> Zf L N< VG+ JY \C ra F YCW P V y C. Vab O V• w LD4uCLQY °i l N C w CT 4 L O= PL' L y W 1w Op PL P j L Sl• A' bq d'-• 06V bOC•r -+ d 4 1. UNY n b ^ = v A.V• YLL LY'd A'U NG O CO. dr ° G> r 2 O. uNA 000 C b M M f r ••O. 1' • y uY V V'••` q+ m N q C A J D L V A A S L J aC V V V Y OOVLN••L- CVO OaYNAVY 4 4A {a, gv'ccC O CG W L C V G`LU,2 a O "- - dC10L C O p.Y• L G• GODLV W N±rLy G Y kN Y NI q 0 L] L _ y ^'V w 2m 0 N V N p Y - OC_ O O VVIrY N.L N P A p d y CC L py N Lq D a jl Gq ^T V°• NNC N C OV lf. 0u NC Vb0 OE W 4 O F NV nC Dy M GLY 1uy OV NO O.CrL yj q OhYqYPLN dLGY.p. •' ib AAAN r•-°. NkYE oI N AL V Il fiaqA i I.. I7 Y g P ^ v L u GAL J YA--. A O .0 G} 4 X L •° I C W V ye3, 4 LA. 7 VI M'^ C L ' ` !• P V OVN V Y YJ 4 { ? . L Pr COD C W I }] 11 j,. 6 a O d A + 6 Y q d y A d u q L A° G L LMGn Ada V ALLqNONaPYLL6C V A L^ J PASO L dA 1F P dJ•Q.DC tiV ti• • I yE• O4J q• `V `u u•L UO. Va 7 u NA dy y °I y 906C N` OLb 4yr 9 p L-. 6 1'•.L ITU c} dS O •J p. v N o Y a u L L p« D V n CaFILq wPV V O a h 6 V V vL b LTN4 .O y J q y L w+ G gG. V O "• 6 N IC A ti V uJi 6 A D L u d VY9dMGOUNV6AOCOr I PII I1' t4 1 V a aEoa= M c a r N v a M F' 6C Y J.••. C O G._ A L4N LSLY G 0J N d- a 1- N d 6O V q Va. q O• i. A0. i4 L VCQ C O AV N aq N Op 0 n pA T Nf Dd C N AGC 4u 0 6A L b O d N y P N a 9VAU •• ^ 4 O G C A V [ O V•b yy L G p , P O b L G L•. ^N r ^ VCL LL J V•r A•LLVGO•^ Oz Y -_C rVjN V 6'^9V W Og _dM WU lr u Y +U+ L rf Lr Uqq v Vu V 2 E N 9•ALI CYY jfT•_• d6 i q q V - OA a GV DLn U.ArVi 9 Fl N9^ l•' CWO•. .• OYY Np].C A V w ap OOr r+ O 1 OU4r dX doz; +Vy FSL >A A U d VL VL a@ LL 0 G CI y PN N AUp yP OY S OA fJ •^ V V b N EL O Y N Wo O CX10 LY cc6xNOrGy +0i a 6 L C LC y G46 W ELd C -Cr VLL P V +_ 40 iL v N b GA T V W AN dA P Ar yA f GVad pG - L. y.J Id. C•• ANgC J S 9L2 r- -.}-AY J yAVbM 24 L940A G Y r NLLd NVC V yG T'J3 GOC aPC Ozyyy V NPN i P O V A VNa^ 6T A 6 u V y U . rtrtd am r9C G a O r O q } S' A N q CLY Lt•. V 6^ LLL No JL'r 01 N 9 C O ° C + O UJ w 4r L a VaJ CV iVE i0 E:: G N PO L E0 2.2 E.= y C+ A A 2 d r 6 v03 > u r 1 N OC i.i__ L L .^ dy y. G Y pT•3W 11• uA, D A V lG 1^ O n JL Y 6 C LGC OLAmv 00_L uA I.O• bB VG 4 w rG LV NB^=^ uo'y oY a bu>,Y cVY c D ra rL L49Aeex uPv04 Y dN d. .• cc yG A a° qcNrL0 .^ C Nx u dO N LJ. Lr r Q i ynrr> a: _ +cro 4 a Et m r r 0VG cer b qwr cA c.r 2v M wo A69 jV qA b ^ W N C 6bJC6PN W Ay 4 4M Y MAA- -6V aAT b N N r 4n N 0f yyL•N LNdC NOb COJiL- C Yi G OLDI V 4 r wyl_U N d N O 9 L` C A ^ A N L Z r n u ry V w L V .. . O LL s L N• n 9LL ^V•^^j Vxa i C C A V N =1r V d [ V uGCY L V 4 C a O rn wC O r C Y V p G1 ya Ay LGaA 0 l^ ot]a O rLw Or r uMCalw a J LSA EC rP MI rNVL 1 _p+fj C '•A D_A 4dY• Hb yG u CF. Gq b•° DAL C 4F.=6 y`4'4till c oq D c 4i9L CC: v— L dt1L n 5 piN 1 i'•_ q`LOV Lr ^0. Lv.°.Y 2.t LO• In V Z: •J V•ae i Oil w Y3 r LL Y.G +.j L•L.'Y 6NN• w0r' OAxO NN V V AO 4Oa dS CL. p9.V1V NL+r TO V y qJU N• GV WM WM 0 Ny{ Pf vR1L NI ^ wcI w b L. Nco O. ZDu y a C 9 q O L 4 d •°.• d 4 d ^ T P V J q N9y V li• G. V b O d P i V T d O L V L q ^ 6 a •Ln q y° ° r A r ° C + bi° vu .co r n4CVT « L • L P i = cD Pq co 9 o c ac `i'a tgz•yu N q L ^ r N u N G G= L L L QO V C q O uY G G O' V 2 f. 0'. I a! T u y Y w O v V u L u e L v v°. IV/ a N C q uY Y. P O V 6 hy b N V O q O O' q M Y O N T A x V q O V q W K Y• 6 x X emu 6 J~ Oi y L LgC' uu Li Cr . =p ldq C N N yc4 J N J O L a V V Y G V U N L Vy V „ N r C C u6 N O V T Ce2cq o yv 1L1 q C y G o i E o• u= u Lam• QL o'O 6 VW I N M N g 7 r= N L V b Y Y V V J °. Y N YC y 9CV C O L yb O C y C• L z r I J A 3 E r y rL O rx V g Y V ts V Vy O V n P O J u C' N ti O T L. v O q A O C D C 9 C T b O C 1 t •n q u Y d L n L 4 V W L VCVbqqLL L L A •r L Y L P b 4L L C ^ q N N ° C Ci6`O Y7 L r. ^ 4 rJ q p y C P i ] C rj•9 q Y A G O O C Nr• p N i u C• L W 7 }(: O V q A' p 2 O V LV J O C N A3 O O uG` n GLpO s O. O q C C p^ OT U G V Lr•W Va ONE i= O6 Y C S A LL• L SO E, 2 NT LC n r. N 4 Y y V_ S rN yCV C` 00' Y G 9+ V L O G N f• LLD 0; cc a C V C C q J G u V U T V N A Y J N 9 u NN rO` O W y 9 L 4 L> V O qC1• T C U q C LW V LO O« V VL u.Y gy O n.••°n Vy N•'JU r LLL O• +JC a^ 7 O VGC V V4 9 q u C qO R L y..•y 4 rW n 2 Lt, 6- Ti Nr2 A 1• I' iri R c m r° u A u. L O 9 M r L a A Y d y Y OP d N` C yr f. r y d r W9 d COC 3 q L y IVO y T A LI p` V VIynOTCVOqtiLYi• N p N A LN N Li° N L L O Vq L V C•y T.y ro 2 y Cpy L.A t UV qy" Y:G r u0 O v 04 N p O yu vM L •d. t• n N Q L9 V 09 C•r qL p y LL• qA r9v^ L r O A i O O O D r P P ;O C V N p n. 4LtLqnaLI v d i n V 1•a Ly. c ci. q C OQd q a„ Y p/ N YCU L A 4• d C'ONaCCaACVOb2GLL L VILMqVq ^VN q O GV ad q t[ p M N uZ• L O L Y y J O I^ v q L C N P q L 20. 2A e pe N is Ln c i q zI s^ c Y v— c n c v ocN u D- qLJqo Pr• crn p ° arqA A °z s, y qOL' av yL=t C) L u q N g N L NW 9 d y q P> O A V V C L Y C D C i b VO N Ou UO Ca° J L C L O N 90 yW N IV.. 6.•°Lr' GFN d J V SY r 4 p L L 1"•Y..V 4„ N G C J a O .• u d V n Q6.N 6 JI NY j^ Hw p.NL C 4« Y 62 Qr• H OJ O I I 4I b IXI1lG 1 J X[ 1 Y J C 9 q O L 4 d •°.• d 4 d ^ T P V J q N9y V li• G. V b O d P i V T d O L V L q ^ 6 a •Ln q y° ° r A r ° C + bi° vu .co r n4CVT « L • L P i = cD Pq co 9 o c ac `i'a tgz•yu N q L ^ r N u N G G= L L L QO V C q O uY G G O' V 2 f. 0'. I a! T L y Y w O v V u L u e L v v°. IV/ a N C q uY P O V 6 hy b N V O q O O' q M Y O N T A x V q O V q W K Y• 6 x X emu 6J~ Oi y L LgC' uu Li Cr . =p ldq C N N yc4 J N J O L a V V Y G V U N L Vy V „ N r C C u6 N O V T Ce2cq o yv 1L1 q C y G o i E o• u= u Lam• QL o'O 6 VW I N M N g 7 u CGO v V u L u Q IV/ a N 6 hy 0 N O O' q M Y O N T A x X W K Y• 6 x X O V C Oi y L LgC' uu Li Cr . =p d L V + yc4 J C• O K V 4 Y m J V.L V U y L C Oy C C u6 N O W i p 9 V CG VL v V u L u QO L C 6 hy du.. N O' q M Y O J y q V O V C Oi y L LgC' uu Cr . =p d L V + yc4 J C• V 4 Y Yl V.L y L C Oy C C O W i p 9 L o'O q4 VW CJ o G g r= L V b Y Y V V J °. Y N YC y 9CV C O L yb O C y C• L C ubi V N y S T t.. u O O k V , V g Y V ts V Vy O V n P w v i vc d v4L can - o, L. v O q A Veao O. C C 9 C T b O C C N rqr. t •n q u E W L VCVbqqLL L L A •r L Y L P b 4L L C ^ YVO Y> CV 4C Ci6`O Y7L 96 ^•••O Cp q lL CL TqL OV NL2 V UY C i q C r A' pPOVG _N C J O C N V V . ••• y P V c V u• q C C V W q u U G V Lr•W Va ONE i= C Z N h SO E, 2 N 4CLL+ LMV JrE— S rN yLT yNt +pti 00' QV G V f• LLD 0; 0 Cl. co 0 r t - r u SIC I! 1 d6 VCd p` a=i LJd rq I • V Y L V L V LLFO••• V 4 r 0 C V N F y G. qOu•. v Cq V VO A vJi CAN qp q Iy2Y61s CNO N Y y q v C CO 4 L V L L V v N 6 4 M I Y N i CNA rI N yNpL C6 rr qpG G.!F 4KptlyJ V'O i. AAqW+ r L pW W O L V yFj CS LV NY^ CCam` NL JV 6M N+ N LL OV_ 6W OrNi+ q GFO+ V i O VpPOLn.0 I C C V c 4 + 4+ m4 YY 4 NLy run•. I` V mow LlJ4 L+ b W G 0 M5 w C.L E V qC N6r] AO V 4SnL ld PG i+ Ly Q Z b O V 0 9 L N L c yY V O OuNrGO r-1p L V06 L A q YL C CrL Q OTl p C C V 6 f!OV9L C V 9I yTG Vrr n.> C u q Y` jJNd nA. 0 E p GV` O A O A G rV L L V V PN O V `. W fJ q 4 d ti P q N C' r n• tC Gt F r V tr V G.c 4 u 4 Eq V (3 Vg O A O n y b+ N C j G IJ O 4 C N i W N 4 4 VuirU 1) r' f 4 O• S C I I I 0 q u. A VV q L L C d Vrrp uq.. 9 L C O 0 6 C N l 6 C O C L an C c P• C r\ u 1 5 Sl rO A yI N R V N rp A 3E ATTACHMENT C TECHNCAL EXPERT RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 13349-29 RTC June 24, 2021 Ms. Tina Andersen T&B Planning, Inc. 3200 El Camino Real, Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92602 SUBJECT: NOISE RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE BRIDGE POINT RANCHO CUCAMONGA DEIR Dear Ms. Tina Andersen: Urban Crossroads, Inc. is pleased to submit this Noise Response to Comments for the Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga DEIR (Project), which is located north of 4th Street and west of Etiwanda Avenue at 12322 and 12434 4th Street in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. This letter has been prepared in response to the June 21, 2021, comments prepared by Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo on the Project Noise Impact Analysis report prepared by Urban Crossroads, Inc. NOISE COMMENT-1 (PAGE 30-31) Construction reference noise levels are used to estimate the noise generated by these activities and the equipment. The DEIR, without providing justification, relies on two different sources for reference noise levels depending on the construction activity. One source is the Federal Highway Administration (“FHWA”)’s Roadway Construction Noise Model (“RCNM”), which includes a national database of construction equipment reference noise emission levels. Noise expert Derek Watry explains that the construction noise reference levels contained in the RCNM (along with those published by the Federal Transit Administration which are generally higher) are de facto national standards for construction noise analyses. The other source the DEIR uses is reference noise level measurements taken by the DEIR preparers, Urban Crossroads, Inc. Mr. Watry compared the Urban Crossroads reference noise levels to the RCNM levels and found that they are markedly lower. RESPONSE TO NOISE COMMENT-1 Urban Crossroads prepared the Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Noise Impact Analysis (Noise Impact Analysis) included in Appendix K1 of the Draft EIR, and summarized in Section 4.11, Noise. Urban Crossroads’ experience demonstrates that the RCNM model significantly overstates the predicted construction noise levels for typical construction noise source activities. Although the model was first published in 2006, the typical noise levels in the RCNM are based on the heavy construction equipment data collected from the Central Artery/Tunnel (CA/T) project in Boston, Massachusetts in the early 1990’s. While the RCNM may be the de facto national standard for major infrastructure and/or highway construction projects, they do not accurately represent the noise source activities associated with the planned construction of Bridge Point industrial warehouse uses. The reference noise levels used in the RCNM are now over thirty years old. Over this time, equipment manufacturers have gone to great Ms. Tina Andersen T&B Planning, Inc. June 24, 2021 Page 2 of 5 13349-29 RTC lengths to make their equipment quieter and new equipment is generally much quieter than old equipment. In addition, the CA/T reference construction noise levels were collected to describe the 24- hour construction of the 7.5 linear mile project with hundreds of pieces of equipment operating at any time. This includes a combination of equipment types such as cranes, slurry trenching machines, hydromills, hoe rams, pile drivers, jackhammers, dump trucks, concrete pumps and trucks, backhoes, loaders, excavators, vacuum trucks, concrete and chain saws, and gas and pneumatically powered hand tools. (1 p. 157) The 12-year long CA/T project involved major excavation, and concrete placement with thousands of residential and commercial receivers in some cases as close as 10 feet aw ay. (1 p. 165) Public concerns about construction noise and vibration increase considerably with lengthy periods of heavy construction on major projects as well as prevalence of nighttime construction (often scheduled to avoid disrupting workday road and rail traffic). Noise and vibration complaints typically arise from interference with people's activities, especially when the adjacent community has no clear understanding of the extent or duration of the cons truction. (2 p. 172) Construction activities of the Bridge Point warehouse represents the short-term daytime construction of a warehouse Project within an existing industrial area on a flat site with no major excavation or nearby residential communities. In addition, due to substantial changes in the air quality emission requirements in the State of California Air Resources Board (CARB), the RCNM reference noise level measurements do not adequately describe modern construction equipment noise levels. Starting 2014, CARB adopted regulations aimed at cleaning up off-road construction equipment. These requirements impose limits on idling, requires all vehicles to be reported to CARB and restricts the use of older vehicles . (3) This regulatory oversight ensures the that only newer and quieter construction equipment is operating in compliance with manufactured specifications. In addition, the RCNM methodology places all construction equipment at a single point near the property line. This scenario simply does not happen in the real world as typical construction activity represents a variety of equipment operating at different locations throughout the project site. Therefore, to estimate the Project’s typical construction-related noise levels, sample reference noise level measurements of similar modern construction activities were collected by Urban Crossroads, Inc. to describe the different stages of construction. A total of sixteen different construction reference noise level measurements were collected by Urban Crossroads, Inc. at four separate construction sites. This includes several noise level measurements of modern industrial/warehousing construction grading and concrete pouring equipment. The reference noise levels are intended to represent typical construction noise levels when multiple pieces of equipment are operating simultaneously at the construction site. In addition, the construction noise analysis does not rely on any one reference noise level to fully describe the potential impacts. Rather, a combination of individual construction noise level measurements is used to describe typical activities for each stage of construction. Ms. Tina Andersen T&B Planning, Inc. June 24, 2021 Page 3 of 5 13349-29 RTC Consistent with City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Code Section 17.66.050[D][4], the construction noise analysis was developed to satisfy an exterior noise level standard of 65 and 70 dBA L eq. Since the City of Rancho Cucamonga does not identify any maximum construction noise level criteria, th e noise analysis does not consider the Lmax construction noise levels. Local noise ordinances that…specify limits in terms of maximum noise levels…are generally not practical for assessing the impact of a construction project. (2 p. 172) The construction activities will occur throughout the day at varying degrees of intensity and at different locations on the Project site. Therefore, the use of the identified reference noise levels for the Project’s construction analysis is appropriate and no changes to the analysis presented in the Draft EIR is required. NOISE COMMENT-2 (PAGE 31-32) The DEIR used the lower Urban Crossroads reference noise levels for the “typical” construction noise analysis, and the higher RCNM levels for the concrete crushing analysis. The DEIR provides no rationale, reason, or explanation as to why the lower self-reported level were used for the typical construction noise analysis whereas the higher RCNM levels were used for the concrete crushing analysis. The DEIR’s reliance on lower noise levels for some construction activities, and higher noise levels for other construction activities is therefore unsupported and potentially arbitrary. Mr. Watry opines that one explanation could be that, by using the lower self-reported reference levels, the DEIR was able to conclude that typical construction noise levels will comply with the applicable standard by use of a 6 - foot sound barrier wall, whereas higher noise levels will require greater mitigation. This approach violates CEQA, which requires a good faith effort at full disclosure. Since the City espouses use of RCNM noise reference levels, principles of full disclosure demand that the City disclose that mitigated typical construction noise levels would not comply with the applicable standard when RCNM levels are used. Full disclosure also requires the City to disclose its rationale for inconsistently applying the industry standard RCNM levels. Therefore, the DEIR fails as an informa tional document. RESPONSE TO NOISE COMMENT-2 Since we do not have an independent noise reference noise level measurement of the concrete crushing activity, the Noise Impact Analysis relied on the published RCNM reference noise levels to describe the concrete crushing activity. It is expected that using modern construction equipment, the actual noise concrete crushing activity will be lower than what is considered in the DEIR. Further, the City does not espouse the use of RCNM, since there is no mention of the RCNM in the General Plan Public Health and Safety Element, the General Plan EIR, or the Development Code. Therefore, t he construction noise source levels representing a combination of reference noise levels collected by Urban Crossroads, Inc. and the concrete crushing noise levels found in the RCNM were fully considered and disclosed in the Noise Impact Analysis as summarized in the Draft EIR. The comments provide no evidence that additional temporary construction noise mitigation is required. The construction noise analysis is consistent with the City Development Code Section 17.66.050[D][4][a], and adjacent receivers were Ms. Tina Andersen T&B Planning, Inc. June 24, 2021 Page 4 of 5 13349-29 RTC conservatively placed at the property line. The receivers adjacent to the north, south, west all represent non-noise sensitive industrial land uses. Only the West Valley Detention Center located adjacent to and 364 feet from the eastern property line are conservatively considered as sensitive receptors for the purposes of this analysis. Although the West Valley Detention Center is a temporary holding facility, there are beds at this facility for temporary stays. However, it is highly unlikely that receivers (inmates, staff, etc.) will be occupying the areas abutting the property lines. The Draft EIR fully discloses the typical construction noise levels by identifying a potentially significant unmitigated noise impacts due to project construction activities at the eastern property line. To reduce the construction noise levels at the property line of the West Valley Detention Center the Draft EIR requires a 6-foot-high temporary noise barrier for the Detention Center and providesshort-term construction noise mitigation at the property line for potentially sensitive receivers at the West Valley Detention Center. The Draft EIR adequately addresses potentially significant construction-related noise impacts and identifies feasible mitigation to reduce the impact to a less than significant impact. No additional mitigation is required, and no changes to the analysis presented in the Draft EIR is required. NOISE COMMENT-3 (PAGE 32) Mr. Watry reran the noise impact analysis, using the RCNM noise reference levels for the construction activities for which the DEIR inexplicably used the Urban Crossroads levels. Mr. Watry conclude d that noise levels exceed the adopted standard in all directions for the Project’s Demolition and Grading phases and also to the West for the Paving and Building phases. RESPONSE TO NOISE COMMENT-3 As identified in Responses to Noise Comments-2 and Noise Comments-3 above, the City does not rely on the use of RCNM construction noise levels to fully disclose the potential noise level impacts, and the use of reference noise levels identified by Urban Crossroads in the Noise Impact Analysis included in t he Draft EIR is appropriate. In addition, this comment fails to recognize that the proposed Project is located within an industrial area with no nearby noise sensitive residential land uses. The individuals temporarily held at the West Valley Detention Center located 364 feet east of the Project site boundary are conservatively considered the nearest sensitive receiver. However, consistent Development Code Section 17.66.050[D][4][a], the construction noise analysis places the adjacent receivers were placed at the property line. This conservatively overstates the Project construction noise levels because the noise experienced by individuals temporarily held at the West Valley Detention Center are estimated at 59.8 dBA Leq with the planned 6-foot-high temporary construction noise barrier and would be approximately 2.3 dBA Leq lower than what is disclosed in the Draft EIR. The Draft EIR adequately addresses potentially significant construction-related noise impacts and identifies feasible mitigation to reduce the impact to a less than significant impact. No additional mitigation is required, and no changes to the analysis presented in the Draft EIR is required. Ms. Tina Andersen T&B Planning, Inc. June 24, 2021 Page 5 of 5 13349-29 RTC Respectfully submitted, URBAN CROSSROADS, INC. Bill Lawson, P.E., INCE Principal REFERENCES 1. Construction noise control program and mitigation strategy at the Central Artery/Tunnel Project. Thalheimer, Erich. 5, s.l. : Noise Control Engineering, 2000, Vol. 48. 2. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. September 2018. 3. California Air Resources Board. In-Use Off Road Diesel-Fueled Fleets Regulation Overview, Revised October 2016. [Online] 06 29, 2021. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic/msprog/ordiesel/faq/overview_fact_sheet_dec_ 2010-final.pdf. 13149-31 VMT and TG RTC July 7, 2021 Ms. Tina Andersen T&B Planning, Inc. 3200 El Camino Real, Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92602 SUBJECT: BRIDGE POINT RANCHO CUCAMONGA HIGH-CUBE FULFILLMENT CENTER RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Dear Ms. Tina Andersen: This letter presents our response to environmental comments raised by Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo (Adams Broadwell) and Smith Engineering & Management following their review of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project located north of 4th Street, south of 6th Street, and west of Etiwanda Avenue in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The Draft EIR included a copy of Urban Crossroads’ Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis dated March 23, 2021, and Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga High-Cube Fulfillment Center Traffic Memo dated April 15, 2021. THRESHOLDS As noted by the commenter, the City adopted VMT significance thresholds for determining the significance of transportation impacts under CEQA. The City Council adopted these thresholds via Resolution 2020-056 on June 17, 2020. The thresholds were developed after a public review process consisting of a joint coordination between the San Bernardino County Transportation Authority and its member agencies. The guidelines were developed by an expert traffic consulting firm (Fehr & Peers) and are based on substantial evidence. The City Council staff report related to resolution 2020-056 is available online here: https://rcdocs.cityofrc.us/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=568102&dbid=0&repo=RanchoCucamonga and provides substantial evidence to support the City’s adoption of its VMT threshold. The City specifically noted that “The OPR recommended threshold of 15% below existing average VMT does not illustrate a connection to the other SB 743 objectives related to statewide goals to promote public health through active transportation, infill development, multimodal transportation networks, and a diversity of land uses. Recommending a reduction below baseline levels is consistent with these objectives, but the numerical value has not been tied to specific statewide values for each objective or goal. Reductions below the existing baseline is the usual way of analyzing environmental impacts under CEQA.” Ms. Tina Andersen T&B Planning, Inc. July 7, 2021 Page 2 of 6 13149-31 VMT and TG RTC The City also noted that “The intent of SB 743 is to promote infill development and reduce GHGs by promoting development in VMT- efficient areas (i.e., Cities that have VMT per service population below the County average). As identified above, the City of Rancho Cucamonga land uses are currently more efficient on average from a VMT per service population perspective than the average of the County of San Bernardino as a whole, therefore comparisons to the City average are more in line with the legislative intent of SB 743.” The City has discretion to adopt its own thresholds of significance and the commenter is wrong to allege that the City must adopt OPR’s recommended threshold of 85 percent of average. See Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA for (Available online here: http://opr.ca.gov/docs/20190122-743_Technical_Advisory.pdf. First, the introduction to the OPR Technical Advisory explicitly states that “[t]he purpose of this document is to provide advice and recommendations, which agencies and other entities may use at their discretion. This document does not alter lead agency discretion in preparing environmental documents subject to CEQA.” Second, the OPR Technical Advisory recommends the use of screening thresholds that are consistent with those adopted by the City here. The City Guideline’s “Low VMT Area Screening” is consistent with the OPR Technical Advisory’s “Map-Based Screening for Residential and Office Projects.” As stated in the OPR Technical Advisory, “…projects that locate in areas with low VMT, and that incorporate similar features (i.e., density, mix of uses, transit accessibility), will tend to exhibit similarly low VMT” (OPR Technical Advisory pg. 12). The Project here is consistent with the underlying land use and does not propose to change other factors that would prohibit the use of map based screening. Finally, the OPR Technical Advisory recommends its 85 percent of average threshold for residential, office, and mixed-use projects. But for “other project types” OPR notes that “Lead agencies, using more location-specific information, may develop their own more specific thresholds, which may include other land use types. In developing thresholds for other project types, or thresholds different from those recommended here, lead agencies should consider the purposes described in section 21099 of the Public Resources Code and regulations in the CEQA Guidelines on the development of thresholds of significance (e.g., CEQA Guidelines, § 15064.7).” Page 17 (Emphasis added). The Project here is an industrial warehouse project and OPR has not recommended or adopted any particular threshold that applies to this Project. Therefore, the City’s threshold (impacts are significant if the baseline project generated VMT per service population exceeds the City) as applied to this Project are entirely consistent with OPR’s Technical Advisory. VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED The City Guidelines state that a low VMT area is defined as an individual traffic analysis zone (TAZ) where total daily Origin/Destination (O/D) VMT per service population is lower than the City average total daily O/D VMT per service population. (City Guidelines pg. 19-20) This test was performed, and it was disclosed in the analysis that the project did not meet this test. However, City Guidelines also states Ms. Tina Andersen T&B Planning, Inc. July 7, 2021 Page 3 of 6 13149-31 VMT and TG RTC elsewhere that “it may be appropriate to extract the project generated VMT using the production- attraction (P/A) trip matrix instead of the O/D trip matrix… when a project is entirely composed of retail or employment type uses and there is a need to isolate commute VMT (City Guidelines page 23). The Guidelines also state “The City should evaluate the appropriate methodology based on the project land use types and context.” (City Guidelines page 23). In this case, VMT for this project is entirely composed of retail and employment uses and the City appropriately evaluated the VMT per service population based on the P/A trip matrix as well, which resulted in the project residing in a low VMT area. As stated in the OPR Technical Advisory, “…projects that locate in areas with low VMT, and that incorporate similar features (i.e., density, mix of uses, transit accessibility), will tend to exhibit similarly low VMT” (OPR Technical Advisory pg. 12). The Project here is consistent with the underlying land use and does not propose to change other factors that would prohibit the use of map-based screening. This methodology is appropriate for the project land use type (industrial warehouse) based on their adopted VMT analysis guidelines and impact thresholds. The City Guidelines also state that “for low VMT screening to be satisfied, the analyst must verify that the project land uses would not alter the existing built environment in such a way as to increase the rate or length of vehicle trips (e.g., the proposed project is consistent with existing land use in the area, the project would be expected to contribute VMT consistent with existing land use in the area, and the project would not significantly alter travel patterns in the area).” Consistent with the Guidelines and for disclosure purposes, a full VMT analysis was also conducted for the project based on the City’s adopted guidance to use the P/A trip matrix for single land use projects. The analysis findings support and verify the screening conclusion that P/A based project generated VMT per service population would not exceed the City’s impact threshold or significantly alter travel patterns in the area. As explained in the VMT analysis, the project generated VMT per service population is 7.77% below than the City’s current threshold, and the cumulative project generated VMT per service population 10.34% below the City’s threshold. Therefore, the Project’s VMT impact would also be considered less than significant based on the comparison of baseline project generated VMT per service population to the City’s adopted threshold and the comparison of cumulative project generated VMT per service population to the City’s adopted threshold. As explained in Response to Comment “Thresholds” above, the City used its discretion and adopted its own thresholds of significance, and these thresholds were not challenged. The commenter’s comparison to OPR’s recommended thresholds is therefore not applicable here and any allegation that the Project has a significant VMT impacts is baseless. The legislative intent behind SB 743 is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (OPR Technical Guidance, p. 1) and as shown in Draft EIR Section 4.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, the Project would result in less than significant GHG impacts. Moreover, in response to a generic comment letter from the California Air Resources Board (CARB), the Project Applicant has voluntarily agreed to incorporate the following additional mitigation measures that would further reduce the Project’s less than significant GHG emissions. Ms. Tina Andersen T&B Planning, Inc. July 7, 2021 Page 4 of 6 13149-31 VMT and TG RTC In an effort to conduct a conservative analysis and overstate as opposed to understate potential traffic impacts, the VMT analysis took into consideration 100% of the Project traffic and did not apply and reductions (take credit) for the existing uses on the site. TRIP GENERATION - 1 No evidence is given as to why the reviewer disputes the commonly used method of taking credit for the existing baseline. This comment is addressed in response to comments on the Adams Broadwell letter. Urban Crossroads employed a commonly used tool for estimating baseline vehicle trip generation utilizing a regionally and nationally recognized data source - Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition (2017). It is not uncommon to use the ITE Trip Generation Manual rates when there is limited driveway data available or if an existing use is occupied at less than full capacity as the use of the ITE rates would provide an average representation of the existing trip generation. CEQA allows for the impacts of a project to be assessed based on the incremental effects of the project taking into consideration the existing/baseline conditions. As the project site contains multiple structures that by right could be occupied and operated by both a retail and warehouse use, the decision to account for these uses as part of the baseline condition is supported by CEQA case law. In an effort to conduct a conservative analysis, the existing trip generation was estimated using ITE’s High-Cube Transload and Short-Term Storage Warehouse (ITE Land Use Code 154) and Free-Standing Discount Store (ITE Land Use Code 815) land uses. ITE Land Use Code 154 is the lowest generating land use of the various industrial-related land uses in the ITE Trip Generation Manual and ITE Land Use Code 815 is the best-fit land use when taking into consideration of the retail tenant that previously occupied the space. The daily rate for ITE Land Use Code 154 is 1.4 trips per thousand square feet as compared to the daily rate utilized for the proposed Project (1.81 trips per thousand square feet for ITE Land Use Code 155 and 2.12 trips per thousand square feet for ITE Land Use Code 157). The resulting trip generation for the existing use is intentionally understated in order to ensure the delta between the proposed Project and existing use is conservatively higher for evaluation in the applicable technical studies. It should be noted that another by-right warehouse user could occupy the space and generate more traffic than that credited for the Project. In other words, the delta in trips between the proposed Project and the existing baseline conditions is appropriate. ITE describes High-Cube Transload and Short-Term Storage Warehouse uses to include “at least 200,000 gross square feet of floor area (with an average of 798,000 square feet), has a ceiling height of 24-feet or more, and is used primarily for the storage and/or consolidation of manufacturing goods (and to a lesser extent, raw materials) prior to their distribution to retail locations or other warehouses.” These types of warehouses have a high level of automation and logistics management which allow for highly efficient processing of goods. In comparison, the ITE Land Use Code 150 for Warehousing generically indicates that these facilities are “primarily devoted to the storage of materials.” The average surveyed Ms. Tina Andersen T&B Planning, Inc. July 7, 2021 Page 5 of 6 13149-31 VMT and TG RTC building size in the ITE Trip Generation Manual is 285,000 square feet for the Warehousing land use and has a daily rate of 1.74 trips per day. The High-Cube Transload and Short-Term Storage Warehouse use was utilized as it closely fit the description of the existing use relative to functionality and size and had the most conservative (lower) daily trip generation rate. The commenter is correct that the existing traffic counts were taken when the existing buildings were vacant. However, the existing trip count data at potentially impacted intersections is only used in the analysis of congestion-based traffic impacts (i.e., LOS) that are no longer considered an impact under CEQA. To provide a conservative analysis, in the non-CEQA portion of the traffic analysis, no credit was taken for the existing trips. Existing trip counts at intersections are not used in analysis of air or GHG impacts, only the total daily trips generated by the use occupying the building. The trip generation data is not improper and the discounting of trips as result of existing uses is entirely appropriate and allowed under the CEQA Guidelines and CEQA caselaw. TRIP GENERATION – 2 As described in Section 3.4.3G, Operational Characteristics, of the Draft EIR (pages 3-38 and 3-39), the Project is not intended to operate a high-cube fulfillment sort-facility warehouse and the current site plan does not support this on-site use. For instance, a sort-facility operation on-site may not be feasible based on the parking accommodated as the design of the proposed Project does not adequately supply the required employee parking needed to support a sort fulfillment center use. Notwithstanding, and contrary to the commenter’s assertion that the Draft EIR does not analyze the potential impacts associated with a sort fulfillment center use, to provide a conservative analysis, the City analyzed the Project as a sort fulfillment center use and a non-sort fulfillment center use. The Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga High-Cube Fulfillment Center Traffic Memo (Traffic Memo) (dated April 15, 2021, and included in Appendix L2 of the Draft EIR) was prepared and included trip generation information for a sort-facility warehouse. To the commentor’s point, a sort-facility has high trip generation which is largely associated with the high volume of employees required to support this type of facility. This is demonstrated in the Traffic Memo which identifies an average daily traffic (ADT) volume of 4,008 trips for a non-sort facility (4,804 PCE trips), and 13,070 ADT (13,914 PCE trips) with a sort facility (prior to consideration of trips generated by the existing buildings). This trip generation information was the basis for supplemental analyses included in the respective sections of the Draft EIR related to air quality, energy, greenhouse gas emissions, off-site traffic noise, and transportation/VMT. As identified through the supplemental analyses the Project, operated as a non-sort fulfillment center or a sort fulfillment center, would have less than significant impacts. Ms. Tina Andersen T&B Planning, Inc. July 7, 2021 Page 6 of 6 13149-31 VMT and TG RTC If you have any questions or comments, I can be reached at (949) 861-0177. URBAN CROSSROADS, INC. Charlene So, PE Associate Principal 2201 N. Grand Avenue #10098 | Santa Ana, CA 92711-0098 | (714) 716-5050 www.ELMTConsulting.com July 8, 2021 Attention: Tina Anderson T &B Planning, Inc. 3200 El Camino Real, Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92602 SUBJECT: Response to Comments from Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo Representing Californians Allied for a Responsible Economy (CARECA) ELMT Consulting (ELMT) is pleased to provide the following response to comments from Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo regarding the potential for burrowing owls to occur at the Bridge Point Project in Rancho Cucamonga. Comment: The commenter asserts that the DEIR Fails to Adequately Assess Burrowing Owl Habitat. Response: The commenter incorrectly asserts that ELMT did not accurately assess burrowing owl habitat and potential presence of burrowing owls on the site. ELMT conducted the required assessment of potential impacts to biological resources. ELMT has extensive experience (more than 50 combined years) inventorying, assessing and mitigating, where required, potential impacts to burrowing owls. The CDFW NOP comment letter did not state that surveys were required. Instead, the CDFW letter stated that “[t]he Project site has the potential to provide suitable foraging and/or nesting habitat for burrowing owl” and then said the City should follow the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (Department of Fish and Game, March 2012) and follow the three progressive steps of 1) habitat assessment; 2) surveys; and 3) an impact assessment. As part of documenting the presence or absence of burrowing owls on a project site, the first task required by California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) guidelines is to determine if a site offers suitable habitat for the species. ELMT followed the guidance in the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation and first assessed if the site contained suitable foraging and/or nesting habitat. • Habitat Assessment: The habitat assessment was conducted on April 1, 2020. Upon arrival at the project site, and prior to initiating the assessment survey, binoculars were used to scan all habitats on and adjacent to the property, including perch locations, to establish owl presence. All suitable areas of the project site were surveyed on foot by walking slowly and methodically while recording/mapping areas that may represent suitable owl habitat onsite. Primary indicators of suitable burrowing owl habitat include, but are not limited to, native and non-native grassland, interstitial grassland within shrub lands, shrub lands with low density shrub cover, golf courses, drainage ditches, earthen berms, unpaved airfields, pastureland, dairies, fallow fields, and July 8, 2021 Page 2 agricultural use areas. Burrowing owls typically use burrows made by fossorial mammals, but they often utilize man-made structures, such as earthen berms, cement culverts, cement, asphalt, rock, wood debris piles, openings beneath cement or asphalt pavement. Burrowing owls are often found within, under, or in close proximity to man-made structures. In addition to surveying the entire Project Site, all bordering areas within 500 feet were assessed. If suitable habitat is documented onsite or within adjacent habitats, focused surveys are required in order to comply with the CDFW guidelines. Concurrent with the initial habitat assessment, a detailed focused burrow survey was conducted and included documentation of appropriately sized natural burrows or suitable man-made structures that may be utilized by burrowing owl. As documented in the Habitat Assessment for the Project, burrowing owls are generally ground dwellers and need clear line-of-sight conditions for hunting and predator avoidance. Additionally, burrowing owls usually do not dig their own nesting burrows and instead will occupy burrows created by other species such as ground squirrel. The initial site visit is used to make the assessment of onsite conditions: 1) is the vegetation open enough and low enough to allow line-of-sight opportunity for the species; and 2) are there sufficient existing burrows on the site (great than 4 inches in diameter) that owls can inhabit. A careful assessment by Dr. Tom McGill (42 years of experience) and Travis McGill (12 years of experience) confirmed that baseline conditions did not provide suitable habitat and that no burrows provided nesting opportunities for burrowing owls. Without these key biological feature present, burrowing owls can be assumed not to be present. Because the habitat assessment concluded that the Project site contains no suitable foraging and/or nesting habitat potential, focused surveys are not required [Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation, State of California - Natural Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Game, Mach 7, 2012]. The single site visit was adequate to make this determination and focused surveys are not warranted and not recommended by the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. It should also be noted that the Draft EIR was transmitted to CDFW for review; no comments from CDFW were received on the Draft EIR. The commentor also questions the qualification of the two surveying biologists to assess the site for the potential presences of burrowing owls and to make informed decisions. As identified above, Dr. McGill and Travis McGill have been conducting biological inventories of burrowing owls for over 50 years. Detailed resumes for these individuals are attached to this memo. These individuals have also worked closely with CDFW for managing populations of burrowing owls, including implementing avoidance and monitoring measures, as well as supporting passive and active relocation programs. Travis McGill has supported Jeff Kidd (Kidd Biological) one of the nation’s leading burrowing owl experts, for the last ten years, doing inventories throughout the state of California, developing management plans and implementing the recommended avoidance, minimization and mitigation measures. This level of expertise is more than adequate to determine if owls will be present or not and to effectively manage any burrowing owls found within a project site. All management activities are conducted in consultation with CDFW. For this project, the habitat assessment determined that the Project site contains no suitable foraging and/or nesting habitat and burrowing owls were determined not to be present. Therefore, no further actions, including focused surveys were recommended or warranted. July 8, 2021 Page 3 Please do not hesitate to contact Tom McGill at (951) 285-6014 or tmcgill@elmtconsulting.com or Travis McGill at (909) 816-1646 or travismcgill@elmtconsulting.com should you have any questions. Sincerely, Thomas J. McGill, Ph.D. Travis J. McGill Managing Director Director Attachments: A. Resumes Thomas J. McGill, Ph.D. Thomas J. McGill, Ph.D. Managing Director Dr. McGill has experience in preparing all types of biological reports, including resource management plans, habitat conservation plans (HCP), multi-species habitat conservation plans (MSHCP), sensitive species surveys, and biological assessments under Section 7 of the federal endangered species act. He provides the unique combination of being and environmental consultant as well as an attorney having passed the California State Bar in 1990. Dr. McGill has directed numerous habitat conservation planning, land use planning, and environmental efforts throughout California. Dr. McGill is also one of the authors of the multiple award-winning first ever Tribal Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan prepared for the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians which established the benchmark for all future similar documents for Sovereign Nations. Prior to his entry into the private industry, Dr. McGill worked for the U.S. Department of the Navy as head of environmental management in the Mojave Desert at China Lake. Project Experience Harmony Specific Plan Highland, California. LCD Greenspot LLC (Lewis Op. Corp). Project Manager. The Harmony Specific Plan will develop a master plan residential community. LCD Greenspot, LLC in coordination with the County of Orange Flood Control District prepared a planned community specific plan for the 1,658-acre Greenspot Property located on the northern banks of the Santa Ana River in Highland, CA. Dr. McGill conducted a habitat assessment and several focused surveys for a biological technical report and biological constraints analysis for the Harmony Specific Plan. Dr. McGill developed a set of mitigation measures to address the presence of burrowing owls, sensitive plants, California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica), least Bell’s vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus), and San Bernardino kangaroo rat (Dipodomys merriami parvus). Dr. McGill was an integral part of preparing and adopting an EIR for the project. Long-term Management Plans (LTMPs) for Various Projects. Inland Empire, California. Dr. McGill prepared LTMPs in compliance with CEQA mitigation requirements for the following projects/ areas with non-listed special-status species: "The Preserve" development project in the City of Chino; Glen Helen Specific Plan area in San Bernardino County; and the P&V Development area in the Mojave Desert near Barstow. The Chino LTMP provided detailed methodology for implementing mitigation measures for the Santa Ana River and the Prado Basin that addressed burrowing owl, least Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, Santa Ana sucker, waters of the U.S., raptor foraging habitat, migratory bird and waterfowl habitat. The Chino LTMP was awarded four AEP and APA awards in 2003 and 2004 based on the uniqueness and creativity of the approach undertaken. Victorville Aggregates Railway Extension Project, Victorville, California. CEMEX Construction Materials Pacific, LLC. Project Manager. The project included the construction of a new railway system and associated infrastructure that would be used to transport and process aggregate material from CEMEX’s Black Mountain Quarry. Dr. McGill oversaw the preparation of the Habitat Assessment, Delineation of State and Federal Jurisdictional Waters report and desert tortoise focused surveys. Dr. McGill assisted with Years of Experience: 42 Education Ph.D., 1978, Genetics, University of California at Santa Barbara M.A., 1978, Ecology, University of California at Santa Barbara B.A., 1971, Biology, Harvard University Skills and Specialties Endangered Species Permits Mitigation Implementation Thomas J. McGill, Ph.D. the design of the new railway system to avoid impacts to sensitive biological resources (i.e., desert tortoise, burrowing owl). North Cathedral City Improvements Project, Phase 1. The Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) proposes to re-establish a regional stormwater drain that would convey stormwater flows from north of the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) Bridge in a southerly direction to the Whitewater River Stormwater Channel (WWRSC). The UPRR Bridge was constructed over the project site but was backfilled pending future channel improvements downstream of the bridge as part of the build out of the North Cathedral City Stormwater Master Plan. This project provides a reliable and engineered channel under the bridge that will provide a long term solution for conveying flows downstream to the WWRSC. Dr. McGill was the lead biologist that oversaw the preparation of the Habitat Assessment and Coachella Valley MSHCP Consistency Analysis, Delineation of State and Federal Jurisdictional Waters Report, Burrowing Owl Focused Survey and Special-Status Plant Focused Survey. In addition, Dr. McGill drafted and successfully processed a Coachella Valley MSHCP Equivalency Analysis through the Coachella Valley Conservation Commission since the project was located within a designated conservation area. Lytle Creek Levee Repair and Interim Protection Project, Rialto, California. CEMEX Construction Materials Pacific, LLC. Project Manager. The project includes the reconstruction of a 100-year levee that was damaged as a result of severe storm events and the placement of riprap along existing levees to provide protection from significant storm flows within the Lytle Creek Wash. Dr. McGill led the coordination efforts for the endangered species permit (Biological Assessment) in support of the Section 7 Consultation with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to address potential impacts to San Bernardino kangaroo rat and Santa Ana River woollystar, both federally listed species. In addition, Dr. McGill managed the biological monitoring for construction activities within the Lytle Creek Wash to ensure compliance with the Terms and Conditions of regulatory approvals. Diversified Pacific Residential Development, Redlands, California. Diversified Pacific. Department Manager. The City of Redlands approved the Diversified Pacific Residential development of 81 residential units and four common lots, located on two adjacent Tentative Tracts. Based on surveys conducted for San Bernardino kangaroo rat (SBKR) and a field survey with the USFWS, it was determined that SBKR occupied 7.7 acres of the Tentative Tracts, TT 16465. Dr. McGill prepared and processed a Low-Effect Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), an Incidental Take Permit (Permit) under Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Endangered Species Act, authorizing the loss of 7.7 acres of SBKR occupied habitat on the project site. In addition, Dr. McGill helped negotiate the mitigation requirements for the project and the SBKR Translocation Plan to remove SBKR from the project site into an offsite conservation bank. During the removal of SBKR from the project site, an additional 9.7 acres of habitat was determined to be occupied by SBKR. As a result, and in coordination with the USFWS, Dr. McGill amended the Low-Effect HCP to ensure mitigation covered all occupied habitats. To support the federal action of the Low-Effect HCP, Dr. McGill prepared a draft Environmental Assessment in cooperation with the USFWS to assess the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of the proposed residential development project associated with the Low- Effect HCP. Upper Santa Ana River Habitat Conservation Plan, San Bernardino, California. San Bernardino Valley Water Conservation District. Project Manager. Responsible for project management. Dr. McGill supported the San Bernardino Valley Water Conservation District with the development and implementation strategy for the Upper Santa Ana Wash Plan and Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), including Plunge Creek, for four years. The overall project site is approximately 4,400 acres with conservation occurring in approximately 1,900 acres. Dr. McGill was hired by the San Bernardino Water Conservation District to work directly with USFWS to address the Service’s concerns over potential impacts resulting in jeopardy to San Bernardino kangaroo rat and slender-horned spineflower from the approval of the Upper Santa Ana River Wash Plan. Following a year of intensive inventories, Dr. McGill and USFWS were able to structure a conservation strategy and habitat restoration plan that has satisfied Thomas J. McGill, Ph.D. USFWS and the Wash Plan and accompanying HCP have been formally endorsed by USFWS and the HCP is in its final planning stages. Apple Valley MSHCP, Apple Valley, California. Solution Strategies. Project Manager. Dr. McGill was hired to provide technical expertise on the biological analysis of the Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan database needed to support the preparation of the Town of Apple Valley Multiple-Species Habitat Conservation Plan. Dr. McGill was responsible for determining the list of proposed covered species and natural plant communities, overseeing the preparation of the written species accounts and GIS habitat modeling exhibits, and leading field surveys to determine baseline habitat suitability for covered species. Travis J. McGill Travis J. McGill Biologist/Regulatory Specialist Mr. Travis McGill specializes in conducting due diligence surveys, habitat assessments, preparing biological technical reports, botanical surveys, protocol listed species surveys, and assisting with environmental permitting and compliance for both public and private sector clients. He assists clients in compliance with a range of environmental regulations, including the California Environmental Quality, National Environmental Policy Act, and State and Federal Endangered Species Acts. He also has experience preparing and processing federal and State Incidental Take Permits through the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (Section 7 and Section 10 of the Federal Endangered Species Act) and California Department of Fish and Game (Section 2080.1, 2081, subds. (b}{c) of the Fish and Game Code). Mr. McGill conducts delineations of state and federal jurisdictional waters and helps clients through the regulatory permit process pursuant to Sections 404 and 401 of the Clean Water Act, the California Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, and Section 1602 et. seq. of the California Fish and Game Code. Mr. McGill has effectively drafted and processed numerous state and federal regulatory applications for residential, restoration, commercial, flood control, institutional, and transportation projects. Mr. McGill also performs California Rapid Assessment Method analyses on riverine and depressioanl areas to identify the functionality of a drainage system. Mr. McGill also prepares and conducts Worker Education Training programs, biological monitoring, and nesting bird and burrowing owl clearance surveys in compliance with the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California Fish and Game Code Section 3503, 3503.5, and 3513. Project Experience Meredith International Centre Project Burrowing Owl Relocation Plan, Ontario, California. Sares-Regis Group. Biologist. The Meredith International Centre Project proposes a mix of industrial, commercial, and residential land uses within five planning areas on approximately 257-acres located in the northern portion of the City of Ontario, San Bernardino County. Mr. McGill conducted focused burrowing owl surveys to document the number of burrowing owls and suitable burrows occurring on the project site. Subsequently, Mr. McGill prepared Years of Experience: 12 Education B.S., 2006, Biology, University of California at San Diego Certifications Certificate, 2012, Field Ornithology, University of California at Riverside, University Extension Certificate, 2012, Wetland Delineation, Wetland Training Institute Certificate, 2014, Certified California Rapid Assessment Method (CRAM) Practitioner, Riverine and Depressional Wetlands Certificate, 2014, GIS and Spatial Analyst, California State University at Fullerton Certificate Botany, 2015, University of California at Riverside, University Extension Additional Training Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Survey Training Workshop, Southern Sierra Research Station, 2014 Learning California Bird Sounds, Sea and Sage Audubon Society – Sylvia Gallagher, 2012 Introduction to Desert Tortoise Surveying, Monitoring, and Handling Techniques Workshop, Desert Tortoise Council, 2011 Skills and Specialties General and Focused Habitat Assessments Focused Sensitive Plant and Wildlife Surveys Avian Surveys and Monitoring Wetland and Stream Delineations Regulatory Permit Processing Mitigation Implementation Endangered Species Permits Travis J. McGill a relocation plan that outlined the recommended methods proposed to relocate burrowing owls from the project site and provided measures that would be implemented for the maintenance, monitoring, and reporting of the relocated burrowing owls to increase chances of survivorship and ensure compliance with CDFW guidelines. Once the plan was approved by CDFW, Mr. McGill assisted Jeff Kidd in the active relocation of the burrowing owls from the project site. The burrowing owls found within the project site were captured and actively relocated to a Western Riverside County MSHCP burrowing owl conservation area. Renaissance Specific Plan Burrowing Owl Relocation Plan, Rialto, California. Lewis-Hillwood Rialto Company. Biologist. The Renaissance Specific Plan was adopted by the City of Rialto in 1997 to provide a long-term strategy for the development of the Rialto Municipal Airport and surrounding area. Currently, Lewis – Hillwood Rialto Company, LLC owns or has an option to buy several of the properties within Renaissance Specific Plan Area. The proposed project included the development of a Town Center, residential housing ranging from low density to high density, a school, public park, a business center, and corporate center. Mr. McGill lead the biological studies for the project which include a general habitat assessment, focused burrowing owl survey, special-status plant suitability assessment, jurisdictional delineation and regulatory permitting. Several burrowing owl were found on the project site during the focused surveys, and Mr. McGill helped prepare a relocation plan that outlined the recommended methods proposed to relocate burrowing owls from the project site and provided measures that would be implemented for the maintenance, monitoring, and reporting of the relocated burrowing owls to increase chances of survivorship and ensure compliance with CDFW guidelines. Once the plan was approved by CDFW, Mr. McGill assisted the San Diego Zoo in the active relocation of the burrowing owls from the project site. The burrowing owls found within the project site were captured and actively relocated to a conservation site within the boundaries of the Western Riverside County MSHCP. Burrowing Owl Focused Survey and Relocation Plan, Calexico, California. Charles Group. Biologist. Mr. McGill led the focused burrowing owl surveys and developed a relocation plan to passively relocate burrowing owls from the final phase of development. Mr. McGill conducted a focused burrowing owl surveys to document the number of burrowing owls and suitable burrows occurring on the project site. Subsequently, a relocation plan was developed and approved by CDFW to passively relocate burrowing owls from the property. The plan was successfully implemented. Muscoy Groin No. 2 Storm Drain and Outfall Project, San Bernardino, California, Vulcan Materials Company. USFWS Authorized Biological Monitor. In accordance with the 2013 Biological Opinion for the project, Mr. McGill was authorized by the USFWS as a qualified biological monitor familiar with the ecology of the federally endangered San Bernardino kangaroo rat (Dipodomys merriami parvus; SBKR) and various other sensitive species associated with the Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub plant community, a state threatened plant community. Mr. McGill prepared and implemented a USFWS approved Workers Education Awareness Program to all contractors and personnel working on the project. Mr. McGill monitored the site preparation and construction activities to ensure compliance with the Terms and Conditions of the Biological Opinion. Prior to initial ground disturbing activities, Mr. McGill conducted a pre-construction clearance surveys focusing on the presence/absence of nesting birds, burrowing owl (Athene cincularia), and sensitive plant species, including the federally and state endangered Santa Ana River woollystar (Eriastrum densifolium ssp. sanctorum). Harmony Specific Plan Highland, California. LCD Greenspot LLC (Lewis Op. Corp). Biologist. The Harmony Specific Plan proposes to develop a master plan residential community. LCD Greenspot, LLC in coordination with the County of Orange Flood Control District is preparing a planned community specific plan for the 1,658-acre Greenspot Property. Mr. McGill conducted a habitat assessment and prepared the biological technical report and biological constraints analysis for the Harmony Specific Plan. Based on the results of the habitat assessment, Mr. McGill conducted focused surveys for burrowing owl and sensitive plants, and assisted with the focused surveys for California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica), least Bell’s Travis J. McGill vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus), and San Bernardino kangaroo rat (Dipodomys merriami parvus). Mr. McGill also assisted with the preparation of the EIR for the project. Salt Creek Trail Project, Cities of Menifee and Hemet, California. County of Riverside Transportation Department. Biologist/ Regulatory Specialist. The County proposes to construct and operate two (2) segments of the Salt Creek Trail, which will contribute to the County’s ultimate goal for an approximately 16-mile-long multi-use trail connecting the cities of Hemet and Menifee. The Project offers an alternative to gasoline-powered vehicle trips, which is key to achieving state and local air quality objectives. Mr. McGill prepared the Caltrans Natural Environment Study, jurisdictional delineation, sensitive plant survey, Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) consistency analysis, Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation (DBESP), and regulatory permits for the project. In addition, Mr. McGill attended several of the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (RCA) pre-application meetings to ensure project consistency with the MSHCP and negotiate the mitigation requirements for impacts to jurisdictional waters. Based on negotiations with the RCA and regulatory agencies, Mr. McGill prepared a Habitat Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan to satisfy the mitigation requirements for the project. Upper Santa Ana River Habitat Conservation Plan, San Bernardino, California. San Bernardino Valley Water Conservation District. Biologist. Mr. McGill supported the San Bernardino Valley Water Conservation District with the development and implementation strategy for the Upper Santa Ana Wash Plan and Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), including Plunge Creek, for four years. Mr. McGill lead focused surveys for the federally and state endangered slender-horned spineflower (Dodecahema leptoceras) and Santa Ana River woollystar (Eriastrum densifolium ssp. sanctorum). Victorville Aggregates Railway Extension Project, Victorville, California. CEMEX Construction Materials Pacific, LLC. Biologist. The project included the construction of a new railway system and associated infrastructure that would be used to transport and process aggregate material from CEMEX’s Black Mountain Quarry. Mr. McGill led the habitat assessment and jurisdictional delineation survey efforts and helped prepare the technical reports to ensure compliance with the Conditional Use Permit. Based on the results of the habitat assessment and jurisdictional delineation, Mr. McGill was able to assist with the design of the new railway system to avoid impacts to sensitive biological resources. In addition, Mr. McGill conducted focused surveys for desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii) and Mojave monkeyflower (Mimulus mohavensis), provided CEMEX personnel with on-site Environmental Awareness Training and conducted multiple nesting bird and burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) clearance surveys prior to initiating project activities. Valley Crest and Yucca Reservoir Project, Apple Valley, California. Golden State Water Company. Biologist/Regulatory Specialist. Golden State Water Company is proposed to construct two 500,000 gallon above ground reservoir tanks and associated infrastructure. Mr. McGill prepared the habitat assessment, delineation of state and federal jurisdictional waters, and processed regulatory permits through the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Regional Water Quality Control Board, and California Department of Fish and Wildlife. In addition, Mr. McGill conducted pre-construction nesting birds and desert tortoise clearance surveys, provided all personnel and contractors working on the project with on-site Environmental Awareness Training, and monitored initial grading and vegetation removal activities. During the clearance surveys, desert tortoise were observed within 500 feet of the project site. Mr. McGill developed stringent avoidance and minimization measures that were approved by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife to ensure the proposed project would not result in “take” of desert tortoise. 1 FINDINGS OF FACT IN SUPPORT OF DETERMINATIONS RELATED TO SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS CEQA Guidelines Sections 15090, 15091 and 15093 For BRIDGE POINT RANCHO CUCAMONGA PROJECT Final Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2020100056) Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga I.INTRODUCTION The following findings of fact are based in part on the information contained in the Draft and Final Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) for the Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project (“Project”), as well as additional facts found in the complete record of proceedings. The EIR is hereby incorporated by reference and is available for review at the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department (10500 Civic Center Drive) and on the City’s website: https://www.cityofrc.us/community-development/planning Public Resources Code Section 21002 provides that “public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects[.]” The same statute provides that the procedures required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) “are intended to assist public agencies in systematically identifying both the significant effects of projects and the feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures which will avoid or substantially lessen such significant effects.” Section 21002 goes on to provide that “in the event specific economic, social, or other conditions make infeasible such project alternatives or such mitigation measures, individual projects may be approved in spite of one or more significant effects thereof.” The mandate and principles announced in Public Resources Code section 21002 are implemented, in part, through the requirement that agencies must adopt findings before approving projects for which EIRs are required. For each significant environmental effect identified in an EIR for a project, the approving agency must issue a written finding reaching one or more of three permissible conclusions. Specifically, Section 15091(a) of the CEQA guidelines states: (a)No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been certified which identifies one or more significant environmental effects of the project unless the public agency makes one or more written findings for each of those significant effects, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding. The possible findings are: Exhibit E 2 1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR. 2. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. 3. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR. Public Resources Code section 21061.1 defines “feasible” to mean “capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social, legal, and technological factors.” CEQA Guidelines section 15364 adds another factor: “legal” considerations. (See also Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Bd. of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 565 (Goleta II).) For purposes of these Findings (including the table described below), the term “avoid” refers to the effectiveness of one or more mitigation measures to reduce an otherwise potentially significant effect to a less than significant level. Although CEQA Guidelines section 15091 requires only that approving agencies specify that a particular significant effect is “avoid[ed] or substantially lessen[ed],” these Findings, for purposes of clarity, in each case will specify whether the effect in question has been “avoided” (i.e., reduced to a less than significant level). With respect to a project for which significant impacts are not avoided or substantially lessened, a public agency, after adopting proper findings, may nevertheless approve the project if the agency first adopts a statement of overriding considerations setting forth the specific reasons why the agency found that the project’s “benefits” rendered “acceptable” its “unavoidable adverse environmental effects.” (CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15093, 15043, subd. (b); see also Pub. Resources Code, § 21081, subd. (b).) The EIR for the Project concluded the Project would not result in any significant and unavoidable impacts; thus, a Statement of Overriding Considerations is not required for the Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project. These Findings constitute the City’s best efforts to set forth the evidentiary and policy bases for its decision to approve the Project in a manner consistent with the requirements of CEQA. To the extent that these Findings conclude that various mitigation measures outlined in the Final EIR are feasible and have not been modified, superseded or withdrawn, the City hereby binds itself to implement these measures as measures built into the design of the Project itself or as conditions of Project approval. (See Public Resources Code § 21081.6, subd. (b); Guidelines, § 15126.4, subd. (a)(2).) These Findings, in other words, are not merely informational, but rather constitute a binding set of obligations that will come into effect when the City Council adopts a resolution approving the Project. In addition, a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) has been prepared for the Project, and is being approved by the City Council by the same Resolution that has adopted these Findings. The City will use the MMRP to track compliance with Project mitigation measures. The MMRP will remain available for public review during the compliance period. The Final MMRP is attached to and incorporated into the EIR certification resolution and is approved in conjunction with certification of the EIR and adoption of these Findings of Fact. In the event of any conflict 3 between these Findings and the MMRP with respect to the requirements of an adopted mitigation measure, the more stringent measure shall control. II. FINDINGS CERTIFYING THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT When approving a project for which an EIR has been prepared, the lead agency must certify that the EIR complies with CEQA, that the EIR reflects the lead agency’s independent judgment and analysis, and that the EIR was presented to the decision-making body of the lead agency, which reviewed and considered the information contained in the EIR before approving the project. (Public Resources Code § 21082.1, subd. (c); Guidelines, § 15090, subd. (a).) The Rancho Cucamonga City Council hereby finds, determines and certifies that the EIR complies with CEQA, for reasons explained in the entire record of proceedings, including but not limited to the EIR itself, staff reports, oral testimony, and technical studies. The Council hereby finds, determines and certifies that that City Staff has reviewed the EIR as has an independent CEQA consultant under contract to the City and the EIR reflects the City’s independent judgment and analysis. The Council also hereby finds, determines and certifies that the EIR was presented to the Council, and that the Council reviewed and considered the information in the draft and final EIR before approving the Project. III. FINDINGS REGARDING THE POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE PROJECT In compliance with Section 15201 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City has taken steps to provide opportunities for public participation in the environmental review process. A Notice of Preparation (NOP) was distributed on October 2, 2020, to potential Responsible Agencies, Trustee Agencies, and other interested parties for a 30-day public review period to solicit comments and to inform agencies and the public of the Project. The Project was described; potential environmental effects associated with Project implementation were identified; and agencies and the public were invited to review and comment on the NOP. The City received five responses to the NOP after the end of the scoping period. Table 2-1 of the Draft EIR summarizes the NOP comments addressing environmental and related issues. Additionally, the City of Rancho Cucamonga held a virtual scoping meeting for the Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Draft EIR on October 15, 2020. The public scoping meeting was held virtually in accordance with San Bernardino County Department of Public Health requirements in effect at the time. In addition to City staff and Project Applicant representatives, the meeting was attended by two members of the Laborers’ International Union of North America (LIUNA). The LIUNA members indicated support for the Project. No comments on the scope of the Draft EIR were raised at the public scoping meeting. Based on the NOP, and on public comments received during scoping, the City identified environmental issues for which the Project would result in no impacts or less than significant impacts, and therefore these issues were not discussed in detail in the EIR. This includes the entirety of the Agriculture and Forestry Resources, Mineral Resources, Public Services, Recreation, and Wildfire topical areas. Refer to Section 6.1, Effects Determined Not to be Significant, for a summary discussion of the environmental effects which were found not to be significant. To address potentially significant environmental effects in the remaining topical areas, an EIR was prepared for this Project in accordance with CEQA, and taking into consideration input received during the EIR scoping process. As required by CEQA, the EIR includes appropriate review, analysis, and mitigation measures for the environmental impacts of the Project. This Final EIR 4 could be utilized by other permitting agencies in their capacity as Responsible and Trustee agencies under CEQA. A Draft EIR was prepared and circulated for a 45-day public review period, beginning on May 7, 2021, and concluding on June 21, 2021. The Notice of Availability advertising the electronic location and availability of the Draft EIR was provided to the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research via the CEQAnet Web Portal for distribution to relevant State agencies; published in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin; mailed to all property owners within 660 feet of the project site; mailed to all responsible agencies, individuals and stakeholders who had requested notification; and, posted at the San Bernardino County Clerk of the Board of Supervisors. The Draft EIR was also available on the City’s website, at City Hall, the Archibald Library, and the Paul A. Biane Library. Three written comment letters from an agency, an organization, and an individual were received on the Draft EIR; one comment letter was received during the public review period and two comment letters were received after the end of the public review period. Responses to these comments, including comments received after the end of the public review period, were prepared and are included in the Final EIR. It should be noted that the existence of differing opinions arising from the same pool of information is not a basis for finding the EIR to be inadequate; when approving an EIR, an agency need not correctly resolve a dispute among experts about the accuracy of the EIR's environmental forecasts. Additionally, pursuant to Section 15088 of the CEQA Guidelines, responses to comments from a public agency were transmitted 10 days prior to the public hearing for the Project and certification of the Final EIR. Although not required by the CEQA Guidelines, written responses were also provided to other commenters at the same time. For the purposes of CEQA, and the findings herein set forth, the administrative record for the Project consists of those items listed in Public Resources Code section 21167.6, subdivision (e). The record of proceedings for the City’s decision on the Project consists of the following documents, at a minimum, which are incorporated by reference and made part of the record supporting these Findings: • The NOP and all other public notices issued by the City in conjunction with the Project; • The Draft EIR for the Project and all documents relied upon or incorporated by reference; • All comments submitted by agencies or members of the public during the 45-day comment period on the Draft EIR; • All comments and correspondence submitted to the City during the public comment period on the Draft EIR, in addition to all other timely comments on the Draft EIR; • The Final EIR for the Project, including the Planning and Historic Commission staff report, minutes of the Planning Commission public hearing; City Council staff report; minutes of the City Council public hearing; comments received on the Draft EIR; the City’s responses to those comments; technical appendices; and all documents relied upon or incorporated by reference; • The mitigation monitoring and reporting program (MMRP) for the Project; • All findings and resolutions adopted by the City in connection with the Project, and all documents cited or referred to therein; 5 • All reports, studies, memoranda, maps, staff reports, or other planning documents relating to the Project prepared by the City, consultants to the City, or responsible or trustee agencies with respect to the City’s compliance with the requirements of CEQA and with respect to the City’s action on the Project; • All documents submitted to the City by other public agencies or members of the public in connection with the Project, up through the close of the public hearing; • Any minutes and/or verbatim transcripts of all information sessions, public meetings, and public hearings held by the City in connection with the Project; • Any documentary or other evidence submitted to the City at such information sessions, public meetings and public hearings; • All resolutions adopted by the City regarding the Project, and all staff reports, analyses, and summaries related to the adoption of those resolutions; • The City’s General Plan and all updates and related environmental analyses; • Matters of common knowledge to the City, including, but not limited to Federal, State, and local laws and regulations; • The City’s Zoning Code; • Any documents expressly cited in these Findings, in addition to those cited above; and • Any other materials required for the record of proceedings by Public Resources Code section 21167.6, subdivision (e). Pursuant to Guidelines Section 15091(e), the administrative record of these proceedings is located and available by appointment for review at 10500 Civic Center Drive, during normal business hours. The custodian of these documents and other materials is the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department. The City has relied on all of the documents listed above in reaching its decisions on the Project even if not every document was formally presented to the City Council or City Staff as part of the City files generated in connection with the Project. Documents set forth above that are not found in the Project files fall into two categories. The first category includes prior planning or legislative decisions of which the City was aware in approving the Project. (See City of Santa Cruz v. Local Agency Formation Commission (1978) 76 Cal.App.3d 381, 391-391; Dominey v. Department of Personnel Administration (1988) 205 Cal.App.3d 729, 738, fn. 6.) The second category includes documents that influenced the expert advice provided to City Staff or consultants, who then provided advice to the Planning Commission and the City Council as final decision maker. Such documents form part of the underlying factual basis for the City’s decisions relating to approval of the Project. (See Pub. Resources Code, § 21167.6, subd. (e)(10); Browning-Ferris Industries v. City Council of City of San Jose (1986) 181 Cal.App.3d 852, 866; Stanislaus Audubon Society, Inc. v. County of Stanislaus (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 144, 153, 155.) Based upon the evidence before it, the City finds that the Project will not result in any significant and unavoidable impacts; therefore, a statement of overriding considerations is not required. The EIR’s analysis of each topical issue describes applicable Regulatory Requirements (RR)s and Project-specific Mitigation Measures (MMs). These components are described below. 6 • Regulatory Requirements. RRs are based on federal, State, or local regulations or laws that are frequently required independently of CEQA review and also serve to offset or prevent specific impacts. The City may impose additional conditions on the Project during the approval process, as appropriate, including those that are standard to all projects, typical to a project of a particular nature, or specific to the proposal. • Mitigation Measures. Where a potentially significant environmental effect has been identified and is not reduced to a level considered less than significant through the application of RRs, Project-specific MMs have been recommended in accordance with CEQA and are included in the Project’s Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP). The Findings below describe in detail the MMs in the EIR, since these measures prevent or reduce the significance of impacts that the Project would otherwise potentially have on the environment. These Findings refer to RRs to the extent that they are relevant to the City’s analysis of environmental effects, but the full text of the RRs is not provided below. For the details of applicable RRs, please see the appropriate text in the EIR, which these Findings incorporate by reference. The Findings below describe numbered impacts (e.g., Impact 1.1) that were analyzed in detail in the EIR. Impacts are presented below in summary form. For a detailed description of impacts, please see the appropriate text of the EIR, which these Findings incorporate by reference. Based on the analysis of impacts in the EIR, the EIR concludes that so significant and unavoidable impacts would result from the Project. A. PROJECT SUMMARY The approximately 91.4 gross acre Project site is located at 12434 4th Street, in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County, California. The Project site is bounded by 4th Street to the south (which is also the jurisdictional boundary between the City of Rancho Cucamonga and the City of Ontario) and 6th Street to the north, and generally located between Etiwanda Avenue to the east and Santa Anita Avenue to the west. The Project site is located within the City of Rancho Cucamonga Southeast Focus Area, as designated in the General Plan, which is comprised primarily of industrial land uses and is generally bound by I-15 to the west, the City’s jurisdictional boundaries to the east and south, and Foothill Boulevard Focus Area to the north. The southern portion of the Project site is currently occupied by a 23,240 square foot (sf) retail building, a 1,431,000-sf warehouse building, and associated facilities. There are existing surface parking lots (auto and truck trailer) and vacant land (previously a vineyard) in the northern portion of the Project site. Big Lots vacated the Project site in February 2020, after which it was marketed for new tenants. Reoccupation of the existing buildings and on-going operations at the site were appropriately assumed for baseline conditions evaluated in the EIR. Geodis occupied the site from October 2020 to May 2021. The Project includes redevelopment of the Project site with two new contemporary warehouse buildings (Buildings 1 and 2) with a combined building area, including the mezzanine space, of approximately 2,175,000 sf consisting of 2,134,000 sf of warehouse uses and 41,000 square feet of ancillary office space. The Project also includes construction of a new public roadway referred to as Street “A”, which would extend north-south along the eastern boundary of the Project site between 4th Street and 6th Street. Additional on-site improvements associated with the Project include, but are not limited to, surface parking areas (automobile and truck trailer spaces ancillary 7 to operation of the two buildings), vehicle drive aisles, landscaping, storm water quality/storage, utility infrastructure, and exterior lighting. In addition to certification of the Project’s Final EIR and these Findings of Fact, the Project also involves the following discretionary approvals as described in Section 1.4.4, Required Permits and Discretionary Actions, of the Final EIR: General Plan Amendment, Zoning Map Amendment, Site Plan and Architectural Review, Minor Use Permit, Tentative Parcel Map No. 20271, Development Agreement, and Tree Removal Permit. B. FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO EFFECTS DETERMINED TO HAVE NO IMPACT OR LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITHOUT MITIGATION MEASURES The City agrees with the characterization in the Final EIR with respect to impacts identified as “no impact” or "less than significant impact" and finds that, based upon substantial evidence in the record, as discussed below, the following impacts associated with the Project are not significant or are less than significant, and do not require mitigation, as described in the Final EIR. Under CEQA, no mitigation measures are required for impacts that are less than significant. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21002; CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15126.4, subd. (a)(3); 15091.) Note that impacts are presented below in summary form. For a full description of impacts, see the appropriate text in the EIR, which the Council hereby incorporates by reference into these Findings. 1. Aesthetics Impact 1.1: The Project, including site-adjacent improvements and the 6th Street at-grade crossing, would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista, resulting in a less than significant impact. Further, trees removed by the Project would be replaced in accordance with City’s requirements (refer to RR 3-3 and RR 3-4). Impact 1.2: The Project site is not within a State scenic highway and is not in proximity to a State scenic highway. The Project does not have the potential to degrade scenic resources within a State scenic highway and no impacts would occur. Impact 1.3: The Project site is within an urbanized area of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. As such, the analysis for this threshold is based on the review of the potential for the Project to conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. The Project would not conflict with the applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality, including Rancho Cucamonga Development Code standards and General Plan polices. No impact would occur. Impact 1.4: The Project site is located in an urban area, which includes existing sources of light and glare. The Project involves redevelopment of the Project site and would not create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. Impacts would be less than significant. 2. Agriculture and Forestry Resources As identified in the NOP, there is no Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance, forest land, or timberland on or near the Project site. The Project would result in no impacts to agriculture and forestry resources. 8 3. Air Quality Impact 2.3: The Project would not expose sensitive receptors (e.g., residents, workers or school children) to substantial pollutant concentrations, including localized criteria pollutant emissions during construction and operation, mobile source and construction-related diesel particulate matter (DPM) emissions, or carbon monoxide (CO) “Hot Spots”. Impacts would be less than significant. Impact 2.4 The Project would not result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people, and would adhere to applicable regulatory requirements addressing odor emissions (refer to RR 2-1 and RR 2-5). Impacts would be less than significant. 4. Biological Resources Impact 3.1: The Project site, site-adjacent improvement areas, and 6th Street at-grade crossing study area consist of two land cover types that would be classified as disturbed and developed. These areas do not support native plant communities, nor do they provide suitable habitat for sensitive plant or wildlife species. Therefore, the Project would not impact Candidate, Sensitive, or Special Status species. No impact would occur. Impact 3.2 & 3.3: The Project site, site-adjacent improvement areas, and 6th Street at-grade crossing study area do not support riparian habitat; United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), or Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) jurisdictional areas; wetlands; or, sensitive natural communities. Therefore, no impact would occur. Potential indirect impacts to the ephemeral channel and water detention basin east of the Project site, which are not within the Project’s impact limits, would be less than significant with adherence to construction-related water quality protection requirements (outlined in RR 9-1). Impact 3.4: The Project site, site-adjacent improvement areas and 6th Street at-grade crossing study area do not contain known native wildlife nursery sites and are not within a Wildlife Corridor or linkage. Vegetation and trees on the Project site, site-adjacent improvement areas, 6th Street at- grade crossing study area, and in the vicinity have the potential to provide suitable nesting opportunities for avian and raptor species. Compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and Sections 3503, 3503.5, 3511 and 3513 of the California Fish and Game Code, as outlined in RR 3-1 and RR 3-2 would ensure that potential impacts to nesting birds and raptors are less than significant. Impact 3.5: The Project would result in the removal of heritage trees; however, the removal of any heritage trees would be conducted in compliance with the City’s tree protection policies/requirements, as outlined in RR 3-3 and RR 3-4. No impact would occur related to conflict with tree protection policies or ordinances. Impact 3.6: The Project site is not within an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan; Natural Communities Conservation Plan; or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan area. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted plan and no impacts would occur. 9 5. Cultural Resources Impact 4.1: The Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines. Impact 4.3: Construction activities would not disturb known human remains. However, if human remains are encountered in subsurface soils, they would be handled in accordance with applicable State regulations (refer to RR 4-1), which detail the appropriate actions necessary in the event human remains are encountered. Potential impacts to human remains would be less than significant. 6. Energy Impact 5.1 The Project would adhere to the state-mandated provisions of Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards and the CalGreen Code, and the Rancho Cucamonga Development Code, and RR 5-1 (limits idling). The Project aims to achieve energy conservation goals within the State of California. As such, the Project would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy, or wasteful use of energy resources, during Project construction or operation. Impacts would be less than significant. Impact 5.2: The Project would not conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. Impacts would be less than significant. 7. Geology and Soils Impact 6.1(i): The Project site is not in a fault hazard area; nor is the Project site within a mapped Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. The Project would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault. No impact would occur. Impact 6.1(ii): The Project site is within a seismically active region. As such, the Project’s proposed structures may be subject to moderate to large seismic events, resulting in strong seismic ground shaking. As required by RR 6-1 and 6-2, the Project would be required to comply with the City’s Building Regulations/2019 California Building Code (CBC) and the City’s Grading Standards, and would be required to incorporate the recommendations from the Geotechnical Investigation, which would ensure that people and/or structures would not be exposed to potential substantial adverse effects from strong seismic ground shaking. Impacts would be less than significant. Impact 6.1(iii): The Project is not located within an area of liquefaction susceptibility. The Project would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction. No impact would occur. Impact 6.1 (iv): The Project site and surrounding areas are relatively flat. The Project would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving landslides. No impact would occur. Impact 6.2: The Project site is in a soil erosion hazard area, where soils have a moderate to high erosion hazard and soil blowing hazard. Construction activities and operations would be conducted in adherence to City, regional, and State regulations related to management of windblown dust and other sources of soil erosion (RR 6-3 and RR 6-4). Additionally, construction activities would be 10 conducted in compliance regulations pertaining to protection of water quality. With adherence to existing regulations and requirements, there would be a less than significant impact related to erosion during construction and operation. Impact 6.3: The near surface soils encountered at the on-site boring locations consist of artificial fill soils and native alluvium. Grading of the Project site would be performed in accordance with the City’s building and grading standards and recommendations outlined in the Geotechnical Investigation (RR 6-1 and RR 6-2), and impacts related to instability of the site’s geologic materials would be less than significant. Impact 6.4: The Project site soils have low expansion potential and no soils would be imported to the Project site. No impact would occur related to expansive soils. Impact 6.5: The Project would connect to the City-owned municipal wastewater conveyance system and would not utilize septic tanks for an alternative wastewater disposal system. The Project would have no impact related to the use of septic tanks and/or alternative wastewater systems. 8. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impact 7.1: Construction and operation of the Project, which would replace existing buildings, would not exceed the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD)/City screening threshold for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and would not generate a net increase in GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may significantly impact the environment. GHG emissions impacts would be less than significant. Notwithstanding, the Project Applicant has agreed to implement additional mitigation measures (revised MM 2-1 and new MM 2-2) identified in Section III.B.1, below, which would further reduce the Project’s less than significant GHG emissions. Impact 7.2: The Project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions, including Senate Bill (SB) 32 and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) 2017 Scoping Plan, the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), Connect SoCal, and the City of Rancho Cucamonga Sustainable Community Action Plan. This impact is less than significant and no mitigation is required. Notwithstanding, the Project Applicant has agreed to implement additional mitigation measures (revised MM 2-1 and new MM 2-2), which would further reduce the Project’s less than significant GHG emissions. 9. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Impact 8.1 & 8.2: Due to the lack of contaminants that exceed established standards for commercial/industrial uses, construction of the Project would not result in the exposure of the public to hazardous materials associated with potential Recognized Environmental Concerns (RECs). Further, no Asbestos Containing Materials (ACMs) or Lead Based Paint (LBP) occurs on- site. Construction and operation of the Project would involve handling of hazardous materials in limited quantities and typical to urban environments. Through compliance with existing regulations applicable to the Project (RR 8-1 through RR 8-3) the Project would not pose a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, storage, emission, or disposal of hazardous materials, nor would the Project increase the potential for accident conditions which could result in the release of hazardous materials into the environment. Impacts would be less than significant. 11 Impact 8.3: No existing or proposed schools are located within one-quarter mile of the Project site. The nearest school to the Project site (Sacred Heart Parish School) is located 1.5 miles to the north. Accordingly, the Project would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. Additionally, the Project would not cause a significant human health or cancer risk to school children at the nearest school to the Project site (Sacred Heart Parish School) due to air pollutant emissions. Impacts would be less than significant. Impact 8.4: The Project site is located on the State list of underground storage tanks (USTs) and leaking underground storage tanks (LUSTs) due to the previous presence of USTs on-site; the on- site USTs were removed in 1998. During the removal, no petroleum hydrocarbon staining or odors were noted beneath the USTs. The location of the Project on a site included on a list compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. No impact would occur and no mitigation is required. Impact 8.5: The Project site is located within the Airport Influence Area (AIA) for the Ontario International Airport (ONT). The Project site is located outside the safety zones for the ONT; however, it is within the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Height Notification Surface Zone and near the Airspace Obstruction Surface Zone. The proposed buildings would have a maximum height of 50-feet, would not require notification of the FAA, and would not cause an obstruction for aircraft operations. The Project site is also with the Overflight Notification Zone. Although no safety hazard would result, the Project would adhere to the requirements of the ONT Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan related to Real Estate Disclosure Policy (refer to RR 8-4). The Project would not result in airport-related safety hazards for people residing or working in the Project area. Impacts would be less than significant. Impact 8.6: The Project site does not contain any emergency facilities nor does it serve as an emergency evacuation route. The Project would not impair implementation of, or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan. No impact would result and no mitigation is required. Impact 8.7: The Project site is not located within a designated fire hazard area or a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone within a Local Responsibility Area. The Project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk associated with wildland fires. No impact would occur. 10. Hydrology and Water Quality Impact 9.1: Short-term construction and long-term operation of development under the Project would generate pollutants that may enter stormwater. However, compliance with existing regulations, as identified in RR 9-1 through RR 9-3, would prevent the violation of water quality standards, ensure compliance with waste discharge requirements and prevent the degradation of stormwater quality and groundwater quality. Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. Impact 9.2: The Project would result in net increase in water demand as compared to existing conditions; however, the net increase would represent less than one percent of water demand for Cucamonga Valley Water District (CVWD). Therefore, the Project would not deplete groundwater supplies. The Project site is not in an CVWD groundwater recharge area; therefore, implementation of the Project would not interfere with groundwater recharge. Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. 12 Impact 9.3: The Project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off- site, substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site, create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff, or impede or redirect flood flows. Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. Impact 9.4: The Project site is not within a 100-year flood zone, is not within a tsunami zone, and is not within proximity to an enclosed or partially enclosed body of water that is capable of producing seiches. Therefore, there would be no impact related to risk of release of pollutants due to Project inundation from a flood, tsunami or seiche. The Project site is not located within a dam inundation area and impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation is not required. Impact 9.5: The Project site is within the Santa Ana River Basin and with adherence to RR 9-1 through RR 9-3, the Project would not conflict with the Santa Ana Basin Plan. The Chino and Cucamonga Groundwater Basins are “low priority” basins and not subject to the requirements of the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with an adopted Groundwater Sustainability Plan. No impacts would occur. 11. Land Use and Planning Impact 10.1: The Project site is surrounded by existing non-residential development. Redevelopment of the Project site, including construction of new Street A, would not physically divide an established community. No impact would occur. Impact 10.2: Implementation of the Project would not result in conflicts with any local or regional land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. The Project is consistent with the advisory Rancho Cucamonga General Plan (2010) Policy LU-7.1 because following the preparation of the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan (2010), the NRG Etiwanda Generating Station closed and there is no longer a need for the immediately surrounding areas to be developed with heavy industrial uses. No impacts would occur. 12. Mineral Resources As identified in the NOP, the Project site is not located within an area known to be underlain by regionally-important mineral resources and is not identified as a locally-important mineral resource recovery site. Implementation of the Project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region or to the residents of the State of California. No impact would result. 13. Noise Impact 11.2: The Project would not result in the generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels during construction or operation. This impact is less than significant and no mitigation is required. 13 Impact 11.3: The Project site is located within the ONT AIA but outside the 60 dBA CNEL airport noise impact zone. The Project would not expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels. This impact is less than significant and no mitigation is required. 14. Population and Housing Impact 12.1: The Project proposes to redevelop the Project site with two warehouse buildings and would not include the development of any residential uses. The Project would result in a net increase of approximately 277 employment opportunities. The Project would not directly or indirectly result in substantial unplanned population growth in the area. Impacts would be less than significant. Impact 12.2: The Project site does not contain any residential structures under existing conditions. Therefore, the Project would not displace substantial numbers of existing housing or people and would not necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. No impact would occur. 15. Public Services As identified in the NOP, the Project would not involve new residential uses or an increase in the City’s population, and there is an existing demand for public services at the Project site associated with the existing development on-site. The Project would be developed in adherence to existing regulations relative to fire protection, and required development impact fees would be paid. The Project would not require the construction of new or alteration of existing public service facilities to maintain an adequate level of service to the Project area, and no physical environmental impacts would result. Impacts to public services would be less than significant. 16. Recreation As identified in the NOP, the Project does not propose any uses that would directly generate a population that would increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities. In addition, the Project does not propose to construct any new on- or off-site recreation facilities. Implementation of the Project would not result in the increased use or substantial physical deterioration of an existing neighborhood or regional park, or substantial adverse environmental effects related to the construction or expansion of recreational facilities. Impacts related to recreational facilities would be less than significant. 17. Transportation/Traffic Impact 13.1: The Project site is within a Transit Priority Area, and the Project would be implemented in accordance with applicable regulations related to Transportation (refer to RR 13-2 and RR 13-3). The Project would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. No impact would result. Impact 13.2: The Project’s VMT impact would be considered less than significant based on the City’s Low VMT Area screening threshold. Further, the Project’s VMT impact would be considered less than significant based on the comparison of baseline Project-generated VMT per service population to the City’s baseline condition. Thus, the Project would not conflict with or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b). This impact is less than significant and no mitigation is required. 14 Impact 13.3: Construction activities within the public right-of-way would be conducted in accordance with requirements established by the cities of Rancho Cucamonga and Ontario (refer to RR 13-1 and RR 13-5) and Caltrans as appropriate, and Project-generated truck traffic during construction and operation would travel on designated truck routes, and would adhere to applicable regulations associated with truck travel (refer to RR 13-4). The Project does not involve the introduction of any design features or incompatible uses that would substantially increase hazards for motorists, pedestrians, or bicyclists, on the roadways surrounding the Project site. This impact would be less than significant. Impact 13.4: Proposed construction activities would be conducted in compliance with requirements of the cities of Rancho Cucamonga and Ontario (refer to RR 13-1 and RR 13-5), and the Project circulation system would meet Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District (RCFPD) standards for access, width, and turning radii. The Project would provide adequate emergency access and impacts would be less than significant. 18. Tribal Cultural Resources Impact 14.1.a: The Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resources 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). No impact would occur. 19. Utilities and Service Systems Impact 15.1: The Project would increase the demand for utility services and in addition to complying with Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards and the CALGreen Code, the Project would adhere to regulations addressing water conservation (refer to RR 15-2 and RR 15-3). Utility infrastructure installation and associated improvements would occur within the identified physical impact area for the Project (on-site and within the public right-of-way along adjacent streets) as addressed throughout the Draft EIR, and in compliance with applicable requirements of the utility providers (RR 15-1). No additional impacts would result. This impact would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. Impact 15.2: Development allowed by the Project would require water supplies from the CVWD. The Project-specific Water Supply Assessment (WSA) demonstrates that CVWD has available water supplies to meet the water demands of the Project for the next twenty years through 2040, including demands during normal, single dry and multiple dry years. The CVWD has concurred with the findings of the WSA that available water supplies would be adequate to serve the Project. Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. Impact 15.3: The Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA) wastewater treatment facilities have sufficient capacity to serve the Project and existing commitments. This impact would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. Impact 15.4: The Project’s construction and operational refuse would be disposed of at the Mid Valley Landfill. Construction and operational activities would comply with applicable regulations addressing solid waste management (refer to RR 15-4 and RR 15-5). The Project would not generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals. This impact would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. 15 Impact 15.5: Construction and operation associated with implementation the Project would be conducted in compliance with applicable statues and regulations related to solid waste. No impact would occur and no mitigation is required. 20. Wildfire As identified in the NOP, the Project site is not located within a very high fire hazard severity zone, and is surrounded by development, with no wildland areas in the immediate vicinity. As such, no impacts related to wildfire would occur. C. FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO EFFECTS DETERMINED TO BE MITIGATED TO A LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT LEVEL The EIR identified certain potentially significant effects that could result from the Project. However, the City finds for each of the significant or potentially significant impacts identified in this section that based upon substantial evidence in the record, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the Final EIR and, thus, that adoption of the mitigation measures set forth below will reduce these significant or potentially significant effects to less-than- significant levels. Adoption of the recommended mitigation measures will effectively make the mitigation measures part of the Project. Impacts and Mitigation Measures are presented below in summary form. For a detailed description of impacts and Mitigation Measures, see the appropriate text in the EIR. As stated in Part I of these Findings, above, the City hereby binds itself to implement these measures as measures built into the design of the Project itself or as conditions of Project approval. 1. Air Quality Threshold 2.1: Would the Project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Findings: The air quality plan applicable to the Project is the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Final 2016 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). The Project’s net operational emissions would not exceed the applicable SCAQMD regional thresholds or LST thresholds, and the Project’s construction and operational characteristics would not exceed the assumptions in the AQMP. However, prior to mitigation the Project’s construction-related emissions would exceed the SCAQMD regional thresholds for NOX. Thus, Project-related construction activities have the potential to result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or cause or contribute to new violations or delay the timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emissions reductions specified in the 2016 AQMP, resulting in a potentially significant impact. With the implementation of MM 2-1, which was expanded in the Final EIR to include additional construction-related mitigation requirements recommended by the CARB the Project would not conflict with the 2016 AQMP, and this impact would be less than significant. MM 2-1 reduces NOx emissions by requiring the use of Tier 3 and Tier 4 equipment, restricting idling time for heavy construction equipment, requiring electrical hookups for zero near 16 zero construction equipment and use of commercially available electric powered equipment, and requiring use of Model Year 2014 or later heavy-duty trucks for dirt and material hauling. To reduce the Project’s less than significant operational air quality impacts identified in the Draft EIR, new MM 2-2 was also added in the Final EIR in response to CARB’s recommendations. MM 2-2 reduces NOx emissions through Project design requirements (EV-ready truck dock positions), and operational requirements to be imposed on future building occupants related to transportation refrigeration units (TRUs), use of service equipment powered by alternative fuels, and idling times for trucks and support equipment. MM 2-1 Prior to grading permit and building permit issuance, the City of Rancho Cucamonga shall verify that the following applicable notes are included on the grading plans and building plans. Project contractors shall be required to ensure compliance with these notes and permit periodic inspection of the construction-site by City of Rancho Cucamonga staff or its designee to confirm compliance. These notes also shall be specified in bid documents issued to prospective construction contractors. • During construction activity, Project construction contractors shall ensure that off-road diesel construction equipment complies with applicable California Air Resources Board (CARB) emissions standards or equivalent and shall ensure that all construction equipment is tuned and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications. • The following off-road construction equipment shall be CARB Tier III certified or better, by construction phase as shown: o Demolition/Crushing:  Boom Lift  Concrete/Industrial Saws  Crusher  Skid Steer o Utilities/Infrastructure:  Trencher o Building Construction:  Forklifts  Generator Sets  Welders o Paving:  Pavers  Paving Equipment  Rollers o Architectural Coating  Air Compressors • The following off-road construction equipment shall be CARB Tier IV Final certified or better, by construction phase as shown: o Demolition/Crushing:  Breakers  Excavators  Generator Sets  Rubber Tired Dozers 17 o Grading:  Crawler Tractors  Excavators  Graders  Rubber Tired Dozers  Scrapers o Utilities/Infrastructure:  Excavators  Skip Loaders/Backhoes o Building Construction  Cranes  Crawler Tractors  Laser Screed  Scissor Loaders/Backhoes  Skip Loaders/Backhoes • Idling of heavy construction equipment shall be restricted to two minutes and electrical hook ups shall be provided to support use of zero and near-zero construction equipment and tools whenever feasible. • Off-road equipment with a power rating below 19 kilowatts (e.g., plate compactors, pressure washers) used during project construction shall be electric powered, provided that it is commercially available, which may be plug-in (electric) or battery powered. • Heavy-duty trucks used for dirt and material hauling during construction shall meet the United States Environmental Protection Agency/California Air Resource Board truck engine standard for Model Year 2014 or later. MM 2-2 The Project Applicant shall include the following operational requirements in the final building design or stipulate the operational requirements for building occupants, as appropriate: Project Design • Make truck dock positions EV-ready by installing conduits at truck dock positions for future accommodation of light-duty and/or heavy-duty electric trucks and charging stations. Lease Agreement and Owner-Occupant Requirements • Those loading docks used by trucks with transport refrigeration units (TRU) as determined by a cold storage tenant shall be equipped with electrical hookups (applicable to cold storage tenant lease agreements only). • TRUs entering the Project site shall be plug-in capable (applicable to cold storage tenant lease agreements only). • On-site TRU diesel engine run time shall be no longer than 15 minutes (applicable to cold storage tenant lease agreements only). • Service equipment (e.g., yard hostlers, yard equipment, forklifts, and pallet jacks) shall be powered by alternative fuels, electrical batteries or other 18 alternative/non-diesel fuels (e.g., propane) that do not emit diesel particulate matter, and that are low or zero emission. •Trucks and support equipment shall not idle longer than five minutes while on site. Threshold 2.2: Would the Project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard? Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Findings: Prior to mitigation and with adherence to applicable regulatory requirements (RR-1 through RR-5), the Project’s construction activities would result in a cumulatively-considerable net increase of NOX, which is an O3 precursor, for which the Project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard, resulting in a potentially significant impact. As discussed above, this impact would be mitigated to a less than significant level with implementation of MM 2-1, as revised in the Final EIR, which is presented above because MM 2-1 includes requirements that serve to reduce NOx emissions. During operation, the Project would not result in a cumulatively-considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the Project region is in nonattainment under an applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard, and impacts would therefore be less than significant. Notwithstanding the Project’s less than significant impact, new MM 2-2 presented above would also be implemented to further reduce operational air pollutant emissions. As discussed above, MM 2-2 includes requirements that serve to reduce NOx emissions. 2.Cultural Resources Threshold 4.2: Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5? Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Findings: The Project has a low potential to impact unknown archaeological resources; however, there is a potential to encounter subsurface archaeological resources during construction resulting in a potentially significant impact prior to mitigation. Implementation of MM 4-1 and MM 4-2, which identify actions to be taken during construction to protect unknown resources, would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. MM 4-1 requires that prior to the commencement of grading, a qualified archaeologist be retained to conduct contractor training so all personnel are aware of the potential for the presence of resources at the site and understand the protocols to follow in the event of a discovery. In the unlikely event that archaeological resources are unearthed, resulting in a potential loss of a previously unknown resource, MM 4-2 requires a qualified archaeologist must be retained to evaluate the find and make decisions on its disposition. MM 4-1 Prior to site preparation or grading activities, construction personnel shall be instructed by a qualified Archaeologist of the potential for encountering unique archaeological resources and instructed on steps to take in the event such resources are encountered. This shall include the provision of written materials to familiarize personnel with the 19 range of resources that might be expected, the type of activities that may result in impacts, and the legal framework of cultural resources protection. All construction personnel shall be instructed to stop work in the vicinity of a potential discovery until a qualified Archaeologist assesses the significance of the find and implements appropriate measures to protect or scientifically remove the find. Construction personnel shall also be informed that unauthorized collection of archaeological resources is prohibited. MM 4-2 In the event that cultural resources are inadvertently unearthed during excavation and grading activities, the Contractor shall immediately cease all earth-disturbing activities within a 100-foot radius of the area of discovery. The Property Owner/Developer shall retain a qualified Archaeologist (Project Archaeologist), subject to approval by the City of Rancho Cucamonga, to evaluate the significance of the find and to determine an appropriate course of action. All artifacts except for human remains and related grave goods or sacred objects belong to the Property Owner. All artifacts discovered at the development site shall be inventoried and analyzed by the Project Archaeologist. Non-Native American artifacts shall be inventoried, assessed, and analyzed for cultural affiliation, personal affiliation (prior ownership), function, and temporal placement. Subsequent to analysis and reporting, these artifacts shall be subjected to curation or returned to the Property Owner, as deemed appropriate. If any artifacts of Native American origin are discovered, the Property Owner/Developer and Project Archaeologist shall notify the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department and the appropriate local Native American tribe identified by the Native American Heritage Commission. The significance of Native American resources shall be evaluated in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and shall consider the religious beliefs, customs, and practices of the tribe (refer to MM 14-1 though MM 14-6 in Section 4.14, Tribal Cultural Resources). All items found in association with Native American human remains shall be considered grave goods or sacred in origin and subject to special handling (see RR 4-1). Once ground-altering activities have ceased or the Project Archaeologist determines that monitoring activities are no longer necessary, monitoring activities may be discontinued following notification to the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department. A report of findings, including an itemized inventory of recovered artifacts, shall be prepared upon completion of the steps outlined above. The report shall include a discussion of the significance of all recovered artifacts. The report and inventory, when submitted to the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department, shall signify completion of the program to mitigate impacts to archaeological and/or cultural resources. A copy of the report shall also be filed with the Archaeological Information Center (AIC) at the San Bernardino County Museum and the Native American tribe, as appropriate. 20 3. Geology & Soils Threshold 6.6: Would the Project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Findings: The Project site is underlain by native alluvial soils, which have a High paleontological sensitivity. The depth of proposed excavation for the Project is up to 26 feet. Therefore, there is a potential for significant paleontological resources to be unearthed during ground-disturbing activities, without mitigation. With the implementation of MM 6-1, which identifies actions to be taken during construction to protect paleontological resources that may be present, potential impacts to paleontological resources would be less than significant. MM 6-1 requires that full-time paleontological monitoring be required starting at a depth of 12 feet below the surface during grading, excavation, or utility trenching activities at the Project site. For grading and other earth disturbance activities at depths between five and 12 feet below the surface, periodic “spot checks” for potential paleontological resources is warranted and also required by MM 6-1. If significant fossils are discovered during a spot check, full-time monitoring is required. MM 6-1 further identifies steps to be taken in the event paleontological resources are encountered, including temporary halting construction activities or diverting equipment to allow for the removal of fossils in a timely manner; depositing fossils in an accredit institution, if warranted; and, preparation of a final monitoring and mitigation report. MM 6-1 Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the Project Applicant shall submit to and receive approval from the City, a Paleontological Resource Impact Mitigation Monitoring Program (PRIMMP). The PRIMMP shall include the provision of a qualified professional paleontologist (or his or her trained paleontological monitor representative) during on-site subsurface excavation of Quaternary (i.e., early Holocene and late Pleistocene) alluvial-fan deposits, as outlined below. Selection of the paleontologist shall be subject to approval of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Director, or designee, and no grading activities shall occur at the site until the paleontologist has been approved by the City. The PRIMMP shall include the requirements below. • Monitoring of mass grading and excavation activities in areas identified as likely to contain paleontological resources shall be performed by a qualified paleontologist or paleontological monitor. Monitoring shall be conducted full time in areas of grading or excavation activities that occur in undisturbed exposures of Quaternary (i.e., early Holocene and late Pleistocene) alluvial-fan deposits at a depth of 12 feet and below in order to mitigate any adverse impacts (loss or destruction) to potential nonrenewable paleontological resources. For grading and other earth disturbance activities at depths between 5 and 12 feet below the surface, periodic spot checks for potential paleontological resources shall be conducted. Periodic monitoring shall consist of approximately 1 to 3 scheduled site visits per week by a paleontological monitor during construction ground disturbance. If significant fossils are discovered during a spot check, full-time monitoring should be initiated. • Paleontological monitors shall be equipped to salvage fossils as they are unearthed to avoid construction delays and to remove samples of sediment that are likely to 21 contain the remains of small fossil invertebrates and vertebrates. The monitor shall be empowered to temporarily halt or divert equipment to allow for the removal of abundant or large specimens in a timely manner. Monitoring may be reduced if the potentially fossiliferous units are not present in the subsurface, or if they are present, are determined upon exposure and examination by qualified paleontological personnel to have low potential to contain fossil resources. • Recovered specimens shall be prepared to a point of identification and permanent preservation, including screen-washing sediments to recover small invertebrates and vertebrates, if indicated by the results of test sampling. Preparation of individual vertebrate fossils is often more time-consuming than for accumulations of invertebrate fossils. • All fossils shall be deposited in an accredited institution, such as the San Bernardino County Museum, that maintains collections of paleontological materials. All costs of the paleontological monitoring and mitigation program, including any one-time charges by the receiving institution, are the responsibility of the Project Applicant. • The Project Paleontologist shall prepare of a final monitoring and mitigation report of findings and significance, including lists of all fossils recovered and necessary maps and graphics to accurately record their original location(s). A letter documenting receipt and acceptance of all fossil collections by the receiving institution must be included in the final report. The report, when submitted to (and accepted by) the City of Rancho Cucamonga, shall signify satisfactory completion of the Project program to mitigate impacts to any nonrenewable paleontological resources. 4. Noise Threshold 11.1: Would the Project 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? Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Findings: During the Project’s construction phase, the Project would result in a temporary increase in noise levels along the eastern property boundary, which is shared with the West Valley Detention Center. The construction noise levels would exceed the City of Rancho Cucamonga construction noise level standard of 65 dBA Leq. With implementation of MM 11-1 and MM 11-2, construction-related noise impacts at the eastern property boundary would be reduced 62.1 dBA Leq, which would not exceed the City’s standard, resulting in a less than significant impact with mitigation. MM 11-2 requires installation of a temporary noise barrier at the eastern property line during construction, and MM 11-2 requires use of properly operating and maintained mufflers and directing stationary construction equipment away noise sensitive receivers. 22 The Project would not result in a permanent increase in daytime or nighttime noise levels during operation in excess of established noise standards. This impact is less than significant, and no mitigation is required. MM 11-1 Prior to issuance of grading or building permits, the City of Rancho Cucamonga shall review the plans to ensure the plans require the installation of a minimum 6-foot-high temporary construction perimeter noise barrier along the Project site’s boundary with the San Bernardino County West Valley Detention Center. The location and following specifications for the noise control barrier shall also be included on the plans: • The noise control barriers must present a solid face from top to bottom. • The noise barrier shall be constructed using one of the following materials with no decorative cutouts or line-of-sight openings between shielded areas and the noise source: o An acoustical blanket (e.g., vinyl acoustic curtains, quilted blankets, or equivalent) attached to the construction-site perimeter fence or equivalent temporary fence posts. o Any combination of construction materials satisfying a weight of at least 4 pounds per square foot of face area. • The noise barriers shall be maintained, and any damage promptly repaired. Gaps, holes, or weaknesses in the barrier or openings between the barrier and the ground shall be promptly repaired. The required barrier shall be installed prior to any construction activities commencing on-site and shall remain in place until construction activities have been completed. The construction contractor shall allow for periodic inspection by the City of Rancho Cucamonga to ensure that the required noise barrier remains in place until completion of construction activities on-site. MM 11-2 During all Project site construction, the construction contractors shall equip all construction equipment, fixed or mobile, with properly operating and maintained mufflers, consistent with manufacturers’ standards. The construction contractor shall place all stationary construction equipment so that emitted noise is directed away from the noise sensitive receptors nearest the Project site. The construction contractor shall allow for periodic inspection by the City of Rancho Cucamonga to ensure compliance with these requirements. 5. Tribal Cultural Resources Threshold 14.1.b: Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource 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. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Findings: The Project has a low potential to impact unknown tribal cultural resources; however, there is a potential to encounter subsurface tribal cultural resources during 23 construction resulting in a potentially significant impact prior to mitigation. Implementation of MM 14-1 through MM 14-6, required during the City’s consultation with the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation, would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. MM 14-1 through MM 14-6 require monitoring of ground-disturbing activities, outline the parameters for the monitoring activities, and identify actions that should be taken if tribal cultural resources or Native American human remains are encountered. These measures further ensure the proper identification and subsequent treatment of any tribal cultural resources and/or Native American human remains that may be encountered during ground-disturbing activities associated with the development of the Project. If human remains are encountered in subsurface soils, implementation of RR 4-1, which outlines state-required actions required to be taken in the event human remains of Native American origin are discovered, would also ensure potential impacts are less than significant. MM 14-1 Prior to the commencement of any ground disturbing activity at the Project site, the project applicant shall retain a Native American Monitor approved by the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation – the tribe that consulted on this project pursuant to Assembly Bill A52 - SB18 (the “Tribe” or the “Consulting Tribe”). A copy of the executed contract shall be submitted to the City of Rancho Cucamonga prior to the issuance of any permit necessary to commence a ground-disturbing activity. The Tribal monitor shall only be present on-site during the construction phases that involve ground-disturbing activities. Ground disturbing activities are defined by the Tribe 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 shall complete daily monitoring logs that shall provide descriptions of the day’s activities, including construction activities, locations, soil, and any cultural materials identified. The on-site monitoring shall end when all ground-disturbing activities on the Project site are completed, or when the Tribal Representatives and Tribal Monitor have indicated that all upcoming ground- disturbing activities at the Project site have little to no potential for impacting tribal cultural resources. Upon discovery of any tribal cultural resources, construction activities shall cease in the immediate vicinity of the find (not less than the surrounding 50 feet) until the find can be assessed. All tribal cultural resources unearthed by project activities shall be evaluated by the Tribal monitor approved by the Consulting Tribe and a qualified archaeologist if one is present. If the resources are Native American in origin, the Consulting Tribe shall retain it/them in the form and/or manner the Tribe deems appropriate, for educational, cultural and/or historic purposes. If human remains and/or grave goods are discovered or recognized at the Project site, all ground disturbance shall immediately cease, and the county coroner shall be notified per Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, and Health & Safety Code Section 7050.5. Human remains and grave/burial goods shall be treated alike per California Public Resources Code section 5097.98(d)(1) and (2). Work may continue in other parts of the Project site while evaluation and, if necessary, mitigation takes place (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5[f]). 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 (non-TCR) 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, it shall be offered to a local school or historical society in the area for educational purposes. 24 MM 14-2 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 NAHC and PRC 5097.98 shall be followed. MM 14-3 Upon discovery of human remains, the tribal and/or archaeological monitor/consultant/consultant shall immediately divert work at minimum of 100 feet and place an exclusion zone around the discovery location. The monitor/consultant(s) shall then notify the Tribe, the qualified lead archaeologist, and the construction manager who shall call the coroner. Work shall continue to be diverted while the coroner determines whether the remains are human and subsequently 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 shall notify the NAHC as mandated by state law who shall then appoint a Most Likely Descendent (MLD). MM 14-4 If the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation is designated MLD, the Koo- nas-gna Burial Policy 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 preparation of the soil for burial, the burial of funerary objects with the deceased, and the ceremonial burning of human remains. The prepared soil and cremation soils 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. MM 14-5 Prior to the continuation of ground disturbing activities, the landowner 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 shall 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 shall 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 shall be removed. The Tribe shall work closely with the qualified archaeologist to ensure that the excavation is treated carefully, ethically and respectfully. If data recovery is approved by the Tribe, documentation shall be taken which includes at a minimum detailed descriptive notes and sketches. Additional types of documentation shall be approved by the Tribe for data recovery purposes. Cremations shall 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 25 does NOT authorize any scientific study or the utilization of any invasive and/or destructive diagnostics on human remains. Each occurrence of human remains and associated funerary objects shall be stored using opaque cloth bags. All human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects and objects of cultural patrimony shall 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. MM 14-6 Native American and Archaeological monitoring during construction projects shall be consistent with current professional standards. All feasible care to avoid any unnecessary disturbance, physical modification, or separation of TCR’s shall be taken. The Native American monitor must be approved by the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation. Principal personnel for Archaeology 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. IV. FINDINGS REGARDING SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE CHANGES AND GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS A. SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES Section 15126.2(d) of the CEQA Guidelines requires a discussion of any significant irreversible environmental changes that would be caused by a proposed project. Specifically, Section 15126.2(d) states: Uses of nonrenewable resources during the initial and continued phases of the project may be irreversible, since a large commitment of such resources makes removal or non-use thereafter unlikely. Primary impacts and, particularly, secondary impacts (such as highway improvement which provides access to a previously inaccessible area) generally commit future generations to similar uses. Also, irreversible damage can result from environmental accidents associated with the project. Irretrievable commitments of resources should be evaluated to assure that such current consumption is justified. Generally, a project would result in significant irreversible environmental changes if the following occurs: • The primary and secondary impacts would generally commit future generations to similar uses; • The project would involve a large commitment of nonrenewable resources; • The project involves uses in which irreversible damage could result from any potential environmental accidents associated with the project; and • The proposed consumption of resources is not justified (e.g., the project involves the wasteful use of energy). Determining whether the Project may result in significant irreversible effects requires a determination of whether key non-renewable resources would be degraded or destroyed in such a way that there would be little possibility of restoring them. The southern portion of the Project site 26 is developed with industrial uses, associated facilities, and landscaping, and the northern portion of the Project site consists of a surface parking area and vacant land (a former vineyard). The Rancho Cucamonga General Plan anticipates that development within the Southeast Focus Area will eventually support urban uses that would generate jobs and revenue. Thus, the Project would alter the Project site by replacing the existing warehouse and retail buildings, which were originally constructed in 1983, with two new contemporary high-cube industrial warehouse buildings. There are no non-renewable resources present at the Project site; therefore, conversion of the land from its current state to a high-cube industrial warehouse development would have no direct effect on any such resources at the Project site. Construction of the Project would require the commitment and reduction of nonrenewable and/or slowly renewable resources, including petroleum fuels and natural gas (e.g., for construction, vehicle operations) as well as lumber, sand/gravel, steel, copper, lead, and other metals (for use in building and internal roadway construction and utility infrastructure). Construction of the Project would not involve the use of large sums or sources of renewable energy. Additionally, the Project is required by law to comply with federal, state, and local building requirements addressing energy conservation, compliance with these requirements reduces a building operation’s energy volume that is produced by fossil fuels. Non-renewable natural resources that would be consumed over the operating life of the Project could include fuels (e.g., petroleum) for both on-site workers who would commute to the Project site and for the vehicles that would deliver goods to/from the Project site. Depending on the specific occupants of the Project’s future buildings, various non-renewable natural resources could be consumed during operations, including metals (such as lead, copper, etc.). There also could be a variety of ancillary maintenance and fueling activities for equipment used inside the future buildings and in the truck loading areas of the industrial buildings. These activities could involve the use of liquid fuels such as gasoline and diesel, propane, or other gases. The consumption of non-renewable resources to construct and operate the Project over the long-term would likely commit subsequent generations to the same use of the land and similar patterns of energy consumption, although the Project is expected to generate a significant amount of solar energy through a commitment to construct a rooftop solar system under the proposed Development Agreement. It is improbable that the site would revert to permanently undeveloped conditions due to the large capital investment that would already have been committed. However, the Project is not expected to reduce the availability of any natural resources as a result of long-term operational activities. An analysis of the Project’s potential to transport or handle hazardous materials which, if released into the environment, could result in irreversible damage to the environment is provided in the EIR. As concluded in the analysis, compliance with federal, State, and local regulations related to hazardous materials would be required of all contractors working on the property during the Project’s construction and of all occupants that occupy the Project’s buildings. As such, construction and long-term operation of the Project would not have the potential to cause significant irreversible damage to the environment, including damage that may result from upset or accident conditions. Lastly, an increased commitment of public services (e.g., police and fire) would also be required. However, as discussed above, the Project would not require the construction of new or alteration of existing fire or police protection facilities to maintain an adequate level of service to the Project area, and no physical environmental impacts would result. 27 In summary, Project development is an irreversible commitment of the land, energy resources, and public services. B. GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS CEQA requires an EIR include a discussion of ways in which the proposed project could induce growth. The CEQA Guidelines identify a project as growth-inducing if it fosters economic or population growth or if it encourages the construction of additional housing either directly or indirectly in the surrounding environment (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.2[e]). New employees from the future high-cube warehouse uses proposed by the Project represent direct forms of growth. These direct forms of growth have a secondary effect of expanding the size of local markets and inducing additional economic activity in the area, placing additional demands on public services and infrastructure systems, and in the generation of a variety of environmental impacts. To address this issue, potential growth-inducing effects are examined through analysis of the following questions: 1. Would this project remove obstacles to growth (e.g., through the construction or extension of major infrastructure facilities that do not presently exist in the project area or through changes in existing regulations pertaining to land development)? 2. Would this project result in the need to expand one or more public services to maintain desired levels of service? 3. Would this project encourage or facilitate economic effects that could result in other activities that could significantly affect the environment? 4. Would approval of this project involve some precedent setting action that could encourage and facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment? A project could indirectly induce growth by reducing or removing barriers to growth or by creating a condition that attracts additional population or new economic activity. However, a project’s potential to induce growth does not automatically result in growth. Growth can only happen through capital investment in new economic opportunities by the private or public sectors. Under CEQA, growth inducement is not considered necessarily detrimental, beneficial, or of little significance to the environment. This issue is presented to provide additional information on ways in which the Project could contribute to significant changes in the environment, beyond the direct consequences of implementing the Project examined in the EIR. 1. Would this Project remove obstacles to growth (e.g., through the construction or extension of major infrastructure facilities that do not presently exist in the Project area or through changes in existing regulations pertaining to land development)? Urban development in the City of Rancho Cucamonga and existing development in the Southeast Focus Area, described in Section III.A, are already served by an extensive network of utility/service systems and the other infrastructure necessary to accommodate or serve the existing conditions and planned growth. The existing utility/service systems can be readily upgraded and/or extended onto the future development sites. Further, future development would be reviewed on a project-by-project basis prior to the time of proposed construction in order to determine the utility/service systems necessary to serve the proposed land uses. The Project would not involve the construction of any off-site infrastructure; existing and planned 28 utility infrastructure and facilities are available adjacent to the Project site. New utility infrastructure would be required to serve the proposed development and would connect to existing utilities. The utility infrastructure installed as part of the Project would be sized and located expressly to serve the Project and would not, therefore, induce growth in the Project vicinity. The Project would not involve the construction of any major roadways. A new public street referred to as “Street A” would be constructed along the eastern boundary of the Project site to provide a connection between 4th Street and 6th Street to alleviate vehicular trips on nearby streets. Additionally, as shown in the General Plan Circulation Plan, the Project includes the connection of 6th Street over the railroad tracks west of the Project site to complete 6th Street between Santa Anita Avenue and Etiwanda Avenue. These roadway improvements would not induce growth in the Project vicinity. As previously discussed, the Project site is currently designated for Light Industrial and Heavy Industrial uses. The Project implements growth and development anticipated in the Southeast Focus Area, as identified in the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan. However, a General Plan Amendment and Zoning Map Amendment are requested for the northern portion of the Project site for consistency of land use designations across the Project site and to create a uniform set of development standards to follow. The Project is not, therefore, considered to be growth- inducing with respect to the removal of obstacles to growth. 2. Would this Project result in the need to expand one or more public services to maintain desired levels of service? Consistent with the existing condition, the Project would create the typical range of service calls for the RCFPD and SBSD that occur with the proposed industrial uses. The Project would not necessitate the construction of new or the expansion of existing public service facilities in order to maintain desired levels of service. No demand for other public services (e.g., schools, parks, libraries) would occur with the Project and the facilities or associated resources of these services do not need to be expanded. In addition, the City has funding mechanisms in place through existing regulations and standard practices to accommodate future growth and the demand for public services. This Project would not, therefore, have significant growth inducing consequences with respect to public services. 3. Would this Project encourage or facilitate economic effects that could result in other activities that could significantly affect the environment? During Project construction, a number of designs, engineering, and construction-related jobs would be created. This would last until Project construction is completed. This would be an indirect, growth-inducing effect of the Project. As the Project is built and occupied, Project employees would seek shopping, entertainment, employment, home improvement, auto maintenance, and other economic opportunities in the surrounding area. This would represent an increased demand for such economic goods and services and could, therefore, encourage the creation of new businesses and/or the expansion of existing businesses that address these economic needs. However, it is expected that any such development would occur consistent with planned growth identified in the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan and the General Plans of nearby cities, including Ontario and Fontana. The Project is located near existing commercial and retail areas that would help serve the needs of Project employees. However, the Project would not increase the residential population in the City and would not directly induce or cause substantial unexpected growth in the area. 29 Once operational, the Project could result in a net increase of approximately 277 employment opportunities in the City, and the number of jobs that would result from operation of the Project is within the growth projections for the City and region, including the growth assumptions in SCAG’s current Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS; referred to as Connect SoCal). It is expected that the short-term construction jobs and new positions during Project operation would be filled by workers who already reside in the local area or region. Operation of the Project is not anticipated to generate a substantial permanent increase in population in the City, and the increase in demand for additional goods and services would be limited to those associated with employee demands. 4. Would this Project involve some precedent setting action that could encourage and facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment? The Project involves a General Plan Amendment and Zoning Map Amendment to provide a consistent land designation for the Project site. However, no changes to any of the City’s building safety standards (i.e., building, grading, plumbing, mechanical, electrical, fire codes) are proposed or required to implement this Project. Regulatory requirements and mitigation measures have been identified to ensure that implementation of the Project complies with applicable City plans, policies, and ordinances, ensure that there are no conflicts with adopted land development regulations, and environmental impacts are minimized. The Project does not propose any precedent-setting actions that, if approved, would specifically allow, or encourage other projects and resultant growth to occur. Furthermore, the Project is not extending any infrastructure or facilitating further development. Accordingly, the Project’s potential influence on other nearby properties to redevelop at greater intensities and/or different uses than the City’s General Plan and Zoning allow is speculative. CEQA does not require the analysis of speculative effects (CEQA Guidelines Section 151454). If any other property owner were to propose redevelopment of a property in the Project vicinity or in any part of the City, the redevelopment project would require evaluation under CEQA based on its own merits, including an analysis of direct and cumulatively considerable effects. V. FINDINGS REGARDING PROJECT ALTERNATIVES Although the Project would not result in any significant and unavoidable impacts, CEQA requires evaluations of alternatives that can reduce the significance of identified Project impacts that will not be avoided or substantially lessened by mitigation measures and can "feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the proposed Project." Thus, overall Project objectives were considered by the City in evaluating the alternatives. The objectives that have been established for the Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project are listed below. 1. Ensure that development of the Project site is accomplished consistent with applicable goals and policies of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as set forth in the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan. 2. Maximize redevelopment of the existing underutilized Project site and generate increased property tax revenue for the City of Rancho Cucamonga in order to support the City’s ongoing municipal operations. 3. Maximize development of Class A high cube warehouse industrial buildings in the City of Rancho Cucamonga that are designed to meet contemporary industry standards for operational 30 design criteria, can accommodate a wide variety of users, and are economically competitive with similar industrial buildings in the local area and region. 4. Create employment-generating businesses in the City of Rancho Cucamonga to reduce the need for members of the local workforce to commute outside the area for employment, and to improve the jobs to housing balance. 5. Develop a project with an architectural design and operational characteristics that complement other existing buildings in the immediate vicinity and minimize conflicts with other nearby land uses. 6. Maximize industrial warehouse buildings in close proximity to an already-established industrial area, designated truck routes, and the State highway system in order to avoid or shorten truck-trip lengths on other roadways, and avoid locating industrial warehouse buildings in close proximity to residential uses. 7. Develop properties that have access to available infrastructure, including roads and utilities to be used as part of the Southern California supply chain and goods movement network. The following findings and brief explanation of the rationale for the findings regarding Project alternatives identified in the EIR are set forth to comply with the requirements of Section 15091(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines. The consideration of alternatives is an integral component of the CEQA process. The selection and evaluation of a reasonable range of alternatives provides the public and decision-makers with information on ways to avoid or lessen environmental impacts created by a proposed project. When selecting alternatives for evaluation, CEQA requires alternatives that meet most of the basic objectives of the Project, while avoiding or substantially lessening the Project’s significant and unavoidable impacts. As noted above, the Project would not result in any significant and unavoidable impacts. Four alternatives to the Project were defined and analyzed. No Project/No Action Alternative Section 15126.6(e) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR evaluate a “no project” alternative to allow decision makers to compare the impacts of approving a project with the impacts of not approving that project. Section 15126.6(e)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines describes the two general types of no project alternative: (1) when the project is the revision of an existing land use or regulatory plan, policy, or ongoing operation, the no project alternative would be the continuation of that plan; and (2) when the project is other than a land use/regulatory plan (such as a specific development on an identifiable property), the no project alternative is the circumstance under which the project does not proceed. Under the No Project/No Action Alternative, the existing warehouse building, retail building, and associated facilities on the Project site would be retained, but they would not be reoccupied and would remain vacant with no associated operations. As described previously, the Project site is currently occupied by a former Big Lots warehouse building and retail building which is currently vacant. The Project site includes 23,240- sf retail building and a 1,431,000-sf warehouse building. The No Project/No Action represents both types of no project alternatives outlined in the CEQA Guidelines: (1) continuation of development consistent with the existing land use and zoning 31 designations, and (2) assumes the Project does not proceed (leaving the existing warehouse building and retail building on-site). Findings Regarding Environmental Impacts The Project would not result in any significant and unavoidable impacts; therefore, the No Project/No Action Alternative would not avoid or substantially lessen a significant and unavoidable impact. The No Project/No Action Alternative would avoid the Project’s less than significant impacts; however, it also has potential for negative effects associated with urban blight and safety and security issues. Findings Regarding Project Objectives The No Project/No Action Alternative would not meet the Project objectives, would not realize any of the Project’s design benefits associated with new development and would not meet current City design standards. No Project/No Development Alternative– Reuse of Existing Buildings The Project site is currently occupied by a 1,431,000- sf former Big Lots warehouse building and a 23,240- sf for Big Lots retail building. Big Lots vacated the Project site in February 2020, and the Project site was reoccupied by Geodis from October 2020 to May 2021. Although the buildings are currently vacant, uses that are consistent with the City’s zoning and adhere to applicable regulations could reoccupy the buildings. Under No Project/No Development – Reuse of Existing Buildings Alternative (No Project/No Development Alternative), the existing warehouse building, retail building, and associated facilities on the Project site would be retained and reoccupied for use consistent with that allowed by right pursuant to Section 17.30, Allowed Land Use by Base Zoning District, of the City’s Development Code. This includes, but is not limited to, ongoing warehouse and retail uses. It is expected that, depending on the type of use that would occupy the existing buildings, tenant improvements could be needed to accommodate reuse of the buildings; however, these improvements would not require approval of discretionary actions. With respect to roadway and utility infrastructure, this Alternatives analysis assumes that existing circulation patterns would be maintained, and existing utility infrastructure would continue to serve the site. This alternative would not involve implementation of the roadway and infrastructure improvements proposed as part of the Project, including construction of a public roadway that would be implemented with the Project (Street A), and construction of an at-grade crossing of 6th Street at the railroad tracks. The No Project/No Development Alternative represents both types of no project alternatives outlined in Section 15126.6(e)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, discussed previously: (1) continuation of development consistent with the existing land use and zoning designations, and (2) assumes the Project does not proceed (leaving the existing warehouse building and retail building on-site). Findings Regarding Environmental Impacts The Project would not result in any significant and unavoidable impacts; therefore, the No Project/No Development Alternative would not avoid or substantially lessen a significant and unavoidable impact. Project-level mitigation measures are required to reduce potentially significant impacts to levels considered less than significant for the following topical issues: air quality (due to construction-related emissions), cultural resources (due to the potential to encounter previously undiscovered cultural resources), geology and soils (due to the potential to encounter previously undiscovered paleontological resources), noise (due to construction-related noise), and tribal 32 cultural resources (due to the potential to encounter undiscovered tribal cultural resources). These potentially significant impacts are associated with construction activities, not operation of the Project and therefore would not apply to the No Project/No Development Alternative. As described above, the No Project/No Development Alternative would have a similar lack of impacts, or less than significant impacts, as the Project related to aesthetics, biological resources, geology and soils (related to seismic ground shaking and soil conditions), hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology/drainage and groundwater, land use and planning, operational noise, population and housing, transportation, and utilities and service systems. Therefore, the No Project/No Development Alternative would not avoid or substantially lessen Project impact related to these issues. The Project and No Project/No Development Alternative would also have less than significant impacts for the following topics; however, the No Project/No Development Alternative would have less impacts: construction-related air quality emissions, biological resources, cultural resources, GHG emissions, geology and soils (related to paleontological resources), and tribal cultural resources. Notably, the No Project/No Development Alternative would avoid potentially significant impacts related to cultural resources, paleontological resources, and tribal cultural resources that require Project-level mitigation to reduce the impact to a less than significant level. The Project and No Project/No Development Alternative would have less than significant impacts for the following topics; however, the No Project/No Development Alternative would have potentially greater impacts: energy conservation; conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs; and water quality impacts during operations. Findings Regarding Project Objectives The discussion below addresses the ability of the No Project/No Development Alternative to attain the Project objectives. 1. Ensure that development of the Project site is accomplished consistent with applicable goals and policies of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as set forth in the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan. The No Project/No Development Alternative would not involve redevelopment of the Project site, rather it would involve the reuse of existing buildings and facilities at the Project site for continued warehouse and retail uses. Additionally, the No Project/No Development Alternative would not further achievement of planning objectives outlined in the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan. Therefore, while the No Project/No Development Alternative meets the intent of this Project objective, it does not meet it to the same extent as the Project. 2. Maximize redevelopment of the existing underutilized Project site and generate increased property tax revenue for the City of Rancho Cucamonga in order to support the City’s ongoing municipal operations. The No Project/No Development Alternative would involve reuse of the existing buildings and would not maximize redevelopment of the underutilized Project site. While the No Project/No Development Alternative would generate revenue consistent with previous use of the site, it would not generate increased revenues. Therefore, the No Project/No Development Alternative would not meet this objective. 33 3. Maximize development of Class A high cube warehouse industrial buildings in the City of Rancho Cucamonga that are designed to meet contemporary industry standards for operational design criteria, can accommodate a wide variety of users, and are economically competitive with similar industrial buildings in the local area and region. The reuse of the existing buildings on-site, which involves operation of a retail building, and leaving the northern portion of the Project site undeveloped, would not meet this Project objective, which is associated with maximizing development of the Project site through redevelopment and the operation of contemporary high cube warehouse industrial buildings. 4. To create employment-generating businesses in the City of Rancho Cucamonga to reduce the need for members of the local workforce to commute outside the area for employment, and to improve the jobs to housing balance. The Project would generate more employment opportunities than what would be generated through reuse of the existing buildings. Therefore, the No Project/No Development Alternative would not achieve this objective to the same extent as the Project. 5. To develop a project with an architectural design and operational characteristics that complement other existing buildings in the immediate vicinity and minimize conflicts with other nearby land uses. Retention of the existing buildings under the No Project/No Development Alternative would not conflict with existing architecture or the operations of nearby uses and would achieve this objective. 6. To maximize industrial warehouse buildings in close proximity to an already-established industrial area, designated truck routes, and the State highway system in order to avoid or shorten truck-trip lengths on other roadways, and avoid locating industrial warehouse buildings in close proximity to residential uses. The reuse of the existing buildings on-site, which involves operation of a retail building, and leaving the northern portion of the Project site undeveloped, would not maximize the amount of available industrial warehouse uses, and would not meet this Project objective. 7. To develop properties that have access to available infrastructure, including roads and utilities to be used as part of the Southern California supply chain and goods movement network. The No Project/No Development Alternative would involve the use of existing buildings and facilities at the Project site for continued warehouse and retail uses. Although existing uses under the No Project/No Development Alternative would continue to operate with service from existing roadways and infrastructure, due to the reduction in warehouse uses, and lack of contemporary buildings, the No Project/No Development Alternative would not meet the intent of this objective to the same extent as the Project relative to supporting goods movement in Southern California. Existing Warehouse and Additional Parking Alternative Under the Existing Warehouse and Additional Parking Alternative, the existing 1,431,000 sf warehouse building would be retained and operated as a warehouse, and the underutilized northern portion of the Project site would be developed with 530 new trailer parking stalls. The existing warehouse would be modified to include up to 54 additional loading dock doors. Additionally, it is also expected that internal improvements to the existing building would be needed to accommodate a tenant. Truck trailer parking would continue to be provided east of the warehouse building. The existing retail building and landscaping in the southern portion of the Project site would be removed and this area would be developed with surface parking (495 parking stalls with a combination of existing and new parking stalls). New landscaping would be installed on-site. This Alternative 34 would require installation of a retaining wall between the existing warehouse building in the southern portion of the Project site and new truck trailer parking area in the northern portion of the Project site. Existing circulation patterns would be maintained, and existing utility infrastructure would continue to serve the site. As with the Project, this Alternative would include replacement of existing sidewalks on 4th Street and 6th, and implementation of on-street bikeways along these roadways. In addition to the new truck trailer parking in the northern portion of the Project site, this Alternative would involve construction of the northern portion of Street A, which would terminate with a cul-de-sac before extending into the southern portion of the Project site, and retention of the existing rail spur. Should redevelopment of the southern portion of the Project site be considered in the future, extension of Street A to 4th Street could be completed. Additionally, this Alternative does not involve the construction of an at-grade crossing of 6th Street at the railroad tracks. For purposes of analysis, it is anticipated that operations under this Alternative could also occur 24 hours per day/7 days per week, consistent with the Project. This Alternative would generate less PM peak hour trips and average daily trips (ADT) compared to reuse of the existing buildings (with no modifications), and a slight increase in AM peak hour trips. Additionally, due to the overall reduction in building intensity, this Alternative would generate less vehicle trips compared to the Project. The Project would result in a net increase of 176 actual AM peak hour trips, 104 actual PM peak hour trips, and 976 ADT. When considering passenger car equivalent (PCE) trip generation, the Project would result in a net increase of 189 actual AM peak hour trips, 110 actual PM peak hour trips, and 1,278 ADT. The Existing Warehouse and Additional Parking Alternative would be consistent with the existing land use and zoning designations for the Project site, and associated development standards. Therefore, a General Plan amendment, and Zoning Map amendment would not be required. Further, it is not anticipated that the Project Applicant would enter into a Development Agreement with the City. This Alternative would require a site plan and architectural review, a Tentative Parcel Map, and a tree removal permit. Findings Regarding Environmental Impacts The Project would not result in any significant and unavoidable impacts; therefore, the Existing Warehouse and Additional Parking Alternative would not avoid or substantially lessen a significant and unavoidable impact. Project-level mitigation measures are required to reduce potentially significant impacts to levels considered less than significant for the following topical issues: air quality (due to construction-related emissions), cultural resources (due to the potential to encounter undiscovered cultural resources), geology and soils (due to the potential to encounter paleontological resources), noise (due to construction-related noise), and tribal cultural resources (due to the potential to encounter undiscovered tribal cultural resources). These potentially significant impacts are associated with construction activities, not operation of the Project. As described above, the Project and the Existing Warehouse and Additional Parking Alternative would be required to comply with applicable regulations and would also implement the same mitigation measures required for the Project. Therefore, this Alternative would have a similar lack of impacts, or less than significant impacts, for each topical issue. However, due to the reduction in construction activities and overall building space, the Existing Warehouse and Additional Parking Alternative would have reduced impacts associated with air pollutant emissions, GHG emissions, noise, and utilities and services systems. 35 Findings Regarding Project Objectives The discussion below addresses the ability of the Existing Warehouse and Additional Parking Alternative to attain the Project objectives. 1. Ensure that development of the Project site is accomplished consistent with applicable goals and policies of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as set forth in the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan. The Existing Warehouse and Additional Parking Alternative would not conflict with applicable goals and policies of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as set forth in the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan and therefore would meet this objective. 2. Maximize redevelopment of the existing underutilized Project site and generate increased property tax revenue for the City of Rancho Cucamonga in order to support the City’s ongoing municipal operations. The Existing Warehouse and Additional Parking Alternative would involve reuse of the existing warehouse building on-site and construction of a surface parking area for truck trailer parking in the northern portion of the site. While this Alternative would generate increased property tax revenue compared to existing conditions, it would not maximize redevelopment of the underutilized site. Therefore, the Existing Warehouse and Additional Parking Alternative would not meet this objective. 3. Maximize development of Class A high cube warehouse industrial buildings in the City of Rancho Cucamonga that are designed to meet contemporary industry standards for operational design criteria, can accommodate a wide variety of users, and are economically competitive with similar industrial buildings in the local area and region. The reuse of the existing warehouse building and addition of trailer dock doors and additional parking under the Existing Warehouse and Additional Parking Alternative would not meet this Project objective, which is associated with the operation of contemporary high cube warehouse buildings, and maximizing development on-site. Redevelopment of the Project is necessary to accomplish this objective. 4. To create employment-generating businesses in the City of Rancho Cucamonga to reduce the need for members of the local workforce to commute outside the area for employment, and to improve the jobs to housing balance. The Project would generate more employment opportunities than what would be generated through reuse of the existing building with additional parking under the Existing Warehouse and Additional Parking Alternative, due to the greater amount of building area proposed by the Project. Therefore, the Existing Warehouse and Additional Parking Alternative would meet the objective but not to the same extent as the Project as it would not generate additional new jobs. 5. To develop a project with an architectural design and operational characteristics that complement other existing buildings in the immediate vicinity and minimize conflicts with other nearby land uses. Retention of the existing use/building under the Existing Warehouse and Additional Parking Alternative would not conflict with existing architecture or the operations of nearby uses. Therefore, the Existing Warehouse and Additional Parking Alternative would meet this objective. 6. To maximize industrial warehouse buildings in close proximity to an already-established industrial area, designated truck routes, and the State highway system in order to avoid or shorten truck-trip lengths on other roadways, and avoid locating industrial warehouse buildings in close proximity to residential uses. The reuse of the existing warehouse building and addition of surface parking under the Existing Warehouse and Additional Parking 36 Alternative would not maximize the amount of available industrial warehouse uses, and would not meet this Project objective. 7. To develop properties that have access to available infrastructure, including roads and utilities to be used as part of the Southern California supply chain and goods movement network. The Existing Warehouse and Additional Parking Alternative would involve the use of the existing warehouse building and addition of parking for continued warehouse uses. Although the existing warehouse building would continue to operate with service from existing roadways and infrastructure, due to the reduction in warehouse space, and lack of contemporary buildings, the Existing Warehouse and Additional Parking Alternative would not meet the intent of this objective to the same extent as the Project relative to supporting goods movement in Southern California. Existing Warehouse and Additional Warehouse Alternative Under the Existing Warehouse and Additional Warehouse Alternative, the existing 1,431,000 sf warehouse building on the Project site would be retained and would operate as a high-cube warehouse, the existing retail building would be removed, and the underutilized northern portion of the Project site would be developed with a new 713,200 sf high-cube warehouse building and associated parking and facilities. Collectively with the existing warehouse and additional warehouse, this Alternative would have 2,144,200 sf of building area, compared to 2,175,000 sf with the Project, a reduction of 30,800 sf. Similar to the Existing Warehouse and Additional Parking Alternative, the existing warehouse would be modified to include up to 54 additional loading dock doors and additional truck trailer parking would be provided east of the existing building. A retaining wall would be installed along the northeastern portion of this truck trailer parking area. It is also anticipated that internal improvements to the existing building would be needed to accommodate a tenant. In addition to removal of the retail building in the southern portion of the Project site, existing landscaping in this area would be removed to accommodate additional surface parking (495 parking stalls consisting of a combination of existing and new parking stalls). The new 713,200 sf high-cube warehouse building in the northern portion of the Project site would include an 8,000- sf mezzanine area, and up to 16,000 sf of office space. There would be 88 dock doors and 89 trailer stalls on the north and south sides of the building, and automobile parking (258 stalls) would be provided near potential office areas. Approximately 100,000 sf of new landscaping would be installed around the building. This Alternative would require installation of a retaining wall between the existing and proposed buildings. With respect to circulation and utility infrastructure improvements, existing circulation patterns would be maintained, and existing utility infrastructure would continue to serve the site. Similar to the Project, this Alternative would include replacement of existing sidewalks on 4th Street and 6th Street, and implementation of on-street bikeways along these roadways. Short- and long-term bicycle parking would be provided for both buildings. The existing rail spur on-site (south of 6th Street) would be retained. This Alternative would also include construction of the northern portion of Street A, which would terminate with a cul-de-sac before extending into the southern portion of the Project site, and retention of the existing rail spur. Should redevelopment of the southern portion of the Project site be considered in the future, extension of Street A to 4th Street could be completed. This Alternative does include the construction of an at-grade crossing of 6th Street at the railroad tracks, as proposed with the Project. 37 For purposes of analysis, it is anticipated that operations under this Alternative could also occur 24 hours per day/7 days per week, consistent with the Project. This Alternative would increase peak hour and ADT compared to reuse of the existing buildings (with no modifications). Additionally, due to the overall reduction in building intensity, this Alternative would generate slightly less vehicle trips compared to the Project. The Project would result in a net increase of 176 actual AM peak hour trips, 104 actual PM peak hour trips, and 976 ADT. When considering passenger car equivalent (PCE) trip generation, the Project would result in a net increase of 189 actual AM peak hour trips, 110 actual PM peak hour trips, and 1,278 ADT. The Existing Warehouse and Additional Warehouse Alternative would involve uses allowed by the existing land use and zoning designations for the Project site. However, as with the Project, a General Plan amendment and Zoning Map amendment would be required for the northern portion of the Project site, changing the designation from Heavy Industrial to General Industrial. This Alternative would also require site plan and architectural review, a Tentative Parcel Map, and a tree removal permit. It is also anticipated that the Project Applicant would enter into a Development Agreement with the City. Findings Regarding Environmental Impacts The Project would not result in any significant and unavoidable impacts; therefore, the Existing Warehouse and Additional Warehouse Alternative would not avoid or substantially lessen a significant and unavoidable impact. Project-level mitigation measures are required to reduce potentially significant impacts to levels considered less than significant for the following topical issues: air quality (due to construction-related emissions), cultural resources (due to the potential to encounter undiscovered cultural resources), geology and soils (due to the potential to encounter paleontological resources), noise (due to construction-related noise), and tribal cultural resources (due to the potential to encounter undiscovered tribal cultural resources). These potentially significant impacts are associated with construction activities, not operation of the Project. Both the Project and the Existing Warehouse and Additional Warehouse Alternative would be required to comply with applicable regulations and would also implement the same mitigation measures required for the Project. Therefore, this Alternative would have a similar lack of impacts, or less than significant impacts for each topical issue. However, due to the reduction in construction activities due to the reuse of the existing warehouse building, and slight reduction in overall building space, the Existing Warehouse and Additional Warehouse Alternative would have reduced impacts associated with air pollutant emissions, GHG emissions, and noise. Findings Regarding Project Objectives The discussion below addresses the ability of the Existing Warehouse and Additional Warehouse Alternative to attain the Project objectives. 1. Ensure that development of the Project site is accomplished consistent with applicable goals and policies of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as set forth in the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan. The Existing Warehouse and Additional Warehouse Alternative would not conflict with applicable goals and policies of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as set forth in the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan and therefore would meet this Project objective. 2. Maximize redevelopment of the existing underutilized Project site and generate increased property tax revenue for the City of Rancho Cucamonga in order to support the City’s ongoing municipal operations. The Existing Warehouse and Additional Warehouse 38 Alternative would involve reuse of the existing warehouse building on-site and construction of a new building in the underutilized northern portion of the site. Due to the similarity in overall building space as the Project, and because this Alternative would also increase property tax revenue, this Alternative would meet this Project objective. 3. Maximize development of Class A high cube warehouse industrial buildings in the City of Rancho Cucamonga that are designed to meet contemporary industry standards for operational design criteria, can accommodate a wide variety of users, and are economically competitive with similar industrial buildings in the local area and region. The reuse of the existing warehouse building and construction of a new building in the underutilized northern portion of the Project site under the Existing Warehouse and Additional Warehouse Alternative would meet this Project objective, but not to the same extent as the Project. Modifications to the existing building would not meet contemporary industry standards to the same extent as a new warehouse building. 4. To create employment-generating businesses in the City of Rancho Cucamonga to reduce the need for members of the local workforce to commute outside the area for employment, and to improve the jobs to housing balance. As with the Project, the Existing Warehouse and Additional Warehouse Alternative would generate new employment opportunities and would meet this Project objective, but not to the same extent as the Project. 5. To develop a project with an architectural design and operational characteristics that complement other existing buildings in the immediate vicinity and minimize conflicts with other nearby land uses. Retention of the existing warehouse building and construction of a new warehouse under the Existing Warehouse and Additional Warehouse Alternative would not conflict with existing architecture or the operations of nearby uses. Therefore, the Existing Warehouse and Additional Warehouse Alternative would meet this Project objective. 6. To maximize industrial warehouse buildings in close proximity to an already-established industrial area, designated truck routes, and the State highway system in order to avoid or shorten truck-trip lengths on other roadways, and avoid locating industrial warehouse buildings in close proximity to residential uses. The Project site is within an established industrial area near designated truck routes and the State highway system. The reuse of the existing warehouse building and construction of a new building on the underutilized northern portion of the Project site under the Existing Warehouse and Additional Warehouse Alternative would meet this Project objective. 7. To develop properties that have access to available infrastructure, including roads and utilities to be used as part of the Southern California supply chain and goods movement network. The Existing Warehouse and Additional Warehouse Alternative would involve the use of the existing warehouse building and construction of new warehouse building, and would continue to operate with service from existing roadways and infrastructure. Additionally, the buildings would be used as part of the Southern California supply chain and goods movement network. Therefore, the Existing Warehouse and Additional Warehouse Alternative would meet this Project objective. Environmentally Superior Alternative CEQA requires the identification of an environmentally superior alternative. As discussed above, the No Project/No Development Alternative, which involves reuse of the existing building and facilities on-site would result in greater operational impacts than the Project for certain 39 environmental issues, less construction-related impacts, and no change from current conditions for other environmental issues. However, Section 15126.6(e)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines states that, if the No Project Alternative is the environmentally superior alternative, then the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives. The Project would result in potentially significant impacts during construction for the following topics, and Project-level mitigation measures are required to reduce these potentially significant impacts to levels considered less than significant: air quality (due to construction-related emissions), cultural resources (due to the potential to encounter undiscovered cultural resources), geology and soils (due to the potential to encounter paleontological resources), noise (due to construction-related noise), and tribal cultural resources (due to the potential to encounter undiscovered tribal cultural resources). For all other topics, the Project, which would be implemented in compliance with applicable regulations, would result in no impact or a less than significant impact. The Project would not result in any significant and unavoidable impacts; therefore, no alternative is needed to reduce or avoid such impacts. Therefore, for purposes of this discussion, for an alternative to be superior to the Project, it would need to reduce construction- related impacts. The Existing Warehouse and Additional Parking Alternative would be the environmentally superior alternative to the Project due to the reduction in construction activities, and reductions in overall building space. Specifically, this alternative would involve modifications to and reuse of the existing warehouse building, and construction of a new parking area in the northern portion of the Project site, rather than construction of two new industrial warehouse buildings. This Alternative would generate approximately 884 fewer daily trips compared to the Project. The Existing Warehouse and Additional Parking Alternative would have reduced impacts associated with air pollutant emissions, GHG emissions, noise, and utilities and services systems. The Existing Warehouse and Additional Parking Alternative would meet some, but not all of the Project objectives, or would not meet the Project objectives to the same extent as the Project. This is primarily because the Project objectives are related to maximizing industrial development on the Project site that is consistent with the City’s General Plan, and to constructing contemporary buildings. VI. FINDINGS REGARDING RECIRCULATION OF THE DRAFT EIR The City Council adopts the following findings with respect to whether to recirculate the Draft EIR. Under section 15088.5 of the CEQA Guidelines, recirculation of an EIR is required when “significant new information” is added to the EIR after public notice is given of the availability of the Draft EIR for public review but prior to certification of the Final EIR. The term “information” can include changes in the project or environmental setting, as well as additional data or other information. New information added to an EIR is not “significant” unless the EIR is changed in a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of the project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect (including a feasible project alternative) that the project’s proponents have declined to implement. “Significant new information” requiring recirculation includes, for example, a disclosure showing that: (1) A new significant environmental impact would result from the project or from a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented. (2) A substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact would result unless mitigation measures are adopted that reduce the impact to a level of insignificance. 40 (3) A feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others previously analyzed would clearly lessen the significant environmental impacts of the project, but the project’s proponents decline to adopt it. (4) The Draft EIR was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful public review and comment were precluded. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15088.5.) Recirculation is not required where the new information added to the EIR merely clarifies or amplifies or makes insignificant modifications in an adequate EIR. The above standard is “not intend[ed] to promote endless rounds of revision and recirculation of EIRs.” (Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of the University of California (1993) 6 Cal. 4th 1112, 1132.) “Recirculation was intended to be an exception, rather than the general rule.” (Ibid.) The City Council recognizes that the Final EIR contains minor additions to the Draft EIR in the form of revised and new feasible mitigation measures to further reduce the Project’s less than significant air pollutant and GHG emissions and additional information clarifying the prior tenants and ongoing operations at the site. CEQA case law emphasizes that “‘[t]he CEQA reporting process is not designed to freeze the ultimate proposal in the precise mold of the initial project; indeed, new and unforeseen insights may emerge during investigation, evoking revision of the original proposal.’” (Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692, 736-737; see also River Valley Preservation Project v. Metropolitan Transit Development Bd. (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 154, 168, fn. 11.) “CEQA compels an interactive process of assessment of environmental impacts and responsive project modification which must be genuine. It must be open to the public, premised upon a full and meaningful disclosure of the scope, purposes, and effect of a consistently described project, with flexibility to respond to unforeseen insights that emerge from the process. In short, a project must be open for public discussion and subject to agency modification during the CEQA process.” (Concerned Citizens of Costa Mesa, Inc. v. 33rd Dist. Agricultural Assn. (1986) 42 Cal.3d 929, 936 (internal citations omitted).) Here, the changes made to the Draft EIR in the Final EIR are exactly the kind of revisions that the case law recognizes as legitimate and proper without requiring or necessitating recirculation. The City Council finds that none of the revisions to the Draft EIR made by, or discussion included in, the Final EIR involves “significant new information” triggering recirculation because the changes do not result in any new significant environmental effects, substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects, or feasible mitigation or project alternatives that the Project Applicant declines to adopt that would clearly lessen the environmental effects of the project. Notably, based on recommendations from CARB MM 2-1 was expanded in the Draft EIR and MM 2-2 was added to further reduce the Project’s construction-related and operational air pollutant emission. Under such circumstances, the City Council hereby finds that recirculation of the EIR is not required. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Responsible Person Monitoring Frequency Method of Verification PD: Planning Director CE: City Engineer or designee BO: Building Official or designee PO: Police Captain or designee FC: Fire Chief or designee A: With Each New Development B: Prior to Construction C: Throughout Construction D: On Completion E: During Construction A: On-site Inspection B: Other Agency Permit/Approval C: Plan Check D: Separate Submittal (Reports/Studies/Plans) 1 BRIDGE POINT RANCHO CUCAMONGA PROJECT MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CHECKLIST Project File Name: Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Applicant: Bridge Industrial Prepared by: City of Rancho Cucamonga Date: September 2021 Mitigation Measure No. / Implementing Action Responsible for Monitoring Monitoring Frequency Timing of Verification Method of Verification Verified Date/Initials Air Quality RR 2-1 During construction, the Contractor shall comply with South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rules 402 and 403, to minimize short term emissions of dust and particulates. SCAQMD Rule 402 requires that air pollutant emissions not be a nuisance off- site. SCAQMD Rule 403 requires that fugitive dust be controlled with the best available control measures so that the presence of such dust does not remain visible in the atmosphere beyond the property line of the emission source. The Contractor shall provide the City of Rancho Cucamonga with a SCAQMD-approved Dust Control Plan or other sufficient proof of compliance with Rule 403, prior to grading permit issuance. BO B/C During plan check and construction activities A/C Exhibit F Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Responsible Person Monitoring Frequency Method of Verification PD: Planning Director CE: City Engineer or designee BO: Building Official or designee PO: Police Captain or designee FC: Fire Chief or designee A: With Each New Development B: Prior to Construction C: Throughout Construction D: On Completion E: During Construction A: On-site Inspection B: Other Agency Permit/Approval C: Plan Check D: Separate Submittal (Reports/Studies/Plans) 2 Mitigation Measure No. / Implementing Action Responsible for Monitoring Monitoring Frequency Timing of Verification Method of Verification Verified Date/Initials RR 2-2 Architectural coatings shall be selected so that the volatile organic compound (VOC) content of the coatings is compliant with SCAQMD Rule 1113. This requirement shall be included as notes on the contractor specifications, which shall be reviewed by the City of Rancho Cucamonga Building and Safety Services Department prior to issuance of a building permit. BO A Prior to issuance of building permits C RR 2-3 The Project Applicant and/or future tenants shall comply with SCAQMD Rule 201 and Regulation II (requiring a Permit to Construct prior to the installation of any equipment that may cause air contaminants) as well as Rule 203 (requiring a Permit to Operate prior to the use of any equipment that may cause air contaminants). These rules and regulation are required unless the Project’s equipment or aspects are exempt under Rule 219, which identifies those equipment, processes, or operations that do not require permits. The Project Applicant shall provide the City of Rancho Cucamonga with the SCAQMD-approved Permit to Construct and Permit to Operate or other sufficient proof of compliance with Rules 201 and 203, prior to occupancy permit issuance. BO A Prior to issuance of occupancy permits D RR 2-4 Building occupants shall comply with Rule 2202, which provides employers with a menu of options to reduce mobile source emissions generated from PD A Prior to issuance of tenant D Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Responsible Person Monitoring Frequency Method of Verification PD: Planning Director CE: City Engineer or designee BO: Building Official or designee PO: Police Captain or designee FC: Fire Chief or designee A: With Each New Development B: Prior to Construction C: Throughout Construction D: On Completion E: During Construction A: On-site Inspection B: Other Agency Permit/Approval C: Plan Check D: Separate Submittal (Reports/Studies/Plans) 3 Mitigation Measure No. / Implementing Action Responsible for Monitoring Monitoring Frequency Timing of Verification Method of Verification Verified Date/Initials employee commutes, to comply with federal and State CAA requirements. This Rule applies to any employer who employs 250 or more employees on a full or part-time basis at a worksite for a consecutive six-month period calculated as a monthly average, unless otherwise exempt. An employer subject to this Rule is required to annually register with the SCAQMD to implement an emission reduction program, in accordance with subdivisions (f) and (g), that will obtain emission reductions equivalent to a worksite specific emission reduction target (ERT) specified for the compliance year. improvement permits RR 2-5 The Project shall be operated in compliance with established standards in Section 17.66.060, Odor, Particulate Matter, and Air Containment Standards, of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Code. These standards address compliance with the rules and regulations of the air pollution control district and the state Health and Safety Code related to odorous emissions, particulate matter, and air containment; noxious odor emissions; and restrictions on the emission of dust and particulate matter. BO A Prior to issuance of building permits C MM 2-1 Prior to grading permit and building permit issuance, the City of Rancho Cucamonga shall verify that the following applicable notes are included on the grading plans and building plans. Project contractors shall be BO B/C Prior to issuance of grading and building A/C Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Responsible Person Monitoring Frequency Method of Verification PD: Planning Director CE: City Engineer or designee BO: Building Official or designee PO: Police Captain or designee FC: Fire Chief or designee A: With Each New Development B: Prior to Construction C: Throughout Construction D: On Completion E: During Construction A: On-site Inspection B: Other Agency Permit/Approval C: Plan Check D: Separate Submittal (Reports/Studies/Plans) 4 Mitigation Measure No. / Implementing Action Responsible for Monitoring Monitoring Frequency Timing of Verification Method of Verification Verified Date/Initials required to ensure compliance with these notes and permit periodic inspection of the construction-site by City of Rancho Cucamonga staff or its designee to confirm compliance. These notes also shall be specified in bid documents issued to prospective construction contractors. • During construction activity, Project construction contractors shall ensure that off-road diesel construction equipment complies with applicable California Air Resources Board (CARB) emissions standards or equivalent and shall ensure that all construction equipment is tuned and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications. • The following off-road construction equipment shall be CARB Tier III certified or better, by construction phase as shown: o Demolition/Crushing:  Boom Lift  Concrete/Industrial Saws  Crusher  Skid Steer o Utilities/Infrastructure:  Trencher o Building Construction: permits/during construction Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Responsible Person Monitoring Frequency Method of Verification PD: Planning Director CE: City Engineer or designee BO: Building Official or designee PO: Police Captain or designee FC: Fire Chief or designee A: With Each New Development B: Prior to Construction C: Throughout Construction D: On Completion E: During Construction A: On-site Inspection B: Other Agency Permit/Approval C: Plan Check D: Separate Submittal (Reports/Studies/Plans) 5 Mitigation Measure No. / Implementing Action Responsible for Monitoring Monitoring Frequency Timing of Verification Method of Verification Verified Date/Initials  Forklifts  Generator Sets  Welders o Paving:  Pavers  Paving Equipment  Rollers o Architectural Coating  Air Compressors • The following off-road construction equipment shall be CARB Tier IV Final certified or better, by construction phase as shown: o Demolition/Crushing:  Breakers  Excavators  Generator Sets  Rubber Tired Dozers o Grading:  Crawler Tractors  Excavators  Graders  Rubber Tired Dozers  Scrapers o Utilities/Infrastructure:  Excavators Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Responsible Person Monitoring Frequency Method of Verification PD: Planning Director CE: City Engineer or designee BO: Building Official or designee PO: Police Captain or designee FC: Fire Chief or designee A: With Each New Development B: Prior to Construction C: Throughout Construction D: On Completion E: During Construction A: On-site Inspection B: Other Agency Permit/Approval C: Plan Check D: Separate Submittal (Reports/Studies/Plans) 6 Mitigation Measure No. / Implementing Action Responsible for Monitoring Monitoring Frequency Timing of Verification Method of Verification Verified Date/Initials  Skip Loaders/Backhoes o Building Construction  Cranes  Crawler Tractors  Laser Screed  Scissor Loaders/Backhoes  Skip Loaders/Backhoes • Idling of heavy construction equipment shall be restricted to two minutes and electrical hook ups shall be provided to support use of zero and near- zero construction equipment and tools whenever feasible. • Off-road equipment with a power rating below 19 kilowatts (e.g., plate compactors, pressure washers) used during project construction shall be electric powered, provided that it is commercially available, which may be plug-in (electric) or battery powered. • Heavy-duty trucks used for dirt and material hauling during construction shall meet the United States Environmental Protection Agency/California Air Resource Board truck engine standard for Model Year 2014 or later. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Responsible Person Monitoring Frequency Method of Verification PD: Planning Director CE: City Engineer or designee BO: Building Official or designee PO: Police Captain or designee FC: Fire Chief or designee A: With Each New Development B: Prior to Construction C: Throughout Construction D: On Completion E: During Construction A: On-site Inspection B: Other Agency Permit/Approval C: Plan Check D: Separate Submittal (Reports/Studies/Plans) 7 Mitigation Measure No. / Implementing Action Responsible for Monitoring Monitoring Frequency Timing of Verification Method of Verification Verified Date/Initials MM 2-2 The Project Applicant shall include the following operational requirements in the final building design or stipulate the operational requirements for building occupants, as appropriate: Project Design • Make truck dock positions EV-ready by installing conduits at truck dock positions for future accommodation of light-duty and/or heavy-duty electric trucks and charging stations. Lease Agreement and Owner-Occupant Requirements • Those loading docks used by trucks with transport refrigeration units (TRU) as determined by a cold storage tenant shall be equipped with electrical hookups (applicable to cold storage tenant lease agreements only). • TRUs entering the Project site shall be plug-in capable (applicable to cold storage tenant lease agreements only). • On-site TRU diesel engine run time shall be no longer than 15 minutes (applicable to cold storage tenant lease agreements only). • Service equipment (e.g., yard hostlers, yard equipment, forklifts, and pallet jacks) shall be powered by alternative fuels, electrical batteries BO A/D Prior to issuance of building permits Prior to issuance of tenant improvement permits for all project tenants or occupants C/D Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Responsible Person Monitoring Frequency Method of Verification PD: Planning Director CE: City Engineer or designee BO: Building Official or designee PO: Police Captain or designee FC: Fire Chief or designee A: With Each New Development B: Prior to Construction C: Throughout Construction D: On Completion E: During Construction A: On-site Inspection B: Other Agency Permit/Approval C: Plan Check D: Separate Submittal (Reports/Studies/Plans) 8 Mitigation Measure No. / Implementing Action Responsible for Monitoring Monitoring Frequency Timing of Verification Method of Verification Verified Date/Initials or other alternative/non-diesel fuels (e.g., propane) that do not emit diesel particulate matter, and that are low or zero emission. • Trucks and support equipment shall not idle longer than five minutes while on site. Biological Resources RR 3-1 All construction activities shall comply with the MBTA and California Fish and Game Code Sections 3503, 3511 and 3513. The MBTA governs the taking and killing of migratory birds, their eggs, parts, and nests and prohibits the take of any migratory bird, their eggs, parts, and nests. Compliance with the MBTA and California Fish and Game Code shall be accomplished by completing the following: • Construction activities involving vegetation removal shall be conducted between September 1 and January 31. If construction occurs inside the peak nesting season (between February 1 and August 31), a pre-construction survey (or possibly multiple surveys) by a qualified Biologist shall be conducted within 72 hours prior to construction activities to identify any active nesting locations. If the Biologist does not find any active nests, the construction work shall be allowed to proceed. The biologist conducting the clearance survey shall PD B/C Prior to construction/ during construction A/D Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Responsible Person Monitoring Frequency Method of Verification PD: Planning Director CE: City Engineer or designee BO: Building Official or designee PO: Police Captain or designee FC: Fire Chief or designee A: With Each New Development B: Prior to Construction C: Throughout Construction D: On Completion E: During Construction A: On-site Inspection B: Other Agency Permit/Approval C: Plan Check D: Separate Submittal (Reports/Studies/Plans) 9 Mitigation Measure No. / Implementing Action Responsible for Monitoring Monitoring Frequency Timing of Verification Method of Verification Verified Date/Initials document a negative survey with a report indicating that no impacts to active avian nests shall occur. If the biologist finds an active nest on within the pre-construction survey area and determines that the nest may be impacted, the Biologist shall delineate an appropriate buffer zone around the nest. The size of the buffer shall be determined by the Biologist, and shall be based on the nesting species, its sensitivity to disturbance, expected types of disturbance, and location in relation to the construction activities. These buffers are typically 300 feet from the nests of non-listed species and 500 feet from the nests of raptors and listed species. Any active nests observed during the survey shall be mapped on an aerial photograph. Only construction activities (if any) that have been approved by a Biological Monitor shall take place within the buffer zone until the nest is vacated. The Biologist shall serve as a Construction Monitor when construction activities take place near active nest areas to ensure that no inadvertent impacts on these nests occur. Results of the pre-construction survey and any Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Responsible Person Monitoring Frequency Method of Verification PD: Planning Director CE: City Engineer or designee BO: Building Official or designee PO: Police Captain or designee FC: Fire Chief or designee A: With Each New Development B: Prior to Construction C: Throughout Construction D: On Completion E: During Construction A: On-site Inspection B: Other Agency Permit/Approval C: Plan Check D: Separate Submittal (Reports/Studies/Plans) 10 Mitigation Measure No. / Implementing Action Responsible for Monitoring Monitoring Frequency Timing of Verification Method of Verification Verified Date/Initials subsequent monitoring shall be provided to the Property Owner/Developer and the City. The monitoring report shall summarize the results of the nest monitoring, describe construction restrictions currently in place, and confirm that construction activities can proceed within the buffer area without jeopardizing the survival of the young birds. RR 3-2 All construction activities shall comply with Sections 3503, 3503.5, 3511 and 3513 of the California Fish and Game Code, which protect active nests of any raptor species, including common raptor species. Compliance with these codes shall be accomplished by completing the following: • If vegetation is to be cleared during the potential raptor nesting season (December 1 to August 31), all suitable habitat within 500 feet of the construction impact area shall be thoroughly surveyed for the presence of nesting raptors by a qualified Biologist within 72 hours prior to clearing. If the Biologist does not find any active nests, the construction work shall be allowed to proceed. The biologist conducting the clearance survey shall document a negative survey with a PD B/C Prior to construction/ during construction A/D Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Responsible Person Monitoring Frequency Method of Verification PD: Planning Director CE: City Engineer or designee BO: Building Official or designee PO: Police Captain or designee FC: Fire Chief or designee A: With Each New Development B: Prior to Construction C: Throughout Construction D: On Completion E: During Construction A: On-site Inspection B: Other Agency Permit/Approval C: Plan Check D: Separate Submittal (Reports/Studies/Plans) 11 Mitigation Measure No. / Implementing Action Responsible for Monitoring Monitoring Frequency Timing of Verification Method of Verification Verified Date/Initials report indicating that no impacts to active avian nests shall occur. If any active nests are detected, the area shall be flagged and mapped on the construction plans with a buffer. The size of the buffer shall be determined by the Biologist and shall be based on the nesting species, its sensitivity to disturbance, expected types of disturbance, and location in relation to the construction activities. These buffers are typically 300 feet from the nest of non- listed species and 500 feet from the nests of raptors and listed species. The buffer area shall be avoided until the nesting cycle is complete or until it is determined that the nest has failed. Results of the pre-construction survey and any subsequent monitoring shall be provided to the Property Owner/Developer and the City. The monitoring report shall summarize the results of the nest monitoring, describe construction restrictions currently in place, and confirm that construction activities can proceed within the buffer area without jeopardizing the survival of the young birds. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Responsible Person Monitoring Frequency Method of Verification PD: Planning Director CE: City Engineer or designee BO: Building Official or designee PO: Police Captain or designee FC: Fire Chief or designee A: With Each New Development B: Prior to Construction C: Throughout Construction D: On Completion E: During Construction A: On-site Inspection B: Other Agency Permit/Approval C: Plan Check D: Separate Submittal (Reports/Studies/Plans) 12 Mitigation Measure No. / Implementing Action Responsible for Monitoring Monitoring Frequency Timing of Verification Method of Verification Verified Date/Initials  Although presumed absent, prior to development of the Project site, a pre-construction burrowing owl clearance survey shall be conducted to ensure burrowing owls remain absent from the construction impact area. The clearance survey shall be conducted in accordance with the CDFW (2012) Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation which requires that two clearance surveys be conducted 14 – 30 days and 24 hours prior to any grading or vegetation removal on the Project site. If burrowing owls are observed on the Project site during the pre-construction surveys, a burrowing owl relocation plan shall be prepared and submitted to CDFW for review and approval prior to commencement of vegetation clearing/ grubbing, grading, and construction activities on the Project site. The burrowing owl relocation plan shall outline methods to relocate any burrowing owls occurring on the Project site and ensure compliance with the MBTA and California Fish and Game Code. If an active burrow is found during the breeding season (February 1 through August 31), occupied burrows will not be disturbed and will be provided with a protective buffer unless a qualified biologist verifies through Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Responsible Person Monitoring Frequency Method of Verification PD: Planning Director CE: City Engineer or designee BO: Building Official or designee PO: Police Captain or designee FC: Fire Chief or designee A: With Each New Development B: Prior to Construction C: Throughout Construction D: On Completion E: During Construction A: On-site Inspection B: Other Agency Permit/Approval C: Plan Check D: Separate Submittal (Reports/Studies/Plans) 13 Mitigation Measure No. / Implementing Action Responsible for Monitoring Monitoring Frequency Timing of Verification Method of Verification Verified Date/Initials noninvasive means that either: (1) the birds have not begun egg laying, or (2) juveniles from the occupied burrows are foraging independently and are capable of independent survival. The size of the buffer will depend on the time of year and level disturbance as outlined in the CDFW Staff Report. RR 3-3 All tree replacement, protection, and maintenance associated with implementation of the Project shall be conducted in accordance with the requirements set forth in Chapter 17.80 of the City’s Development Code. PD A Prior to issuance of grading permit/during construction A/C RR 3-4 In compliance with the City’s Tree Removal Permit process (Rancho Cucamonga Development Code, Chapter 17.16.080), the Property Owner/Developer shall obtain a Tree Removal Permit from the Planning Director prior to removal, relocation, or destruction of any heritage tree. Conditions imposed by the Planning Director for replacement of removed trees or tree relocation shall be completed by the Property Owner/Developer. PD B Prior to tree removal D Cultural Resources RR 4-1 If human remains are encountered during the conduct of ground-disturbing activities, Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code states that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition of the PD/BO C Prior to issuance of grading permit/during grading and construction C/D Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Responsible Person Monitoring Frequency Method of Verification PD: Planning Director CE: City Engineer or designee BO: Building Official or designee PO: Police Captain or designee FC: Fire Chief or designee A: With Each New Development B: Prior to Construction C: Throughout Construction D: On Completion E: During Construction A: On-site Inspection B: Other Agency Permit/Approval C: Plan Check D: Separate Submittal (Reports/Studies/Plans) 14 Mitigation Measure No. / Implementing Action Responsible for Monitoring Monitoring Frequency Timing of Verification Method of Verification Verified Date/Initials materials pursuant to Section 5097.98 of the California Public Resources Code. The provisions of Section 15064.5 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines shall also be followed. The County Coroner must be notified of the find immediately. If the remains are determined to be prehistoric, the Coroner shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). The NAHC will determine and notify a Most Likely Descendent (MLD). With the permission of the landowner or his/her authorized representative, the MLD may inspect the site of the discovery. The descendent must complete the inspection within 24 hours of notification by the NAHC. The MLD may recommend scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American burials. These requirements shall be included as notes on the contractor specification and verified by the Community Development Department, prior to issuance of grading permits. MM 4-1 Prior to site preparation or grading activities, construction personnel shall be instructed by a qualified Archaeologist of the potential for encountering unique archaeological resources and instructed on steps to take in the event such resources are encountered. This shall include the provision of written materials to familiarize personnel with the range of resources that might be PD B Prior to the start of demolition, site clearing or grading A/D Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Responsible Person Monitoring Frequency Method of Verification PD: Planning Director CE: City Engineer or designee BO: Building Official or designee PO: Police Captain or designee FC: Fire Chief or designee A: With Each New Development B: Prior to Construction C: Throughout Construction D: On Completion E: During Construction A: On-site Inspection B: Other Agency Permit/Approval C: Plan Check D: Separate Submittal (Reports/Studies/Plans) 15 Mitigation Measure No. / Implementing Action Responsible for Monitoring Monitoring Frequency Timing of Verification Method of Verification Verified Date/Initials expected, the type of activities that may result in impacts, and the legal framework of cultural resources protection. All construction personnel shall be instructed to stop work in the vicinity of a potential discovery until a qualified Archaeologist assesses the significance of the find and implements appropriate measures to protect or scientifically remove the find. Construction personnel shall also be informed that unauthorized collection of archaeological resources is prohibited. MM 4-2 In the event that cultural resources are inadvertently unearthed during excavation and grading activities, the Contractor shall immediately cease all earth- disturbing activities within a 100-foot radius of the area of discovery. The Property Owner/Developer shall retain a qualified Archaeologist (Project Archaeologist), subject to approval by the City of Rancho Cucamonga, to evaluate the significance of the find and to determine an appropriate course of action. All artifacts except for human remains and related grave goods or sacred objects belong to the Property Owner. All artifacts discovered at the development site shall be inventoried and analyzed by the Project Archaeologist. Non-Native American artifacts shall be inventoried, assessed, and analyzed for cultural affiliation, personal PD C During grading and construction A/D Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Responsible Person Monitoring Frequency Method of Verification PD: Planning Director CE: City Engineer or designee BO: Building Official or designee PO: Police Captain or designee FC: Fire Chief or designee A: With Each New Development B: Prior to Construction C: Throughout Construction D: On Completion E: During Construction A: On-site Inspection B: Other Agency Permit/Approval C: Plan Check D: Separate Submittal (Reports/Studies/Plans) 16 Mitigation Measure No. / Implementing Action Responsible for Monitoring Monitoring Frequency Timing of Verification Method of Verification Verified Date/Initials affiliation (prior ownership), function, and temporal placement. Subsequent to analysis and reporting, these artifacts shall be subjected to curation or returned to the Property Owner, as deemed appropriate. If any artifacts of Native American origin are discovered, the Property Owner/Developer and Project Archaeologist shall notify the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department and the appropriate local Native American tribe identified by the Native American Heritage Commission. The significance of Native American resources shall be evaluated in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and shall consider the religious beliefs, customs, and practices of the tribe (refer to MM 14-1 though MM 14-6 in Section 4.14, Tribal Cultural Resources). All items found in association with Native American human remains shall be considered grave goods or sacred in origin and subject to special handling (see RR 4-1). Once ground-altering activities have ceased or the Project Archaeologist determines that monitoring activities are no longer necessary, monitoring activities may be discontinued following notification to the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Responsible Person Monitoring Frequency Method of Verification PD: Planning Director CE: City Engineer or designee BO: Building Official or designee PO: Police Captain or designee FC: Fire Chief or designee A: With Each New Development B: Prior to Construction C: Throughout Construction D: On Completion E: During Construction A: On-site Inspection B: Other Agency Permit/Approval C: Plan Check D: Separate Submittal (Reports/Studies/Plans) 17 Mitigation Measure No. / Implementing Action Responsible for Monitoring Monitoring Frequency Timing of Verification Method of Verification Verified Date/Initials A report of findings, including an itemized inventory of recovered artifacts, shall be prepared upon completion of the steps outlined above. The report shall include a discussion of the significance of all recovered artifacts. The report and inventory, when submitted to the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department, shall signify completion of the program to mitigate impacts to archaeological and/or cultural resources. A copy of the report shall also be filed with the Archaeological Information Center (AIC) at the San Bernardino County Museum and the Native American tribe, as appropriate. Energy RR 5-1 Construction activities shall be conducted in compliance with Section 2449, General Requirements for In-Use Off-Road Diesel-Fueled Fleets, of the California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 13, Motor Vehicles. Section 2449(d)(2) limits idling times of construction vehicles to no more than five consecutive minutes. Adherence to idling limitations shall be confirmed through periodic site inspections conducted by City building officials. BO C During grading and construction A Geology and Soils RR 6-1 In accordance with the City’s Building Regulations, as contained in Title 15, Buildings and Construction, of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code, which includes BO B/C Prior to issuance of building permits A/C Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Responsible Person Monitoring Frequency Method of Verification PD: Planning Director CE: City Engineer or designee BO: Building Official or designee PO: Police Captain or designee FC: Fire Chief or designee A: With Each New Development B: Prior to Construction C: Throughout Construction D: On Completion E: During Construction A: On-site Inspection B: Other Agency Permit/Approval C: Plan Check D: Separate Submittal (Reports/Studies/Plans) 18 Mitigation Measure No. / Implementing Action Responsible for Monitoring Monitoring Frequency Timing of Verification Method of Verification Verified Date/Initials adoption of the 2019 California Building Code (CBC), all construction on the Project site 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. RR 6-2 All grading operations and construction on the Project site shall be conducted in conformance with the applicable City of Rancho Cucamonga Grading Standards (Municipal Code Chapter 19.04). Grading operations shall also be consistent with the recommendations included in the Project-specific Geotechnical Investigation prepared by SCG for the Project. BO B/C During construction A/C RR 6-3 Development on the Project site shall comply with Section 17.66.060 of the Rancho Cucamonga Development Code, with regard to dust control. Specifically, “no dust or particulate matter shall be emitted that is detectable by a reasonable person without instruments.” BO B/C Prior to issuance of building permits/during construction A/C RR 6-4 In accordance with Chapter 17.56, Landscaping Standards, of the Rancho Cucamonga Development Code, which establishes minimum landscape requirements to control soil erosion, among other purposes, development on the Project site shall submit preliminary and final PD A Prior to approval of site plans C/D Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Responsible Person Monitoring Frequency Method of Verification PD: Planning Director CE: City Engineer or designee BO: Building Official or designee PO: Police Captain or designee FC: Fire Chief or designee A: With Each New Development B: Prior to Construction C: Throughout Construction D: On Completion E: During Construction A: On-site Inspection B: Other Agency Permit/Approval C: Plan Check D: Separate Submittal (Reports/Studies/Plans) 19 Mitigation Measure No. / Implementing Action Responsible for Monitoring Monitoring Frequency Timing of Verification Method of Verification Verified Date/Initials landscape and irrigation plans as part of the design review process (Section 17.20.040 of the Rancho Cucamonga Development Code). MM 6-1 Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the Project Applicant shall submit to and receive approval from the City, a Paleontological Resource Impact Mitigation Monitoring Program (PRIMMP). The PRIMMP shall include the provision of a qualified professional paleontologist (or his or her trained paleontological monitor representative) during on-site subsurface excavation of Quaternary (i.e., early Holocene and late Pleistocene) alluvial-fan deposits, as outlined below. Selection of the paleontologist shall be subject to approval of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Director, or designee, and no grading activities shall occur at the site until the paleontologist has been approved by the City. The PRIMMP shall include the requirements below. • Monitoring of mass grading and excavation activities in areas identified as likely to contain paleontological resources shall be performed by a qualified paleontologist or paleontological monitor. Monitoring shall be conducted full time in areas of grading or excavation activities that occur in undisturbed exposures of Quaternary (i.e., early Holocene and late Pleistocene) alluvial- PD B/C/D Prior to the issuance of grading permits D Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Responsible Person Monitoring Frequency Method of Verification PD: Planning Director CE: City Engineer or designee BO: Building Official or designee PO: Police Captain or designee FC: Fire Chief or designee A: With Each New Development B: Prior to Construction C: Throughout Construction D: On Completion E: During Construction A: On-site Inspection B: Other Agency Permit/Approval C: Plan Check D: Separate Submittal (Reports/Studies/Plans) 20 Mitigation Measure No. / Implementing Action Responsible for Monitoring Monitoring Frequency Timing of Verification Method of Verification Verified Date/Initials fan deposits at a depth of 12 feet and below in order to mitigate any adverse impacts (loss or destruction) to potential nonrenewable paleontological resources. For grading and other earth disturbance activities at depths between 5 and 12 feet below the surface, periodic spot checks for potential paleontological resources shall be conducted. Periodic monitoring shall consist of approximately 1 to 3 scheduled site visits per week by a paleontological monitor during construction ground disturbance. If significant fossils are discovered during a spot check, full-time monitoring should be initiated.3 • Paleontological monitors shall be equipped to salvage fossils as they are unearthed to avoid construction delays and to remove samples of sediment that are likely to contain the remains of small fossil invertebrates and vertebrates. The monitor shall be empowered to temporarily halt or divert equipment to allow for the removal of abundant or large specimens in a timely manner. Monitoring may be reduced if the potentially fossiliferous units are not present in the subsurface, or if they are present, are determined upon exposure and examination by qualified Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Responsible Person Monitoring Frequency Method of Verification PD: Planning Director CE: City Engineer or designee BO: Building Official or designee PO: Police Captain or designee FC: Fire Chief or designee A: With Each New Development B: Prior to Construction C: Throughout Construction D: On Completion E: During Construction A: On-site Inspection B: Other Agency Permit/Approval C: Plan Check D: Separate Submittal (Reports/Studies/Plans) 21 Mitigation Measure No. / Implementing Action Responsible for Monitoring Monitoring Frequency Timing of Verification Method of Verification Verified Date/Initials paleontological personnel to have low potential to contain fossil resources. • Recovered specimens shall be prepared to a point of identification and permanent preservation, including screen-washing sediments to recover small invertebrates and vertebrates, if indicated by the results of test sampling. Preparation of individual vertebrate fossils is often more time- consuming than for accumulations of invertebrate fossils. • All fossils shall be deposited in an accredited institution, such as the San Bernardino County Museum, that maintains collections of paleontological materials. All costs of the paleontological monitoring and mitigation program, including any one-time charges by the receiving institution, are the responsibility of the Project Applicant.  The Project Paleontologist shall prepare of a final monitoring and mitigation report of findings and significance, including lists of all fossils recovered and necessary maps and graphics to accurately record their original location(s). A letter documenting receipt and acceptance of all fossil Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Responsible Person Monitoring Frequency Method of Verification PD: Planning Director CE: City Engineer or designee BO: Building Official or designee PO: Police Captain or designee FC: Fire Chief or designee A: With Each New Development B: Prior to Construction C: Throughout Construction D: On Completion E: During Construction A: On-site Inspection B: Other Agency Permit/Approval C: Plan Check D: Separate Submittal (Reports/Studies/Plans) 22 Mitigation Measure No. / Implementing Action Responsible for Monitoring Monitoring Frequency Timing of Verification Method of Verification Verified Date/Initials collections by the receiving institution must be included in the final report. The report, when submitted to (and accepted by) the City of Rancho Cucamonga, shall signify satisfactory completion of the project program to mitigate impacts to any nonrenewable paleontological resources. Hazards and Hazardous Materials RR 8-1 The Project Applicant shall comply with the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, as administered by the U.S. Department of Transportation, which governs the transport of hazardous materials and wastes. Vehicles transporting hazardous materials are required to comply with the regulations, as implemented by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). FC C/E During construction and operations A/B RR 8-2 The Project Applicant shall comply with the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), the California Hazardous Waste Control Act, and the California Accidental Release Prevention Program, where applicable, which collectively manage the transport, storage, use, and disposal of hazardous materials and wastes. FC C/E During construction and operations A/B RR 8-3 The Project Applicant shall comply with Section 17.66.040, Hazardous Materials, of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Code to ensure that required information is reported to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, as the regulatory authority. Businesses FC E During operations A/B/D Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Responsible Person Monitoring Frequency Method of Verification PD: Planning Director CE: City Engineer or designee BO: Building Official or designee PO: Police Captain or designee FC: Fire Chief or designee A: With Each New Development B: Prior to Construction C: Throughout Construction D: On Completion E: During Construction A: On-site Inspection B: Other Agency Permit/Approval C: Plan Check D: Separate Submittal (Reports/Studies/Plans) 23 Mitigation Measure No. / Implementing Action Responsible for Monitoring Monitoring Frequency Timing of Verification Method of Verification Verified Date/Initials required by State law to prepare hazardous materials release response plans and Hazardous Materials Inventory Statements shall, upon request, submit copies of these plans, including any revisions, to the Fire Protection District. Underground storage of hazardous materials shall comply with all applicable requirements and shall comply with the procedures for notification outlined in this section. RR 8-4 The Project site is within the Airport Influence Area (AIA) established by the LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ONT ALUCP). Construction activities and future development shall be implemented in compliance with the following applicable requirement identified in the ONT ALUCP: • Real Estate Transaction Disclosure. In compliance with Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for LA/Ontario Airport’s (ONT ALUCP’s) Overflight Policy O2, a Real Estate Transaction Disclosure is required for all development within the Project site. State Law (Business and Professions Code Section 11010) provides the following disclosure language: NOTICE OF AIRPORT IN VICINITY: This property is presently located in the vicinity of an airport, PD D Prior to certificate of occupancy for buildings and tenant improvements D Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Responsible Person Monitoring Frequency Method of Verification PD: Planning Director CE: City Engineer or designee BO: Building Official or designee PO: Police Captain or designee FC: Fire Chief or designee A: With Each New Development B: Prior to Construction C: Throughout Construction D: On Completion E: During Construction A: On-site Inspection B: Other Agency Permit/Approval C: Plan Check D: Separate Submittal (Reports/Studies/Plans) 24 Mitigation Measure No. / Implementing Action Responsible for Monitoring Monitoring Frequency Timing of Verification Method of Verification Verified Date/Initials within what is known as an airport influence area. For that reason, the property may be subject to some of the annoyances or inconveniences associated with proximity to airport operations (for example, noise, vibration, or odors). Individual sensitivities to those annoyances can vary from person to person. You may wish to consider what airport annoyances, if any, are associated with the property before you complete your purchase and determine whether they are acceptable to you. Hydrology and Water Quality RR 9-1 The Property Owner/Developer shall comply with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activity (Construction General Permit) applicable at the time a grading permit is issued. The Property Owner/Developer shall prepare and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), which must include erosion- and sediment- control Best Management Practices (BMPs) that will meet or exceed measures required by the determined risk level of the Construction General Permit, as well as BMPs that control the other potential construction related pollutants. A Construction Site Monitoring Program that BO A/B/C Prior to issuance of grading permits/during construction A/B/D Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Responsible Person Monitoring Frequency Method of Verification PD: Planning Director CE: City Engineer or designee BO: Building Official or designee PO: Police Captain or designee FC: Fire Chief or designee A: With Each New Development B: Prior to Construction C: Throughout Construction D: On Completion E: During Construction A: On-site Inspection B: Other Agency Permit/Approval C: Plan Check D: Separate Submittal (Reports/Studies/Plans) 25 Mitigation Measure No. / Implementing Action Responsible for Monitoring Monitoring Frequency Timing of Verification Method of Verification Verified Date/Initials identifies monitoring and sampling requirements during construction is a required component of the SWPPP. Evidence of compliance with the NPDES Construction General Permit shall be provided to the City’s Building and Safety Services Director prior to issuance of a grading permit. RR 9-2 The Property Owner/Developer shall comply with Section 19.20.260, Water Quality Management Plan, of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code, which requires that all qualifying land development/redevelopment projects submit and have approved a water quality management plan (WQMP) to the City Engineer on a form provided by the City. The WQMP shall identify all BMPs to be incorporated into the Project to control storm water and non-storm water pollutants during and after construction. BO A/B Prior to issuance of grading permits D RR 9-3 The Property Owner/Developer shall comply with Chapter 19.20 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code, which is the City’s Storm Water and Urban Runoff Management and Discharge Control Ordinance and which provides regulations to comply with the Clean Water Act (CWA), the California Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, and the NPDES permit for San Bernardino County. This ordinance prohibits the discharge of specific pollutants into the storm water; regulates connections to BO E During operations A/B Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Responsible Person Monitoring Frequency Method of Verification PD: Planning Director CE: City Engineer or designee BO: Building Official or designee PO: Police Captain or designee FC: Fire Chief or designee A: With Each New Development B: Prior to Construction C: Throughout Construction D: On Completion E: During Construction A: On-site Inspection B: Other Agency Permit/Approval C: Plan Check D: Separate Submittal (Reports/Studies/Plans) 26 Mitigation Measure No. / Implementing Action Responsible for Monitoring Monitoring Frequency Timing of Verification Method of Verification Verified Date/Initials the storm drain system; and requires development projects to implement permanent BMPs on individual sites to reduce pollutants in the storm water. Noise MM 11-1 Prior to issuance of grading or building permits, the City of Rancho Cucamonga shall review the plans to ensure the plans require the installation of a minimum 6- foot-high temporary construction perimeter noise barrier along the Project site’s boundary with the San Bernardino County West Valley Detention Center. The location and following specifications for the noise control barrier shall also be included on the plans: • The noise control barriers must present a solid face from top to bottom. • The noise barrier shall be constructed using one of the following materials with no decorative cutouts or line-of-sight openings between shielded areas and the noise source: o An acoustical blanket (e.g., vinyl acoustic curtains, quilted blankets, or equivalent) attached to the construction-site perimeter fence or equivalent temporary fence posts. BO B Prior to issuance of grading or building permits A/C Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Responsible Person Monitoring Frequency Method of Verification PD: Planning Director CE: City Engineer or designee BO: Building Official or designee PO: Police Captain or designee FC: Fire Chief or designee A: With Each New Development B: Prior to Construction C: Throughout Construction D: On Completion E: During Construction A: On-site Inspection B: Other Agency Permit/Approval C: Plan Check D: Separate Submittal (Reports/Studies/Plans) 27 Mitigation Measure No. / Implementing Action Responsible for Monitoring Monitoring Frequency Timing of Verification Method of Verification Verified Date/Initials o Any combination of construction materials satisfying a weight of at least 4 pounds per square foot of face area. • The noise barriers shall be maintained, and any damage promptly repaired. Gaps, holes, or weaknesses in the barrier or openings between the barrier and the ground shall be promptly repaired. The required barrier shall be installed prior to any construction activities commencing on-site and shall remain in place until construction activities have been completed. The construction contractor shall allow for periodic inspection by the City of Rancho Cucamonga to ensure that the required noise barrier remains in place until completion of construction activities on-site. MM 11-2 During all Project site construction, the construction contractors shall equip all construction equipment, fixed or mobile, with properly operating and maintained mufflers, consistent with manufacturers’ standards. The construction contractor shall place all stationary construction equipment so that emitted noise is directed away from the noise sensitive receptors nearest the Project site. The construction contractor shall allow for periodic inspection by the City of Rancho BO C During grading and construction A Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Responsible Person Monitoring Frequency Method of Verification PD: Planning Director CE: City Engineer or designee BO: Building Official or designee PO: Police Captain or designee FC: Fire Chief or designee A: With Each New Development B: Prior to Construction C: Throughout Construction D: On Completion E: During Construction A: On-site Inspection B: Other Agency Permit/Approval C: Plan Check D: Separate Submittal (Reports/Studies/Plans) 28 Mitigation Measure No. / Implementing Action Responsible for Monitoring Monitoring Frequency Timing of Verification Method of Verification Verified Date/Initials Cucamonga to ensure compliance with these requirements. Transportation RR 13-1 During construction activities, work within streets, sidewalks, and public places shall comply with: (1) Title 12.03, Public Improvement Construction, of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code, which requires an encroachment permit from the City and adherence to the current edition of The Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction (Green Book), and (2) the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). Application for the permit shall be made as part of the respective plan check process and prior to any work on public areas or rights-of-way. CE B/C Prior to issuance of building permits/during construction A/B/C RR 13-2 In accordance with Chapter 3.28, City-Wide System Fees for Transportation Development, of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code, prior to the issuance of each building permit, the Property Owner/Developer shall pay applicable city-wide transportation development impact fees to the satisfaction of the City Engineering Department. CE A/B Prior to issuance of building permits C RR 13-3 The Property Owner/Developer shall comply with Chapter 17.78, Transportation Demand Management, of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Code, which requires the provision of amenities or programs to PD A Prior to issuance of tenant improvement permits C Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Responsible Person Monitoring Frequency Method of Verification PD: Planning Director CE: City Engineer or designee BO: Building Official or designee PO: Police Captain or designee FC: Fire Chief or designee A: With Each New Development B: Prior to Construction C: Throughout Construction D: On Completion E: During Construction A: On-site Inspection B: Other Agency Permit/Approval C: Plan Check D: Separate Submittal (Reports/Studies/Plans) 29 Mitigation Measure No. / Implementing Action Responsible for Monitoring Monitoring Frequency Timing of Verification Method of Verification Verified Date/Initials encourage the use of alternative modes of travel by employees; patrons; and visitors of commercial, industrial, office, and mixed-use developments. These may include, but are limited to shower facilities, preferred parking, bicycle storage, video conference facilities, transit improvements, and other measures to reduce vehicle trips in the City. These facilities shall be shown in the site improvement and building plans submitted to the City during the permit process. RR 13-4 In accordance with Chapter 10.56, Truck Routes and Restrictions, of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code, commercial vehicles and vehicle combinations described in Sections 35400 and 35401 of the California Vehicle Code, or their successor provisions, and vehicles which exceed a maximum gross weight of three tons shall use designated truck routes. Non- designated truck routes shall be used only as necessary for the purpose of making pickups or deliveries of goods, wares, and merchandise from or to any building or structure located on a city street or for the purpose of delivering materials to be used in the repair, alteration, remodeling, or construction of any building or structure upon a city street for which a building permit has previously been obtained. CE C/E During construction and operations A Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Responsible Person Monitoring Frequency Method of Verification PD: Planning Director CE: City Engineer or designee BO: Building Official or designee PO: Police Captain or designee FC: Fire Chief or designee A: With Each New Development B: Prior to Construction C: Throughout Construction D: On Completion E: During Construction A: On-site Inspection B: Other Agency Permit/Approval C: Plan Check D: Separate Submittal (Reports/Studies/Plans) 30 Mitigation Measure No. / Implementing Action Responsible for Monitoring Monitoring Frequency Timing of Verification Method of Verification Verified Date/Initials RR 13-5 Work in the public right-of-way along 4th Street in the City of Ontario shall comply with Title 7, Chapter 3, Public Rights-of-Way, of the City of Ontario Municipal Code, which requires an encroachment permit from the City. Application for the permit shall be made as part of the respective plan check process and prior to any work on public areas or rights-of-way. CE B/C Prior to the issuance of building permits/during construction A/B/C Tribal Cultural Resources MM 14-1 Prior to the commencement of any ground disturbing activity at the Project Site, the Project Applicant shall retain a Native American Monitor approved by the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation – the tribe that consulted on this project pursuant to Assembly Bill A52 - SB18 (the “Tribe” or the “Consulting Tribe”). A copy of the executed contract shall be submitted to the City of Rancho Cucamonga prior to the issuance of any permit necessary to commence a ground- disturbing activity. The Tribal monitor shall only be present on-site during the construction phases that involve ground-disturbing activities. Ground disturbing activities are defined by the Tribe 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 shall complete daily monitoring logs that shall provide PD B/C Prior to issuance of grading permit/during grading and construction A/B Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Responsible Person Monitoring Frequency Method of Verification PD: Planning Director CE: City Engineer or designee BO: Building Official or designee PO: Police Captain or designee FC: Fire Chief or designee A: With Each New Development B: Prior to Construction C: Throughout Construction D: On Completion E: During Construction A: On-site Inspection B: Other Agency Permit/Approval C: Plan Check D: Separate Submittal (Reports/Studies/Plans) 31 Mitigation Measure No. / Implementing Action Responsible for Monitoring Monitoring Frequency Timing of Verification Method of Verification Verified Date/Initials descriptions of the day’s activities, including construction activities, locations, soil, and any cultural materials identified. The on-site monitoring shall end when all ground-disturbing activities on the Project Site are completed, or when the Tribal Representatives and Tribal Monitor have indicated that all upcoming ground- disturbing activities at the Project Site have little to no potential for impacting tribal cultural resources. Upon discovery of any tribal cultural resources, construction activities shall cease in the immediate vicinity of the find (not less than the surrounding 50 feet) until the find can be assessed. All tribal cultural resources unearthed by project activities shall be evaluated by the Tribal monitor approved by the Consulting Tribe and a qualified archaeologist if one is present. If the resources are Native American in origin, the Consulting Tribe shall retain it/them in the form and/or manner the Tribe deems appropriate, for educational, cultural and/or historic purposes. If human remains and/or grave goods are discovered or recognized at the Project Site, all ground disturbance shall immediately cease, and the county coroner shall be notified per Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, and Health & Safety Code Section 7050.5. Human remains and grave/burial goods shall be treated alike per California Public Resources Code section Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Responsible Person Monitoring Frequency Method of Verification PD: Planning Director CE: City Engineer or designee BO: Building Official or designee PO: Police Captain or designee FC: Fire Chief or designee A: With Each New Development B: Prior to Construction C: Throughout Construction D: On Completion E: During Construction A: On-site Inspection B: Other Agency Permit/Approval C: Plan Check D: Separate Submittal (Reports/Studies/Plans) 32 Mitigation Measure No. / Implementing Action Responsible for Monitoring Monitoring Frequency Timing of Verification Method of Verification Verified Date/Initials 5097.98(d)(1) and (2). Work may continue in other parts of the Project site while evaluation and, if necessary, mitigation takes place (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5[f]). 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 (non-TCR) 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, it shall be offered to a local school or historical society in the area for educational purposes. MM 14-2 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 PD C During grading and construction A/B Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Responsible Person Monitoring Frequency Method of Verification PD: Planning Director CE: City Engineer or designee BO: Building Official or designee PO: Police Captain or designee FC: Fire Chief or designee A: With Each New Development B: Prior to Construction C: Throughout Construction D: On Completion E: During Construction A: On-site Inspection B: Other Agency Permit/Approval C: Plan Check D: Separate Submittal (Reports/Studies/Plans) 33 Mitigation Measure No. / Implementing Action Responsible for Monitoring Monitoring Frequency Timing of Verification Method of Verification Verified Date/Initials 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 NAHC and PRC 5097.98 shall be followed. MM 14-3 Upon discovery of human remains, the tribal and/or archaeological monitor/consultant/consultant shall immediately divert work at minimum of 100 feet and place an exclusion zone around the discovery location. The monitor/consultant(s) shall then notify the Tribe, the qualified lead archaeologist, and the construction manager who shall call the coroner. Work shall continue to be diverted while the coroner determines whether the remains are human and subsequently 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 shall notify the NAHC as mandated by state law who shall then appoint a Most Likely Descendent (MLD). PD C During grading and construction A/B MM 14-4 If the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation is designated MLD, the Koo-nas-gna Burial Policy shall be implemented. To the Tribe, the term “human remains” encompasses more than human bones. In ancient as well as historic times, Tribal Traditions PD C During grading and construction A/B Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Responsible Person Monitoring Frequency Method of Verification PD: Planning Director CE: City Engineer or designee BO: Building Official or designee PO: Police Captain or designee FC: Fire Chief or designee A: With Each New Development B: Prior to Construction C: Throughout Construction D: On Completion E: During Construction A: On-site Inspection B: Other Agency Permit/Approval C: Plan Check D: Separate Submittal (Reports/Studies/Plans) 34 Mitigation Measure No. / Implementing Action Responsible for Monitoring Monitoring Frequency Timing of Verification Method of Verification Verified Date/Initials included, but were not limited to, the preparation of the soil for burial, the burial of funerary objects with the deceased, and the ceremonial burning of human remains. The prepared soil and cremation soils 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. MM 14-5 Prior to the continuation of ground disturbing activities, the landowner 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 shall 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 shall make every effort to recommend diverting the project and keeping the remains in situ and protected. PD C During grading and construction A/D Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Responsible Person Monitoring Frequency Method of Verification PD: Planning Director CE: City Engineer or designee BO: Building Official or designee PO: Police Captain or designee FC: Fire Chief or designee A: With Each New Development B: Prior to Construction C: Throughout Construction D: On Completion E: During Construction A: On-site Inspection B: Other Agency Permit/Approval C: Plan Check D: Separate Submittal (Reports/Studies/Plans) 35 Mitigation Measure No. / Implementing Action Responsible for Monitoring Monitoring Frequency Timing of Verification Method of Verification Verified Date/Initials If the project cannot be diverted, it may be determined that burials shall be removed. The Tribe shall work closely with the qualified archaeologist to ensure that the excavation is treated carefully, ethically and respectfully. If data recovery is approved by the Tribe, documentation shall be taken which includes at a minimum detailed descriptive notes and sketches. Additional types of documentation shall be approved by the Tribe for data recovery purposes. Cremations shall 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 and/or destructive diagnostics on human remains. Each occurrence of human remains and associated funerary objects shall be stored using opaque cloth bags. All human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects and objects of cultural patrimony shall 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 Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Responsible Person Monitoring Frequency Method of Verification PD: Planning Director CE: City Engineer or designee BO: Building Official or designee PO: Police Captain or designee FC: Fire Chief or designee A: With Each New Development B: Prior to Construction C: Throughout Construction D: On Completion E: During Construction A: On-site Inspection B: Other Agency Permit/Approval C: Plan Check D: Separate Submittal (Reports/Studies/Plans) 36 Mitigation Measure No. / Implementing Action Responsible for Monitoring Monitoring Frequency Timing of Verification Method of Verification Verified Date/Initials 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. MM 14-6 Native American and Archaeological monitoring during construction projects shall be consistent with current professional standards. All feasible care to avoid any unnecessary disturbance, physical modification, or separation of TCR’s shall be taken. The Native American monitor must be approved by the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation. Principal personnel for Archaeology 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. PD C During grading and construction A/D Utilities and Services RR 15-1 Water and sewer plans shall be designed and constructed to meet the applicable requirements of the Cucamonga Valley Water District (CVWD) Municipal Code and City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Code. Approval of the plans by the CVWD is required prior to final map approval or issuance of permits, whichever occurs first. CE A/B Prior to final map approval or issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first B/D Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Responsible Person Monitoring Frequency Method of Verification PD: Planning Director CE: City Engineer or designee BO: Building Official or designee PO: Police Captain or designee FC: Fire Chief or designee A: With Each New Development B: Prior to Construction C: Throughout Construction D: On Completion E: During Construction A: On-site Inspection B: Other Agency Permit/Approval C: Plan Check D: Separate Submittal (Reports/Studies/Plans) 37 Mitigation Measure No. / Implementing Action Responsible for Monitoring Monitoring Frequency Timing of Verification Method of Verification Verified Date/Initials RR 15-2 Landscaping associated with the Project shall be implemented in compliance with Chapter 17.56 of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Code, which requires preparation and review of landscape and irrigation plans during the Design Review process. Pursuant to Section 17.56.030(B) of the Development Code, the final landscape planting and irrigation plans shall be prepared by a registered licensed Landscape Architect and shall be in substantial compliance with the preliminary landscape and irrigation plan approved by the designated approving authority. PD A/B During design review C/D RR 15-3 Landscape plans prepared for the Project shall be in compliance with Chapter 17.82, Water Efficient Landscaping, of the City Rancho Cucamonga Development Code, which includes requirements for development of a water budget, landscape design guidelines, soil and grading requirements, and a requirement to use recycled water. PD A/B Prior to issuance of building permits C RR 15-4 Demolition and construction activities on the Project site shall be conducted in compliance with requirements of Chapter 8.19, Construction and Demolition Waste Collection, of the City’s Municipal Code. Construction and demolition waste shall be made available for deconstruction, salvage, and recovery prior to demolition. Inclusive of the recovered and salvaged CE A/B/D Prior to issuance of demolition, grading, and building construction permits/after construction C/D Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Responsible Person Monitoring Frequency Method of Verification PD: Planning Director CE: City Engineer or designee BO: Building Official or designee PO: Police Captain or designee FC: Fire Chief or designee A: With Each New Development B: Prior to Construction C: Throughout Construction D: On Completion E: During Construction A: On-site Inspection B: Other Agency Permit/Approval C: Plan Check D: Separate Submittal (Reports/Studies/Plans) 38 Mitigation Measure No. / Implementing Action Responsible for Monitoring Monitoring Frequency Timing of Verification Method of Verification Verified Date/Initials materials, all construction and demolition projects are required to divert a minimum of 65% of the tonnage generated as a result of the project from the landfill. Prior to issuance of each Demolition or Building Permit, a “Form CD-1 Waste Management and Recycling Plan” shall be submitted to the Engineering Services Department. RR 15-5 Development shall comply with Chapter 8.17, Refuse, Recyclables and Green Waste Collection, of the City’s Municipal Code. The collection and disposal of refuse, recyclables or green waste shall only be conducted by entities issued a permit to do so by the City, with certain exceptions, as identified in the Municipal Code. CE E After issuance of occupancy permits A Conditions of Approval Requested by the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians (SMBMI) Cultural Resources CR-1 In the event that cultural resources are discovered during project activities, all work in the immediate vicinity of the find (within a 60-foot buffer) shall cease and a qualified 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 TCR-1, regarding any pre-contact and/or historic-era finds and be provided information after the PD C During grading and construction A Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Responsible Person Monitoring Frequency Method of Verification PD: Planning Director CE: City Engineer or designee BO: Building Official or designee PO: Police Captain or designee FC: Fire Chief or designee A: With Each New Development B: Prior to Construction C: Throughout Construction D: On Completion E: During Construction A: On-site Inspection B: Other Agency Permit/Approval C: Plan Check D: Separate Submittal (Reports/Studies/Plans) 39 Mitigation Measure No. / Implementing Action Responsible for Monitoring Monitoring Frequency Timing of Verification Method of Verification Verified Date/Initials archaeologist makes his/her initial assessment of the nature of the find, so as to provide Tribal input with regards to significance and treatment. CR-2 If significant pre-contact and/or historic-era cultural resources, as defined by CEQA (as amended, 2015), are discovered and avoidance cannot be ensured, the archaeologist shall develop a Monitoring and Treatment Plan, the drafts of which shall be provided to SMBMI for review and comment, as detailed within TCR-1. The archaeologist shall monitor the remainder of the project and implement the Plan accordingly. PD C During grading and construction D CR-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. PD C During grading and construction A/B Tribal Cultural Resources TCR-1 The SMBMI Cultural Resources Department shall be contacted, as detailed in CR-1, of any pre-contact and/or historic-era cultural resources discovered during project implementation, and be provided information regarding the nature of the find, so as to provide Tribal input with regards to significance and treatment. Should the find be PD C During grading and construction A/D Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Responsible Person Monitoring Frequency Method of Verification PD: Planning Director CE: City Engineer or designee BO: Building Official or designee PO: Police Captain or designee FC: Fire Chief or designee A: With Each New Development B: Prior to Construction C: Throughout Construction D: On Completion E: During Construction A: On-site Inspection B: Other Agency Permit/Approval C: Plan Check D: Separate Submittal (Reports/Studies/Plans) 40 Mitigation Measure No. / Implementing Action Responsible for Monitoring Monitoring Frequency Timing of Verification Method of Verification Verified Date/Initials 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. TCR-2 Any and all archaeological/cultural documents created as a part of the project (isolate records, site records, survey reports, testing reports, etc.) shall be supplied to the applicant and 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. PD C During grading and construction D 1 Exhibit G 2 3 4 5 4(cont) 6 5(cont) 7 6(cont) 7(cont) 8 7(cont) 9 8(cont) 10 9(cont) 10(cont) 11 10(cont) 12 11(cont) 13 12(cont) 13(cont) 14 14(cont) 14(cont) 14(cont) 14(cont) 15 14(cont) 15(cont) 15(cont) 15(cont) 1 RESPONSE TO BLUM COLLINS COVER LETTER RESPONSE TO COMMENT 1 This cover letter identifies that comments on the Draft EIR are being provided by Blum Collins, LLP, on behalf of the Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance (GSEJA), provides a summary of the Project, and transmits comments from Soil Water Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE). This cover letter also summarizes the comments by SWAPE; responses to SWAPE comments are provided below. As requested, notices and information referring to, or relating to, the Project will be provided, consistent with applicable law. Pursuant to the responses to comments provided below, no further analysis or recirculation of the Draft EIR is required. Attachments to the SWAPE comment letter are provided at the end of these responses to comments. RESPONSE TO SWAPE COMMENT LETTER RESPONSE TO COMMENT 2 The commenter summarizes the project description, no specific comment or request for additional information is made, therefore no further response is required. RESPONSE TO COMMENT 3 The commenter incorrectly claims that the Draft EIR’s air quality, health risk, and greenhouse gas (GHG) impacts are underestimated and requests preparation of an updated EIR based on the subsequent comments. This is a summary of the detailed comments provided in the body of the comment letter, which are addressed responded to in the following responses. Furthermore, on July 7, 2021, Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance withdrew its comment letter and opposition to the Project and requested that this letter not be included in the Final EIR and be removed from the public record. Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance explained that the Project's developer has addressed its concerns about environmental mitigation. No additional response if required. RESPONSE TO COMMENT 4 The commenter summarizes their claim that the emissions calculations using CalEEMod are not substantiated and are underestimated based on the subsequent comments. This assertion in incorrect as outlined in the responses to specific comments provided in the responses to comments below. RESPONSE TO COMMENT 5 The commenter correctly summarizes that the Draft EIR’s air quality analysis relies on CalEEMod 2016.3.2 to calculate emissions associated with the Project and that CalEEMod identifies that project- specific information should be included in the modeling (if known). The commenter claims that changes have been made to the CalEEMod defaults and that these changes are not substantiated or identified in 2 the Draft EIR. To the contrary, the Draft EIR and associated Appendix B1 – Air Quality Impact Analysis clearly states on Page 42, that “The duration of construction activity was based on information provided by the Project Applicant.” In this case, site-specific information was provided by the Project Applicant relative to the Project’s construction schedule. The commenter goes on to allege that the schedule identified in the Draft EIR and underlying Appendix B1 – Air Quality Impact Analysis does not differentiate between the “Building Construction/Architectural Coatings” and somehow dilutes the architectural coatings-related emissions. To the contrary, as the commenter points out, the actual modeled number of days for architectural coatings is two working- weeks shorter than the overall duration identified for the vertical construction phase. The reason for this is that the modeling accounts for the fact that during the first two working-weeks of vertical construction, there would be no architectural coatings required. It is also important to note that the schedule presented in the Draft EIR and associated technical analysis is a summary of a lengthy and more complicated construction process with various construction activities occurring for both buildings. The “building construction” category includes various construction activities that require architectural coatings, including, but not limited to: painting of screen walls, trusses and ledgers, the interior and exterior of warehouse buildings; striping; caulking; etc. Furthermore, the Draft EIR and underlying technical analysis conservatively assumes that both Building 1 and Building 2 could be constructed and painted concurrently, which likely overstates the potential impacts associated with the vertical construction phase of the Project since the building construction would be staggered. For this Project, the schedule that was provided by the Developer and its contractor, reasonably assumed 190 days for all architectural coatings. As such, the analysis in the Draft EIR and supporting technical analysis is correct and no changes to the Draft EIR are needed. It should also be noted that the Project Applicant is voluntarily pursuing a LEED certification for the proposed buildings. As part of this effort low VOC paint (10 grams per liter VOC content) would be used during construction. This would further reduce the VOC emissions resulting from construction of the Project and the numbers in the Draft EIR are conservative by not assessing these reductions. RESPONSE TO COMMENT 6 The VOC emission rates assumed in the Draft EIR and supporting technical analysis were extracted from the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 1113, as stated on Page 2 of Appendix B1 of the Draft EIR. SCAQMD’s Rule 1113, as summarized in Table 1 of the Rule, identifies the current limit for the Building Envelope as 50 g/l, which is consistent with the analysis contained in the Draft EIR (screen capture of Table 1 below); and, establishes a VOC content limits for the “building envelope” coating category, which is appropriate to use for the Project because the primary painting activities would be for the physical interior and exterior structure (walls), which constitute the “building envelope.” The SCAQMD’s rule also serves as substantial evidence because SCAQMD is the applicable jurisdiction governing air quality in the Project’s region. As such, the analysis in the Draft EIR and supporting technical analysis is correct and no changes to the Draft EIR are needed. Additionally, as discussed above, the Project Applicant is voluntarily pursuing a LEED certification for the proposed 3 buildings. As part of this effort low VOC paint (10 grams per liter VOC content) would be used during construction. This would further reduce the VOC emissions resulting from construction of the Project. RESPONSE TO COMMENT 7 The commenter incorrectly identifies that the Draft EIR and supporting technical analysis includes unsubstantiated changes to the vendor and worker trip numbers. Again, as stated on Page 41 of Appendix B1 of the Draft EIR, “It should be noted that for Vendor Trips, specifically, CalEEMod only assigns Vendor Trips to the Building Construction phase. Vendor trips would likely occur during all phases of construction. As such, the CalEEMod defaults for Vendor Trips have been adjusted based on a ratio of the total vendor trips to the number of days of each subphase of activity.” Furthermore, the adjustments made to the Worker trips actually results in more daily worker trips due to the overlapping assumed for vertical building construction and architectural coating activity. As noted, the Draft EIR and supporting technical analysis clearly substantiate the change made since vendor trips are not assigned by default to every phase in CalEEMod. Lastly, the reason there are changes made to the worker and vendor trips also has to do with the fact that CalEEMod arbitrarily assigns worker and vendor trips to any phase of construction modeled in CalEEMod as a “building construction” phase type. In this instance, the adjustments shown in the CalEEMod output referencing “Building Construction” are actually associated with the Utilities/Infrastructure Construction Phase, which was modeled in CalEEMod using the “Building Construction” phase type, since there is no specific “Utilities/Infrastructure Construction Phase” type. It is appropriate to change the defaults in this instance, since the defaults would treat the Utilities/Infrastructure Construction Phase as a typical vertical building construction phase. As such, the analysis in the Draft EIR and supporting technical analysis is correct and no changes to the Draft EIR are needed. RESPONSE TO COMMENT 8 The commenter incorrectly asserts that energy use reduction assumptions used in CalEEMod are unsubstantiated. CalEEMod defaults are based on the prior 2016 Title 24 standards. As noted in the Draft EIR and supporting technical appendices (Air Quality, GHG and Energy), the 2019 version of Title 24 which became effective on January 1, 2020 results in approximately 30% less energy demand for non- residential buildings compared to the 2016 Title 24 standards, as summarized in the 2019 Building Energy 4 Efficiency Standards Frequently Asked Questions 1 (published March 2018). It is therefore appropriate to reduce the CalEEMod defaults by 30% to account for mandatory compliance with the regulation. The commenter provides no substantial evidence as to why these reductions are improper, or that if the reductions had not been taken, the EIR analysis and conclusions would have to be revised to render a new significant impact. As such, the analysis in the Draft EIR and supporting technical analysis is correct and no changes to the Draft EIR are needed. RESPONSE TO COMMENT 9 The commenter incorrectly asserts truck trip generation rates have been underestimated. The source of the vehicle mix is not from the ITE Trip Generation Manual but from the ITE Trip Generation Supplement, which includes additional data on truck trip generation for 50 land uses (Appendix C: Truck Trips as Percent of Total Vehicle Trips), which is provided in Appendix C of this Final EIR. There is no weekday daily truck mix for the high-cube fulfillment center (non-sort) land use, as such, the PM to daily truck mix percentage relationship for high-cube fulfillment center (sort) land use from the ITE Trip Generation Supplement was calculated and a similar relationship was applied to determine the high-cube fulfillment center (non-sort) daily truck mix. Based on this PM-to-daily ratio (3% daily over 2% PM or 1.5 x PM%), the daily truck percentage calculated for the non-sort facilities was 10.5% (7% PM trucks x 1.5 = 10.5% trucks for daily). For high-cube cold storage warehouse uses Appendix C identifies a daily truck percentage of 35% or 2.120 x 35% = 0.742. Similarly, for high-cube fulfillment center (non-sort) uses a daily truck percentage of 10.5% or 1.81 x 10.5% = 0.19. The trip generation calculations (including truck trips) and associated mobile-source emissions are therefore not understated and have been calculated following industry standards. As such, the analysis in the Draft EIR and supporting technical analysis is correct and no changes to the Draft EIR are needed. RESPONSE TO COMMENT 10 The Draft EIR’s conclusion that the Project’s operational air quality impact would be less than significant is correct and the City appropriately considered the existing conditions at the Project site as part of its environmental baseline. The existing conditions here reflect the existing warehouse buildings on the Project site that were occupied by warehouse uses for over 37 years, and were occupied during preparation of the Draft EIR. First, the existing buildings are intact and can be occupied by a warehouse use at any time without any new entitlements or approvals from the City. The existing buildings were occupied by warehouse and retail uses (Pic ‘n Save and Big Lots) from approximately 1983 to February 29, 2020. The existing buildings were briefly vacant from March 1, 2020 to October 29, 2020, at which time they were re-occupied by another warehouse user (Geodis). The NOP was published on October 2, 2020, only 27 days before the existing buildings were re-occupied by Geodis. The EIR was therefore prepared while the existing buildings were occupied and their occupied use is a reasonable environmental baseline to compare the Project impacts against as it was the actual conditions during preparation of the EIR. 1 https://www.energy.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2020 -03/Title_24_2019_Building_Standards_FAQ_ada.pdf 5 The Commenter cites to a portion of CEQA Guidelines section 15125(a) but fails to cite to the rest of Guidelines section 15125(a)(1), which provides that “Generally, the lead agency should describe physical environmental conditions as they exist at the time the notice of preparation is published, or if no notice of preparation is published, at the time environmental analysis is commenced, from both a local and regional perspective. Where existing conditions change or fluctuate over time, and where necessary to provide the most accurate picture practically possible of the project's impacts, a lead agency may define existing conditions by referencing historic conditions, or conditions expected when the project becomes operational, or both, that are supported with substantial evidence. In addition, a lead agency may also use baselines consisting of both existing conditions and projected future conditions that are supported by reliable projections based on substantial evidence in the record.” The fact that the existing buildings were actually re-occupied with a warehouse use during the time the EIR was prepared is evidence that the buildings could be reoccupied and supports the use of the existing conditions baseline here. Additionally, this vacancy occurred at the beginning of the COVID pandemic, which further substantiates that the vacant condition does not represent an accurate baseline. Because traffic counts were not available for Big Lots, the Draft EIR used conservatively low ITE trip generation rates for a warehouse use. For energy and water use, the Draft EIR used data from historic operations of the Big Lots building. The City’s use of the existing conditions baseline is supported by substantial evidence and the fact that the existing buildings happened to be vacant for a brief 8-month period during which the NOP was released over 37 years of operation is immaterial to the appropriateness of operational conditions being the proper baseline. RESPONSE TO COMMENT 11 The commenter asserts that there would be a significant air quality impact when not taking into consideration emissions from existing uses. As identified in Response to Comment 9, the Draft EIR and supporting technical analyses correctly take credit for the existing uses onsite. As such, no significant impact would occur. The analysis in the Draft EIR and supporting technical analysis is correct and no changes to the Draft EIR are needed. RESPONSE TO COMMENT 12 The commenter attempts to provide updated modeling of the Project’s construction-related emissions of VOC and NOx based on CalEEMod defaults and not based on the information included in the Draft EIR. However, the commenter provides no substantial evidence to support the use of CalEEMod defaults when, as explained above, there are more accurate and appropriate Project specific inputs available. To the contrary, Response to Comments 4 through 6 above, which address the CalEEMod assumptions, refute the commenters assertions and support the fact that the Draft EIR and supporting technical studies are correct, and no significant impact would occur from implementation of the Project, with adherence to regulatory requirements and implementation of mitigation measures identified in the Draft EIR to reduce NOx emissions. As such, the analysis in the Draft EIR and supporting technical analysis is correct and no changes to the Draft EIR are needed. Additionally, refer to Response to Comment 13 6 below, which addresses expanded Draft EIR mitigation measure (MM) 2-2, resulting in a further reduction in NOx emissions during construction. RESPONSE TO COMMENT 13 The commenter incorrectly asserts that it is inappropriate to take credit for the existing uses onsite when considering the Project’s impacts related to GHG emissions. This issue is addressed in Response to Comment 9, above. RESPONSE TO COMMENT 14 The commenter summarizes the Project’s GHG emissions conclusion, restating data presented in the Draft EIR that the Project would not exceed the SCAQMD bright-line threshold of 10,000 MT CO2e/year. 2. The commenter also summarizes that the Draft EIR relies upon a separate and independent basis of consistency with CARB’s Scoping Plan, the City’s Sustainability Community Action Plan, and SCAG’s Connect SoCal in order to conclude the Project would result in a less than significant GHG impact. While 2 Note that the commenter does not question or challenge the City’s well-established use of the SCAQMD’s threshold of 10,000 MT CO2e/year for industrial projects which is an independent basis for the City to determine that GHG impacts are less than significant. This numeric threshold is supported by direct testimony from SCAQMD expert staff who stated that a warehouse project would be subject to the industrial project 10,000 MT CO2e/year GHG threshold. (meeting minutes available here: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/greenhouse-gases-(ghg)-ceqa- significance-thresholds/year-2008-2009/ghg-meeting-8/ghg-meeting-8-minutes.pdf?sfvrsn=2). The use of this threshold was not questioned by CARB, who commented on the Project. In addition, the California Attorney General indicates that the 10,000 metric ton threshold is appropriate for warehouse facilities such as this Project (Brief of Amici Curiae the Attorney General and The California Air Resources Board in Support of Plaintiffs and Respondents Albert Thomas Paulek, et al. and Plaintiffs and Appellants Laborers International Union of North America, Local 1184, et al., https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press-docs/WLC%20-%20Amicus.pdf). Moreover, the increase of emissions above baseline caused by the Project is 2,478.53 MT CO2e/year which is below the SCAQMD’s threshold of 3,000 MT CO2e/year for mobile sources from local agency land use development approvals for projects such as commercial, residential, and mixed-use projects that is also applicable to the mobile sources emissions from trucks and cars accessing the proposed project. (see i.e. Presentation from last working group meeting, available here: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/ceqa/handbook/greenhouse-gases-(ghg)-ceqa-significance-thresholds/year-2008-2009/ghg- meeting-15/ghg-meeting-15-main-presentation.pdf?sfvrsn=2 and spreadsheet calculating emissions from residential and commercial project based on trip rates http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/ceqa/handbook/greenhouse-gases-(ghg)-ceqa-significance-thresholds/year-2008-2009/ghg- meeting-13/ghg-meeting-13-individual-emissions-and-capture-rates.xls?sfvrsn=2 – emissions are based on trip rates) 7 the Draft EIR presents both a comparison to a numeric threshold and consistency with plans analysis, the City notes that the Appendix G threshold questions are presented as an “or” and either analysis is a valid, independent method to determine the significance of the Project’s GHG impacts. As explained in the Draft EIR, the Project would have a less than significant GHG impact under either of the questions and basis by itself is an appropriate basis for the City to analyze GHG impacts. The commenter then incorrectly asserts that the Draft EIR’s GHG analysis is incorrect and provides five reasons. A specific response to each of the five reasons is as follows: Reason 1: Incorrect and Unsubstantiated Quantitative Analysis of Emissions The commenter incorrectly asserts that the Draft EIR’s quantitative GHG analysis is incorrect and based on unsubstantiated quantitative analysis of emissions. The commenter refers to comments previously made (specifically Comments 4 through 10) as the support for this assertion. As provided herein, Responses to Comments 4 through 10 refute all of the allegations of incorrect and unsubstantiated modeling and analysis assumptions. Reason 2: Incorrect Analysis of GHG emissions The commenter incorrectly asserts that the Draft EIR inappropriately takes credit for the existing operational emissions. Refer to Response to Comment 9, above, which addresses this comment. Reason 3: Failure to Identify a Potentially Significant GHG Impact The Draft EIR correctly identifies that no potentially significant GHG impact would occur. Refer to Response to Comment 12, above, which addresses the less than significant impact conclusion. In addition, notwithstanding the Project’s less than significant GHG impacts, in response to a comment letter from the California Air Resources Board (CARB) (Comment Letter C of the Final EIR), the Project Applicant has voluntarily agreed to incorporate additional mitigation measures that would further reduce the Project’s less than significant GHG emissions impacts. Specifically, MM 2-1 included in Draft EIR Section 4.2, Air Quality, has been expanded (as shown in bold underline) to include additional construction-related mitigation requirements, and new MM 2-2 includes operational requirements. MM 2-1 Prior to grading permit and building permit issuance, the City of Rancho Cucamonga shall verify that the following applicable notes are included on the grading plans and building plans. Project contractors shall be required to ensure compliance with these notes and permit periodic inspection of the construction-site by City of Rancho Cucamonga staff or its designee to confirm compliance. These notes also shall be specified in bid documents issued to prospective construction contractors. • During construction activity, Project construction contractors shall ensure that off-road diesel construction equipment complies with applicable California Air Resources Board (CARB) emissions standards or equivalent and shall ensure that all construction equipment is tuned and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications. 8 • The following off-road construction equipment shall be CARB Tier III certified or better, by construction phase as shown: ○ Demolition/Crushing:  Boom Lift  Concrete/Industrial Saws  Crusher  Skid Steer ○ Utilities/Infrastructure:  Trencher ○ Building Construction:  Forklifts  Generator Sets  Welders ○ Paving:  Pavers  Paving Equipment  Rollers ○ Architectural Coating  Air Compressors • The following off-road construction equipment shall be CARB Tier IV Final certified or better, by construction phase as shown: ○ Demolition/Crushing:  Breakers  Excavators  Generator Sets  Rubber Tired Dozers ○ Grading:  Crawler Tractors  Excavators  Graders  Rubber Tired Dozers  Scrapers ○ Utilities/Infrastructure:  Excavators 9  Skip Loaders/Backhoes ○ Building Construction  Cranes  Crawler Tractors  Laser Screed  Scissor Loaders/Backhoes  Skip Loaders/Backhoes • Idling of heavy construction equipment shall be restricted to two minutes and electrical hook ups shall be provided to support use of zero and near-zero construction equipment and tools whenever feasible. • Off-road equipment with a power rating below 19 kilowatts (e.g., plate compactors, pressure washers) used during project construction shall be electric powered, provided that it is commercially available, which may be plug-in (electric) or battery powered. • Heavy-duty trucks used for dirt and material hauling during construction shall meet the United States Environmental Protection Agency/California Air Resource Board truck engine standard for Model Year 2014 or later. MM 2-2 The Project Applicant shall include the following operational requirements in the final building design or stipulate the operational requirements for building occupants, as appropriate: Project Design • Make truck dock positions EV-ready by installing conduits at truck dock positions for future accommodation of light-duty and/or heavy-duty electric trucks and charging stations. Lease Agreement and Owner-Occupant Requirements • Those loading docks used by trucks with transport refrigeration units (TRU) as determined by a cold storage tenant shall be equipped with electrical hookups (applicable to cold storage tenant lease agreements only). • TRUs entering the Project site shall be plug-in capable (applicable to cold storage tenant lease agreements only). • On-site TRU diesel engine run time shall be no longer than 15 minutes (applicable to cold storage tenant lease agreements only). 10 • Service equipment (e.g., yard hostlers, yard equipment, forklifts, and pallet jacks) shall be powered by alternative fuels, electrical batteries or other alternative/non-diesel fuels (e.g., propane) that do not emit diesel particulate matter, and that are low or zero emission. • Trucks and support equipment shall not idle longer than five minutes while on site. Reason 4: Failure to Consider Performance-Based Standards Under CARB’s Scoping Plan The comment indicates that the Project would not meet the VMT Per Capita as anticipated in CARB’s 2017 Scoping Plan and therefore, the less-than-significant determination in the Draft EIR is incorrect and unsubstantiated. However, the analysis as presented in this comment is inaccurate for several reasons, which leads to the comment’s inaccurate assumption of Project-related Per Capita VMT rates. First CARB itself describes the document relied upon by the commenter as “non-binding technical information that acts as an optional aide to local governments and lead agencies.”3 The City was therefore well within its discretion when it opted not to rely on statewide per capita VMT values. Second, the per capita analysis in the comment takes the light-duty vehicles- (LDV) associated VMT in the State and divides it by the total population of the State, to reach the Per Capita values. The Project VMT per Service Population as disclosed in the DEIR is based on the total Project generated VMT which includes home-work, commercial-work, commercial-customer trips and divides that total by only the number anticipated employees of the Project. By contrast, the State LDA-associated VMT used by the commenter included all of the home-work, home- shopping, commercial-work, commercial-customer trips and divides it by the total population consisting of all of the residents, employees, and customers in the State. The Project’s VMT per Service Population is based only on the employees and appropriately does not include any residential and non-employee- based population. This is the primary reason why the State VMT Per Capita estimates cited by the commenter appear to be lower than the Project-generated VMT per Service Population. This is underscored by the Office of Planning and Research’s (OPRs) Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA (see page 5 of the Technical Advisory) which states that in order to have an accurate comparison of VMT estimates, the same model and methodology used to determine the thresholds should be used to provide project-generated VMT. The City adopted its VMT methodology and thresholds based on consistency with SB 743 and a goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Specifically, the City found that “[t]he intent of SB 743 is to promote infill development and reduce GHGs by promoting development in VMT- efficient areas (i.e., Cities that have VMT per service population below the County average). As identified above, the City of Rancho Cucamonga land uses are currently more efficient on average from a VMT per service population 3 https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/carb-2017-scoping-plan-identified-vmt-reductions- and-relationship-state-climate 11 perspective than the average of the County of San Bernardino as a whole; therefore, comparisons to the City average are more in line with the legislative intent of SB 743.” City Council staff report related to resolution 2020-056 is available online here: https://rcdocs.cityofrc.us/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=568102&dbid=0&repo=RanchoCucamonga. Reason 5: Failure to Consider Performance-Based Standards Under SCAG’s RTP/SCS The commenter incorrectly asserts that the Draft EIR did not consider performance-based standards under SCAG’s RTP/SCS. First, there is no requirement to consider any numeric performance-based standards for purposes of determining a potential impact. The Draft EIR correctly relies on a robust qualitative analysis of the Project’s consistency with SCAG’s RTP/SCS (Draft EIR pages 4.10-10 through 4.10-27), consistent with applicable CEQA requirements. As detailed on page 4.7-14 of Section 4.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of the Draft EIR, the total mobile source emissions from passenger vehicles for the Project are 6,388.45 MTCO2e annually (net mobile emissions are 2,210 MTCO2e annually). The Project-related Service Population, as stated above, includes only employees of the Project so it is inaccurate to divide the total passenger-car emissions by only the employee trips because the GHG analysis assumes other vehicle trips to the Project site (customers, guests, etc.) in addition to those of employees. This results in an overestimate of per capita emissions and the commenter’s comparison to the SB 375 per capita emissions is therefore flawed because the service population used by SCAG includes residential and non-employee-based population in addition to the employee-based population. Second, the commenter selectively identifies a VMT per capita benchmark specifically for passenger and light duty automobiles and attempts to conflate consistency with unadopted numeric per capita targets. This approach is again flawed because it focuses only on passenger and light duty vehicles and associated emissions, and ignores all other emissions categories, which are correctly evaluated in the Draft EIR. RESPONSE TO COMMENT 15 The commenter incorrectly asserts that the Project would have potentially significant air quality and GHG impacts and that additional mitigation should be required. As summarized in the Draft EIR and supporting technical studies, the Project would not result in a significant air quality (after implementation of identified regulatory requirements and mitigation for construction-related emission), or GHG emissions impact. As such, there is no nexus to require mitigation and no mitigation is required. Notwithstanding, the City and the Project Applicant have agreed to new expanded MM 2-1 and new MM 2-2, identified in Response to Comment 13 above, to further reduce the less than significant air quality and GHG emissions resulting from the Project. These measures are based on recommendations provided by the commenter in this comment, and CARB. ATTACHMENTS TO SWAPE COMMENT LETTER Green Jobs & Clean Communities P.O. Box 79222 Corona, CA 92877 July 7, 2021 Members of the City of Rancho Cucamonga City Council Members of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission 10500 Civic Center Dr. Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Re: Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project (SCH Number: 2020100056) Dear Members of the City of Rancho Cucamonga City Council and Planning Commission: On behalf of the Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance ("GSEJA"), I am writing to you regarding the Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project ("Project"), which proposes to remove 1,454,240 square feet of existing buildings and develop two new buildings totaling approximately 2,175,000 square feet. GSEJA is withdrawing its comment letter and opposition to the Project and requests that the letter not be included in the Final EIR and be removed from the public record. The Project's developer has addressed GSEJA's concerns about environmental mitigation. Sincerely, �geoi D' ector Page 1 1 Exhibit H Page 2 2 1(cont) Page 3 2(cont) Page 4 2(cont) Page 5 3 2(cont) Page 6 4 Page 7 4(cont) Page 8 5 4(cont) Page 9 5(cont) Page 10 5(cont) Page 11 6 5(cont) Page 12 7 6(cont) Page 13 8 7(cont) Page 14 9 8(cont) Page 15 10 9(cont) Page 16 11 10(cont) Page 17 12 13 14 11(cont) Page 18 15 16 14(cont) Page 19 17 16(cont) Page 20 17(cont) 18 Page 21 Page 22 19 Page 23 19(cont) Page 24 19(cont) Page 25 19(cont) Page 26 19(cont) Page 27 Page 28 Page 29 Page 30 Page 31 Page 32 Page 33 Page 34 Page 35 Page 36 Page 37 Page 38 Page 39 Page 40 Page 41 Page 42 Page 43 Page 44 Page 45 Page 46 Page 47 Page 48 Page 49 20 Page 50 21 Page 51 22 Page 52 23 24 Page 53 24(cont) Page 54 24(cont) Page 55 25 Page 56 Page 57 Page 58 1 Response to Mitchell M. Tsai (on behalf of the Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters) Responses to Main Comment Letter 1. This comment identifies that comments on the Draft EIR are being provided by Mitchell M. Tsai, Attorney at Law, on behalf of the Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters (Southwest Carpenters), and provides a summary of the Project and the Southwest Carpenters’ interest in the Project. The statement of interest is acknowledged. The City will respond to all comments on the Draft EIR and Final EIR consistent with applicable law. Notices and information referring to, or relating to, the EIR will also be provided consistent with applicable law. This comment does not raise any issues with the environmental analysis provided in the Draft EIR, thus, no further response is required. Furthermore, on July 14, 2021, The Office of Mitchell M. Tsai withdrew its comment letter dated June 21, 2021, on the Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft EIR and respectfully requested that the letter not be included in the Final EIR. 2. The commenter recommends that the City consider utilizing skilled and trained workforce policies and requirements to benefit the local area economically and to mitigate greenhouse gas (GHG), air quality and transportation impacts, and that the Project should be built to standards that exceed existing code requirements. This comment also refers to the comment letter provided by a technical consultant, which is included in Exhibit A of the comment letter; however, the letter included in Exhibit A does not specifically comment on the Draft EIR. The recommendations provided in this comment are acknowledged. As noted in the Draft EIR, potentially significant impacts of the Project have been adequately addressed in Draft EIR Sections 4.1 through 4.15, including air quality, GHG, and transportation (vehicle miles traveled [VMT]) impacts, which are addressed in this comment. As evaluated in the Draft EIR, the Project’s impact would be less than significant or less than significant with mitigation. Notwithstanding the Project’s less than significant impacts, in response to a comment letter from the California Air Resources Board (CARB), the Project Applicant has voluntarily agreed to incorporate additional mitigation measures during construction and operation that would further reduce the Project’s less than significant impacts (refer to modified MM 2-1 and new MM 2-2 below; new text is presented as bold and underlined). The new and expanded mitigation requirements have been incorporated into the Final EIR and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the Project. MM 2-1 Prior to grading permit and building permit issuance, the City of Rancho Cucamonga shall verify that the following applicable notes are included on the grading plans and building plans. Project contractors shall be required to ensure compliance with these notes and permit periodic inspection of the construction-site by City of Rancho Cucamonga staff or its designee to confirm compliance. These notes also shall be specified in bid documents issued to prospective construction contractors. • During construction activity, Project construction contractors shall ensure that off-road diesel construction equipment complies with applicable 2 California Air Resources Board (CARB) emissions standards or equivalent and shall ensure that all construction equipment is tuned and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications. • The following off-road construction equipment shall be CARB Tier III certified or better, by construction phase as shown: ○ Demolition/Crushing:  Boom Lift  Concrete/Industrial Saws  Crusher  Skid Steer ○ Utilities/Infrastructure:  Trencher ○ Building Construction:  Forklifts  Generator Sets  Welders ○ Paving:  Pavers  Paving Equipment  Rollers ○ Architectural Coating  Air Compressors • The following off-road construction equipment shall be CARB Tier IV Final certified or better, by construction phase as shown: ○ Demolition/Crushing:  Breakers  Excavators  Generator Sets  Rubber Tired Dozers ○ Grading:  Crawler Tractors  Excavators  Graders  Rubber Tired Dozers  Scrapers ○ Utilities/Infrastructure:  Excavators  Skip Loaders/Backhoes ○ Building Construction  Cranes  Crawler Tractors  Laser Screed 3  Scissor Loaders/Backhoes  Skip Loaders/Backhoes • Idling of heavy construction equipment shall be restricted to two minutes and electrical hook ups shall be provided to support use of zero and near-zero construction equipment and tools whenever feasible. • Off-road equipment with a power rating below 19 kilowatts (e.g., plate compactors, pressure washers) used during project construction shall be electric powered, provided that it is commercially available, which may be plug-in (electric) or battery powered. • Heavy-duty trucks used for dirt and material hauling during construction shall meet the United States Environmental Protection Agency/California Air Resource Board truck engine standard for Model Year 2014 or later. MM 2-2 The Project Applicant shall include the following operational requirements in the final building design or stipulate the operational requirements for building occupants, as appropriate: Project Design • Make truck dock positions EV-ready by installing conduits at truck dock positions for future accommodation of light-duty and/or heavy-duty electric trucks and charging stations. Lease Agreement and Owner-Occupant Requirements • Those loading docks used by trucks with transport refrigeration units (TRU) as determined by a cold storage tenant shall be equipped with electrical hookups (applicable to cold storage tenant lease agreements only). • TRUs entering the Project site shall be plug-in capable (applicable to cold storage tenant lease agreements only). • On-site TRU diesel engine run time shall be no longer than 15 minutes (applicable to cold storage tenant lease agreements only). • Service equipment (e.g., yard hostlers, yard equipment, forklifts, and pallet jacks) shall be powered by alternative fuels, electrical batteries or other alternative/non-diesel fuels (e.g., propane) that do not emit diesel particulate matter, and that are low or zero emission. 4 • Trucks and support equipment shall not idle longer than five minutes while on site. While this comment provides several recommendations and the commenter and its technical consultant’s perception of the benefits of using local labor, it does not raise any issues with the environmental analysis provided in the Draft EIR. 3. This comment identifies that review of the Draft EIR and specifically the analysis of transportation impacts was provided by a technical consultant supporting the commenter. Responses to the comments received from the technical consultant have been provided herein, as requested. Attachments to the technical consultant comment letters are included in Attachment A of this response. 4. This comment incorrectly asserts in its heading that approval of the Project would be in violation of CEQA. Subsections A and B of this comment summarize CEQA requirements and caselaw related to analysis of environmental impacts and requirements for recirculation of a Draft EIR. As noted by commenter, an EIR is meant to “provide public agencies and the public in general with information about the effect that a proposed project is likely to have on the environment and to ‘identify ways that environmental damage can be avoided or significantly reduced,’”1 which is exactly what the Draft EIR does. While this comment quotes several provisions of CEQA, the Guidelines, and caselaw, it does not raise any issues with the environmental analysis provided in the Draft EIR. As such, no further response is required. 5. This comment incorrectly asserts that the City must adopt a mandatory finding of significance that the project may cause a substantial adverse effect on human beings due to the COVID-19 crisis. Commentor made an identical comment on the Recirculated Draft EIR for the Victorville CarMax Auto Superstore Project (SCH 2019070975). We incorporate by reference the response made therein.2 Specifically, it is noted note that neither provision cited by commenter, CEQA § 21083(b)(3) nor Guidelines § 15065(a)(4) require the City to analyze the effects of COVID-19 on the general public. The purpose of CEQA, as noted by commenter, is to analyze the “significant effects of the proposed project on the environment.”3 The sections cited by commenter, CEQA § 21083(b)(3) and Guidelines § 15065(a)(4), provide that the lead agency is required to make a mandatory finding of significance if “the environmental effects of a project will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly.” Courts have repeatedly held that agencies “are not required to analyze the impact of existing environmental conditions on a project's future users or residents.”4. The Project, in this case, is neither a source nor a cause of COVID-19 and, as such, exposure to COVID-19 is not a direct or indirect effect of the Project. Further, the commenter’s source for its statement that “[r]ecently, several construction sites have been identified as sources of community 1 Comment 4, quoting Guidelines § 15002(a)(2). 2 City of Victorville – Victorville CarMax Auto Superstore Project RDEIR (SCH 2019070975), p. 3-44 – 3-93; available at: https://www.victorvilleca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/4578/637381839182670000. 3 CEQA § 21100(b)(1). 4 California Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (2015) 62 Cal.4th 369, 377. 5 spread of COVID-19” was more than a year old at the time of the comment letter. While this time period may constitute “recent” in other contexts, it represents more than half of the length of the COVID-19 crisis as a whole, which has been ongoing in the United States for less than two years. In addition, at the time of the article, no vaccines were yet available for COVID-19, compared to the time of the comment letter when 60.1% of California residents have received at least one dose of a vaccine that protects against COVID-19.5 As such, circumstances, including the rate and causes of transmission, have changed significantly since the date of the article cited by commenter. The Project will comply with all state and local regulations regarding the prevention of the transmission of COVID-19 in place at the time of construction and Project operation, respectively. Commenter’s suggestions regarding additional methods to prevent the spread of COVID-19 are acknowledged. 6. This comment incorrectly asserts that the Draft EIR does not include an accurate and complete Project Description related to the bases for the Draft EIR analysis estimate that 10% of the building will operate as a high-cube cold storage warehouse, and that the Project has been designed to accommodate a high-cube non-sort fulfillment center. The comment summarizes CEQA requirements and caselaw related to describing a project. The City agrees with commenter that a project description must be “accurate, stable, and finite,” which is exactly what is provided in the Draft EIR. As identified on page 3-9 of the Draft EIR, different types of high-cube warehouses have various operational characteristics (e.g., fulfillment centers that can be non-sort or sort facilities, cold storage warehouses, hours of operations, etc.). The future tenants of the buildings are not currently known, could not reasonably be known, and were not known when the Draft EIR was prepared. The Project involves the development of two Class A speculative industrial buildings that are designed to meet contemporary industry standards, and that can accommodate a wide variety of users. Each building has been designed to operate independently. Moreover, a Condition of Approval will be included for the Project limiting any cold storage to a maximum 10% of building square footage and the Project Applicant has agreed as part of the proposed Development Agreement that the proposed buildings would not be operated as sort use fulfillment centers. Therefore, for purposes of analysis in the Draft EIR, certain assumptions regarding the Projects’ physical characteristics, operations, and construction activities are made, and are clearly identified in Draft EIR Section 3.0, Project Description. The proposed building design/site plan and associated parking layout was the basis for anticipating that the proposed buildings would operate as non-sort fulfillment centers. The referenced text on page 3-38 of the Draft EIR is simply acknowledging that based on the proposed building design/site plan, the Project Applicant anticipates that the proposed buildings would be operated as high-cube non-sort fulfillment center. As identified on page 3-9 of the Draft EIR, based on Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Rate 155 for “fulfillment center” a non-sort fulfillment center typically ships large box items that use more automation than manual sortation, and a sort fulfillment center typically ships out 5 https://www.latimes.com/projects/california-coronavirus-cases-tracking-outbreak/covid-19-vaccines- distribution/. 6 smaller items, requiring extensive sorting, typically by manual means. As provided by the Guidelines, a conclusion is supported by substantial evidence if there is “enough relevant information and reasonable inferences … that a fair argument can be made to support a conclusion, even though other conclusions might also be reached.” In this case, the Project buildings, due to the proposed design and parking layout, are proposed to operate as non-sort fulfillment centers. Notwithstanding the anticipation that based on the current design the proposed buildings would likely operate as non-sort fulfillment centers, the City conservatively evaluated Project operations in the Draft EIR as a non-sort fulfillment center use and as a sort fulfillment center use, where applicable. The supplemental analysis for a sort fulfillment center is related to impacts based on trip generation (e.g., air quality, energy, greenhouse gas emissions, off-site traffic noise, and transportation) because a sort fulfillment center use would be expected to generate an estimated 13,070 actual vehicle trip-ends per day, and a net increase of 10,038 total vehicle trip-ends per day (passenger cars and trucks) when taking into consideration daily trips that would be generated by use of the existing buildings (3,032 actual vehicle trip-ends per day as discussed in Draft EIR Section 4.13, Transportation). For comparison, the high-cube non- sort fulfillment center warehouse and high-cube cold storage building operations would generate 3,472 actual passenger car vehicle trip ends per day, compared to 12,528 actual passenger car vehicle trip ends per day with the high-cube sort fulfillment center warehouse use. There would be a minimal difference in truck trip ends per day (536 trips ends per day with a non-sort warehouse operation compared to 542 trip ends per day with a sort warehouse operation), and no difference in trip generation for the high-cube cold storage warehouse use. Therefore, the Draft EIR conservatively analyzes the impacts resulting from use of the buildings as non-sort fulfillment centers and sort fulfillment centers ensuring that the potential environmental impacts resulting from operation of the Project have been adequate analyzed. As noted above, the Project Applicant has agreed as part of the proposed Development Agreement that the proposed buildings would not be operated as sort use fulfillment centers. No further analysis is required. The estimation that 90% of the building square footage would be operated as a high-cube non-sort fulfillment center warehouse and the remaining 10% would be operated as a high- cube cold storage warehouse was not based on the building design/site plan. Rather, the Project Applicant is proposing that a maximum 10% of the Project building square footage would be occupied by tenants with high-cube cold storage uses, and therefore this was the maximum amount of cold storage square footage analyzed. In addition, as part of its Project approvals, the City will condition the Project with a restriction that no more than 10% of the building space be used for high-cube cold storage warehouse space, consistent with the analysis in the Draft EIR. As noted in the Draft EIR and reiterated herein, because the Project will involve no more than 10% use for cold storage, no revisions to the Draft EIR project description or associated analyses are required. In addition, as part of its Project approvals and for purposes of clarification, this operational characteristic that has already been disclosed in the Draft EIR, will be enforced by the City through a Condition of Approval that restricts the Project to no more than 10% of the building space being used for high-cube cold storage warehouse space, consistent with the analysis in the Draft EIR. As noted in the Draft EIR and reiterated herein, because the Project will involve no more than 10% use for cold storage as a condition of approval, no revisions to the Draft EIR project description or associated analyses are required. 7 Notwithstanding, for clarification, page 3-9 of the Draft EIR Project Description (1st partial paragraph) is hereby revised to read as follows: “…However, for purposes of analysis in this Draft EIR, and based on the proposed building design/site plan and associated parking layout, it is assumed that 90% of the building square footage would be operated as a high-cube non-sort fulfillment center warehouse 6 and the remaining 10% would be operated as a high-cube cold storage warehouse 7. A Condition of Approval will be included for the Project limiting any cold storage to a maximum 10% of building square footage.” Further, prior to the issuance of building permits to construct the proposed buildings, the Project Applicant would be required to submit construction documents/plans to the City of Rancho Cucamonga for review and approval. Should building design changes be proposed during subsequent project reviews that are not consistent with the Project analyzed in the EIR, the City would review the changes in compliance with Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines to determine if further environmental review is required, or if the changes are within the scope of the EIR and no further environmental review/documentation is needed. 7. This comment summarizes CEQA requirements and caselaw related to mitigation and the deferral of mitigation. While this comment quotes several provisions of CEQA, the Guidelines, and caselaw, it does not raise any issues with the environmental analysis provided in the Draft EIR. As such, no further response is required. Response to Comment 8 provided below addresses comments related to these issues, and specifically mitigation for impacts to biological resources (tree removal). 8. This comment incorrectly asserts that the Draft EIR defers development of biological resources mitigation measures addressing potential impacts associated with the removal of trees. Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, which has been used by the City to establish thresholds of significance includes various thresholds that are relevant to tree removal. The analysis for Threshold 3.4 (starting on Draft EIR page 4.3-28) clearly identifies that the loss of vegetation onsite, including tree removal, has the potential to impact nesting birds during the breeding season and adherence to regulatory requirements (refer to RR 3-1 and RR 3-2 on pages 4.3-24 through 4.3-26) would ensure that these impacts are less than significant. RR 3-1 and RR 3-2 outline Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California Department of Fish and Game Code requirements related to the protection of nesting birds, and specifically identify how compliance will be accomplished. This analysis is also cross-referenced under Threshold 3.1 on Draft EIR page 4.3-26, which addresses habitat modification. As discussed under the analysis for these thresholds, the removal of trees, relative to their biological resource value, would be less than significant with adherence to regulatory requirements. Contrary to the assertion made by the commenter, this analysis 6 Fulfillment centers can be categorized as either sort or non-sort facilities. A non-sort fulfillment center typically ships large box items that use more automation than manual sortation. A sort fulfillment center typically ships out smaller items, requiring extensive sorting, typically by manual means. (Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Rate 155) 7 A cold storage warehouse has the ability to keep temperature sensitive items in a temperature-controlled environment. 8 does not rely on the compliance with the City’s Tree Preservation Ordinance (Development Code Section 17.80) to determine that impacts are less than significant. As noted in Guidelines Section 15126.4(a)(1), the “EIR shall describe feasible measures which could minimize significant adverse impacts.” Impermissible deferral of mitigation can occur “when an EIR puts off analysis or orders a report without either setting standards or demonstrating how the impact can be mitigated in the manner described in the EIR.”8 Commenter’s assertion that the Draft EIR’s reliance on the City’s Tree Removal Permit process constitutes deferred mitigation because the City “does not commit itself to any specific or binding course of action which is project-specific” is incorrect. As noted in the Draft EIR, specifically in RR 3-4, cited by commenter, the Project is required to comply with the City’s Tree Removal Permit process found in Development Code Chapter 17.16.080.9 As further detailed below, Chapter 17.16.080 sets forth specific requirements and actions for a Tree Removal Permit, including, but not limited to, “[r]eplacement of the removed tree or trees with tree(s) of species and quantity commensurate with the aesthetic value of the tree or trees removed.”10 Furthermore, Figure 3-13 of the Draft EIR sets forth the current site plan, under which 24 existing heritage trees would be protected in place, and the remaining heritage trees to be removed would be replaced at a 1:1 ratio with like trees.11 Notwithstanding the level of specificity and detail contained in the Draft EIR surrounding tree removal, it is also noted that courts have repeatedly found that compliance with relevant codes and regulations can constitute substantial evidence that mitigation measures would reduce impacts to a less than significant level.12 As such, compliance with the City’s Tree Removal Permit process contains a sufficient level of detail so as to not constitute deferred mitigation. The Project’s compliance with the City’s regulation for protecting trees is addressed under Threshold 3.5 (Draft EIR page 4.3-30), including Development Code Sections 17.80 and Section 17.16.080. The City’s tree removal permit requirements outlined in of the City’s Development Code is to provide a review process for the removal of heritage trees that are considered to be a community resource. Development Code Section 17.16.080(D) identifies that (1) no person, firm, or corporation shall remove, relocate, or destroy any heritage tree within the city limits, including an applicant for a building permit, without first obtaining a tree removal permit from the planning director; and (2) no tree removal permit shall be issued for the removal of any heritage tree on any lot associated with a proposal for development, unless all discretionary approvals have been obtained from the City. As part of the CEQA review process, the City required preparation of a detailed tree inventory. The Tree Inventory Report for the Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project at 12434 4th Street, Rancho Cucamonga, California, is provided in Appendix C2 of the Draft EIR and includes a detailed description of each existing tree within the Project site and 8 Cleveland National Forest Foundation v. San Diego Association of Governments (2017) 17 Cal.App.5th 413, 443 (internal citations omitted). 9 Draft EIR, p. 4.3-26. 10 Development Code Chapter 17.16.080(F)(5)(i). 11 Draft EIR, p. 3-24. 12 See, e.g., Oakland Heritage Alliance v. City of Oakland (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 884, 904; Tracy First v. City of Tracy (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 912, 933-34. 9 within the study area for the 6th Street at-grade crossing. The following information is provided for each tree, which is identified by number on exhibits and in the tree data summary matrix: common name, species, number of main trunks, diameter at breast height, tree height, canopy diameter, health rating, aesthetic rating, and whether or not the tree is a heritage tree. Where applicable, notes were provided regarding characteristics of the tree or is location that may be relevant (e.g., limb failure, location over light poles, etc.). In addition to the biological resource characteristics of the trees and associated biological resource impacts associated with removal of the trees addressed in Draft EIR Section 4.3, Biological Resources, as discussed above, the potential visual impacts associated with removal of trees is addressed in Draft EIR Section 4.1, Aesthetics. The conceptual landscape plan presented on Figure 3-13 of the Draft EIR (page 3-24) clearly identifies that based on the current site plan 24 existing heritage trees would be protected in place, and the remaining heritage trees to be removed would be replaced at a 1:1 ratio with like trees. The tree information presented in the Draft EIR is extensive and will assist the City Council in making the required findings relative to removal of onsite trees, and whether or not to issue a tree removal permit. As noted herein, no findings associated with any Project approvals have yet been made. These findings will be appropriately made by the Planning Director at the time the tree removal permit is issued, based on final project design information, including the final landscape plan. It is at the discretion of the Planning Director to approve, conditionally approval or deny the application for a tree removal permit, and information in the Draft EIR about existing trees to be removed will be used to inform that decision making process, but will not be the only information considered. Compliance with the City’s tree removal permit requirements is mandatory and, as identified above, tree removal cannot occur until a tree removal permit is issued ensuring compliance with the City’s tree protection policies. The commenter has provided no evidence that the Project would conflict with the City’s tree protection policies. Commenter’s reliance on Californians for Alternatives to Toxics v. Department of Food and Agriculture13 is misplaced. In that case, the lead agency “abused its discretion by relying on [another agency’s] regulatory scheme as a substitute for performing its own evaluation of the environmental impacts” of the project at issue.14 There was no such reliance on another agency’s findings here. The Draft EIR finds that, after compliance with the City’s tree removal permit process, there would be no impact “related to conflict with tree protection policies or ordinances.”15 Given that the impact is analyzing whether there will be a conflict with tree protection policies or ordinances, and the Draft EIR notes that compliance with the City’s tree removal permit process will be required, the City correctly found that compliance with this process will result in no impact. No additional analysis or mitigation is required for impacts to biological resources, and no revisions to the Draft EIR are required. 13 (2005) 136 Cal.App.4th 1. 14 Id. at 16. 15 Draft EIR, p. 1-17. 10 9. The commenter incorrectly states in the heading of this comment, and elsewhere in the comment letter, that an “IS/MND” (referring to an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration) has been prepared for the Project. For clarification, and as acknowledged elsewhere in the comment letter, an EIR has been prepared. This comment summarizes CEQA requirements and caselaw related to providing substantial evidence to support the analysis findings. While this comment quotes several provisions of CEQA, the Guidelines, and caselaw, it does not raise any issues with the environmental analysis provided in the Draft EIR. As such, no further response is required. Response to Comment 10 provided below addresses comments related to this issue, and specifically information related to the baseline conditions analyzed in the Draft EIR. 10. This comment incorrectly asserts that an improper Project baseline was utilized in the Draft EIR thereby potentially understating air quality, GHG emissions and transportation impacts. Section 15125 of the CEQA Guidelines sets forth the requirements for the EIR’s description of the physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the Project.16 Subsection (a)(1) of that Section, to which Commenter provides a limited citation, goes on to note that “[w]here existing conditions change or fluctuate over time, and where necessary to provide the most accurate picture practically possible of the project's impacts, a lead agency may define existing conditions by referencing historic conditions, or conditions expected when the project becomes operational, or both, that are supported with substantial evidence.”17 It further provides that “a lead agency may also use baselines consisting of both existing conditions and projected future conditions that are supported by reliable projections based on substantial evidence in the record.”18 The Final Statement of Reasons for the 2018 Guidelines update explains that “a lead agency may look back to historic conditions to establish a baseline where existing conditions fluctuate, provided that it can document such historic conditions with substantial evidence. (See, Communities for a Better Environment v. South Coast Air Quality Management District 48 Cal.4th at pp. 327-328 (‘Environmental conditions may vary from year to year and in some cases it is necessary to consider conditions over a range of time periods’).”19 The existing conditions defined in the Draft EIR meet the requirements outlined by the CEQA Guidelines and applicable caselaw because they reflect the existing warehouse and retail buildings on the Project site, occupied by warehouse uses for over 37 years, including during preparation of the Draft EIR. The existing buildings are intact and can be occupied by a warehouse use at any time without any discretionary approvals from the City.20 As explained in the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment included in the Draft EIR as Appendix I-1 (“Phase I”), the existing buildings were constructed in approximately 1983 and “[s]ince construction, the site buildings have been used by Big Lots (formerly known as Pic-N-Save) for warehouse, distribution, and retail purposes.”21 16 CEQA Guidelines §15125(a). 17 CEQA Guidelines §15125(a)(1). 18 Id. 19 CEQA Guidelines Update Statement of Reasons; available at: https://resources.ca.gov/CNRALegacyFiles/ceqa/docs/2018_CEQA_Final_Statement_of%20Reasons_111218.pdf 20 Draft EIR, p. 4-4. 21 Draft EIR, Appendix I-1, p. 1. 11 Big Lots occupied the existing buildings at the time the development applications for the Project were submitted in November 2019. Following submittal, the existing buildings were briefly vacant from March 1, 2020 to October 29, 2020 at which time the buildings were then re-occupied by another warehouse user (Geodis). The re-occupation of the existing warehouse building was reasonably foreseeable when the NOP was published on October 2, 2020, as the property owner was in the process of seeking out tenants through standard methods of advertisement. The 8-month vacancy does not represent the 37-year history of the project site; therefore, this brief vacancy would not be considered an accurate or reasonable baseline for the project site. Additionally, this vacancy occurred at the beginning of the COVID pandemic, which further substantiates that the vacant condition does not represent an accurate baseline. The NOP was published only 27 days before the existing buildings were re-occupied by Geodis. Therefore, the EIR was prepared while the existing buildings were occupied, coupled with their occupied use for approximately 37 years prior, is a reasonable environmental baseline to compare the Project impacts against. Therefore, the baseline that was used to inform the analysis is supported by substantial evidence. The Draft EIR included the normal operation of existing buildings and uses, 23,240 square foot (sf) retail building and a 1,431,000 sf warehouse building, as the baseline conditions for the Project site.22 As noted above, these uses have been consistent in the existing buildings at the Project site since their construction 37 years ago, with the exception of an eight-month period amid a global pandemic during which the buildings were vacant before they were reoccupied. Therefore, the Draft EIR used the “realized physical conditions on the ground” as required by CBE. The fact that the existing buildings were briefly vacant at the time the NOP was published does not affect the environmental baseline. As noted by the court in CBE v. SCAQMD, “the date for establishing baseline cannot be a rigid one. Environmental conditions may vary from year to year and in some cases it is necessary to consider conditions over a range of time periods.”23 Importantly, CBE v. SCAQMD notes that “[n]either CEQA nor the CEQA Guidelines mandates a uniform, inflexible rule for determination of the existing conditions baseline. Rather, an agency enjoys the discretion to decide, in the first instance, exactly how the existing physical conditions without the project can most realistically be measured, subject to review, as with all CEQA factual determinations, for support by substantial evidence.”24 In this case, the Project site’s use as retail and warehouse for over 37 years, including during the period that the Draft EIR was prepared, constitutes substantial evidence that those conditions represent an accurate baseline. With the respect to trip generation and associated air pollutant and GHG emissions from motor vehicles, Urban Crossroads employed a commonly used tool for estimating baseline vehicle trip generation utilizing a regionally and nationally recognized data source: ITE Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition (2017). It is not uncommon to use the ITE Trip 22 Draft EIR, p. 4-4. 23 Id. at 327-28, quoting Save Our Peninsula Committee v. Monterey County Board of Supervisors (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 99, 125, emphasis added. 24 Id. at 329. 12 Generation Manual rates when there is limited driveway data available as the use of the ITE rates would provide an average representation of the existing trip generation. CEQA allows for the impacts of a project to be assessed based on the incremental effects of the project taking into consideration the existing/baseline conditions. As the Project site contains multiple structures that by right could be occupied and operated by both a retail and warehouse use, the decision to account for these uses as part of the baseline condition is supported by CEQA caselaw, as discussed above. In an effort to conduct a conservative analysis, the existing trip generation was estimated using ITE’s High-Cube Transload and Short-Term Storage Warehouse (ITE Land Use Code 154) and Free- Standing Discount Store (ITE Land Use Code 815) land uses. ITE Land Use Code 154 is the lowest generating land use of the various industrial-related land uses in the ITE Trip Generation Manual and ITE Land Use Code 815 is the best-fit land use when taking into consideration of the retail tenant that previously occupied the space. The daily rate for ITE Land Use Code 154 is 1.4 trips per thousand square feet as compared to the daily rate utilized for the proposed Project (1.81 trips per thousand square feet for ITE Land Use Code 155 and 2.12 trips per thousand square feet for ITE Land Use Code 157). The resulting trip generation for the existing use is intentionally understated in order to ensure the delta between the proposed Project and existing use is conservatively higher for evaluation in the applicable technical studies. It should be noted that another by-right warehouse user could occupy the space and generate more traffic than that credited for the Project. In other words, the delta in trips between the proposed Project and the existing baseline conditions is more than appropriate. ITE describes High-Cube Transload and Short-Term Storage Warehouse uses to include “at least 200,000 gross square feet of floor area (with an average of 798,000 square feet), has a ceiling height of 24-feet or more, and is used primarily for the storage and/or consolidation of manufacturing goods (and to a lesser extent, raw materials) prior to their distribution to retail locations or other warehouses.” These types of warehouses have a high level of automation and logistics management which allow for highly efficient processing of goods. In comparison, the ITE Land Use Code 150 for Warehousing generically indicates that these facilities are “primarily devoted to the storage of materials.” The average surveyed building size in the ITE Trip Generation Manual is 285,000 square feet for the Warehousing land use and has a daily rate of 1.74 trips per day. The High- Cube Transload and Short-Term Storage Warehouse use was utilized as it closely fit the description of the existing use relative to functionality and size and had the most conservative (lower) daily trip generation rate. No revisions to the Draft EIR, including the analysis of air quality, GHG emissions, and transportation impacts are required. 11. The commenter incorrectly states in the heading of this comment that an “IS/MND” (referring to an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration) has been prepared for the Project. For clarification, and as acknowledged elsewhere in the comment letter, an EIR has been prepared. This comment incorrectly asserts that the analysis of air quality and GHG emissions, and VMT is not supported by substantial evidence in the Draft EIR due to the estimate that only 10% of the proposed building space would be occupied by high- 13 cube cold storage warehouse uses. the focus of this comment is the difference in trip generation estimate for warehouses with cold storage and warehouses without cold storage. The estimate made for purposes of analysis that that 90% of the building square footage would be operated as a high-cube non-sort fulfillment center warehouse and the remaining 10% would be operated as a high-cube cold storage warehouse is explained in Response to Comment 6 above. As also identified, the City of Rancho Cucamonga will condition the Project with a restriction that no more than 10% of the building space be used for high-cube cold storage warehouse space, consistent with the analysis in the Draft EIR. No revisions to the Draft EIR, including the analysis of air quality, GHG emissions, and transportation impacts are required. Although the commenter cites to the ITE High-Cube Warehouse Vehicle Trip Generation Analysis for the proposition that “SCAQMD’s recommended air quality analysis approach … is to utilize the cold storage trip rates when the tenant(s) is unknown and when then proposed warehousing may accommodate that use,”25 it is assumed that the commenter is referring to the flow chart contained within SCAQMD’s Warehouse Truck Trip Study Data Results and Usage.26 The commenter correctly notes that the flow chart indicates that cold storage rate should be used for sites where no tenant has been identified and the site can allow cold storage, but fails to point out that if the site allows dedicated e- commerce fulfillment center use, the project should develop a site-specific rate.27 Here, the Project will be conditioned to allow only 10% cold storage use and the rest of the warehouse will be used as a fulfillment center. Therefore, the traffic analysis used the appropriate trip rates and the analysis is consistent with SCAQMD’s recommendations. Notwithstanding the Project’s less than significant impact, please also refer to the additional mitigation requirements included in new MM 2-2 (Response to Comment 2) that would apply to cold storage tenants. These measures would further reduce the Project’s less than significant air quality and GHG emissions impacts. 12. This comment incorrectly asserts that the Project would likely be used as a “parcel hub warehouse” due to its proximity from the Ontario Airport and the recent exponential growth in air freight at this location. Concurrent with preparation of the Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft EIR, the City of Rancho Cucamonga was processing Ordinance No. 982, which includes amendments to Title 17 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code to modify administrative procedures and development standards within the Development Code for industrial development within the City. The Planning Commission hearing for Ordinance No. 982 was held on May 26, 2021, during public circulation of the Project’s Draft EIR, and Ordinance No. 982 was adopted by the City Council on July 21, 2021. Ordinance No. 982 became effective on August 20, 2021. Pursuant to Ordinance No. 982, and specifically Table 17.30.030-1, Allowed Land Uses and Permit Requirements by Base Zoning District, parcel sorting facilities are not permitted in any zoning district, including the Neo-Industrial (NI) and Industrial Employment (IE) zoning districts, which are 25 Comment 11. 26 SCAQMD Warehouse Truck Trip Study Data Results and Usage, Inland Empire Logistics Council, June 2014; available at: https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/high-cube-warehouse-trip-rate-study- for-air-quality-analysis/final-ielc_6-19-2014.pdf?sfvrsn=2. 27 Id. at p. 11. 14 the two zoning districts that allow distribution/fulfillment centers. Therefore, the proposed buildings would not be used as a parcel hub warehouse and no further analysis is required. 13. The commenter correctly identifies that the Project VMT estimates based on the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) as presented in the Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Air Quality Impact Analysis (Air Quality Analysis) and Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Greenhouse Gas Analysis (GHG Analysis) included in Appendix B1 and Appendix H of the Draft EIR, respectively, are higher than the VMT estimates generated by the San Bernardino Transportation Analysis Model (SBTAM) as presented in the Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis (VMT Analysis) included in Appendix L of the Draft EIR. Based on the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA (December 2018) (OPR Technical Advisory), the VMT Analysis is required to use model- based trips and trip length since that is the same model and method that the City used to adopt their thresholds. The Project’s VMT Analysis is based on the City’s guidance to utilize SBTAM (travel demand model) which calculates model-based trips and model- based trip length to come up with total VMT, results are then divided by the service population, in this case employees, as outlined in the VMT Analysis. For purposes of the Air Quality Analysis, CalEEMod defaults for trip length (16.6 miles) x the ITE-based trip generation were used, consistent with industry standards for conducting air quality analyses. The SBTAM model was developed based on regionally specific transportation and employment data and is a more accurate representation of the Project’s VMT. However, because CalEEMod is the standard model used for air quality and GHG analysis, the VMT calculated from this model was conservatively used for those impact determinations. Therefore, the appropriate methods for determining VMT were used for the respective analyses and there is no correlation between the two methods. No revisions to the analysis presented in the Draft EIR are required. 14. The commenter incorrectly states in the heading of this comment that an “IS/MND” (referring to an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration) has been prepared for the Project. For clarification, and as acknowledged elsewhere in the comment letter, an EIR has been prepared. Urban Crossroads prepared the Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis dated March 23, 2021, and Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga High-Cube Fulfillment Center Traffic Memo (Traffic Memo) dated April 15, 2021. These documents are included in Appendix L1 and Appendix L2 of the Draft EIR, respectively, and are summarized in Section 4.13, Transportation, of the Draft EIR. Urban Crossroads has provided technical input for this response, which is based on the comment letter from Smart Mobility (Exhibit D of this Comment Letter). This comment incorrectly asserts that the Project Transportation Analysis is not supported by substantial evidence. The City Guidelines state that a low VMT area is defined as an individual traffic analysis zone (TAZ) where total daily Origin/Destination (O/D) VMT per service population is lower than the City average total daily O/D VMT per service population. (City Guidelines pg. 19-20) This test was performed, and it was disclosed in the analysis that the project did not meet this test. However, City Guidelines also state 15 elsewhere that “it may be appropriate to extract the project generated VMT using the production-attraction (P/A) trip matrix instead of the O/D trip matrix… when a project is entirely composed of retail or employment type uses and there is a need to isolate commute VMT.” (City Guidelines page 23). The Guidelines also state “The City should evaluate the appropriate methodology based on the project land use types and context.” (City Guidelines page 23). In this case, VMT for this Project is entirely composed of employment uses and the City appropriately evaluated the VMT per service population based on the P/A trip matrix as well, which resulted in the Project residing in a low VMT area. As stated in the OPR Technical Advisory, “…projects that locate in areas with low VMT, and that incorporate similar features (i.e., density, mix of uses, transit accessibility), will tend to exhibit similarly low VMT” (OPR Technical Advisory pg. 12). The Project here is consistent with the underlying land use and does not propose to change other factors that would prohibit the use of map-based screening. This methodology is appropriate for the Project land use type (industrial warehouse) based on the adopted VMT analysis guidelines and impact thresholds. 15. This comment also incorrectly asserts that the Draft EIR transportation analysis is unsubstantiated, and refers to the Smart Mobility Comment letter. Following is a response to each of the issues raised in this comment. 1. The City Guidelines also state that “for low VMT screening to be satisfied, the analyst must verify that the project land uses would not alter the existing built environment in such a way as to increase the rate or length of vehicle trips (e.g., the proposed project is consistent with existing land use in the area, the project would be expected to contribute VMT consistent with existing land use in the area, and the project would not significantly alter travel patterns in the area).” Consistent with the Guidelines and for disclosure purposes, a full VMT analysis was also conducted for the Project based on the City’s adopted guidance to use the P/A trip matrix for single land use projects. The analysis findings support and verify the screening conclusion that P/A based project generated VMT per service population would not exceed the City’s impact threshold or significantly alter travel patterns in the area. As explained in the VMT analysis, the Project generated VMT per service population is 7.77% below than the City’s current threshold, and the cumulative project generated VMT per service population 10.34% below the City’s threshold. Therefore, the Project’s VMT impact would also be considered less than significant based on the comparison of baseline project generated VMT per service population to the City’s adopted threshold and the comparison of cumulative project generated VMT per service population to the City’s adopted threshold. 2. The SBTAM model output files are proprietary files that require a specialized program called TransCAD to read and open. This is because the SBTAM model is built upon TransCAD software. The model outputs (i.e., matrices) can contain thousands of rows and thousands of columns for each matrix (of which there are numerous). The volume of information from the model matrices is far more substantial than for other technical areas (like noise, air quality, traffic, etc.). Because each of the matrices can have thousands of rows and thousands of columns, they cannot be printed as part of an appendix and it is not feasible to include them in the 16 EIR. The key model input (i.e., number of project employees, location, and industrial use) is included in the VMT Analysis. The resulting VMT for the Project from the SBTAM model outputs was accurately calculated and is provided in Table 4.13-6 of the Draft EIR. Further, as outlined in the VMT Analysis, “the Project meets the Low VMT Area screening criteria … and therefore results in less than significant transportation impact.” As such, while the project-level VMT analysis was not required, it was conducted and provided for informational purposes based on the City’s adopted guidance to use the P/A trip matrix for single land use projects. The analysis findings support and verify the screening conclusion that P/A based project generated VMT per service population would not exceed the City’s impact threshold or significantly alter travel patterns in the area. In addition, it is also important to note that the OPR Technical Advisory notes that when estimating the effect of an office/employment development on VMT, it may be appropriate to consider total employee VMT, which is consistent with CEQA’s requirement to evaluate both direct and indirect effects of a project. Evaluating project VMT utilizing the P/A trip matrix is consistent with OPR guidance. 3. Refer to Response to Comment 12, which addresses operation of the Project with respect to parcel hub warehouses. As identified, in accordance with the City’s current zoning, parcel sorting facilities are not permitted in any of the City’s zoning districts. 4. Refer to Response to Comment 13, which addresses the CalEEMod VMT estimates. No revisions to the Draft EIR, including the analysis of transportation and VMT impacts are required. 16. This comment summarizes CEQA requirements and caselaw related to analyzing inconsistencies between a project and planning documents. While this comment quotes several provisions of CEQA, the Guidelines, and caselaw, it does not raise any issues with the environmental analysis provided in the Draft EIR. As such, no further response is required. Response to Comment 17 provided below addresses comments related to this issue, and specifically the Project’s consistency with the Southern California Associate of Governments (SCAG) Connect SoCal. 17. As commenter notes, Guidelines Section 15125(d) requires discussion of the project in relation to any applicable general plans, specific plans, or regional plans. The Draft EIR properly analyzes consistency with SCAG’s Connect SoCal in several places, including consistency with its purpose and objectives,28 as well as in the air quality section,29 GHG Emission section, under the heading “Connect SoCal 2020-2045 RTP/SCS Consistency,”30 the land use and planning section,31 the population and housing section,32 and the transportation section.33 This analysis is consistent with SCAG’s guidance on 28 Draft EIR, p. 3-3. 29 Draft EIR, p. 4.2-27 – 28. 30 Draft EIR, p. 4.7-20 31 Draft EIR, p. 4.10-2 – 3, 4.10-13 – 14. 32 Draft EIR, p. 4.12-1 – 2. 33 Draft EIR, p. 4.13-2 – 3, 4.13-25. 17 how to implement plan consistency, which provides that “[f]or the purpose of determining consistency with Connect SoCal for … CEQA … lead agencies such as local jurisdictions have the sole discretion in determining a local project’s consistency.”34 The additional areas to which commenter cites within Connect SoCal refer to the fleet of vehicles that will be coming to and from the Project once it is in operation. As noted in the Draft EIR and elsewhere herein, no tenant has yet been identified for the Project. Any vehicles coming to and from the Project once it is in operation will be required to comply with all air quality regulations and plans applicable to the area. Further, CARB is tasked with regulating the GHG emissions to which commenter refers and, as CARB’s regulations get more stringent, the Project’s GHG emissions will decrease as well by virtue of its compliance with them. In addition, SCAQMD recently adopted Rule 2305, the Warehouse Indirect Source Rule, which sets forth additional requirements “to reduce local and regional emissions of nitrogen oxides and particulate matter, and to facilitate local and regional emission reductions associated with warehouses and the mobile sources attracted to warehouses in order to assist in meeting state and federal air quality standards for ozone and fine particulate matter.”35 This rule applies to “owners and operators of warehouses located in the [SCAQMD] jurisdiction with greater than or equal to 100,000 square feet of indoor floor space,”36 which, as discussed herein and in the Draft EIR, includes the Project. While this rule is subject to a legal challenge, it is worth noting that the new rules are currently applicable to the Project when it is developed and operational. As a result, these new rules likely would result in reductions to Project operational GHG emissions beyond those identified in the Draft EIR. 18. This conclusion statement reflects the opinion that recirculation of the Draft EIR is required. As presented in the responses to comments above, the findings and conclusions of the Draft EIR are not affected by any of the comments contained herein. Therefore, there are no changes or revisions to the Draft EIR that would require recirculation of the Draft EIR. Responses to SWAPE Letter (Exhibits A, B and C of the Comment Letter) 19. The comment letter included in Exhibit B provides an explanation of how CalEEMod is used to calculate emissions from construction worker vehicle trips, describes the relationship between construction worker trip length and VMT, and suggests that hiring local construction labor can reduce worker trip lengths and associated GHG emissions. Exhibit B and Exhibit C of the comment letter includes resumes for SWAPE technical staff. Exhibits A, B and C do not raise any issues with the environmental analysis provided in the Draft EIR, thus, no further response is required. Also refer to Response to Comment 2 above, which further addresses use of local labor for construction of the Project. As noted above, this comment letter and its attachments were withdrawn because the Southwest Regional Carpenters are satisfied that the Developer has committed to additional environmental 34Connect SoCal, p. xiv; available at: https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-attachments/0903fconnectsocal- plan_0.pdf?1606001176. 35 Rule 2305, Warehouse Indirect Source Rule – Warehouse Actions and Investments to Reduce Emissions (WAIRE) Program, adopted May 7, 2021, p. 1. Available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/rule-book/reg- xxiii/r2305.pdf?sfvrsn=15. 36 Id. 18 measures that further reduce the Project’s environmental impacts, including Covid-19 safe construction work practices; local and trained workforce for carpenter craft work; EV-ready truck dock positions; solar; and Tier 4 standards for certain off-road construction equipment. Responses to Smart Mobility Comment Letter (Exhibit D of the Comment Letter) 20. This comment provides a summary of the comments provided in the body of the letter included in Exhibit D addressing calculation of VMT and the Project’s VMT analysis, and the assertion that the Project would likely function as a parcel hub. As presented in the responses to comments above, the Draft EIR adequately analyzes and discloses the potential environmental impacts resulting from the Project, including transportation/VMT impacts. Moreover, as explained in Response to Comment 12 above, parcel hub is not an allowable use at the Project Site and therefore the Project will not function as a parcel hub. As such, no revisions to the Draft EIR analysis or conclusions are required, and recirculation of the Draft EIR is not required. 21. This comment incorrectly asserts that the Draft EIR VMT Analysis conducted for the Project incorrectly applies the SBCTA VMT Screening Tool. Please refer to Response to Comment 14, which addresses this issue. 22. This comment incorrectly asserts that the Draft EIR incorrectly used the VMT per service population metric. Please refer to Response to Comment 15 (Item 1), which addresses this issue. 23. This comment indicates that the SBTAM modeling results have been omitted from the Draft EIR. Please refer to Response to Comment 15 (Item 2), which addresses this issue. 24. This comment incorrectly asserts that the Project’s trip generation is underestimated because operation of the proposed buildings as a parcel hub warehouse was not considered. Please refer to Response to Comment 12, which addresses this issue. This comment also indicates that the Draft EIR does not explain why the proposed site plan does not support a sort use. The future tenants of the buildings are not currently known, could not reasonably be known, and were not known when the Draft EIR was prepared. The Project involves the development of two Class A speculative industrial buildings that are designed to meet contemporary industry standards, and that can accommodate a wide variety of users. Each building has been designed to operate independently. Therefore, for purposes of analysis in the Draft EIR, certain assumptions regarding the Projects’ physical characteristics, operations, and construction activities are made, and are clearly identified in Draft EIR Section 3.0, Project Description. The proposed building design/site plan and associated parking layout was the basis for anticipating that the proposed buildings would operate as non-sort fulfillment centers. As identified on Page 3-9 of the Draft EIR, based on ITE Trip Rate 155 for “fulfillment center” a non-sort fulfillment center typically ships large box items that use more automation than manual sortation, and a sort fulfillment center typically ships out smaller items, requiring extensive sorting, typically by manual means. The sort facility operations require more employees and associate parking. 19 As provided by the CEQA Guidelines, a conclusion is supported by substantial evidence if there is “enough relevant information and reasonable inferences … that a fair argument can be made to support a conclusion, even though other conclusions might also be reached.” In this case, the Project buildings, due to the proposed design and parking layout, are anticipated to operate as non-sort fulfillment centers, and that was appropriately the basis for analysis in the Draft EIR, including the VMT analysis. It should also be noted that (1) as discussed in Response to Comment 6, the Project Applicant has agreed as part of the proposed Development Agreement that the proposed buildings would not be operated as sort use fulfillment centers; and (2) as discussed in Response to Comment 12, in accordance with the City’s current zoning, parcel sorting facilities are not permitted in any of the City’s zoning districts. Therefore, the proposed buildings would not be operated as a sort use fulfillment center or parcel hub facility and no further analysis is required. 25. This comment identifies the differences between the VMT estimates generated by CalEEMod and the SBTAM model, again raises the issue of operation of the Project as a parcel hub warehouse, and indicates that traffic impacts are underestimated. Please refer to Response to Comment 12, 13, and 24, which address these issues. P: (626) 381-9248 F: (626) 389-5414 E: info@mitchtsailaw.com Mitchell M. Tsai Attorney At Law 155 South El Molino Avenue Suite 104 Pasadena, California 91101 VIA E-MAIL July 14, 2021 Mike Smith, Planner City of Rancho Cucamonga, Planning Dept. 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Em: Michael.Smith@cityofrc.us Sean McPherson, Planner City of Rancho Cucamonga, Planning Dept. 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Em: Sean.McPherson@cityofrc.us RE: Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project (SCH No. 2020100056) Draft Environmental Impact Report June 21, 2021 Letter Dear Mike Smith and Sean McPherson, On behalf of the Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters, the Office of Mitchell M. Tsai withdraws its comment letter dated June 21, 2021, on the Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project Draft EIR and respectfully requests that the letter not be included in the Final EIR. The Southwest Regional Carpenters are satisfied that the Developer has committed to additional environmental measures that further reduce the Project’s environmental impacts, including Covid-19 safe construction work practices; local and trained workforce for carpenter craft work; EV-ready truck dock positions; solar; and Tier 4 standards for certain off-road construction equipment. Sincerely, ___________________________ Mitchell M. Tsai <Recipient> -<Subject Matter> July 14, 2021 Page 2 of 2 Attorneys for Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS April 20, 2021 7:00 p.m. Sean McPherson, AICP, Senior Planner LOCATED AT 12322 AND 12434 4TH STREET – BRIDGE POINT RANCHO CUCAMONGA, LLC – A request for a General Plan Amendment, Zoning Map Amendment, Tentative Parcel Map, Design Review, Tree Removal Permit and Development Agreement to allow for the development of two industrial warehouse buildings on certain property located approximately 1,000 feet east of Santa Anita Avenue and 2,300 feet west of Etiwanda Avenue, north of 4th Street and south of 6th Street; APNs: 0229-283-50 and -51. File Number DRC2020-00202. Site Characteristics: The project site totals approximately 91.39 acres and is comprised of two adjacent parcels (APNs: 0229-283-50 and -51). These parcels are generally located between Santa Anita Avenue to the west, Etiwanda Avenue to the east, 4th Street to the south and 6th Street to the north. Both parcels have “double” street frontage along 6th Street and along 4th Street. A rail spur running east to west is present along the north side of the project site. It is aligned parallel to 6th Street. At the northeast corner of the project site this rail spur turns south into the property, running north to south parallel to the easterly property line of the project site. Staff notes that there is an approximate 40-foot elevation difference between 4th and 6th Streets which spans the site from north to south - a distance of approximately 3,200 feet. The site is currently improved with two buildings: a large industrial warehouse building addressed 12434 4th Street totaling approximately 1,431,000 square feet and a smaller concrete tilt-up building addressed 12322 4th Street totaling approximately 23,240 square feet. Both existing buildings were built in 1984. The larger building served as a distribution center and the smaller building served as a retail store for Big Lots until this tenant vacated the site in February 2020. Currently, the large warehouse building is occupied by Geodis Logistics and is being used as a temporary distribution facility. This tenant plans to vacate the site in May 2021. The smaller concrete tilt-up building formerly housing the Big Lots retail store is currently vacant with no plans for a future tenant. The remainder of the project site comprises landscaped areas, drive aisles, parking areas and trailer parking and loading areas. A portion of the project site along 6th Street comprises approximately 11 acres of vacant land which was previously a vineyard. All existing improvements are proposed to be demolished as part of the proposed project. Staff notes that the project site is currently divided between both the General Industrial and Heavy Industrial General Plan land use designations. Similarly, the project site is also split between the General Industrial (GI) and Heavy Industrial (HI) zoning districts. The Committee should note that the subject development application involves a request for a General Plan Amendment and Zoning Map Amendment to convert the entire project site to the General Industrial land use designation and General Industrial (GI) zoning district. 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 Industrial Warehouse and Heavy Industrial and General Industrial Heavy Industrial (HI) and General Industrial (GI) Districts Exhibit I DRC COMMENTS DR DRC2020-00202 – BRIDGE POINT RANCHO CUCAMONGA, LLC. April 20, 2021 Page 2 Commercial Retail North Industrial Heavy Industrial Heavy Industrial (HI) District South Industrial (City of Ontario) Industrial Industrial (Crossroads Business Park Specific Plan) West Industrial General Industrial Heavy Industrial (HI) and General Industrial (GI) Districts East Industrial and Public Facility Heavy Industrial and Civic/Regional Heavy Industrial (HI) and General Industrial (GI) Districts Project Overview: The applicant proposes to subdivide the project site into two new parcels, Parcel 1 and Parcel 2, in order to accommodate the construction of two new industrial warehouse buildings totaling a cumulative 2,175,000 square feet in size. Parcel 1 is proposed to have an area of approximately 55 acres with street frontage along 4th Street and will be improved with Building 1 totaling 1,422,500 square feet. Parcel 2 is proposed to have an area of approximately 30 acres with street frontage along 6th Street and will be improved with Building 2 totaling 752,500 square feet. As a result of this project, a new public road (labeled as “Street A” in the attached plan set), is proposed to be constructed. Street A will run parallel to the east property line of the project site, aligned north to south, and will connect 4th Street and 6th Street. Building 1 will have office and mezzanine areas not to exceed 25,000 square feet and a maximum height of 54 feet. Building 2 will have office and mezzanine areas not to exceed 16,000 square feet and a maximum height of 50 feet. Access will be provided to Building 1 from 4th Street and the new Street A. Access to Building 2 will be provided from 6th Street and the new Street A. The applicant is proposing this project as speculative development and no tenants have been identified for either building at this time. As the project site is bounded to the north and east by an existing rail spur, the project is required to demonstrate that rail service is possible pursuant to Development Code Section 17.36.040.D.6. The applicant is not required to construct rail-related improvements on the property. However, the plans must demonstrate that the site could have a functional/practical rail service if any future owner/tenant decides that rail service is required/desired. Accordingly, the applicant has provided an Alternative Rail Serve Plan (Sheet A1-5P of the attached plan set). The applicant’s Alternative Rail Serve Plan demonstrates that both buildings can accommodate rail pursuant to Development Code standards. The proposed industrial warehouse buildings meet the City’s 360-degree architectural standards. Each building provides well-defined articulation and a varied use of architectural features creating an attractive aesthetic. For example, the long span of each façade facing both 4th and 6th Streets provides a well-articulated wall plane. Further, the street facing corner of each building provide office tower elements which exhibit a vertical concrete accent feature. These corner elements also provide an aluminum storefront system framed by an aluminum panel cornice. Throughout each elevation, the typical concrete tilt-up façade is punctuated by panel joints, reveals and windows. The project also provides an attractive and varied color pallet to break up the expanse of the façade which includes “Pure White Field Color” (Sherwin Williams SW 7005), “Network Gray” (SW 7073), “Cyberspace” (SW 7076), and “Dignity Blue” (SW 6804). DRC COMMENTS DR DRC2020-00202 – BRIDGE POINT RANCHO CUCAMONGA, LLC. April 20, 2021 Page 3 The proposed project complies with all applicable development standards for the General Industrial (GI) District, as shown in the table below: Pursuant to Development Code Section 17.64.050, 17.64.090 and Table 17.64.050-1, auto parking for warehouse/storage uses is based on a tiered ratio as illustrated in the table below. In addition, office areas require parking at 1 stall per 250 square feet. Further, the development code requires 1 trailer loading stall for each dock door proposed. As such, the proposed project is required to provide 469 auto parking stalls and 184 trailer loading stalls for Building 1, and 268 auto parking stalls and 91 trailer loading stalls for Building 2. The table below demonstrates the project’s compliance with all parking standards: Parking Ratio Required Parking Provided Parking Complies? Warehouse/storage and office 1 per 1,000 sf for the first 20,000 sf; 1 per 2,000 sf for the next 20,000 sf, and 1 per 4,000 sf for remaining sf Office requires 1 per 250 sf Building 1: 469 stalls; Building 2: 268 stalls Building 1: 478; Building 2: 268 YES Development Standard Required Proposed Complies? Building Height Maximum 35 feet (at front setback) and 75 feet (1-foot increment from the front setback line) Building 1: 54 feet; Building 2: 50 feet YES Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 50-60% Building 1: 59.2%; Building 2: 57.8% YES Front Building Setback 45 feet (4th Street); 35 feet (6th Street) Building 1: ~118 feet (4th Street); Building 2: ~215 feet (6th Street) YES Street Side Setback 25 Feet (Street A) Building 1: ~185 feet; Building 2: ~93 feet YES Average Depth of Landscape 45 feet (4th Street); 35 feet (6th Street); 25 feet (Street A) 45 feet (4th Street); ~72 feet (6th Street); 25 feet (Street A) YES Parking Setback 25 feet (4th Street); 20 feet (6th Street); 15 feet (Street A) 46 feet (4th Street); ~72 feet (6th Street); 25 feet (Street A) YES Interior Side Yard Setback Min. 5 feet Building 1: 136 feet Building 2: 45 feet YES Rear Yard Setback Min. 0 feet Building 1: 77 feet Building 2: ~90 feet YES Open Space/Landscape Standards 10% 10% YES DRC COMMENTS DR DRC2020-00202 – BRIDGE POINT RANCHO CUCAMONGA, LLC. April 20, 2021 Page 4 Trailer Loading Stalls 1 per loading dock Building 1: 184; Building 2: 91 Building 1: 221; Building 2: 91 YES The project also meets all relevant landscape standards, as noted in the table above. 589 trees exist onsite which include 125 heritage trees. The project will result in the removal of 464 non- heritage trees and 101 heritage trees. 24 existing heritage trees will remain in place. In addition to these heritage trees remaining in place, and pursuant to the Development Code, the project will also result in 712 onsite trees, including 229 new street trees and 107 replacement heritage trees. Ornamental ground cover and shrubs make up the balance of the landscaped area. Staff Comments Major/Secondary Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding the project: None. Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion: 1. All Double Detector Checks (DDC) and Fire Department Connections (FDC) required and/or proposed shall be installed at locations that are not within direct view or line-of-sight of the office corner of the building. The specific locations of each DDC and FDC shall require the review and approval of the Planning Department and Fire Construction Services/Fire Department. All Double Detector Checks (DDC) and Fire Department Connections (FDC) screened behind a 4-foot high wall. For this project, these walls shall be constructed of poured in-place concrete with design elements incorporated to match the building. 2. Decorative paving shall be provided at each vehicle entrance to the site, behind the public right-of-way. These decoratively paved areas shall extend from the front property line to the building setback line and have a width equal to that of the driveway. 3. Downspouts shall not be visible from the exterior on any elevations of the building. All downspouts shall be routed through the interior of the building walls. Staff Recommendation: Staff requests that the Design Review Committee consider the design (building architecture, site planning, etc.) of the proposed project and recommend the selected action below to the Planning Director / Planning Commission: × Recommend approval of the design of the project as proposed by the applicant. ☐Recommend approval with modifications to the design of the project by incorporating revisions requested by the Committee. Follow-up review by the Committee is not required. The revisions shall be verified by staff prior to review and action by the Planning Director / Planning Commission. DRC COMMENTS DR DRC2020-00202 – BRIDGE POINT RANCHO CUCAMONGA, LLC. April 20, 2021 Page 5 ☐Recommend conditional approval of the design of the project by incorporating revisions requested by the Committee. Follow-up review by the Committee is not required. The revisions shall be Conditions of Approval and verified by staff during plan check after review and action by the Planning Director / Planning Commission. ☐Recommend revisions to the design of the project by incorporating revisions requested by the Committee. Follow-up review by the Committee is required prior to review and action by the Planning Director / Planning Commission. ☐Recommend denial of the design of the project as proposed by the applicant. Staff Planner: Sean McPherson, Senior Planner Staff Coordinator: Mike Smith, Principal Planner Attachment: Exhibit A: Project Plans EX. 33" STORM DRAINXXXXXXXXXXXXXXZONING: HIHEAVY INDUSTRIAL35' BUILDINGSETBACK LINEZONING: GIGENERAL INDUSTRIAL45' BUILDINGSETBACK LINE5' BUILDING SETBACK LINE 5' BUILDING SETBACK LINE BOUNDARY LINECITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGABOUNDARY LINECITY OF ONTARION 89Ā49'26" E 1201.09'1797.03' 5' BUILDING SETBACK LINE 849.87'2408.72' N 0Ā14'33" E 3258.59'CONSTRUCTION ℄3' SOUTH OF PLN 0Ā14'37" E 1857.03' 60.00' STREET DEDICATION (ULTIMATE R/W: 44')N 89Ā56'54" E 970.98'N 89Ā56'54" E 970.98'N 0Ā14'37" E 1464.19'N 89Ā56'36" E 275.03'45' BUILDINGSETBACK LINE45' BUILDINGSETBACK LINE45' BUILDINGSETBACK LINE45' BUILDINGSETBACK LINE5' BUILDING SETBACK LINE 5' BUILDING SETBACK LINE 5' BUILDING SETBACK LINE 5' BUILDING SETBACK LINE 5' BUILDING SETBACK LINE 5' BUILDING SETBACK LINE 5' BUILDING SETBACK LINE 5' BUILDING SETBACK LINE 5' BUILDING SETBACK LINE 5' BUILDING SETBACK LINE 35' BUILDINGSETBACK LINE35' BUILDINGSETBACK LINE35' BUILDINGSETBACK LINE35' BUILDINGSETBACK LINE35' BUILDINGSETBACK LINECONSTRUCTION ℄3' SOUTH OF PLCONSTRUCTION ℄3' SOUTH OF PLCONSTRUCTION ℄3' SOUTH OF PLCONSTRUCTION ℄3' SOUTH OF PLN 0Ā14'37" E 1464.19'N 89Ā54'00" E 44.99'1797.03' N 0Ā14'37" E 1857.03'BOUNDARY LINECITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGABOUNDARY LINECITY OF ONTARIOBOUNDARY LINECITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGABOUNDARY LINECITY OF ONTARIOBOUNDARY LINECITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGABOUNDARY LINECITY OF ONTARIOBOUNDARY LINECITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGABOUNDARY LINECITY OF ONTARIOSTREET DEDICATION (ULTIMATE R/W: 44') STREET DEDICATION (ULTIMATE R/W: 44') STREET DEDICATION (ULTIMATE R/W: 44') STREET DEDICATION (ULTIMATE R/W: 44') 5' BUILDING SETBACK LINE 5' BUILDING SETBACK LINE 5' BUILDING SETBACK LINE 5' BUILDING SETBACK LINE 5' BUILDING SETBACK LINE 5' BUILDING SETBACK LINE TREESDENSEHC TRAILER CLCL(PUBLIC STREET)CLCLONE STORY CONCRETE BUILDING WITH TWO STORY OFFICE AREA FOOTPRINT AREA =1,377,219 S.F. BUILDING HEIGHT =52.8' ONE STORY CONCRETE BUILDING FOOTPRINT AREA =23,146 S.F. BUILDING HEIGHT =22.0' EV EV EVEV57 STALLS 226 STALLS35 STALLS35 STALLS123 STALLS 19 STALLS56 STALLS33 STALLS33 STALLS 70 STALLS59 STALLS SHEET: SHEET TITLE RGA, OFFICE OF ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN COPYRIGHT CHK'D BY: DRAWN BY: CAD FILE NAME: OWNER PROJECT NO: RGA PROJECT NO: MARK DESCRIPTIONDATE SD CONSULTANT PROFESSIONAL SEALS RGA Office of Architectural Design 15231 Alton Parkway, Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92618 T 949-341-0920 FX 949-341-0922 SITE PLAN CS DR 00000.00 A1-0P BRIDGE POINT RANCHO CUCAMONGA 12434 4TH STREET CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA 19134-01-A1-0P 19134.01 11/1/19 SCHEMATIC DESIGN BRIDGE POINT RANCHO CUCAMONGA, LLC 11100 SANTA MONICA BLVD., SUITE 700 LOS ANGELES, CA 90025 TEL: 213-805-6667 CONTACT: BRENDAN KOLTER bkotler@bridgedev.com OWNER: APPLICANT: BRIDGE POINT RANCHO CUCAMONGA, LLC 11100 SANTA MONICA BLVD., SUITE 700 LOS ANGELES, CA 90025 TEL: 213-805-6667 CONTACT: BRENDAN KOLTER bkotler@bridgedev.com SD 1/8/20 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL DRC 2020-00202 SD 4/10/20 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL SD 8/25/20 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL SD 10/22/20 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL SD 12/10/20 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL SD 12/18/20 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL SD 1/15/21 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL 106'GATEGATE40'4 TH S T R E E T6 TH S T R E E T35'BUILDING 1 SINGLE TENANT WAREHOUSE BUILDING FOOTPRINT: 1,403,500 SF MEZZANINE: 19,000 SF G.F.A.: 1,422,500 SF OCCUPANCY: B/S-1 CONSTRUCTION TYPE: III-B NUMBER OF STORIES: 1 MAX. HEIGHT: 50 FT. PROPERTY LINE 3214.24' PROPERTY LINE 1797.03' PROPERTY LINE 1419.72'PL 45.0'PROPERTY LINE 1246.89'PROPERTY LINE 1201.91'8'-0"H WALL 303'1,430' 8'-0"H TUBE STEEL FENCE 8'-0"H TUBE STEEL FENCE45'8'-0"H TUBE STEEL FENCE LEGAL DESCRIPTION: 1,057' EXISTING INDUSTRIAL BUILDING EXISTING INDUSTRIAL BUILDING EXISTING PRISION FACILITY EXISTING INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGEXISTING INDUSTRIAL BUILDING WITH OPEN TRAILER DROP LOTEXISTING ELECTRICAL SUB-STATION1 4 6 6 8 8 8 8 8 11 11 15CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGACITY OF ONTARIOSITE PLAN SCALE: 1" = 100'-0" 0' 20' 100'50'200'EXISTING RAIL SPURASSESSOR'S NUMBERS: APN: 0229-283-50, 0229-283-51 KEYNOTES:00VICINITY MAP SITE PLAN GENERAL NOTES: 1. TYPICAL 90 DEG. PARKING STALLS SIZES ARE 9'W X 18' LONG INCLUDING A 1' LANDSCAPE OVERHANG TYPICAL EXCEPT AT ACCESSIBLE STALLS. 2. PARALLEL STALLS ARE 9' X 24'. 3. SETBACK REQUIREMENTS: BUILDING SETBACK:45 FEET FROM CURBFACE PARKING SETBACK:45 FEET FROM CURBFACE AVE. LANDSCAPE SETBACK: 45 FEET FROM CURBFACE FIRE DEPT. GENERAL NOTES: 1. FIRE ACCESS LANES SHALL COMPLY WITH THE FOLLOWING: MIN. WIDTH: 26 FEET MIN. CLEARANCE:14'-6" INSIDE RADIUS: 20 FT. OUTSIDE RADIUS: 46 FT. WEIGHT CAPACITY: 80,000 LBS. 2. ALL GATES SHALL BE INSTALLED PER THE FIRE DISTRICT REQUIREMENTS. 3. SIGNAGE STANDARDS PER RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT DECEMBER 2016. SHEET INDEX A1-0P SITE PLAN & PROJECT DATA A1-1P EXISTING REFERENCE SITE PLAN A1-2P WALL AND FENCE PLAN A1-3P BUILDING 1 ENLARGED SITE PLAN A1-4P BUILDING 2 ENLARGED SITE PLAN A1-5 ALTERNATE RAIL-SERVE SITE PLAN 1A2-1P BUILDING 1 FLOOR PLAN 1A2-2P BUILDING 1 FLOOR PLAN ENLARGEMENTS 1A2-3P BUILDING 1 ROOF PLAN 1A3-1P BUILDING 1 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS 1A3-2P BUILDING 1 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS 1A3-3P BUILDING 1 EXTERIOR RENDERINGS 2A2-1P BUILDING 2 FLOOR PLAN 2A2-2P BUILDING 2 FLOOR PLAN ENLARGEMENTS 2A2-3P BUILDING 2 ROOF PLAN 2A3-1P BUILDING 2 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS 2A3-2P BUILDING 2 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS 2A3-3P BUILDING 2 EXTERIOR RENDERINGS 1 CONCEPT GRADING TITLE SHEET 2 - 7 CONCEPT GRADING PLAN 8 - 13 CONCEPT SITE UTILITY PLAN 14 - 17 CONCEPT STORM DRAIN PLAN 18 - 19 PRELIMINARY SITE AND DRAINAGE MAP 20-21 RETAINING WALL PROFILES 1-2 CONCEPTUAL RAIL PLANS 1-3 CONCEPTUAL STREET IMPROVEMENT PLANS 1-6 DEMOLITION PLAN SHEETS 7 EROSION CONTROL PLAN 8 EROSION CONTROL DETAILS L-0 LANDSCAPE PLANTING OVERALL L-1 LANDSCAPE PLANTING PLAN L-2 LANDSCAPE PLANTING PLAN L-3 LANDSCAPE PLANTING PLAN L-4 LANDSCAPE PLANTING PLAN L-5 LANDSCAPE PLANTING PLAN L-6 LANDSCAPE PLANTING PLAN SL1 SITE LIGHTING OVERALL PLAN SL2 BLDG 1 NORTHEAST PHOTOMETRIC SL3 BLDG 1 SOUTHEAST PHOTOMETRIC SL4 BLDG 1 NORTHWEST PHOTOMETRIC SL5 BLDG 1 SOUTHWEST PHOTOMETRIC SL6 BLDG 2 EAST PHOTOMETRIC SL7 BLDG 2 WEST PHOTOMETRIC SL8 LUMINAIRE SPECIFICATION SHEETS SUBJECT SITE AREA 1. PROPOSED PAINTED CONCRETE TILT-UP 40' CLEAR INDUSTRIAL BUILDING. 2. TYPICAL PARKING STALL - 9' X 18'. MAY BE REDUCED TO 9' X 17' W/ 1'-0" OVERHANG. STRIPING PER CITY STANDARDS. 3. TYPICAL LOW EMITTING / FUEL EFFICIENT / CARPOOL / VANPOOL PARKING STALL - 9' X 18'. MAY BE REDUCED TO 9' X 17' W/ 1'-0" OVERHANG. STRIPING PER CITY STANDARDS. MINIMUM 8% OF ALL PARKING SPACES PROVIDED PER BUILDING. A MINIMUM OF 6% OF ALL PARKING SPACES PROVIDED PER BUILDING SHALL BE EQUIPPED FOR FUTURE EV CHARGING CAPACITY. 4. 7" THICK CONCRETE YARD W/ GRADE LEVEL TRUCK DOORS AND AUTO PARKING AREAS. 5. FULLY IRRIGATED LANDSCAPE AREA BOUNDED BY 6" CONCRETE CURB - SEE CONCEPT LANDSCAPE PLAN. 6. PRIMARY BUILDING ENTRANCE W/ DECORATIVE CONCRETE ENTRY WALK. 7. LOCATION OF 8'-0" HIGH TRASH AND RECYCLABLE BINS. SEE SHEET A2-1 FOR ELEVATION AND SECTIONS. 8. NEW 8'-0" HIGH BLACK TUBE STEEL FENCE. 9. PROPERTY LINES. 10. PROPOSED TRANSFORMER LOCATION. 11. 14' X 50' TRUCK TRAILER PARKING AREA. 12. ACCESSIBLE PARKING STALLS 9' X 18'-0" MIN. 13. DASHED LINE INDICATES : NEW 5'-0" WIDE SURFACE WALK ACCESSIBLE PATH OF TRAVEL FROM PUBLIC SIDEWALK & PARKING STALLS TO PRIMARY BUILDING ENTRANCE - CONSTRUCT NEW CONCRETE SIDEWALK. MAX SLOPE OF SURFACE WALK IN THE DIRECTION OF TRAVEL 4.9%. MAX CROSS SLOPE 2%. 14. PROVIDE BREAK AREA / LUNCH PATIO WITH SEATING. SEE PROJECT DATA ON A1-0 FOR MIN SF AREA AND NUMBER OF SEATS. 15. PROPOSED LOCATION FOR FIRE WATER METER AND 2" SUPPLY LINE INTO BUILDING. ABOVE GROUND BACKFLOWS AND DETECTOR CHECK ASSEMBLIES SHALL BE SCREENED BY A 3' MIN. / 4' MAX. CMU WALL ON 3 SIDES, 3' CLEAR TO THE ASSEMBLY. SEE PLAN VIEW. 16. PROPOSED SEWER LATERAL FROM PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY SERVING BOTH BUILDINGS 1 & 2. 17. EXISTING DRIVE WAY APRON TO BE REMOVED. 18. NEW CURB AND GUTTER PER CITY STANDARD. 19. PROPOSED ONSITE FIRE HYDRANT LOCATIONS. 20. ALL UTILITY STRUCTURES SUCH AS TRANSFORMERS AND BACK FLOW DEVICES SHALL BE SCREENED BY LANDSCAPE, SEE LANDSCAPE PLAN. 21. CONCRETE LANDING AND BICYCLE RACK FOR BIKES. SEE PROJECT DATA FOR SPACES REQUIRED. 22. LONG TERM MOUNTED BICYCLE RACK. (NOTE LONG TERM RACK TO BE INSTALL ADJACENT TO ELECTRICAL ROOM TO COMPLY WITH CALGREEN). SEE PROJECT DATA FOR SPACES REQUIRED. 23. TYP. 8' HIGH PAINTED CONCRETE SCREEN WALL ELEVATION W/ ACCENT REVEALS AND PAINTED ACCENTS TO MATCH BUILDING ARCHITECTURE. 24. CONCRETE TILT-UP FIRE PUMP STRUCTURE - 15' HEIGHT, PAINTED TO COORDINATE W/ BUILDING ARCHITECTURE. 6 TH S T R E E T 4TH S T R E E T EXISTING INDUSTRIAL BUILDING PROJECT DATA GENERAL PLAN: EXISTING ZONE: PROPOSED ZONE: SITE AREA: LEGAL DESCRIPTION FEE: EXISTING 6TH STREET AREA: PROPOSED STREET "A": LOT A REMNANT LOT (SEE PARCEL MAP) NET SITE AREA FOR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT: GENERAL INDUSTRIAL & HEAVY INDUSTRIAL GENERAL INDUSTRIAL (GI) AND HEAVY INDUSTRIAL (HI) GENERAL INDUSTRIAL (GI) 3,981,084 SF / 91.39 AC 58,562 SF / 1.34 AC 212,968 SF / 4.89 AC 5,031 SF / 0.11 AC 3,704,522 SF / 85.04 AC GROSS SITE AREA NET SITE AREA BUILDING AREA FOOTPRINT AREA: MEZZANINE (WHSE OR OFFICE): GROSS FLOOR AREA: BUILDING AREA BY USE: OFFICE AREA WAREHOUSE AREA GROSS COVERAGE: GROSS F.A.R.: LANDSCAPE: PROVIDED: COVERAGE: AREA: AUTO PARKING: REQUIRED PARKING: OFFICE @ 1/250 WAREHOUSE 1-20K SF @ 1/1000 20K - 40K SF @ 1/2000 > 40K SF @ 1/4000 TOTAL PROVIDED PARKING: DOCK LOADING POSITIONS: TRAILER PARKING PROVIDED: BICYCLE PARKING: SHORT TERM LONG TERM EMPLOYEE OUTDOOR AREAS SF REQUIRED SF PROVIDED SEATING REQUIRED SEATING PROVIDED TOTAL 3,981,084 SF 3,704,522 SF 2,141,770 SF 33,230 SF 2,175,000 SF 41,000 SF 2,134,000 SF 53.80% 0.546 10.00% 370,600 SF (INCLUDES PARKWAYS) 737 STALLS 746 STALLS 275 DOCKS 312 TRAILERS 38 REQ. / 38 PROV. 38 REQ. / 38 PROV. 1,500 SF 1,540 SF 71 SEATS 80 SEATS BLDG 2 1,484,596 SF 1,302,112 SF 738,270 SF 14,230 SF 752,500 SF 16,000 SF 736,500 SF 49.73% .496 10.3% 134,400 SF 64 STALLS 20 STALLS 10 STALLS 174 STALLS 268 STALLS 268 STALLS 91 DOCKS 91 TRAILERS 14 REQ. / 14 PROV. 14 REQ. / 14 PROV. 500 SF 540 SF 28 SEATS 32 SEATS BLDG 1 2,484,027 SF 2,402,411 SF 1,403,500 SF 19,000 SF 1,422,500 SF 25,000 SF 1,397,500 SF 56.50% .573 9.8% 236,200 SF 100 STALLS 20 STALLS 10 STALLS 339 STALLS 469 STALLS 478 STALLS 184 DOCKS 221 TRAILERS 24 REQ. / 24 PROV. 24 REQ. / 24 PROV. 1,000 SF 1,000 SF 43 SEATS 48 SEATS BUILDING 2 SINGLE TENANT WAREHOUSE BUILDING FOOTPRINT: 738,270 SF MEZZANINE: 14,230 SF G.F.A.: 752,500 SF OCCUPANCY: B/S-1 CONSTRUCTION TYPE: III-B NUMBER OF STORIES: 1 MAX. HEIGHT: 50 FT. 136'8'-0"H TUBE STEEL FENCE GATE59.8' +/- POTENTIAL OFFICE AREA W/ MEZZANINE POTENTIAL OFFICE AREA 1 4 5 6 7 7 T 1111 23 23 N E W S T R E E T " A " 1,912'-0"185'-0"220'-0"710'-0"25' 185'-0"680'-0"185'-0"1,046'-0"66'82'52'40'66'25'77' 19'20'44'44'40' 92 DOCK DOORS (34) 50' TRAILER POSITIONS (97) TRAILER POSITIONS 92 DOCK DOORS 51 DOCK DOORS40 DOCK DOORS49 TRAILER POSITIONS42 TRAILER POSITIONSGATEGATEGATE GATE POTENTIAL OFFICE AREA POTENTIAL OFFICE AREA 4 4 11 (90) 50' TRAILER POSITIONS POTENTIAL OFFICE AREA LOT "A" (SEE PARCEL MAP) POTENTIAL OFFICE AREA W/ MEZZANINE 8'-0"H WALL 14 14 14 GATE GATE 3-HR WALL DRC2020-00202Attachment A EX. 33" STORM DRAINXXXXXXXXXXXXXXZONING: HIHEAVY INDUSTRIAL35' BUILDINGSETBACK LINEZONING: GIGENERAL INDUSTRIAL45' BUILDINGSETBACK LINE5' BUILDING SETBACK LINE 5' BUILDING SETBACK LINE BOUNDARY LINECITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGABOUNDARY LINECITY OF ONTARION 89Ā49'26" E 1201.09'1797.03' 5' BUILDING SETBACK LINE 849.87'2408.72' N 0Ā14'33" E 3258.59'CONSTRUCTION ℄3' SOUTH OF PLN 0Ā14'37" E 1857.03' 60.00' STREET DEDICATION (ULTIMATE R/W: 44')N 89Ā56'54" E 970.98'N 89Ā56'54" E 970.98'N 0Ā14'37" E 1464.19'N 89Ā56'36" E 275.03'45' BUILDINGSETBACK LINE45' BUILDINGSETBACK LINE45' BUILDINGSETBACK LINE45' BUILDINGSETBACK LINE5' BUILDING SETBACK LINE 5' BUILDING SETBACK LINE 5' BUILDING SETBACK LINE 5' BUILDING SETBACK LINE 5' BUILDING SETBACK LINE 5' BUILDING SETBACK LINE 5' BUILDING SETBACK LINE 5' BUILDING SETBACK LINE 5' BUILDING SETBACK LINE 5' BUILDING SETBACK LINE 35' BUILDINGSETBACK LINE35' BUILDINGSETBACK LINE35' BUILDINGSETBACK LINE35' BUILDINGSETBACK LINE35' BUILDINGSETBACK LINECONSTRUCTION ℄3' SOUTH OF PLCONSTRUCTION ℄3' SOUTH OF PLCONSTRUCTION ℄3' SOUTH OF PLCONSTRUCTION ℄3' SOUTH OF PLN 0Ā14'37" E 1464.19'N 89Ā54'00" E 44.99'1797.03' N 0Ā14'37" E 1857.03'BOUNDARY LINECITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGABOUNDARY LINECITY OF ONTARIOBOUNDARY LINECITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGABOUNDARY LINECITY OF ONTARIOBOUNDARY LINECITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGABOUNDARY LINECITY OF ONTARIOBOUNDARY LINECITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGABOUNDARY LINECITY OF ONTARIOSTREET DEDICATION (ULTIMATE R/W: 44') STREET DEDICATION (ULTIMATE R/W: 44') STREET DEDICATION (ULTIMATE R/W: 44') STREET DEDICATION (ULTIMATE R/W: 44') 5' BUILDING SETBACK LINE 5' BUILDING SETBACK LINE 5' BUILDING SETBACK LINE 5' BUILDING SETBACK LINE 5' BUILDING SETBACK LINE 5' BUILDING SETBACK LINE TREESDENSEHC TRAILER CLCL(PUBLIC STREET)CLCLONE STORY CONCRETE BUILDING WITH TWO STORY OFFICE AREA FOOTPRINT AREA =1,377,219 S.F. BUILDING HEIGHT =52.8' ONE STORY CONCRETE BUILDING FOOTPRINT AREA =23,146 S.F. BUILDING HEIGHT =22.0' SHEET: SHEET TITLE RGA, OFFICE OF ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN COPYRIGHT CHK'D BY: DRAWN BY: CAD FILE NAME: OWNER PROJECT NO: RGA PROJECT NO: MARK DESCRIPTIONDATE SD CONSULTANT PROFESSIONAL SEALS RGA Office of Architectural Design 15231 Alton Parkway, Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92618 T 949-341-0920 FX 949-341-0922 EXISTING SITE PLAN CS DR 00000.00 A1-1P BRIDGE POINT RANCHO CUCAMONGA 12434 4TH STREET CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA 19134-01-A1-1P 19134.01 11/1/19 SCHEMATIC DESIGN BRIDGE POINT RANCHO CUCAMONGA, LLC 11100 SANTA MONICA BLVD., SUITE 700 LOS ANGELES, CA 90025 TEL: 213-805-6667 CONTACT: BRENDAN KOLTER bkotler@bridgedev.com OWNER: APPLICANT: BRIDGE POINT RANCHO CUCAMONGA, LLC 11100 SANTA MONICA BLVD., SUITE 700 LOS ANGELES, CA 90025 TEL: 213-805-6667 CONTACT: BRENDAN KOLTER bkotler@bridgedev.com SD 1/8/20 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL DRC 2020-00202 SD 4/10/20 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL EXISTING SITE PLAN SCALE: 1" = 100'-0" 0'20'100'50'200'4 TH S T R E E T6 TH S T R E E TEXISTING INDUSTRIAL BUILDING EXISTING INDUSTRIAL BUILDING EXISTING PRISON FACILITY EXISTING INDUSTRIAL BUILDING WITH OPEN TRAILER DROP LOT EXISTING INDUSTRIAL BUILDING 40' WIDE EXISTING ACCESS ROAD EXISTING TRAILER PARKING TO BE DEMOLISHED EXISTING VACANT LAND EXISTING RAIL SPUREXISTING ONE STORY CONCRETE TILT-UP BUILDING WITH TWO-STORY OFFICE TO BE DEMOLISHED FOOTPRINT AREA: 1,373,000 SF MEZZANINE AREA: 58,000 SF TOTAL EXISTING FLOOR AREA: 1,431,000 SFZONE: GI - GENERAL INDUSTRIALZONE: HI - HEAVY INDUSTRIALEXISTING ONE STORY CONCRETE TILT-UP BUILDING TO BE DEMOLISHED FOOTPRINT AREA: 23,240 SF 215 AUTO STALLS 202 AUTO STALLS 116 AUTO STALLS EXISTING RAIL SPUR EXISTING PROJECT DATA GENERAL PLAN: ZONE: SITE AREA: LEGAL DESCRIPTION FEE: EXISTING STREET AREA: EASEMENT AREA STREET AREA: NET SITE AREA: EXISTING BUILDING AREA: MAIN BUILDING FOOTPRINT: MAIN BUILDING MEZZANINE: ACCESSORY BUILDING: GROSS FLOOR AREA: LOT COVERAGE (NET): F.A.R. (NET): EXISTING AUTO PARKING PROVIDED: EXISTING LOADING DOCK DOORS: EXISTING TRAILER PARKING EXISTING LANDSCAPE PROVIDED: GENERAL INDUSTRIAL & HEAVY INDUSTRIAL GENERAL INDUSTRIAL (GI) AND HEAVY INDUSTRIAL (HI) 3,981,084 SF / 91.39 AC 54,824 SF / 1.259 AC 52,339 SF / 1.202 AC 3,738 SF / 0.086 AC 3,870,183 SF / 88.846 AC 1,373,000 SF 58,000 SF 23,240 SF 1,454,240 SF 36.08 % 37.58 % 558 STALLS 76 DOCK HIGH DOORS 4 RAIL SERVE DOORS 373 STALLS 434,631 SF (PER ALTA SURVEY) EX. 33" STORM DRAINXXXXXXXXXXXXZONING: HIHEAVY INDUSTRIAL35' BUILDINGSETBACK LINEZONING: GIGENERAL INDUSTRIAL45' BUILDINGSETBACK LINE5' BUILDING SETBACK LINE 5' BUILDING SETBACK LINE BOUNDARY LINECITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGABOUNDARY LINECITY OF ONTARION 89Ā49'26" E 1201.09'1797.03' 5' BUILDING SETBACK LINE 849.87'2408.72' N 0Ā14'33" E 3258.59'CONSTRUCTION ℄3' SOUTH OF PLN 0Ā14'37" E 1857.03' 60.00' STREET DEDICATION (ULTIMATE R/W: 44')N 89Ā56'54" E 970.98'N 89Ā56'54" E 970.98'N 0Ā14'37" E 1464.19'N 89Ā56'36" E 275.03'45' BUILDINGSETBACK LINE45' BUILDINGSETBACK LINE45' BUILDINGSETBACK LINE45' BUILDINGSETBACK LINE5' BUILDING SETBACK LINE 5' BUILDING SETBACK LINE 5' BUILDING SETBACK LINE 5' BUILDING SETBACK LINE 5' BUILDING SETBACK LINE 5' BUILDING SETBACK LINE 5' BUILDING SETBACK LINE 5' BUILDING SETBACK LINE 5' BUILDING SETBACK LINE 5' BUILDING SETBACK LINE 35' BUILDINGSETBACK LINE35' BUILDINGSETBACK LINE35' BUILDINGSETBACK LINE35' BUILDINGSETBACK LINE35' BUILDINGSETBACK LINECONSTRUCTION ℄3' SOUTH OF PLCONSTRUCTION ℄3' SOUTH OF PLCONSTRUCTION ℄3' SOUTH OF PLCONSTRUCTION ℄3' SOUTH OF PLN 0Ā14'37" E 1464.19'N 89Ā54'00" E 44.99'1797.03' N 0Ā14'37" E 1857.03'BOUNDARY LINECITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGABOUNDARY LINECITY OF ONTARIOBOUNDARY LINECITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGABOUNDARY LINECITY OF ONTARIOBOUNDARY LINECITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGABOUNDARY LINECITY OF ONTARIOBOUNDARY LINECITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGABOUNDARY LINECITY OF ONTARIOSTREET DEDICATION (ULTIMATE R/W: 44') STREET DEDICATION (ULTIMATE R/W: 44') STREET DEDICATION (ULTIMATE R/W: 44') STREET DEDICATION (ULTIMATE R/W: 44') 5' BUILDING SETBACK LINE 5' BUILDING SETBACK LINE 5' BUILDING SETBACK LINE 5' BUILDING SETBACK LINE 5' BUILDING SETBACK LINE 5' BUILDING SETBACK LINE TREESDENSEHC TRAILER CLCL(PUBLIC STREET)CLCLONE STORY CONCRETE BUILDING WITH TWO STORY OFFICE AREA FOOTPRINT AREA =1,377,219 S.F. BUILDING HEIGHT =52.8' ONE STORY CONCRETE BUILDING FOOTPRINT AREA =23,146 S.F. BUILDING HEIGHT =22.0' EV EV EVEVSHEET: SHEET TITLE RGA, OFFICE OF ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN COPYRIGHT CHK'D BY: DRAWN BY: CAD FILE NAME: OWNER PROJECT NO: RGA PROJECT NO: MARK DESCRIPTIONDATE SD CONSULTANT PROFESSIONAL SEALS RGA Office of Architectural Design 15231 Alton Parkway, Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92618 T 949-341-0920 FX 949-341-0922 SITE FENCE PLAN CS DR 00000.00 A1-2P BRIDGE POINT RANCHO CUCAMONGA 12434 4TH STREET CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA 19134-01-A1-2P 19134.01 11/1/19 SCHEMATIC DESIGN BRIDGE POINT RANCHO CUCAMONGA, LLC 11100 SANTA MONICA BLVD., SUITE 700 LOS ANGELES, CA 90025 TEL: 213-805-6667 CONTACT: BRENDAN KOLTER bkotler@bridgedev.com OWNER: APPLICANT: BRIDGE POINT RANCHO CUCAMONGA, LLC 11100 SANTA MONICA BLVD., SUITE 700 LOS ANGELES, CA 90025 TEL: 213-805-6667 CONTACT: BRENDAN KOLTER bkotler@bridgedev.com SD 1/8/20 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL DRC 2020-00202 SD 4/10/20 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL SD 8/25/20 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL SD 12/18/20 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL SD 1/15/21 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL SD 10/22/20 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL SD 12/10/20 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL SITE FENCE PLAN SCALE: 1" = 100'-0" 0'20'100'50'200'4 TH S T R E E T6 TH S T R E E T641' 8'-0"H CONC. TILT UP SCREENWALL 303'1,430' 8'-0"H TUBE STEEL FENCE 8'-0"H TUBE STEEL FENCE45'8'-0"H TUBE STEEL FENCE 1,055' 8'-0"H TUBE STEEL SWING GATE 8'-0"H SLIDING STEEL GATE W/ PERF. MESH TO OBSCURE VIEW OF TRUCK COURT 8'-0"H CONC. TILT-UP SCREENWALL 8'-0"H SLIDING STEEL GATE W/ PERF. MESH TO OBSCURE VIEW OF TRUCK COURT 19'40'77'24'56'61'BUILDING 1BUILDING 2 8'-0"H CONC. TILT-UP SCREENWALL 8'-0"H CONC. TILT-UP SCREENWALL 8'-0"H SLIDING STEEL GATE N E W S T R E E T " A " 8'-0"H CONC. TILT-UP SCREENWALL 43'30' 8'-0"H TUBE STEEL FENCE 694' VARIABLE HT. RETAINING WALL - SEE CIVIL592'48'102'37'43'32'45'108'VARIABLE HT. RETAINING WALL - SEE CIVIL153'VARIABLE HT. RETAINING WALL - SEE CIVIL 8'-0"H SLIDING STEEL GATE 346' VARIABLE HT. RETAINING WALL - SEE CIVILCONCRETE TILT-UP WALL - 8'H ABOVE GRADE FACING 6TH / VARIABLE RETAINING HEIGHT70'40'35' 80'40'48'18' 30'40'67'953' VARIABLE HT. RETAINING WALL - SEE CIVIL + 8'-0"H TUBE STEEL FENCE AT TOP OF WALL62'40'8'H CONC. WALL8'-0"H SLIDING STEEL GATE 8'-0"H CONC. TILT-UP SCREENWALL 8'-0"H SLIDING STEEL GATE 8'-0"H SLIDING STEEL GATE TRASH ENC. 8'H CONC. WALL 8'H GATE TRASH ENC.3'-4'H CMU @ DDCA 3'-4'H CMU @ DDCA 3'-4'H CMU @ DDCA 3'-4'H CMU @ DDCA 8'-0"H CONC. TILT UP SCREENWALL 25'712'45'30'8'H STEEL FENCE 8'H STEEL FENCE930' - 8'-0"H TUBE STEEL FENCE860' (E) RET. WALL TO REMAIN EX. 33" STORM DRAINXXXXXXZONING: HIHEAVY INDUSTRIALZONING: GIGENERAL INDUSTRIAL45' BUILDINGSETBACK LINE5' BUILDING SETBACK LINE 5' BUILDING SETBACK LINE BOUNDARY LINECITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGABOUNDARY LINECITY OF ONTARION 89Ā49'26" E 1201.09'1797.03' 5' BUILDING SETBACK LINE 2408.72' N 0Ā14'33" E 3258.59' N 0Ā14'37" E 1857.03' 60.00'45' BUILDINGSETBACK LINE45' BUILDINGSETBACK LINE45' BUILDINGSETBACK LINE45' BUILDINGSETBACK LINE5' BUILDING SETBACK LINE 5' BUILDING SETBACK LINE 5' BUILDING SETBACK LINE 5' BUILDING SETBACK LINE 5' BUILDING SETBACK LINE 5' BUILDING SETBACK LINE N 0Ā14'37" E 1464.19'N 89Ā54'00" E 44.99'1797.03' N 0Ā14'37" E 1857.03'BOUNDARY LINECITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGABOUNDARY LINECITY OF ONTARIOBOUNDARY LINECITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGABOUNDARY LINECITY OF ONTARIOBOUNDARY LINECITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGABOUNDARY LINECITY OF ONTARIOBOUNDARY LINECITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGABOUNDARY LINECITY OF ONTARIO5' BUILDING SETBACK LINE 5' BUILDING SETBACK LINE 5' BUILDING SETBACK LINE 5' BUILDING SETBACK LINE TREESDENSEHC TRAILER CLCLONE STORY CONCRETE BUILDING WITH TWO STORY OFFICE AREA FOOTPRINT AREA =1,377,219 S.F. BUILDING HEIGHT =52.8' ONE STORY CONCRETE BUILDING FOOTPRINT AREA =23,146 S.F. BUILDING HEIGHT =22.0'R=46'R= 2 0 ' R = 4 6 'EVEV57 STALLS 226 STALLS35 STALLS56 STALLS33 STALLS33 STALLS 70 STALLS59 STALLS SHEET: SHEET TITLE RGA, OFFICE OF ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN COPYRIGHT CHK'D BY: DRAWN BY: CAD FILE NAME: OWNER PROJECT NO: RGA PROJECT NO: MARK DESCRIPTIONDATE SD CONSULTANT PROFESSIONAL SEALS RGA Office of Architectural Design 15231 Alton Parkway, Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92618 T 949-341-0920 FX 949-341-0922 ENLARGED BUILDING 1 SITE PLAN CS DR 00000.00 A1-3P BRIDGE POINT RANCHO CUCAMONGA 12434 4TH STREET CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA 19134-01-A1-3P 19134.01 11/1/19 SCHEMATIC DESIGN BRIDGE POINT RANCHO CUCAMONGA, LLC 11100 SANTA MONICA BLVD., SUITE 700 LOS ANGELES, CA 90025 TEL: 213-805-6667 CONTACT: BRENDAN KOLTER bkotler@bridgedev.com OWNER: APPLICANT: BRIDGE POINT RANCHO CUCAMONGA, LLC 11100 SANTA MONICA BLVD., SUITE 700 LOS ANGELES, CA 90025 TEL: 213-805-6667 CONTACT: BRENDAN KOLTER bkotler@bridgedev.com SD 1/8/20 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL DRC 2020-00202 SD 4/10/20 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL SD 8/25/20 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL SD 12/18/20 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL SD 1/15/21 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL 106'GATEGATE136'4 TH S T R E E T46' BUILDING 1 SINGLE TENANT FOOTPRINT: 1,403,500 SF MEZZANINE: 19,000 SF G.F.A.: 1,422,500 SF OCCUPANCY: B/S-1 CONSTRUCTION TYPE: III-B NUMBER OF STORIES: 1 MAX. HEIGHT: 50 FT. PROPERTY LINE 3214.24' PROPERTY LINE 1797.03'PL 45.0'PROPERTY LINE 1201.91'308'1,430' 8'-0"H TUBE STEEL FENCE 8'-0"H TUBE STEEL FENCE45'8'-0"H TUBE STEEL FENCE EXISTING INDUSTRIAL BUILDING EXISTING PRISION FACILITY 1 4 6 6 8 8 8 8 ENLARGED BUILDING 1 SITE PLAN SCALE: 1" = 60'-0" EXISTING INDUSTRIAL BUILDING 7 7 23 23 N E W S T R E E T " A " 1,912'-0"185'-0"220'-0"710'-0"66'25'44'92 DOCK DOORS 92 DOCK DOORS GATEGATEPOTENTIAL OFFICE AREA POTENTIAL OFFICE AREA 4 0'20'100'50'200' 11 (34) 50' TRAILER POSITIONS11(90) 50' TRAILER POSITIONS 7'7' 11 (97) 55' TRAILER POSITIONS14'4 24 21 21 14 1426'-0"W FIRELANE26'-0"W FIRELANE 26'-0"W FIRELANE26'-0"W FIRELANE 26'-0"W FIRELA N E T 1022 8 18'26'18'10'18'26'18'51'32'45'15'18'26'18'32'120'50'50'130'55'19'40'18'26'18'6'34'5'18'26'17'17'26'18'18.1'26'27'35'35'27' 26'26'9'EXISTING CURB CUT 40'43'40'15 15 17 17 20 5 5 12 12 1818 POTENTIAL OFFICE AREA W/ MEZZANINE 232323 26'-0"W FIRELANE26'-0"W FIRELANE26'-0"W FIRELANE77' 12'40'18'195'-0"66'140'55'39'18' 34'12' XXXXXXXXZONING: HIHEAVY INDUSTRIAL35' BUILDINGSETBACK LINEZONING: GIGENERAL INDUSTRIAL5' BUILDING SETBACK LINE 849.87' N 0Ā14'33" E 3258.59'CONSTRUCTION ℄3' SOUTH OF PLSTREET DEDICATION (ULTIMATE R/W: 44')N 89Ā56'54" E 970.98'N 89Ā56'54" E 970.98'N 0Ā14'37" E 1464.19'N 89Ā56'36" E 275.03'5' BUILDING SETBACK LINE 5' BUILDING SETBACK LINE 5' BUILDING SETBACK LINE 5' BUILDING SETBACK LINE 5' BUILDING SETBACK LINE 5' BUILDING SETBACK LINE 5' BUILDING SETBACK LINE 35' BUILDINGSETBACK LINE35' BUILDINGSETBACK LINE35' BUILDINGSETBACK LINE35' BUILDINGSETBACK LINE35' BUILDINGSETBACK LINECONSTRUCTION ℄3' SOUTH OF PLCONSTRUCTION ℄3' SOUTH OF PLCONSTRUCTION ℄3' SOUTH OF PLCONSTRUCTION ℄3' SOUTH OF PLN 0Ā14'37" E 1464.19'N 89Ā54'00" E 44.99'1797.03' N 0Ā14'37" E 1857.03' STREET DEDICATION (ULTIMATE R/W: 44') STREET DEDICATION (ULTIMATE R/W: 44') STREET DEDICATION (ULTIMATE R/W: 44') STREET DEDICATION (ULTIMATE R/W: 44') 5' BUILDING SETBACK LINE 5' BUILDING SETBACK LINE 5' BUILDING SETBACK LINE 5' BUILDING SETBACK LINECL(PUBLIC STREET)CLR=20'R=46'R=20'R = 2 0 ' R= 2 0 ' R = 4 6 ' EV EV 35 STALLS35 STALLS123 STALLS 19 STALLS56 STALLS33 STALLS 70 STALLS59 STALLS SHEET: SHEET TITLE RGA, OFFICE OF ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN COPYRIGHT CHK'D BY: DRAWN BY: CAD FILE NAME: OWNER PROJECT NO: RGA PROJECT NO: MARK DESCRIPTIONDATE SD CONSULTANT PROFESSIONAL SEALS RGA Office of Architectural Design 15231 Alton Parkway, Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92618 T 949-341-0920 FX 949-341-0922 ENLARGED BUILDING 2 SITE PLAN CS DR 00000.00 A1-4P BRIDGE POINT RANCHO CUCAMONGA 12434 4TH STREET CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA 19134-01-A1-4P 19134.01 11/1/19 SCHEMATIC DESIGN BRIDGE POINT RANCHO CUCAMONGA, LLC 11100 SANTA MONICA BLVD., SUITE 700 LOS ANGELES, CA 90025 TEL: 213-805-6667 CONTACT: BRENDAN KOLTER bkotler@bridgedev.com OWNER: APPLICANT: BRIDGE POINT RANCHO CUCAMONGA, LLC 11100 SANTA MONICA BLVD., SUITE 700 LOS ANGELES, CA 90025 TEL: 213-805-6667 CONTACT: BRENDAN KOLTER bkotler@bridgedev.com SD 1/8/20 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL DRC 2020-00202 SD 4/10/20 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL SD 8/25/20 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL SD 12/18/20 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL SD 1/15/21 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL ENLARGED BUILDING 2 SITE PLAN SCALE: 1" = 60'-0" 0'20'100'50'200'6 TH S T R E E TPROPERTY LINE 1419.72'PROPERTY LINE 1246.89'1,052' EXISTING INDUSTRIAL BUILDING EXISTING INDUSTRIAL BUILDING WITH OPEN TRAILER DROP LOTEXISTING ELECTRICAL SUB-STATIONEXISTING RAIL SPURBUILDING 2 SINGLE TENANT FOOTPRINT: 738,270 SF MEZZANINE: 14,230 SF G.F.A.: 752,500 SF OCCUPANCY: B/S-1 CONSTRUCTION TYPE: III-B NUMBER OF STORIES: 1 MAX. HEIGHT: 50 FT. 8'-0"H TUBE STEEL FENCE GATE72.7' +/- POTENTIAL OFFICE AREA W/ MEZZANINE POTENTIAL OFFICE AREA 1 4 T 185'-0"680'-0"185'-0"1,046'-0"66'82'53'40'11'44'51 DOCK DOORS40 DOCK DOORSGATE 11 42 TRAILER POSITIONS11 49 TRAILER POSITIONS4 GATE GATE N E W S T R E E T " A "26'-0"W FIRELANE26'-0"W FIRELANE26'-0"W FIRELANE26'-0"W FIRELANE 26'-0"W FIRELANE 26'-0"W FIRELANE6 14 21 14'18'26'18'6'11'24 7 10 22 40'30'40'35'40'7'18'25'18'6'6'10'18'40'18' 12'7' 12'-10"18'40'18'49'26'EXISTING CURB CUT EXISTING CURB CUT EXISTING CURB CUT EXISTING CURB CUT 15 15 20 125 5 8 23.6' 23 23 65' 22.1'26'-0"W FIRELANE18'23 23 18 22.5'30'20' EX. 33" STORM DRAINXXXXXXXXXXXXXXZONING: HIHEAVY INDUSTRIAL35' BUILDINGSETBACK LINEZONING: GIGENERAL INDUSTRIAL45' BUILDINGSETBACK LINE5' BUILDING SETBACK LINE 5' BUILDING SETBACK LINE BOUNDARY LINECITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGABOUNDARY LINECITY OF ONTARION 89Ā49'26" E 1201.09'1797.03' 5' BUILDING SETBACK LINE 849.87'2408.72' N 0Ā14'33" E 3258.59'CONSTRUCTION ℄3' SOUTH OF PLN 0Ā14'37" E 1857.03' 60.00' STREET DEDICATION (ULTIMATE R/W: 44')N 89Ā56'54" E 970.98'N 89Ā56'54" E 970.98'N 0Ā14'37" E 1464.19'N 89Ā56'36" E 275.03'45' BUILDINGSETBACK LINE45' BUILDINGSETBACK LINE45' BUILDINGSETBACK LINE45' BUILDINGSETBACK LINE5' BUILDING SETBACK LINE 5' BUILDING SETBACK LINE 5' BUILDING SETBACK LINE 5' BUILDING SETBACK LINE 5' BUILDING SETBACK LINE 5' BUILDING SETBACK LINE 5' BUILDING SETBACK LINE 5' BUILDING SETBACK LINE 5' BUILDING SETBACK LINE 5' BUILDING SETBACK LINE 35' BUILDINGSETBACK LINE35' BUILDINGSETBACK LINE35' BUILDINGSETBACK LINE35' BUILDINGSETBACK LINE35' BUILDINGSETBACK LINECONSTRUCTION ℄3' SOUTH OF PLCONSTRUCTION ℄3' SOUTH OF PLCONSTRUCTION ℄3' SOUTH OF PLCONSTRUCTION ℄3' SOUTH OF PLN 0Ā14'37" E 1464.19'N 89Ā54'00" E 44.99'1797.03' N 0Ā14'37" E 1857.03'BOUNDARY LINECITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGABOUNDARY LINECITY OF ONTARIOBOUNDARY LINECITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGABOUNDARY LINECITY OF ONTARIOBOUNDARY LINECITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGABOUNDARY LINECITY OF ONTARIOBOUNDARY LINECITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGABOUNDARY LINECITY OF ONTARIOSTREET DEDICATION (ULTIMATE R/W: 44') STREET DEDICATION (ULTIMATE R/W: 44') STREET DEDICATION (ULTIMATE R/W: 44') STREET DEDICATION (ULTIMATE R/W: 44') 5' BUILDING SETBACK LINE 5' BUILDING SETBACK LINE 5' BUILDING SETBACK LINE 5' BUILDING SETBACK LINE 5' BUILDING SETBACK LINE 5' BUILDING SETBACK LINE TREESDENSEHC TRAILER CLCL(PUBLIC STREET)CLCLONE STORY CONCRETE BUILDING WITH TWO STORY OFFICE AREA FOOTPRINT AREA =1,377,219 S.F. BUILDING HEIGHT =52.8' ONE STORY CONCRETE BUILDING FOOTPRINT AREA =23,146 S.F. BUILDING HEIGHT =22.0' EV EV EVEV57 STALLS 226 STALLS35 STALLS35 STALLS123 STALLS 75 STALLS33 STALLS 70 STALLS92 STALLS SHEET: SHEET TITLE RGA, OFFICE OF ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN COPYRIGHT CHK'D BY: DRAWN BY: CAD FILE NAME: OWNER PROJECT NO: RGA PROJECT NO: MARK DESCRIPTIONDATE SD CONSULTANT PROFESSIONAL SEALS RGA Office of Architectural Design 15231 Alton Parkway, Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92618 T 949-341-0920 FX 949-341-0922 ALTERNATE RAIL-SERVE SITE PLAN CS DR 00000.00 A1-5P BRIDGE POINT RANCHO CUCAMONGA 12434 4TH STREET CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA 19134-01-A1-0P 19134.01 11/1/19 SCHEMATIC DESIGN BRIDGE POINT RANCHO CUCAMONGA, LLC 11100 SANTA MONICA BLVD., SUITE 700 LOS ANGELES, CA 90025 TEL: 213-805-6667 CONTACT: BRENDAN KOLTER bkotler@bridgedev.com OWNER: APPLICANT: BRIDGE POINT RANCHO CUCAMONGA, LLC 11100 SANTA MONICA BLVD., SUITE 700 LOS ANGELES, CA 90025 TEL: 213-805-6667 CONTACT: BRENDAN KOLTER bkotler@bridgedev.com SD 1/8/20 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL DRC 2020-00202 SD 4/10/20 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL SD 8/25/20 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL SD 10/22/20 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL SD 12/10/20 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL SD 12/18/20 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL SD 1/15/21 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL ALTERNATE RAIL-SERVE SITE PLAN 106'GATEGATE40'4 TH S T R E E T6 TH S T R E E T35'BUILDING 1 SINGLE TENANT WAREHOUSE BUILDING FOOTPRINT: 1,403,500 SF MEZZANINE: 19,000 SF G.F.A.: 1,422,500 SF OCCUPANCY: B/S-1 CONSTRUCTION TYPE: III-B NUMBER OF STORIES: 1 MAX. HEIGHT: 50 FT. PROPERTY LINE 3214.24' PROPERTY LINE 1797.03' PROPERTY LINE 1419.72'PL 45.0'PROPERTY LINE 1246.89'PROPERTY LINE 1201.91'303'1,430' 8'-0"H TUBE STEEL FENCE 8'-0"H TUBE STEEL FENCE45'8'-0"H TUBE STEEL FENCE 1,057' EXISTING INDUSTRIAL BUILDING EXISTING INDUSTRIAL BUILDING EXISTING PRISION FACILITY EXISTING INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGEXISTING INDUSTRIAL BUILDING WITH OPEN TRAILER DROP LOTEXISTING ELECTRICAL SUB-STATION1 4 6 6 8 8 8 8 8 11 15CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGACITY OF ONTARIOSCALE: 1" = 100'-0" 0'20'100'50'200'EXISTING RAIL SPUREXISTING INDUSTRIAL BUILDING PROJECT DATA GENERAL PLAN: EXISTING ZONE: PROPOSED ZONE: SITE AREA: LEGAL DESCRIPTION FEE: EXISTING 6TH STREET AREA: PROPOSED STREET "A": LOT A REMNANT LOT (SEE PARCEL MAP) NET SITE AREA FOR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT: GENERAL INDUSTRIAL & HEAVY INDUSTRIAL GENERAL INDUSTRIAL (GI) AND HEAVY INDUSTRIAL (HI) GENERAL INDUSTRIAL (GI) 3,981,084 SF / 91.39 AC 58,562 SF / 1.34 AC 212,968 SF / 4.89 AC 5,031 SF / 0.11 AC 3,704,522 SF / 85.04 AC GROSS SITE AREA NET SITE AREA BUILDING AREA FOOTPRINT AREA: MEZZANINE (WHSE OR OFFICE): GROSS FLOOR AREA: BUILDING AREA BY USE: OFFICE AREA WAREHOUSE AREA GROSS COVERAGE: GROSS F.A.R.: AUTO PARKING: REQUIRED PARKING: OFFICE @ 1/250 WAREHOUSE 1-20K SF @ 1/1000 20K - 40K SF @ 1/2000 > 40K SF @ 1/4000 TOTAL PROVIDED PARKING: DOCK LOADING POSITIONS: TRAILER PARKING PROVIDED: TOTAL 3,981,084 SF 3,704,522 SF 2,141,770 SF 33,230 SF 2,175,000 SF 41,000 SF 2,134,000 SF 53.80% 0.546 746 STALLS 746 STALLS 252 DOCKS 252 TRAILERS BLDG 2 1,484,596 SF 1,302,112 SF 738,270 SF 14,230 SF 752,500 SF 16,000 SF 736,500 SF 49.73% .496 64 STALLS 20 STALLS 10 STALLS 174 STALLS 268 STALLS 268 STALLS 88 DOCKS 88 TRAILERS BLDG 1 2,484,027 SF 2,402,411 SF 1,403,500 SF 19,000 SF 1,422,500 SF 25,000 SF 1,397,500 SF 56.50% .573 100 STALLS 20 STALLS 10 STALLS 348 STALLS 478 STALLS 478 STALLS 164 DOCKS 164 TRAILERS BUILDING 2 SINGLE TENANT WAREHOUSE BUILDING FOOTPRINT: 738,270 SF MEZZANINE: 14,230 SF G.F.A.: 752,500 SF OCCUPANCY: B/S-1 CONSTRUCTION TYPE: III-B NUMBER OF STORIES: 1 MAX. HEIGHT: 50 FT. 136'8'-0"H TUBE STEEL FENCE GATEPOTENTIAL OFFICE AREA W/ MEZZANINE 1 4 5 6 7 7 T 11 23 23 N E W S T R E E T " A " 1,912'-0"185'-0"195'-0"710'-0"25' 185'-0"680'-0"163'-0"1,046'-0"66'82'52'40'66'25'77' 19'20'44'44'40' 92 DOCK DOORS (97) TRAILER POSITIONS 72 DOCK DOORS 48 DOCK DOORS40 DOCK DOORS43 TRAILER POSITIONS42 TRAILER POSITIONSGATEGATE GATE POTENTIAL OFFICE AREA POTENTIAL OFFICE AREA 4 4 11 (51) 50' TRAILER POSITIONS POTENTIAL OFFICE AREA LOT "A" (SEE PARCEL MAP) POTENTIAL OFFICE AREA W/ MEZZANINE 14 14 14 GATE 3-HR WALL 3 TRAILERS 11 RAIL DOCK 625'RAIL DOCK SHEET: SHEET TITLE RGA, OFFICE OF ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN COPYRIGHT CHK'D BY: DRAWN BY: CAD FILE NAME: OWNER PROJECT NO: RGA PROJECT NO: MARK DESCRIPTIONDATE SD CONSULTANT PROFESSIONAL SEALS RGA Office of Architectural Design 15231 Alton Parkway, Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92618 T 949-341-0920 FX 949-341-0922 FLOOR PLAN BUILDING 1 CS DR 00000.00 1A2-1P 19134-01-1A2-1P 19134.01 11/1/19 SCHEMATIC DESIGN BRIDGE POINT RANCHO CUCAMONGA 12434 4TH STREET CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA DRC 2020-00202 BRIDGE POINT RANCHO CUCAMONGA, LLC 11100 SANTA MONICA BLVD., SUITE 700 LOS ANGELES, CA 90025 TEL: 213-805-6667 CONTACT: BRENDAN KOLTER bkotler@bridgedev.com OWNER: APPLICANT: BRIDGE POINT RANCHO CUCAMONGA, LLC 11100 SANTA MONICA BLVD., SUITE 700 LOS ANGELES, CA 90025 TEL: 213-805-6667 CONTACT: BRENDAN KOLTER bkotler@bridgedev.com SD 1/8/20 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL SD 4/10/20 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL SD 8/25/20 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL SD 12/18/20 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL SD 1/15/21 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL FLOOR PLAN - BUILDING 1 SCALE: 1" = 60'-0" A B C D E F G H J K L M N O P B C D E F G H J K L M N O 1,912'-0" 64'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0" 1,912'-0" 64'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"806'-0"60'-0"60'-0"60'-0"60'-0"60'-0"60'-0"50'-0"60'-0"60'-0"60'-0"60'-0"60'-0"820'-0"55'-0"60'-0"60'-0"60'-0"60'-0"60'-0"60'-0"50'-0"60'-0"60'-0"60'-0"60'-0"60'-0"55'-0"1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 1. PAINTED CONCRETE TILT-UP WAREHOUSE / OFFICE / MANUFACTURING FACILITY. 2. PRIMARY ENTRANCE. 3. PAINTED 9' X 10' DOCK HIGH METAL TRUCK DOORS. 4. PAINTED 12' X 14' GRADE LEVEL METAL TRUCK DOORS. 5. PAINTED 3' X 7' METAL ACCESS MAN DOORS. 6. STRUCTURAL BUILDING COLUMN. 7. STOREFRONT: GLAZING SET IN CLEAR ANODIZED ALUMINUM 2" X 4 1/4" MIN. OFF-SET GLAZING SYSTEM. KEYNOTES 000 CONSTRUCTION NOTES: 1. BUILDING WALLS ARE PAINTED TILT-UP CONCRETE. TYPICAL PARAPET HEIGHT IS 42'-0" TO 50'-0". 2. BUILDING IS PROPOSED AS WAREHOUSE AND OFFICE ELECTRICAL ROOM POTENTIAL OFFICE AREA PROPOSED BUILDING TYPE III-B FULLY SPRINKLERED B / S1 / F1 OCCUPANCY 1 92 DOCK POSITIONS 92 DOCK POSITIONS 2 2 3 43 3 43 5 5 5 5 6 7 7 7 7RP UPRP UPA 1A2-2 B 1A2-2 0'20'100'50'200' A.1 O.9 48'-0"48'-0"4 4RP UPRP UP7 C 1A2-2 POTENTIAL OFFICE AREA POTENTIAL OFFICE AREA SHEET: SHEET TITLE RGA, OFFICE OF ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN COPYRIGHT CHK'D BY: DRAWN BY: CAD FILE NAME: OWNER PROJECT NO: RGA PROJECT NO: MARK DESCRIPTIONDATE SD CONSULTANT PROFESSIONAL SEALS RGA Office of Architectural Design 15231 Alton Parkway, Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92618 T 949-341-0920 FX 949-341-0922 SD SD CS DR 00000.00 19134-01-1A2-2P 19134.01 11/1/19 SCHEMATIC DESIGN BRIDGE POINT RANCHO CUCAMONGA 12434 4TH STREET CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA BRIDGE POINT RANCHO CUCAMONGA, LLC 11100 SANTA MONICA BLVD., SUITE 700 LOS ANGELES, CA 90025 TEL: 213-805-6667 CONTACT: BRENDAN KOLTER bkotler@bridgedev.com OWNER: APPLICANT: BRIDGE POINT RANCHO CUCAMONGA, LLC 11100 SANTA MONICA BLVD., SUITE 700 LOS ANGELES, CA 90025 TEL: 213-805-6667 CONTACT: BRENDAN KOLTER bkotler@bridgedev.com 1/8/20 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL 4/10/20 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL PARTIAL ENLARGED FLOOR PLANS BUILDING 1 1A2-2P DRC 2020-00202 SD 8/25/20 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL SD 1/15/21 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL ENLARGED SOUTHWEST FLOOR PLAN - BUILDING 1 SCALE: 1" = 20'-0" ELECTRICAL ROOM RAMP UPWAREHOUSE AREA ENLARGED SOUTHEAST FLOOR PLAN - BUILDING 1 SCALE: 1" = 20'-0" WAREHOUSE AREA A B 3 4 6"X6" CURB6"X6" CURB6"X6" CURB7'-4" CLR.7'-4" CLR.5'-0" CLR. 28'-6" 3'-0"2'-8"7'-8"7'-8"8'-0" TRASH ENCLOSURE WALLSTRASH ENCLOSURE PLAN VIEW SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 18"6"X6" CURB5'-0" CLR.8'-0" TRASH ENCLOSURE WALLS3'-0"2'-8"14'-0"TRASH ENCLOSURE FRONT ELEVATION SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" PAINTED METAL GATE - 3" X 3" X 3/8" ANGLE FRAME WITH 16 GA. CORRUGATED PANEL - PROVIDE CROSS BRACE AS SHOWN CONCRETE TILT-UP WALL - SEE STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS 8'-0"4"2"6"3'-0"3'-0"6"5"1"40" A.F.F.2 7 7 RAMP UP3 4 ENLARGED NORTHEAST FLOOR PLAN - BUILDING 1 SCALE: 1" = 20'-0"C WAREHOUSE AREA NOTE: TOTAL OFFICE AREA NOT TO EXCEED 25,000 SF C POTENTIAL OFFICE AREA POTENTIAL OFFICE AREA POTENTIAL OFFICE AREA W/ MEZZANINE SHEET: SHEET TITLE RGA, OFFICE OF ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN COPYRIGHT CHK'D BY: DRAWN BY: CAD FILE NAME: OWNER PROJECT NO: RGA PROJECT NO: MARK DESCRIPTIONDATE SD CONSULTANT PROFESSIONAL SEALS RGA Office of Architectural Design 15231 Alton Parkway, Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92618 T 949-341-0920 FX 949-341-0922 ROOF PLANS BUILDING 1 CS DR 00000.00 1A2-3P 19134-01-1A2-3P 19134.01 11/1/19 SCHEMATIC DESIGN BRIDGE POINT RANCHO CUCAMONGA 12434 4TH STREET CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA BRIDGE POINT RANCHO CUCAMONGA, LLC 11100 SANTA MONICA BLVD., SUITE 700 LOS ANGELES, CA 90025 TEL: 213-805-6667 CONTACT: BRENDAN KOLTER bkotler@bridgedev.com OWNER: APPLICANT: BRIDGE POINT RANCHO CUCAMONGA, LLC 11100 SANTA MONICA BLVD., SUITE 700 LOS ANGELES, CA 90025 TEL: 213-805-6667 CONTACT: BRENDAN KOLTER bkotler@bridgedev.com SD 1/8/20 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL SD 4/10/20 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL DRC 2020-00202 SD 8/25/20 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL SD 1/15/21 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL RIDGELINE RIDGELINE RIDGELINE APPROX. LAYOUT FOR REQUIRED LOW-PROFILE WAREHOUSE EXHAUST FANS APPROX. 4 FT. HEIGHT - ALL UNITS SHALL BE SCREENED BY LINE OF SIGHT FROM BUILDING PARAPETS APPROX. LAYOUT FOR REQUIRED LOW-PROFILE WAREHOUSE EXHAUST FANS APPROX. 4 FT. HEIGHT - ALL UNITS SHALL BE SCREENED BY LINE OF SIGHT FROM BUILDING PARAPETS MECHANICAL ZONE (UNITS SHALL BE SCREENED FROM VIEW BY HEIGHTENED PARAPET WALLS) MECHANICAL ZONE (UNITS SHALL BE SCREENED FROM VIEW BY HEIGHTENED PARAPET WALLS) ROOF PLAN - BUILDING 1 SCALE: 1" = 60'-0" 0'20'100'50'200' PARTIAL ENLARGED ROOF PLAN SCALE: 1" = 30'-0" 0'10'20'100'50' MECHANICAL ZONE (UNITS SHALL BE SCREENED FROM VIEW BY HEIGHTENED PARAPET WALLS) SEE ENLARGED PLAN ABOVE A B C D E F G H J K L M N O P B C D E F G H J K L M N O 1,912'-0" 64'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0" 1,912'-0" 64'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"806'-0"60'-0"60'-0"60'-0"60'-0"60'-0"60'-0"50'-0"60'-0"60'-0"60'-0"60'-0"60'-0"820'-0"55'-0"60'-0"60'-0"60'-0"60'-0"60'-0"60'-0"50'-0"60'-0"60'-0"60'-0"60'-0"60'-0"55'-0"1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 A.1 O.9 48'-0"48'-0"MECHANICAL ZONE (UNITS SHALL BE SCREENED FROM VIEW BY HEIGHTENED PARAPET WALLS) 8'-0"13"6'-3"8"TYPICAL TUBE STEEL FENCE ELEVATION SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" TUBE STEL FENCE PER DETAIL, BLACK IN COLOR SIMILAR SITE LIGHTING STYLE SCALE: N.T.S.1MAX TOP OF LIGHT AT 25'-0" TYPICAL EQUIPMENT SCREEN LINE OF SIGHTPROPERTY LINE LINE OF SI G H T SCALE 1" = 30'-0" NOTE: LINE OF SIGHT TAKEN FROM 6'-0" ABOVE FINISH GRADE 2 FINISH FLOOR PROPOSED PACKAGE UNIT BUILDING PARAPET HEIGHT TILT-UP BUILDING CL. OF 4TH STREET42'T.O.P. 60'34'17'26'17'11' P-1. FIELD COLOR SW 7005 - PURE WHITE P-2. LIGHT ACCENT COLOR SW 7073 - NETWORK GRAY P-3. DARK ACCENT COLOR SW 7076 - CYBERSPACE P-4. ACCENT COLOR SW 6804 - DIGNITY BLUE GL-5. GLASS - PRIMARY WINDOW PPG SOLARCOOL PACIFICA FINISH SCHEDULE:RGA Office of Architectural Design 15231 Alton Parkway, Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92618 T 949-341-0920 FX 949-341-0922 SHEET: SHEET TITLE RGA, OFFICE OF ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN COPYRIGHT CHK'D BY: DRAWN BY: CAD FILE NAME: OWNER PROJECT NO: RGA PROJECT NO: MARK DESCRIPTIONDATE SD CONSULTANT PROFESSIONAL SEALS EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS BUILDING 1 CS DR 00000.00 1A3-1P 19134-01-1A3-1P 19134.01 11/1/19 SCHEMATIC DESIGN BRIDGE POINT RANCHO CUCAMONGA, LLC 11100 SANTA MONICA BLVD., SUITE 700 LOS ANGELES, CA 90025 TEL: 213-805-6667 CONTACT: BRENDAN KOLTER bkotler@bridgedev.com OWNER: APPLICANT: BRIDGE POINT RANCHO CUCAMONGA, LLC 11100 SANTA MONICA BLVD., SUITE 700 LOS ANGELES, CA 90025 TEL: 213-805-6667 CONTACT: BRENDAN KOLTER bkotler@bridgedev.com BRIDGE POINT RANCHO CUCAMONGA 12434 4TH STREET CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA SD 1/8/20 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL DRC 2020-00202 4/10/20 PLANNING RESUBMITTALSD SD 8/25/20 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL SD 1/15/21 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL OVERALL SOUTH ELEVATION SCALE: 1" = 30'-0" KEYNOTES 1. PRIMARY STOREFRONT ENTRANCE. 2. PAINTED 12' WIDE X 15' HIGH LEVEL VERTICAL LIFT TRUCK DOOR. 3. PAINTED 9' WIDE X 10' HIGH VERTICAL LIFT TRUCK DOOR. 4. 3' X 7' PAINTED METAL MAN DOOR. 5. 2" WIDE X 3/4" DEEP HORIZONTAL / VERTICAL REVEAL. 6. BLUE GLASS IN CLEAR ALUMINUM STOREFRONT FRAME SYSTEM. 7. PAINTED CONCRETE TILT-UP EXTERIOR WALL CONSTRUCTION. 8. PROPOSED FUTURE TENANT SIGNAGE LOCATION UNDER SEPARATE SIGN PACKAGE. NOT INCLUDED IN THIS SUBMITTAL PACKAGE. 9. 8' HIGH BLACK TUBULAR STEEL ROLLING GATE W/ VIEW OBSCURING PERFORATED MESH - TYP. AT YARD ENTRANCES. 10. TYP. 8' HIGH PAINTED CONCRETE SCREEN WALL ELEVATION W/ ACCENT REVEALS AND PAINTED ACCENTS TO MATCH BUILDING ARCHITECTURE. 11. ALUMINUM METAL PANEL ENTRY CANOPY. 12. ACCENT PAINTED CONCRETE PANEL. 13. INTERIOR ROOF DRAIN. 14. ALUMINUM PANEL CORNICE ASSEMBLY. 15. NOT USED. 16. PAINTED CONCRETE AND STEEL TRELLIS LUNCH CANOPY STRUCTURE. 17. CLEAR ANODIZED ALUMINUM SUNSHADE DEVICE OVER WINDOWS FOR SOLAR CONTROL. OFFICE CORNER - PARTIAL SOUTH ELEVATION - WEST END SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0" PARTIAL SOUTH ELEVATION - CENTER SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0" SEE BLOWUP BELOW RIGHTSEE BLOWUP AT BOTTOM OF SHEET 46'-0"50'-0"41'-0"46'-0"41'-0"46'-0"50'-0"00 S I G N A G E S I G N A G E S I G N A G E SEE BLOWUP BELOW LEFT S I G N A G E OFFICE CORNER - PARTIAL SOUTH ELEVATION - EAST END SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0" 11 9 109 88 11111111 1111 44 666 6 55 4 6 54 66 2'-0"41'-0"46'-0"2'-0"8'-0"8'-0"12141214 16 12 1717 41'-0"46'-0"10 16 RGA Office of Architectural Design 15231 Alton Parkway, Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92618 T 949-341-0920 FX 949-341-0922 SHEET: SHEET TITLE RGA, OFFICE OF ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN COPYRIGHT CHK'D BY: DRAWN BY: CAD FILE NAME: OWNER PROJECT NO: RGA PROJECT NO: MARK DESCRIPTIONDATE SD CONSULTANT PROFESSIONAL SEALS EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS BUILDING 1 CS DR 00000.00 1A3-2P 19134-01-1A3-2P 19134.01 11/1/19 SCHEMATIC DESIGN DRC 2020-00202 BRIDGE POINT RANCHO CUCAMONGA, LLC 11100 SANTA MONICA BLVD., SUITE 700 LOS ANGELES, CA 90025 TEL: 213-805-6667 CONTACT: BRENDAN KOLTER bkotler@bridgedev.com OWNER: APPLICANT: BRIDGE POINT RANCHO CUCAMONGA, LLC 11100 SANTA MONICA BLVD., SUITE 700 LOS ANGELES, CA 90025 TEL: 213-805-6667 CONTACT: BRENDAN KOLTER bkotler@bridgedev.com BRIDGE POINT RANCHO CUCAMONGA 12434 4TH STREET CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA SD 1/8/20 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL 4/10/20 PLANNING RESUBMITTALSD SD 8/25/20 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL SD 1/15/21 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL OVERALL WEST ELEVATION (EAST ELEVATION IS SIMILAR / REVERSED) SCALE: 1" = 60'-0" PARTIAL ENLARGED WEST ELEVATION - NORTH END SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0" PARTIAL ENLARGED WEST ELEVATION - SOUTH END SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0" OVERALL NORTH ELEVATION SCALE: 1" = 30'-0" SEE BLOWUP BOTTOM SHEETSEE BLOWUP BELOW 42'-0"2'-0"40'-0"40'-0"41'-0"46'-0"42'46'42'-0"50'-0"4 13 1366 6 3 3 3 2 13 5 5 64 44 66 6 11 11 SEE BLOWUP BELOW PARTIAL ENLARGED NORTH ELEVATION 6 4 4'-0"4'4'50'-0"SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0" 121417 2 5 6 6 14 46'-0"6 RGA Office of Architectural Design 15231 Alton Parkway, Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92618 T 949-341-0920 FX 949-341-0922 SHEET: SHEET TITLE RGA, OFFICE OF ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN COPYRIGHT CHK'D BY: DRAWN BY: CAD FILE NAME: OWNER PROJECT NO: RGA PROJECT NO: MARK DESCRIPTIONDATE SD CONSULTANT PROFESSIONAL SEALS EXTERIOR MODEL IMAGES BUILDING 1 CS DR 00000.00 1A3-3P 19134-01-1A3-3P 19134.01 11/1/19 SCHEMATIC DESIGN BRIDGE POINT RANCHO CUCAMONGA 12434 4TH STREET CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA DRC 2019-00880 SD 1/8/20 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL BRIDGE POINT RANCHO CUCAMONGA, LLC 1600 E. FRANKLIN AVENUE, SUITE D EL SEGUNDO, CA 90024 TEL: 818-674-6770 CONTACT: BRENDAN KOLTER bkotler@bridgedev.com OWNER: APPLICANT: BRIDGE DEVELOPMENT PARTNERS, LLC 1600 E. FRANKLIN AVENUE, SUITE D EL SEGUNDO, CA 90024 TEL: 818-674-6770 CONTACT: BRENDAN KOLTER bkotler@bridgedev.com 4/10/20 PLANNING RESUBMITTALSD SD 8/25/20 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL BUILDING 1 - STREET VIEW FROM SOUTHWEST CORNER AT 4TH STREET BUILDING 1 - BUILDING CORNER VIEW FROM SOUTHEAST CORNER AT MAIN ENTRANCE SHEET: SHEET TITLE RGA, OFFICE OF ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN COPYRIGHT CHK'D BY: DRAWN BY: CAD FILE NAME: OWNER PROJECT NO: RGA PROJECT NO: MARK DESCRIPTIONDATE SD CONSULTANT PROFESSIONAL SEALS RGA Office of Architectural Design 15231 Alton Parkway, Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92618 T 949-341-0920 FX 949-341-0922 FLOOR PLAN BUILDING 2 CS DR 00000.00 2A2-1P 19134-01-2A2-1P 19134.01 11/1/19 SCHEMATIC DESIGN BRIDGE POINT RANCHO CUCAMONGA XXXX 6TH STREET CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA BRIDGE POINT RANCHO CUCAMONGA, LLC 11100 SANTA MONICA BLVD., SUITE 700 LOS ANGELES, CA 90025 TEL: 213-805-6667 CONTACT: BRENDAN KOLTER bkotler@bridgedev.com OWNER: APPLICANT: BRIDGE POINT RANCHO CUCAMONGA, LLC 11100 SANTA MONICA BLVD., SUITE 700 LOS ANGELES, CA 90025 TEL: 213-805-6667 CONTACT: BRENDAN KOLTER bkotler@bridgedev.com SD 1/8/20 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL SD 4/10/20 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL DRC 2020-00202 SD 8/25/20 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL SD 1/15/21 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL FLOOR PLAN - BUILDING 2 SCALE: 1" = 40'-0" 1. PAINTED CONCRETE TILT-UP WAREHOUSE / OFFICE / MANUFACTURING FACILITY. 2. PRIMARY ENTRANCE. 3. PAINTED 9' X 10' DOCK HIGH METAL TRUCK DOORS. 4. PAINTED 12' X 14' GRADE LEVEL METAL TRUCK DOORS. 5. PAINTED 3' X 7' METAL ACCESS MAN DOORS. 6. STRUCTURAL BUILDING COLUMN. 7. STOREFRONT: GLAZING SET IN CLEAR ANODIZED ALUMINUM 2" X 4 1/4" MIN. OFF-SET GLAZING SYSTEM. KEYNOTES 000 CONSTRUCTION NOTES: 1. BUILDING WALLS ARE PAINTED TILT-UP CONCRETE. TYPICAL PARAPET HEIGHT IS 42'-0" TO 50'-0". 2. BUILDING IS PROPOSED AS WAREHOUSE AND OFFICE 1,046'-0" 56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"38'-0" 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 P784'-0"52'-0"1,046'-0" 56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"38'-0" 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 A.1 772'-0"60'-0"50'-0"50'-0"50'-0"60'-0"40'-0"O B N C M D L E K F J G H 50'-0"60'-0"60'-0"60'-0"60'-0"60'-0"60'-0"A 60'-0"50'-0"50'-0"50'-0"60'-0"52'-0"O B N C M D L E K F J G H 50'-0"60'-0"60'-0"60'-0"60'-0"60'-0"60'-0"0'10'20'100'50' 2 7 7 51 DOCK DOORS 40 DOCK DOORS 4RP UPRP UP4 53 4 RP UP53 5 5 7 A 2A2-2 B 2A2-2 C 2A2-2 POTENTIAL OFFICE AREA POTENTIAL OFFICE AREA POTENTIAL OFFICE AREA W/ MEZZANINE P 52'-0"ELECTRICAL ROOM SHEET: SHEET TITLE RGA, OFFICE OF ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN COPYRIGHT CHK'D BY: DRAWN BY: CAD FILE NAME: OWNER PROJECT NO: RGA PROJECT NO: MARK DESCRIPTIONDATE SD CONSULTANT PROFESSIONAL SEALS RGA Office of Architectural Design 15231 Alton Parkway, Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92618 T 949-341-0920 FX 949-341-0922 SD SD CS DR 00000.00 19134-01-2A2-2P 19134.01 11/1/19 SCHEMATIC DESIGN BRIDGE POINT RANCHO CUCAMONGA XXXXX 6TH STREET CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA BRIDGE POINT RANCHO CUCAMONGA, LLC 11100 SANTA MONICA BLVD., SUITE 700 LOS ANGELES, CA 90025 TEL: 213-805-6667 CONTACT: BRENDAN KOLTER bkotler@bridgedev.com OWNER: APPLICANT: BRIDGE POINT RANCHO CUCAMONGA, LLC 11100 SANTA MONICA BLVD., SUITE 700 LOS ANGELES, CA 90025 TEL: 213-805-6667 CONTACT: BRENDAN KOLTER bkotler@bridgedev.com 1/8/20 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL 4/10/20 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL PARTIAL ENLARGED FLOOR PLANS BUILDING 2 2A2-2P DRC 2019-00880 SD 8/25/20 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL SD 1/15/21 PLANNING RESUBMITTALELECTRICAL ROOMRAMP UPWAREHOUSE AREA 2 3 4 7 ENLARGED SOUTHEAST FLOOR PLAN - BUILDING 2 SCALE: 1" = 20'-0" ENLARGED NORTHEAST FLOOR PLAN - BUILDING 2 SCALE: 1" = 20'-0"A B6"X6" CURB6"X6" CURB6"X6" CURB7'-4" CLR.7'-4" CLR.5'-0" CLR. 28'-6" 3'-0"2'-8"7'-8"7'-8"8'-0" TRASH ENCLOSURE WALLSTRASH ENCLOSURE PLAN VIEW SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 18"6"X6" CURB5'-0" CLR.8'-0" TRASH ENCLOSURE WALLS3'-0"2'-8"14'-0"TRASH ENCLOSURE FRONT ELEVATION SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" PAINTED METAL GATE - 3" X 3" X 3/8" ANGLE FRAME WITH 16 GA. CORRUGATED PANEL - PROVIDE CROSS BRACE AS SHOWN CONCRETE TILT-UP WALL - SEE STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS 8'-0"4"2"6"3'-0"3'-0"6"5"1"40" A.F.F.RAMP UP3 4 7 7 7 WAREHOUSE AREA NOTE: TOTAL OFFICE AREA NOT TO EXCEED 16,000 SF ENLARGED NORTHWEST FLOOR PLAN - BUILDING 2 SCALE: 1" = 20'-0"C WAREHOUSE AREA RAMP UP34 7 7 5 5 POTENTIAL OFFICE AREA POTENTIAL OFFICE AREA POTENTIAL OFFICE AREA W/ MEZZANINE SHEET: SHEET TITLE RGA, OFFICE OF ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN COPYRIGHT CHK'D BY: DRAWN BY: CAD FILE NAME: OWNER PROJECT NO: RGA PROJECT NO: MARK DESCRIPTIONDATE SD CONSULTANT PROFESSIONAL SEALS RGA Office of Architectural Design 15231 Alton Parkway, Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92618 T 949-341-0920 FX 949-341-0922 ROOF PLAN BUILDING 2 CS DR 00000.00 2A2-3P 19134-01-2A2-3P 19134.01 11/1/19 SCHEMATIC DESIGN BRIDGE POINT RANCHO CUCAMONGA XXXX 6TH STREET CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA BRIDGE POINT RANCHO CUCAMONGA, LLC 11100 SANTA MONICA BLVD., SUITE 700 LOS ANGELES, CA 90025 TEL: 213-805-6667 CONTACT: BRENDAN KOLTER bkotler@bridgedev.com OWNER: APPLICANT: BRIDGE POINT RANCHO CUCAMONGA, LLC 11100 SANTA MONICA BLVD., SUITE 700 LOS ANGELES, CA 90025 TEL: 213-805-6667 CONTACT: BRENDAN KOLTER bkotler@bridgedev.com SD 1/8/20 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL SD 4/10/20 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL DRC 2020-00202 SD 8/25/20 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL SD 1/15/21 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL RIDGELINE APPROX. LAYOUT FOR REQUIRED LOW-PROFILE WAREHOUSE EXHAUST FANS APPROX. 4 FT. HEIGHT - ALL UNITS SHALL BE SCREENED BY LINE OF SIGHT FROM BUILDING PARAPETS MECHANICAL ZONE (UNITS SHALL BE SCREENED FROM VIEW BY HEIGHTENED PARAPET WALLS) RIDGELINE 1,046'-0" 56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"38'-0" 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 P784'-0"52'-0"1,046'-0" 56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"56'-0"38'-0" 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 A.1 772'-0"60'-0"50'-0"50'-0"50'-0"60'-0"40'-0"O B N C M D L E K F J G H 50'-0"60'-0"60'-0"60'-0"60'-0"60'-0"60'-0"A 60'-0"50'-0"50'-0"50'-0"60'-0"52'-0"O B N C M D L E K F J G H 50'-0"60'-0"60'-0"60'-0"60'-0"60'-0"60'-0"ROOF PLAN - BUILDING 2 SCALE: 1" = 40'-0" 0'10'20'100'50' MECHANICAL ZONE (UNITS SHALL BE SCREENED FROM VIEW BY HEIGHTENED PARAPET WALLS) RIDGELINE MECHANICAL ZONE (UNITS SHALL BE SCREENED FROM VIEW BY HEIGHTENED PARAPET WALLS) P 52'-0" 8'-0"13"6'-3"8"TYPICAL TUBE STEEL FENCE ELEVATION SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" TUBE STEL FENCE PER DETAIL, BLACK IN COLOR SIMILAR SITE LIGHTING STYLE SCALE: N.T.S.1MAX TOP OF LIGHT AT 25'-0" TYPICAL EQUIPMENT SCREEN LINE OF SIGHTPROPERTY LINE LINE OF SI G H T SCALE 1" = 30'-0" NOTE: LINE OF SIGHT TAKEN FROM 6'-0" ABOVE FINISH GRADE 2 FINISH FLOOR PROPOSED PACKAGE UNIT BUILDING PARAPET HEIGHT TILT-UP BUILDING CL. OF 4TH STREET42'T.O.P. 60'34'17'26'17'11' P-1. FIELD COLOR SW 7005 - PURE WHITE P-2. LIGHT ACCENT COLOR SW 7073 - NETWORK GRAY P-3. DARK ACCENT COLOR SW 7076 - CYBERSPACE P-4. ACCENT COLOR SW 6804 - DIGNITY BLUE GL-5. GLASS - PRIMARY WINDOW PPG SOLARCOOL PACIFICA FINISH SCHEDULE:RGA Office of Architectural Design 15231 Alton Parkway, Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92618 T 949-341-0920 FX 949-341-0922 SHEET: SHEET TITLE RGA, OFFICE OF ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN COPYRIGHT CHK'D BY: DRAWN BY: CAD FILE NAME: OWNER PROJECT NO: RGA PROJECT NO: MARK DESCRIPTIONDATE SD CONSULTANT PROFESSIONAL SEALS EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS BUILDING 2 CS DR 00000.00 2A3-1P 19134-01-2A3-1P 19134.01 11/1/19 SCHEMATIC DESIGN BRIDGE POINT RANCHO CUCAMONGA, LLC 11100 SANTA MONICA BLVD., SUITE 700 LOS ANGELES, CA 90025 TEL: 213-805-6667 CONTACT: BRENDAN KOLTER bkotler@bridgedev.com OWNER: APPLICANT: BRIDGE POINT RANCHO CUCAMONGA, LLC 11100 SANTA MONICA BLVD., SUITE 700 LOS ANGELES, CA 90025 TEL: 213-805-6667 CONTACT: BRENDAN KOLTER bkotler@bridgedev.com BRIDGE POINT RANCHO CUCAMONGA XXXXX 6TH STREET CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA SD 1/8/20 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL DRC 2020-00202 4/10/20 PLANNING RESUBMITTALSD SD 8/25/20 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL SD 1/15/21 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL OVERALL SOUTH ELEVATION SCALE: 1" = 40'-0" KEYNOTES PARTIAL SOUTH ELEVATION - WEST END SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0" SEE BLOWUP BELOW RIGHT 41'-0"46'-0"40'-0"00 S I G N A G E S I G N A G E SEE BLOWUP BELOW LEFT OFFICE CORNER - PARTIAL SOUTH ELEVATION - EAST END SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0" 8 11435542'-0"OVERALL EAST ELEVATION SCALE: 1" = 30'-0"46'-0"44'-0"SEE BLOWUP ON SHEET 2A3-2SEE BLOWUP ON SHEET 2A3-2 13 1. PRIMARY STOREFRONT ENTRANCE. 2. PAINTED 12' WIDE X 15' HIGH LEVEL VERTICAL LIFT TRUCK DOOR. 3. PAINTED 9' WIDE X 10' HIGH VERTICAL LIFT TRUCK DOOR. 4. 3' X 7' PAINTED METAL MAN DOOR. 5. 2" WIDE X 3/4" DEEP HORIZONTAL / VERTICAL REVEAL. 6. BLUE GLASS IN CLEAR ALUMINUM STOREFRONT FRAME SYSTEM. 7. PAINTED CONCRETE TILT-UP EXTERIOR WALL CONSTRUCTION. 8. PROPOSED FUTURE TENANT SIGNAGE LOCATION UNDER SEPARATE SIGN PACKAGE. NOT INCLUDED IN THIS SUBMITTAL PACKAGE. 9. 8' HIGH BLACK TUBULAR STEEL ROLLING GATE W/ VIEW OBSCURING PERFORATED MESH - TYP. AT YARD ENTRANCES. 10. TYP. 8' HIGH PAINTED CONCRETE SCREEN WALL ELEVATION W/ ACCENT REVEALS AND PAINTED ACCENTS TO MATCH BUILDING ARCHITECTURE. 11. ALUMINUM METAL PANEL ENTRY CANOPY. 12. ACCENT PAINTED CONCRETE PANEL. 13. INTERIOR ROOF DRAIN. 14. ALUMINUM PANEL CORNICE ASSEMBLY. 15. CLEAR ANODIZED ALUMINUM SUNSHADE DEVICE OVER WINDOWS FOR SOLAR CONTROL. 141215 4 13 2'-0" RGA Office of Architectural Design 15231 Alton Parkway, Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92618 T 949-341-0920 FX 949-341-0922 SHEET: SHEET TITLE RGA, OFFICE OF ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN COPYRIGHT CHK'D BY: DRAWN BY: CAD FILE NAME: OWNER PROJECT NO: RGA PROJECT NO: MARK DESCRIPTIONDATE SD CONSULTANT PROFESSIONAL SEALS EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS BUILDING 2 CS DR 00000.00 2A3-2P 19134-01-2A3-2P 19134.01 11/1/19 SCHEMATIC DESIGN BRIDGE POINT RANCHO CUCAMONGA, LLC 11100 SANTA MONICA BLVD., SUITE 700 LOS ANGELES, CA 90025 TEL: 213-805-6667 CONTACT: BRENDAN KOLTER bkotler@bridgedev.com OWNER: APPLICANT: BRIDGE POINT RANCHO CUCAMONGA, LLC 11100 SANTA MONICA BLVD., SUITE 700 LOS ANGELES, CA 90025 TEL: 213-805-6667 CONTACT: BRENDAN KOLTER bkotler@bridgedev.com BRIDGE POINT RANCHO CUCAMONGA XXXXX 6TH STREET CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA SD 1/8/20 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL DRC 2020-00202 4/10/20 PLANNING RESUBMITTALSD SD 8/25/20 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL SD 1/15/21 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL OVERALL NORTH ELEVATION SCALE: 1" = 40'-0" OFFICE CORNER - PARTIAL EAST ELEVATION - SOUTH END SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0"44'-0"46'-0"S I G N A G E SEE BLOWUP BELOW S I G N A G E OFFICE CORNER - PARTIAL EAST ELEVATION - NORTH END SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0" 11 910910 88 1171174 666 6 55 2'-0"44'-0"2'-0"OVERALL WEST ELEVATION SCALE: 1" = 30'-0"8'-0"41'-0"OFFICE CORNER - PARTIAL NORTH ELEVATION - WEST END SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0" 11 4 66 541'-0"46'-0"4'-0"40'-0"2'-0"4 2 37 13 14 14 14 15 15 1541'-0"12 2'-0"41'-0"44'-0"42'-0"44'-0"41'-0"S I G N A G E 8 13 50'-0"44'-0" RGA Office of Architectural Design 15231 Alton Parkway, Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92618 T 949-341-0920 FX 949-341-0922 SHEET: SHEET TITLE RGA, OFFICE OF ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN COPYRIGHT CHK'D BY: DRAWN BY: CAD FILE NAME: OWNER PROJECT NO: RGA PROJECT NO: MARK DESCRIPTIONDATE SD CONSULTANT PROFESSIONAL SEALS EXTERIOR MODEL IMAGES BUILDING 2 CS DR 00000.00 2A3-3P 19134-01-2A3-3P 19134.01 11/1/19 SCHEMATIC DESIGN BRIDGE POINT RANCHO CUCAMONGA 12434 4TH STREET CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA DRC 2020-00202 SD 1/8/20 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL BRIDGE POINT RANCHO CUCAMONGA, LLC 11100 SANTA MONICA BLVD., SUITE 700 LOS ANGELES, CA 90025 TEL: 213-805-6667 CONTACT: BRENDAN KOLTER bkotler@bridgedev.com OWNER: APPLICANT: BRIDGE POINT RANCHO CUCAMONGA, LLC 11100 SANTA MONICA BLVD., SUITE 700 LOS ANGELES, CA 90025 TEL: 213-805-6667 CONTACT: BRENDAN KOLTER bkotler@bridgedev.com 4/10/20 PLANNING RESUBMITTALSD SD 8/25/20 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL BUILDING 2 - STREET VIEW FROM NORTHEAST CORNER AT 6TH STREET BUILDING 2 - BUILDING CORNER VIEW FROM NORTHEAST CORNER AT MAIN ENTRANCE 12434 4TH STREETCITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA,CALIFORNIASHEET:SHEET TITLERGA, OFFICE OF ARCHITECTURAL DESIGNCOPYRIGHTCHK'D BY:DRAWN BY:CAD FILE NAME:K2M PROJECT NO:OWNER PROJECT NO:MARKDESCRIPTIONDATECONSULTANTPROFESSIONAL SEALS20001RGA PROJECT NO:19134.01BRIDGE POINTRANCHO CUCAMONGA00000.00KMKM10 HUGHES, SUITE A203, IRVINE, CA 92618O: 949-419-9908 F: 949-419-9870PROJECT NAMEBRIDGE POINT RANCHO CUCAMONGA, LLC11100 SANTA MONICA BLVD., SUITE 700LOS ANGELES, CA 90025TEL: 213-805-6667CONTACT: BRENDAN KOLTERbkotler@bridgedev.comOWNER:APPLICANT:BRIDGE POINT RANCHO CUCAMONGA, LLC11100 SANTA MONICA BLVD., SUITE 700LOS ANGELES, CA 90025TEL: 213-805-6667CONTACT: BRENDAN KOLTERbkotler@bridgedev.comNOT FOR CONSTRUCTION1/8/20REVISED PLANNING SET4/12/20REVISED PLANNING SET8/7/20REVISED PLANNING SET12/11/20REVISED PLANNING SET01/05/21REVISED PLANNING SETSL120001SL1SITE LIGHTING OVERALL PLANASL2ASL3ASL4ASL5SITE LIGHTING OVERALL PLANSCALE: 1"=100'A30"24" MIN.A.C. SURFACEBASESLOPE TO DRAIN 22.5 FT SQUARESTRAIGHT STEEL25 FTPOLE BASE24"GENERAL NOTES:1.PROVIDE 30" CLEAR POLE BASE ABOVEFINISHED GRADE OR AS DIRECTED BYARCHITECT.2.PROVIDE 24" DIAMETER SANDBLASTEDSMOOTH CONCRETE POLE BASE WITH 1"CHAMFER FULL CIRCUMFERENCE.3.POLE BASE SHALL BE DESIGNED BY ASTRUCTURAL PROFESSIONAL LICENSEDENGINEER IN THE STATE OF THE PROJECT.4.POLE ANCHORED TO BASE WITH FACTORYANCHOR BOLTS.5.ALL POLES SHALL BE LOCATED INSIDE THEPROPERTY LINE AND AT LEAST 3' FROMCURBS. AVOID ALL OBSTRUCTIONS,EXCEPT AT PROPERTY LINES WITH OTHERBUILDINGS.CAR LOT POLE BASE DETAILPB30N.T.S.SCALEPROVIDE HAND HOLEWITH GROUND LUGANCHOR BOLTS NUMBERAND PATTERN PERMANUFACTURE DATA1"x45 DEGREECHAMFER ATTOP EDGEREBAR PER STRUCTURALENGINEER DRAWINGSBRANCHCIRCUITCONDUITS54"24" MIN.A.C. SURFACEBASESLOPE TO DRAIN 25 FTPOLE BASE24"GENERAL NOTES:1.PROVIDE 54" CLEAR POLE BASE ABOVEFINISHED GRADE OR AS DIRECTED BYARCHITECT2.PROVIDE 24" DIAMETER SANDBLASTEDSMOOTH CONCRETE POLE BASE WITH 1"CHAMFER FULL CIRCUMFERENCE.3.POLE BASE SHALL BE DESIGNED BY ASTRUCTURAL PROFESSIONAL LICENSEDENGINEER IN THE STATE OF THE PROJECT.4.POLE ANCHORED TO BASE WITH FACTORYANCHOR BOLTS.5.ALL POLES SHALL BE LOCATED INSIDE THEPROPERTY LINE AND AT LEAST 3' FROMCURBS. AVOID ALL OBSTRUCTIONS,EXCEPT AT PROPERTY LINES WITH OTHERBUILDINGS.TRUCK LOT POLE BASE DETAILPB54N.T.S.SCALEPROVIDE HAND HOLEWITH GROUND LUGANCHOR BOLTS NUMBERAND PATTERN PERMANUFACTURE DATA1"x45 DEGREECHAMFER ATTOP EDGEREBAR PER STRUCTURALENGINEER DRAWINGSBRANCHCIRCUITCONDUITS20.5 FT SQUARESTRAIGHT STEELASL6ASL7StatisticsDescriptionSymbolAvgMaxMinMax/MinAvg/MinBldg 1 East Truck Area1.6 fc3.7 fc0.1 fc37.0:116.0:1Bldg 1 North Auto Parking2.1 fc3.2 fc0.5 fc6.4:14.2:1Bldg 1 North East Auto Parking2.2 fc3.6 fc1.2 fc3.0:11.8:1Bldg 1 North East Drive2.3 fc3.3 fc0.9 fc3.7:12.6:1Bldg 1 North West Auto Parking2.3 fc3.4 fc1.3 fc2.6:11.8:1Bldg 1 SE WALK2.1 fc3.1 fc1.1 fc2.8:11.9:1Bldg 1 South East Entrance2.0 fc3.8 fc0.8 fc4.8:12.5:1Bldg 1 South East Parking2.0 fc3.8 fc0.4 fc9.5:15.0:1Bldg 1 South Parking2.3 fc3.8 fc0.3 fc12.7:17.7:1Bldg 1 South West Auto Parking2.0 fc3.6 fc0.6 fc6.0:13.3:1Bldg 1 SW WALK1.9 fc2.9 fc1.0 fc2.9:11.9:1Bldg 1 West Truck Area1.8 fc3.5 fc0.6 fc5.8:13.0:1Bldg 2 East Auto Parking2.2 fc3.1 fc1.1 fc2.8:12.0:1Bldg 2 North East Auto Parking2.2 fc3.5 fc1.0 fc3.5:12.2:1Bldg 2 North East Drive2.4 fc3.0 fc1.6 fc1.9:11.5:1Bldg 2 North East Entrance2.2 fc3.4 fc1.5 fc2.3:11.5:1Bldg 2 North West Auto Parking2.1 fc3.7 fc1.1 fc3.4:11.9:1Bldg 2 South East Auto Parking2.0 fc3.2 fc0.7 fc4.6:12.9:1Bldg 2 South East Drive1.7 fc2.7 fc0.7 fc3.9:12.4:1Bldg 2 South West Auto Parking2.4 fc3.7 fc1.0 fc3.7:12.4:1Bldg 2 Truck Area1.9 fc3.9 fc0.1 fc39.0:119.0:1ScheduleSymbolLabelQTYManufacturerCatalog NumberDescriptionFilenameLLFWattageIII-W3U.S. ARCHITECTURAL LIGHTINGVLL-PLED-III-W-80LED-1050mA-NW MM511 WALL MT AT 25 FT AFGCAST BLACK PAINTED FINNED METAL HOUSING, CAST BLACK PAINTED METAL DRIVER COVER, 4 CIRCUIT BOARDS EACH WITH 20 LEDS, 1 CLEAR PLASTIC OPTIC BELOW EACH LED, 1 FORMED SEMI-SPECULAR METAL OPTIC MOUNTING PLATE BELOW EACH CIRCUIT BOARD.VLL-PLED-III-W-80LED-1050mA-NW.ies0.9256.4IVFT-HS64U.S. ARCHITECTURAL LIGHTINGVLL-PLED-IV-FT-80LED-1050mA-NW-HS -MM511 POLE MT AT 25 FT AFG B1-U0-G4CAST BLACK PAINTED FINNED METAL HOUSING, CAST BLACK PAINTED METAL DRIVER COVER, 4 CIRCUIT BOARDS EACH WITH 20 LEDS, 1 CLEAR PLASTIC OPTIC BELOW EACH LED, 1 MOLDED BLACK PLASTIC HOUSE SIDE SHIELD BELOW EACH OPTIC, 1 FORMED SEMI-SPECULAR METAL OPTIC MOUNTING PLATE BELOW EACH CIRCUIT BOARD.VLL-PLED-IV-FT-80LED-1050mA-NW-HS.ies0.9256.4IVFT-HS-Wall55U.S. ARCHITECTURAL LIGHTINGVLL-PLED-IV-FT-80LED-1050mA-NW-HS -MM511 WALL MT AT 25 FT AFG B1-U0-G4CAST BLACK PAINTED FINNED METAL HOUSING, CAST BLACK PAINTED METAL DRIVER COVER, 4 CIRCUIT BOARDS EACH WITH 20 LEDS, 1 CLEAR PLASTIC OPTIC BELOW EACH LED, 1 MOLDED BLACK PLASTIC HOUSE SIDE SHIELD BELOW EACH OPTIC, 1 FORMED SEMI-SPECULAR METAL OPTIC MOUNTING PLATE BELOW EACH CIRCUIT BOARD.VLL-PLED-IV-FT-80LED-1050mA-NW-HS.ies0.9256.4IVFT-HS-25U.S. ARCHITECTURAL LIGHTINGVLL-PLED-IV-FT-80LED-1050mA-NW-HS -MM511 POLE MT AT 25 FT AFG 22.5 FT POLE 30 IN BASECAST BLACK PAINTED FINNED METAL HOUSING, CAST BLACK PAINTED METAL DRIVER COVER, 4 CIRCUIT BOARDS EACH WITH 20 LEDS, 1 CLEAR PLASTIC OPTIC BELOW EACH LED, 1 MOLDED BLACK PLASTIC HOUSE SIDE SHIELD BELOW EACH OPTIC, 1 FORMED SEMI-SPECULAR METAL OPTIC MOUNTING PLATE BELOW EACH CIRCUIT BOARD.VLL-PLED-IV-FT-80LED-1050mA-NW-HS.ies0.9512.8VSQW8U.S. ARCHITECTURAL LIGHTINGVLL-PLED-VSQ-W-80LED-1050mA-NW-MM511 POLE MT AT 25 FT AFG 22.5 FT POLE 30 IN BASE B5-U0-G4CAST BLACK PAINTED FINNED METAL HOUSING, CAST BLACK PAINTED METAL DRIVER COVER, 4 CIRCUIT BOARDS EACH WITH 20 LEDS, 1 CLEAR PLASTIC OPTIC BELOW EACH LED, 1 FORMED SEMI-SPECULAR METAL OPTIC MOUNTING PLATE BELOW EACH CIRCUIT BOARD.VLL-PLED-VSQ-W-80LED-1050mA-NW.ies0.9256.4III-HS-700mA1U.S. ARCHITECTURAL LIGHTINGVLL-PLED-III-W-80LED-700mA-NW-HS -MM511 POLE MT AT 25FT AFT B1--U0-G4CAST BLACK PAINTED FINNED METAL HOUSING, CAST BLACK PAINTED METAL DRIVER COVER, 4 CIRCUIT BOARDS EACH WITH 20 LEDS, 1 CLEAR PLASTIC OPTIC BELOW EACH LED, 1 MOLDED BLACK PLASTIC HOUSE SIDE SHIELD BELOW EACH OPTIC, 1 FORMED SEMI-SPECULAR METAL OPTIC MOUNTING PLATE BELOW EACH CIRCUIT BOARD.VLL-PLED-III-W-80LED-700mA-NW-HS.ies0.9173.6WST71Lithonia LightingWST LED P1 40K VF MVOLTWST LED, Performance package 1, 4000 K, visual comfort forward throw, MVOLTWST_LED_P1_40K_VF_MVOLT.ies012WST-PC1Lithonia LightingWST LED P1 40K VF MVOLTWST LED, Performance package 1, 4000 K, visual comfort forward throw, MVOLT, Photocell controlWST_LED_P1_40K_VF_MVOLT.ies0.912WST-W14Lithonia LightingWST LED P1 40K VW MVOLTWST LED, Performance package 1, 4000 K, visual comfort wide, MVOLTWST_LED_P1_40K_VW_MVOLT.ies012UOL34LIGMANUOL-80541-W-W40 30 WattsOle recessed downlight round dia 9.65" HP LEDUOL-80541-W-W40.IES0.6830III-W-HS-700mA-W6U.S. ARCHITECTURAL LIGHTINGVLL-PLED-III-W-80LED-700mA-NW-HS -MM511 Wall MT AT 25FT AFT B1-U0-G4CAST BLACK PAINTED FINNED METAL HOUSING, CAST BLACK PAINTED METAL DRIVER COVER, 4 CIRCUIT BOARDS EACH WITH 20 LEDS, 1 CLEAR PLASTIC OPTIC BELOW EACH LED, 1 MOLDED BLACK PLASTIC HOUSE SIDE SHIELD BELOW EACH OPTIC, 1 FORMED SEMI-SPECULAR METAL OPTIC MOUNTING PLATE BELOW EACH CIRCUIT BOARD.VLL-PLED-III-W-80LED-700mA-NW-HS.ies0.9173.6 12434 4TH STREETCITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA,CALIFORNIASHEET:SHEET TITLERGA, OFFICE OF ARCHITECTURAL DESIGNCOPYRIGHTCHK'D BY:DRAWN BY:CAD FILE NAME:K2M PROJECT NO:OWNER PROJECT NO:MARKDESCRIPTIONDATECONSULTANTPROFESSIONAL SEALS20001RGA PROJECT NO:19134.01BRIDGE POINTRANCHO CUCAMONGA00000.00KMKM10 HUGHES, SUITE A203, IRVINE, CA 92618O: 949-419-9908 F: 949-419-9870PROJECT NAMEBRIDGE POINT RANCHO CUCAMONGA, LLC11100 SANTA MONICA BLVD., SUITE 700LOS ANGELES, CA 90025TEL: 213-805-6667CONTACT: BRENDAN KOLTERbkotler@bridgedev.comOWNER:APPLICANT:BRIDGE POINT RANCHO CUCAMONGA, LLC11100 SANTA MONICA BLVD., SUITE 700LOS ANGELES, CA 90025TEL: 213-805-6667CONTACT: BRENDAN KOLTERbkotler@bridgedev.comNOT FOR CONSTRUCTION1/8/20REVISED PLANNING SET4/12/20REVISED PLANNING SET8/7/20REVISED PLANNING SET12/11/20REVISED PLANNING SET01/05/21REVISED PLANNING SETSL220001SL2BUILDING 1NORTH EAST PHOTOMETRICPHOTOMETRIC DISCLAIMER:THIS PHOTOMETRIC STUDY HAS BEEN PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH IESNASTANDARDS AND INDUSTRY LIGHTING PRACTICES. INPUT DATA FILES ARE PROVIDEDBY THE MANUFACTURER OF SPECIFIED LIGHT FIXTURES. DIFFERENCES MAY OCCURBETWEEN CALCULATIONS AND ACTUAL INSTALLED CONDITIONS DUE TO TESTPROCEDURES, EQUIPMENT PERFORMANCE, MEASUREMENT TECHNIQUES AND FIELDCONDITIONS SUCH AS TEMPERATURE, VOLTAGE AND REFLECTANCE FROM CEILINGS,WALLS AND FLOORS. ARCHITECTURAL ELEMENTS, ROOM SIZES AND MOUNTINGHEIGHTS SIGNIFICANTLY AFFECT THE LIGHTING CALCULATIONS. IF REAL CONDITIONSDIFFER FROM CALCULATED CONDITIONS, LIGHT LEVELS MAY VARY. K2M ENGINEERINGIS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ACCURACY OF THE MANUFACTURER'S INFORMATION.PB54SL1TYPBUILDING 1 NORTH EAST PHOTOMETRICSCALE: 1"=40'-0"APB30SL1PB30SL1 12434 4TH STREETCITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA,CALIFORNIASHEET:SHEET TITLERGA, OFFICE OF ARCHITECTURAL DESIGNCOPYRIGHTCHK'D BY:DRAWN BY:CAD FILE NAME:K2M PROJECT NO:OWNER PROJECT NO:MARKDESCRIPTIONDATECONSULTANTPROFESSIONAL SEALS20001RGA PROJECT NO:19134.01BRIDGE POINTRANCHO CUCAMONGA00000.00KMKM10 HUGHES, SUITE A203, IRVINE, CA 92618O: 949-419-9908 F: 949-419-9870PROJECT NAMEBRIDGE POINT RANCHO CUCAMONGA, LLC11100 SANTA MONICA BLVD., SUITE 700LOS ANGELES, CA 90025TEL: 213-805-6667CONTACT: BRENDAN KOLTERbkotler@bridgedev.comOWNER:APPLICANT:BRIDGE POINT RANCHO CUCAMONGA, LLC11100 SANTA MONICA BLVD., SUITE 700LOS ANGELES, CA 90025TEL: 213-805-6667CONTACT: BRENDAN KOLTERbkotler@bridgedev.comNOT FOR CONSTRUCTION1/8/20REVISED PLANNING SET4/12/20REVISED PLANNING SET8/7/20REVISED PLANNING SET12/11/20REVISED PLANNING SET01/05/21REVISED PLANNING SETSL320001SL3BUILDING 1SOUTH EAST PHOTOMETRICPHOTOMETRIC DISCLAIMER:THIS PHOTOMETRIC STUDY HAS BEEN PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH IESNASTANDARDS AND INDUSTRY LIGHTING PRACTICES. INPUT DATA FILES ARE PROVIDEDBY THE MANUFACTURER OF SPECIFIED LIGHT FIXTURES. DIFFERENCES MAY OCCURBETWEEN CALCULATIONS AND ACTUAL INSTALLED CONDITIONS DUE TO TESTPROCEDURES, EQUIPMENT PERFORMANCE, MEASUREMENT TECHNIQUES AND FIELDCONDITIONS SUCH AS TEMPERATURE, VOLTAGE AND REFLECTANCE FROM CEILINGS,WALLS AND FLOORS. ARCHITECTURAL ELEMENTS, ROOM SIZES AND MOUNTINGHEIGHTS SIGNIFICANTLY AFFECT THE LIGHTING CALCULATIONS. IF REAL CONDITIONSDIFFER FROM CALCULATED CONDITIONS, LIGHT LEVELS MAY VARY. K2M ENGINEERINGIS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ACCURACY OF THE MANUFACTURER'S INFORMATION.PB54SL1TYPPB30SL1PB30SL1BUILDING 1 SOUTH EAST PHOTOMETRICSCALE: 1"=40'-0"APB30SL1PB30SL1PB30SL1PB54SL1 12434 4TH STREETCITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA,CALIFORNIASHEET:SHEET TITLERGA, OFFICE OF ARCHITECTURAL DESIGNCOPYRIGHTCHK'D BY:DRAWN BY:CAD FILE NAME:K2M PROJECT NO:OWNER PROJECT NO:MARKDESCRIPTIONDATECONSULTANTPROFESSIONAL SEALS20001RGA PROJECT NO:19134.01BRIDGE POINTRANCHO CUCAMONGA00000.00KMKM10 HUGHES, SUITE A203, IRVINE, CA 92618O: 949-419-9908 F: 949-419-9870PROJECT NAMEBRIDGE POINT RANCHO CUCAMONGA, LLC11100 SANTA MONICA BLVD., SUITE 700LOS ANGELES, CA 90025TEL: 213-805-6667CONTACT: BRENDAN KOLTERbkotler@bridgedev.comOWNER:APPLICANT:BRIDGE POINT RANCHO CUCAMONGA, LLC11100 SANTA MONICA BLVD., SUITE 700LOS ANGELES, CA 90025TEL: 213-805-6667CONTACT: BRENDAN KOLTERbkotler@bridgedev.comNOT FOR CONSTRUCTION1/8/20REVISED PLANNING SET4/12/20REVISED PLANNING SET8/7/20REVISED PLANNING SET12/11/20REVISED PLANNING SET01/05/21REVISED PLANNING SETSL420001SL4BUILDING 1NORTH WEST PHOTOMETRICPHOTOMETRIC DISCLAIMER:THIS PHOTOMETRIC STUDY HAS BEEN PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH IESNASTANDARDS AND INDUSTRY LIGHTING PRACTICES. INPUT DATA FILES ARE PROVIDEDBY THE MANUFACTURER OF SPECIFIED LIGHT FIXTURES. DIFFERENCES MAY OCCURBETWEEN CALCULATIONS AND ACTUAL INSTALLED CONDITIONS DUE TO TESTPROCEDURES, EQUIPMENT PERFORMANCE, MEASUREMENT TECHNIQUES AND FIELDCONDITIONS SUCH AS TEMPERATURE, VOLTAGE AND REFLECTANCE FROM CEILINGS,WALLS AND FLOORS. ARCHITECTURAL ELEMENTS, ROOM SIZES AND MOUNTINGHEIGHTS SIGNIFICANTLY AFFECT THE LIGHTING CALCULATIONS. IF REAL CONDITIONSDIFFER FROM CALCULATED CONDITIONS, LIGHT LEVELS MAY VARY. K2M ENGINEERINGIS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ACCURACY OF THE MANUFACTURER'S INFORMATION.PB54SL1TYPBUILDING 1 NORTH WEST PHOTOMETRICSCALE: 1"=40'-0"APB30SL1TYP 12434 4TH STREETCITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA,CALIFORNIASHEET:SHEET TITLERGA, OFFICE OF ARCHITECTURAL DESIGNCOPYRIGHTCHK'D BY:DRAWN BY:CAD FILE NAME:K2M PROJECT NO:OWNER PROJECT NO:MARKDESCRIPTIONDATECONSULTANTPROFESSIONAL SEALS20001RGA PROJECT NO:19134.01BRIDGE POINTRANCHO CUCAMONGA00000.00KMKM10 HUGHES, SUITE A203, IRVINE, CA 92618O: 949-419-9908 F: 949-419-9870PROJECT NAMEBRIDGE POINT RANCHO CUCAMONGA, LLC11100 SANTA MONICA BLVD., SUITE 700LOS ANGELES, CA 90025TEL: 213-805-6667CONTACT: BRENDAN KOLTERbkotler@bridgedev.comOWNER:APPLICANT:BRIDGE POINT RANCHO CUCAMONGA, LLC11100 SANTA MONICA BLVD., SUITE 700LOS ANGELES, CA 90025TEL: 213-805-6667CONTACT: BRENDAN KOLTERbkotler@bridgedev.comNOT FOR CONSTRUCTION1/8/20REVISED PLANNING SET4/12/20REVISED PLANNING SET8/7/20REVISED PLANNING SET12/11/20REVISED PLANNING SET01/05/21REVISED PLANNING SETSL520001SL5BUILDING 1SOUTH WEST PHOTOMETRICPHOTOMETRIC DISCLAIMER:THIS PHOTOMETRIC STUDY HAS BEEN PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH IESNASTANDARDS AND INDUSTRY LIGHTING PRACTICES. INPUT DATA FILES ARE PROVIDEDBY THE MANUFACTURER OF SPECIFIED LIGHT FIXTURES. DIFFERENCES MAY OCCURBETWEEN CALCULATIONS AND ACTUAL INSTALLED CONDITIONS DUE TO TESTPROCEDURES, EQUIPMENT PERFORMANCE, MEASUREMENT TECHNIQUES AND FIELDCONDITIONS SUCH AS TEMPERATURE, VOLTAGE AND REFLECTANCE FROM CEILINGS,WALLS AND FLOORS. ARCHITECTURAL ELEMENTS, ROOM SIZES AND MOUNTINGHEIGHTS SIGNIFICANTLY AFFECT THE LIGHTING CALCULATIONS. IF REAL CONDITIONSDIFFER FROM CALCULATED CONDITIONS, LIGHT LEVELS MAY VARY. K2M ENGINEERINGIS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ACCURACY OF THE MANUFACTURER'S INFORMATION.BUILDING 1 SOUTH WEST PHOTOMETRICSCALE: 1"=40'-0"APB54SL1TYPPB30SL1PB30SL1PB30SL1PB30SL1PB54SL1 12434 4TH STREETCITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA,CALIFORNIASHEET:SHEET TITLERGA, OFFICE OF ARCHITECTURAL DESIGNCOPYRIGHTCHK'D BY:DRAWN BY:CAD FILE NAME:K2M PROJECT NO:OWNER PROJECT NO:MARKDESCRIPTIONDATECONSULTANTPROFESSIONAL SEALS20001RGA PROJECT NO:19134.01BRIDGE POINTRANCHO CUCAMONGA00000.00KMKM10 HUGHES, SUITE A203, IRVINE, CA 92618O: 949-419-9908 F: 949-419-9870PROJECT NAMEBRIDGE POINT RANCHO CUCAMONGA, LLC11100 SANTA MONICA BLVD., SUITE 700LOS ANGELES, CA 90025TEL: 213-805-6667CONTACT: BRENDAN KOLTERbkotler@bridgedev.comOWNER:APPLICANT:BRIDGE POINT RANCHO CUCAMONGA, LLC11100 SANTA MONICA BLVD., SUITE 700LOS ANGELES, CA 90025TEL: 213-805-6667CONTACT: BRENDAN KOLTERbkotler@bridgedev.comNOT FOR CONSTRUCTION1/8/20REVISED PLANNING SET4/12/20REVISED PLANNING SET8/7/20REVISED PLANNING SET12/11/20REVISED PLANNING SET01/05/21REVISED PLANNING SETSL620001SL6BUILDING 2EAST PHOTOMETRICPHOTOMETRIC DISCLAIMER:THIS PHOTOMETRIC STUDY HAS BEEN PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH IESNASTANDARDS AND INDUSTRY LIGHTING PRACTICES. INPUT DATA FILES ARE PROVIDEDBY THE MANUFACTURER OF SPECIFIED LIGHT FIXTURES. DIFFERENCES MAY OCCURBETWEEN CALCULATIONS AND ACTUAL INSTALLED CONDITIONS DUE TO TESTPROCEDURES, EQUIPMENT PERFORMANCE, MEASUREMENT TECHNIQUES AND FIELDCONDITIONS SUCH AS TEMPERATURE, VOLTAGE AND REFLECTANCE FROM CEILINGS,WALLS AND FLOORS. ARCHITECTURAL ELEMENTS, ROOM SIZES AND MOUNTINGHEIGHTS SIGNIFICANTLY AFFECT THE LIGHTING CALCULATIONS. IF REAL CONDITIONSDIFFER FROM CALCULATED CONDITIONS, LIGHT LEVELS MAY VARY. K2M ENGINEERINGIS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ACCURACY OF THE MANUFACTURER'S INFORMATION.PB54SL1TYPBUILDING 2 EAST PHOTOMETRICSCALE: 1"=40'-0"APB54SL1TYPPB30SL1 TYPPB30SL1PB30SL1TYP 12434 4TH STREETCITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA,CALIFORNIASHEET:SHEET TITLERGA, OFFICE OF ARCHITECTURAL DESIGNCOPYRIGHTCHK'D BY:DRAWN BY:CAD FILE NAME:K2M PROJECT NO:OWNER PROJECT NO:MARKDESCRIPTIONDATECONSULTANTPROFESSIONAL SEALS20001RGA PROJECT NO:19134.01BRIDGE POINTRANCHO CUCAMONGA00000.00KMKM10 HUGHES, SUITE A203, IRVINE, CA 92618O: 949-419-9908 F: 949-419-9870PROJECT NAMEBRIDGE POINT RANCHO CUCAMONGA, LLC11100 SANTA MONICA BLVD., SUITE 700LOS ANGELES, CA 90025TEL: 213-805-6667CONTACT: BRENDAN KOLTERbkotler@bridgedev.comOWNER:APPLICANT:BRIDGE POINT RANCHO CUCAMONGA, LLC11100 SANTA MONICA BLVD., SUITE 700LOS ANGELES, CA 90025TEL: 213-805-6667CONTACT: BRENDAN KOLTERbkotler@bridgedev.comNOT FOR CONSTRUCTION1/8/20REVISED PLANNING SET4/12/20REVISED PLANNING SET8/7/20REVISED PLANNING SET12/11/20REVISED PLANNING SET01/05/21REVISED PLANNING SETSL720001SL7BUILDING 2WEST PHOTOMETRICPHOTOMETRIC DISCLAIMER:THIS PHOTOMETRIC STUDY HAS BEEN PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH IESNASTANDARDS AND INDUSTRY LIGHTING PRACTICES. INPUT DATA FILES ARE PROVIDEDBY THE MANUFACTURER OF SPECIFIED LIGHT FIXTURES. DIFFERENCES MAY OCCURBETWEEN CALCULATIONS AND ACTUAL INSTALLED CONDITIONS DUE TO TESTPROCEDURES, EQUIPMENT PERFORMANCE, MEASUREMENT TECHNIQUES AND FIELDCONDITIONS SUCH AS TEMPERATURE, VOLTAGE AND REFLECTANCE FROM CEILINGS,WALLS AND FLOORS. ARCHITECTURAL ELEMENTS, ROOM SIZES AND MOUNTINGHEIGHTS SIGNIFICANTLY AFFECT THE LIGHTING CALCULATIONS. IF REAL CONDITIONSDIFFER FROM CALCULATED CONDITIONS, LIGHT LEVELS MAY VARY. K2M ENGINEERINGIS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ACCURACY OF THE MANUFACTURER'S INFORMATION.PB30SL1BUILDING 2 WEST PHOTOMETRICSCALE: 1"=40'-0"APB54SL1TYPPB54SL1TYPPB30SL1 12434 4TH STREETCITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA,CALIFORNIASHEET:SHEET TITLERGA, OFFICE OF ARCHITECTURAL DESIGNCOPYRIGHTCHK'D BY:DRAWN BY:CAD FILE NAME:K2M PROJECT NO:OWNER PROJECT NO:MARKDESCRIPTIONDATECONSULTANTPROFESSIONAL SEALS20001RGA PROJECT NO:19134.01BRIDGE POINTRANCHO CUCAMONGA00000.00KMKM10 HUGHES, SUITE A203, IRVINE, CA 92618O: 949-419-9908 F: 949-419-9870PROJECT NAMEBRIDGE POINT RANCHO CUCAMONGA, LLC11100 SANTA MONICA BLVD., SUITE 700LOS ANGELES, CA 90025TEL: 213-805-6667CONTACT: BRENDAN KOLTERbkotler@bridgedev.comOWNER:APPLICANT:BRIDGE POINT RANCHO CUCAMONGA, LLC11100 SANTA MONICA BLVD., SUITE 700LOS ANGELES, CA 90025TEL: 213-805-6667CONTACT: BRENDAN KOLTERbkotler@bridgedev.comNOT FOR CONSTRUCTION1/8/20REVISED PLANNING SET4/12/20REVISED PLANNING SET8/7/20REVISED PLANNING SET12/11/20REVISED PLANNING SET01/05/21REVISED PLANNING SETSL820001SL6LUMINAIRE SPECIFICATION SHEETS RESOLUTION NO. 21-57 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE GENERAL PLAN MAP AMENDMENT NO. DRC2020-00213, A REQUEST TO AMEND THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP DESIGNATION FOR TWO PARCELS OF LAND FROM A SPLIT DESIGNATION OF HEAVY INDUSTRIAL AND GENERAL INDUSTRIAL TO GENERAL INDUSTRIAL FOR 91.39 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED APPROXIAMTELY 1,000 FEET EAST OF SANTA ANITA ANUVE AND 2,300 FEET WEST OF ETIWANDA AVENUE, NORTH OF FOURTH STREET AND SOUTH OF 6TH STREET, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF – APNS: 0229-283-50 AND 51. A.Recitals. 1.Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga, LLC filed an application for General Plan Amendment No. DRC2020-00213 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject General Plan Amendment is referred to as "the application." 2.On September 22, 2021, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing on that date. 3.All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B.Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public hearing on September 22, 2021, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to two parcels consisting of approximately 91.39-acres of land, located approximately 1,000 feet east of Santa Anita Avenue, 2,300 feet west of Etiwanda Avenue, north of 4th Street and south of 6th Street. Said parcels of land are currently designated as both Neo-Industrial (NI) and Industrial Employment (IE); 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 Industrial Warehouse, Commercial Heavy Industrial (HI) and General Industrial (GI) Industrial Employment (IE) and General Industrial (GI) District Exhibit J CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 21-57 GPA DRC2020-00213 – BRIDGE POINT RANCHO CUCAMONGA, LLC September 22, 2021 Page 2 c. This amendment changes the land use for two project related parcels of land (APN: 0229-283-50 and 0229-283-51) from a split designation of General Industrial and Heavy Industrial to General Industrial; and d. This amendment necessitates amending the Zoning Map (DRC2020-00267) to change zoning designation of one project related parcel of land (APN: 0208-291-03) from a split zoning designation of Neo-Industrial (NI) and Industrial Employment (IE) to Neo-Industrial (NI). e. In addition to the subject General Plan Amendment, the project scope includes Zoning Map Amendment DRC2020-00267, Tentative Parcel Map (SUBTPM20271), Design Review DRC2020-00202, Tree Removal Permit (DRC2020-0266), Minor Use Permit (DRC2021- 00315) to allow for the anticipated use and a Development Agreement (DRC2021-00180). 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public hearing on September 22, 2021, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. Approving the General Plan Amendment is in the public interest as it corrects a discrepancy whereas the current project site, which comprises two parcels which are currently designated between two land use designations (General Industrial and Heavy Industrial), would be redesignated under one land use designation of General Industrial. Correcting this discrepancy in land use designations complies with General Plan Land Use Goal LU-9 which requires that the City “Foster a cohesive, healthy community through appropriate patterns and scales of development, including complementary transitions between districts, neighborhoods and land uses.” The development of the project, including the construction of a new public street as a condition of approval, will contribute positively to the surrounding area by permitting significant site plan and aesthetic improvements to an underutilized project site while also improving traffic circulation within the vicinity of the project area. Retail, and former vineyard North Industrial Heavy Industrial (HI) Industrial Employment (IE) District South Industrial (City of Ontario) Industrial Industrial (Crossroads Business Park Specific Plan) West Industrial General Industrial (GI) Industrial Employment (IE) and Neo-Industrial (NI) District East Industrial and Public Facility Heavy Industrial (HI) and Civic/Regional Industrial Employment (IE) and Neo-Industrial (NI) District CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 21-57 GPA DRC2020-00213 – BRIDGE POINT RANCHO CUCAMONGA, LLC September 22, 2021 Page 3 4. The General Plan Amendment, in addition to the Zoning Map Amendment, Tentative Parcel Map, Design Review, Tree Removal Permit, Minor Use Permit, and Development Agreement (collectively, the “Project”) were environmentally reviewed pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City’s Local CEQA Guidelines. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15060(d), the City determined that an EIR would clearly be required for the Project, and therefore prepared an environmental impact report (EIR) that focused on the potentially significant effects of the Project Based upon the facts and information contained in the EIR prepared for the Project and the entire record before it, the Planning Commission recommends the City Council certify the final EIR, adopt findings of fact pursuant to CEQA, and adopt the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the project, incorporated herein by this reference, based upon the findings as follows: a. A Notice of Availability advertising the availability of the Draft EIR was circulated for a period of 45-days beginning on May 7, 2021 and ending on June 21, 2021; and b. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15025(c), the Planning Commission has reviewed the EIR in both its draft and final forms, attached as Exhibits C and D of the staff report accompanying the Planning Commission’s consideration of the Project and incorporated herein by this reference and all comments received regarding the EIR and, based on the whole record before it, finds that the EIR was prepared in compliance with CEQA; and. The Planning Commission further finds that this recommendation reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the Planning Commission; and c. The Planning Commission has also reviewed and considered the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the project that has been prepared pursuant to the requirements of Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 and finds that such Program is designed to ensure compliance with the mitigation measures during project implementation; and d. The custodian of records for the EIR, Mitigation Monitoring Program, and all other materials which constitute the record of proceedings upon which the City Council’s decision is based is the Planning Director of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Those documents are available for public review in the Planning Department of the City of Rancho Cucamonga located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730, telephone (909) 477-2750. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby recommends that the City Council approve the application subject to each and every condition set forth in the Conditions of Approval attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 22nd DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Francisco Oaxaca, Chairman CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 21-57 GPA DRC2020-00213 – BRIDGE POINT RANCHO CUCAMONGA, LLC September 22, 2021 Page 4 ATTEST: Anne McIntosh, AICP, Secretary I, Anne Mcintosh, AICP, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 22nd day of September 2021, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: RESOLUTION NO. 21-58 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE AN ORDINANCE APPROVING ZONING MAP AMENDMENT NO. DRC2020-00267, A REQUEST TO AMEND THE ZONING MAP LAND USE DISTRICT FOR TWO PARCELS OF LAND FROM A SPLIT DESIGNATION OF THE NEO-INDUSTRIAL (NI) AND INDUSTRIAL EMPLOYMENT (IE) DISTRICTS TO NEO-INDUSTRIAL (NI) DISTRICT FOR 91.39 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 1,000 FEET EAST OF SANTA ANITA AVENUE AND 2,300 FEET WEST OF ETIWANDA AVENUE, NORTH OF FOURTH STREET AND SOUTH OF 6TH STREET, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF – APNS: 0229-283-50 AND 51. A.Recitals. 1.Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga, LLC filed an application for Zoning Map Amendment No. DRC2020-00267, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Zoning Map Amendment is referred to as "the application." 2.On September 22, 2021, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application DRC2020-00267 and issued Resolution No. 21-XX recommending to the City Council that the associated General Plan Amendment No. DRC2020-00213 be approved. 3.All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B.Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1.This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2.Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public hearing on September 22, 2021, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a.The application applies to two parcels consisting of approximately 91.39-acres of land, located approximately 1,000 feet east of Santa Anita Avenue, 2,300 feet west of Etiwanda Avenue, north of 4th Street and south of 6th Street. Said parcels of land are currently designated as both Neo-Industrial (NI) and Industrial Employment (IE); 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* Exhibit K PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 21-58 ZMA DRC2020-00267 – Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga, LLC September 22, 2021 Page 2 Site Industrial Warehouse, Commercial Retail, and former vineyard Heavy Industrial (HI) and General Industrial (GI) Industrial Employment (IE) and General Industrial (GI) District North Industrial Heavy Industrial (HI) Industrial Employment (IE) District South Industrial (City of Ontario) Industrial Industrial (Crossroads Business Park Specific Plan) West Industrial General Industrial (GI) Industrial Employment (IE) and Neo-Industrial (NI) District East Industrial and Public Facility Heavy Industrial (HI) and Civic/Regional Industrial Employment (IE) and Neo-Industrial (NI) District c.This amendment changes the zoning designation for two project related parcels of land (APN: 0229-283-50 and 0229-283-51) from Neo-Industrial (NI) District and Industrial Employment (IE) District to Neo-Industrial (NI) District; and d.This amendment necessitates amending the General Plan Land Use Map (DRC2020-00213) to change land use designation for the two project related parcels of land (APN: 0229-283-50 and 0229-283-51) from the current split designation of General Industrial and Heavy Industrial to General Industrial; and e.In addition to the subject Zoning Map Amendment, the project scope includes General Plan Amendment DRC2020-00213, Tentative Parcel Map (SUBTPM20271), Design Review DRC2020-00202, Tree Removal Permit (DRC2020-0266), Minor Use Permit (DRC2021- 00315) and Development Agreement (DRC2021-00180). 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.That the subject property is suitable for the uses permitted in the proposed district in terms of access, size, and compatibility with existing land use in the surrounding area. With approval of Zoning Map Amendment DRC2020-00267, the project will be compatible with the existing and future land uses surrounding the project site. The proposed Neo-Industrial (NI) designation is compatible with the surrounding designations; and b.That the proposed amendment is in conformance with the General Plan as the proposed Zoning Map Amendment is consistent with General Plan. Approving the Zoning Map Amendment corrects a discrepancy whereas the current project site, which comprises two parcels which are currently split zoned between Neo-Industrial (NI) and Industrial Employment (IE) would PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 21-58 ZMA DRC2020-00267 – Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga, LLC September 22, 2021 Page 3 be redesignated under one zoning district, Neo-Industrial (NI). Correcting this split-zoning discrepancy complies with General Plan Land Use Goal LU-9 which requires that the City “Foster a cohesive, healthy community through appropriate patterns and scales of development, including complementary transitions between districts, neighborhoods and land uses.”; and c. That the proposed amendment would not have significant impacts on the environment nor the surrounding properties. The amendment will change the zoning designation for two project related parcels of land (APN: 0229-283-50 and 0229-283-51) from the current designation which is split between the Neo-Industrial (NI) District and Industrial Employment (IE) District to Neo-Industrial (NI) District, for which a portion of the site is already currently zoned. 4. The Zoning Map Amendment, in addition to the General Plan Amendment, Tentative Parcel Map, Design Review, Tree Removal Permit, Minor Use Permit, and Development Agreement (collectively, the “Project”) were environmentally reviewed pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City’s Local CEQA Guidelines. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15060(d), the City determined that an EIR would clearly be required for the Project, and therefore prepared an environmental impact report (EIR) that focused on the potentially significant effects of the Project. Based upon the facts and information contained in the EIR prepared for the Project and the entire record before it, the Planning Commission recommends the City Council certify the final EIR for the Project, adopt findings of fact pursuant to CEQA, and adopt the Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the Project, based upon the findings as follows: a. A Notice of Availability advertising the availability of the Draft EIR was circulated for a period of 45-days beginning on May 7, 2021 and ending on June 21, 2021; and b. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15025(c), the Planning Commission has reviewed the EIR in both its draft and final forms, attached as Exhibits C and D of the staff report accompanying the Planning Commission’s consideration of the Project and incorporated herein by this reference, and all comments received regarding the EIR and, based on the whole record before it, finds that the EIR was prepared in compliance with CEQA; and The Planning Commission further finds that this recommendation reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the Planning Commission; and c. The Planning Commission has also reviewed and considered the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the project that has been prepared pursuant to the requirements of Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 and finds that such Program is designed to ensure compliance with the mitigation measures during project implementation; and d. The custodian of records for the EIR, Mitigation Monitoring Program, and all other materials which constitute the record of proceedings upon which the City Council’s decision is based is the Planning Director of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Those documents are available for public review in the Planning Department of the City of Rancho Cucamonga located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730, telephone (909) 477-2750. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby recommends that the City Council approve the application subject to each and every condition set forth in the Conditions of Approval attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 21-58 ZMA DRC2020-00267 – Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga, LLC September 22, 2021 Page 4 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 22nd DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Francisco Oaxaca, Chairman ATTEST: Anne McIntosh, AICP, Secretary I, Anne Mcintosh, AICP, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 22nd day of September 2021, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: RESOLUTION NO. 21-59 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP SUBTPM20271, A REQUEST TO SUBDIVIDE A 91.39 ACRE PROJECT SITE INTO TWO (2) PARCELS OF LAND RELATED TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF TWO NEW INDUSTRIAL WAREHOUSE BUILDINGS LOCATED APPROXIAMTELY 1,000 FEET EAST OF SANTA ANITA AVENUE AND 2,300 FEET WEST OF ETIWANDA AVENUE; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APNS: 0229-283-50 AND 51. A.Recitals. 1.Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga, LLC has filed an application for the approval of Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM20271, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Tentative Parcel Map request is referred to as "the application." 2.On the 22nd of September 2021, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a noticed public hearing on the application and took action on the Tentative Parcel Map concluded said hearing on that date. 3.All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B.Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1.This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2.Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public hearing on September 22, 2021, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The 91.39-acre project site is located approximately 1,000 feet east of Santa Anita Avenue and approximately 2,300 feet west of Etiwanda Avenue, north of 4th Street and south of 6th Street. The site is currently improved with two buildings: a large industrial warehouse building addressed 12434 4th Street, totaling approximately 1,431,000 square feet in size and a smaller concrete tilt-up building addressed 12322 4th Street, totaling approximately 23,240 square feet. The northerly portion of the project site comprises 11 acres of vacant land which previously consisted of a vineyard. The remainder of the project site is improved with parking areas, drive aisles, trailer loading areas and landscaping. Curb, gutter, streetlights and sidewalks have been constructed along 4th Street and 6th Street. A rail spur running east and west borders the property to the north parallel to 6th Street. This rail spur turns south into the property, running north and south and serves the properties to the east of the project site. All existing improvements, with the exception of the rail spur, will be demolished as a result of this project; and b.The existing General Plan Land Use and Zoning Designations for the project site and adjacent properties are as follows: Exhibit L PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 21-59 SUBTPM20271 – BRIDGE POINT RANCHO CUCAMONGA, LLC September 22, 2021 Page 2 Land Use General Plan Zoning* Site Industrial Warehouse, Commercial Retail and former vineyard Heavy Industrial (HI) and General Industrial (GI) Industrial Employment (IE) and General Industrial (GI) District North Industrial Heavy Industrial (HI) Industrial Employment (IE) District South Industrial (City of Ontario) Industrial Industrial (Crossroads Business Park Specific Plan) West Industrial General Industrial (GI) Industrial Employment (IE) and Neo-Industrial (NI) District East Industrial and Public Facility Heavy Industrial (HI) and Civic/Regional Industrial Employment (IE) and Neo-Industrial (NI) District c. The project is for the construction and operation of two new industrial warehouse buildings totaling approximately 2,175,000 square feet; and d. Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM20271 is for the subdivision of the 91.39-acre project site into two parcels of land. Proposed Building 1, totaling approximately 1,422,500 square feet will be located on Parcel 1 which will total an area of approximately 55 acres. Building 2, totaling approximately 752,500 square feet will be located on Parcel 2 which will total an area of approximately 30 acres. The project will also result in the construction of a new north-south public street proposed to connect 4th Street and 6th Street. Vehicular access to Parcel 1 will be from 4th Street and access to Parcel 2 will be from 6th Street. The new north-south street will also provide vehicular access to both new parcels.; and e. This application is also being processed concurrently with General Plan Amendment DRC2020-00213, Zoning Map Amendment DRC2020-00267, Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM20271, Design Review DRC2020-00202, Tree Removal Permit DRC2020-00266, Minor Use Permit DRC2021-00315 and Development Agreement DRC2021-00180; and 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced meeting and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. The tentative parcel map is consistent with the General Plan, Development Code, and any applicable specific plans. The General Plan permits a variety of land uses within industrial PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 21-59 SUBTPM20271 – BRIDGE POINT RANCHO CUCAMONGA, LLC September 22, 2021 Page 3 districts, such as warehouses, distribution centers and similar uses. The Development Code, as affected by Ordinance 982, permits Large Distribution/Fulfillment Centers upon the approval of a Minor Use Permit. b. The design or improvements of the tentative parcel map will be consistent with the General Plan, Development Code, and any applicable specific plans. The proposed two parcel tentative parcel map and the proposed industrial warehouse development comply with all requirements of the General Plan and Development Code. Each parcel complies with the 0.5-acre minimum lot size and 100-foot minimum lot width outlined in Table 17.36.040-1 of the Development Code. Additionally, the proposed industrial warehouse development complies with all of the related development standards including buiding setbacks, lot coverage, height, parking and design; and c. The site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed. The project site is well suited for the proposed industrial warehouse development as it is located along multiple street frontages, thereby providing multiple points of ingress/egress and emergency services access; and d. The design of the subdivision is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage and avoidable injury to humans and wildlife or their habitat. An Environmental Impact Report was submitted as part of the review of the project which demonstrated that the project would not have a significant impact on the environment upon implementation of identified mitigation measures; and e. The tentative parcel map is not likely to cause serious public health problems. The subdivision of the project site is not expected to cause serious public health issues, as the proposed tentative parcel map is for the subdivision of the project site into two separate parcels in order to create two separate parcels for two new proposed industrial warehouse buildings. The review of the project included the evaluation of environmental studies which concluded that the project would not have a significant impact on the environment. f. The design of the tentative parcel map will not conflict with any easement acquired by the public at large, now of record, for access through or use of the property within the proposed subdivision. The subject property does not contain any easements that would limit access to or use of the project site. 4. The Tentative Parcel Map, in addition to the General Plan Amendment, Zoning Map Amendment, Design Review, Tree Removal Permit, Minor Use Permit, and Development Agreement (collectively, the “Project”) were environmentally reviewed pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City’s Local CEQA Guidelines. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15060(d), the City determined that an EIR would clearly be required for the Project, and therefore prepared an environmental impact report (EIR) that focused on the potentially significant effects of the Project. Based upon the facts and information contained in the EIR prepared for the Project and the entire record before it, the Planning Commission recommends the City Council certify the final EIR for the Project, adopt the findings of fact pursuant to CEQA, and adopt the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the project, based upon the findings as follows. a. A Notice of Availability advertising the availability of the Draft EIR was circulated for a period of 45-days beginning on May 7, 2021 and ending on June 21, 2021; and b. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15025(c), the Planning Commission has PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 21-59 SUBTPM20271 – BRIDGE POINT RANCHO CUCAMONGA, LLC September 22, 2021 Page 4 reviewed the EIR on both its draft and final forms, attached as Exhibits C and D of the staff report accompanying the Planning Commission’s consideration of the Project and incorporated herein by this reference, and all comments received regarding the EIR and, based on the whole record before it, finds: that the EIR was prepared in compliance with CEQA; and The Planning Commission further finds that this recommendation reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the Planning Commission; and c. The Planning Commission has also reviewed and considered the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the project that has been prepared pursuant to the requirements of Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 and finds that such Program is designed to ensure compliance with the mitigation measures during project implementation; and d. The custodian of records for the EIR, Mitigation Monitoring Program, and all other materials which constitute the record of proceedings upon which the City Council’s decision is based is the Planning Director of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Those documents are available for public review in the Planning Department of the City of Rancho Cucamonga located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730, telephone (909) 477-2750. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby recommends that the City Council approve the application subject to each and every condition set forth in the Conditions of Approval, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 22nd DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Francisco Oaxaca, Chairman ATTEST: Anne McIntosh, AICP, Secretary I, Anne McIntosh, AICP, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 22nd day of September 2021, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Conditions of Approval Community Development Department Project #: DRC2020-00202 DRC2020-00213, DRC2020-00265, DRC2020-00266, DRC2020-00267, DRC2020-00312, DRC2021-00180, SUBTPM20271 Project Name: EDR - Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Location: 12434 4TH ST - 022928350-0000 Project Type: Design Review Development Agreement, General Plan Amendment, Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Tentative Parcel Map, Tree Removal Permit, Zoning Map AmendmentALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Planning Department Please be advised of the following Special Conditions The project shall comply with all mitigation measures identified in the Environmental Impact Report SCH No. (2020100056) and the corresponding Mitigation Monitoring and Report Program. 1. No more than 10% of the building space shall be used for high-cube cold storage warehouse space, consistent with analyses conducted in the Environmental Impact Report. 2. Use of natural gas and installation of required infrastructure is prohibited and any modification to this prohibition may be subject to additional review under CEQA. 3. No sort use shall be operated on the Site during the operation of the project. A sort use means a fulfillment center that ships out smaller items, requiring extensive sorting, typically by manual means, as defined in the ITE Manual, and as further described in the project’s Draft EIR. 4. Standard Conditions of Approval For commercial and industrial projects, paint roll-up doors and service doors to match main building colors. 5. The applicant shall sign the Statement of Agreement and Acceptance of Conditions of Approval provided by the Planning Department. The signed Statement of Agreement and Acceptance of Conditions of Approval shall be returned to the Planning Department prior to the submittal of grading/construction plans for plan check, request for a business license, and/or commencement of the approved activity. 6. 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. In the event such a legal action is filed, the City shall estimate its expenses for litigation. The applicant shall deposit such amount with the City or enter into an agreement with the City to pay such expenses as they become due. 7. 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. 8. www.CityofRC.us Printed: 9/15/2021 Project #: DRC2020-00202 DRC2020-00213, DRC2020-00265, DRC2020-00266, DRC2020-00267, DRC2020-00312, DRC2021-00180, SUBTPM20271 Project Name: EDR - Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Location: 12434 4TH ST - 022928350-0000 Project Type: Design Review Development Agreement, General Plan Amendment, Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Tentative Parcel Map, Tree Removal Permit, Zoning Map AmendmentALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Planning Department Standard Conditions of Approval The applicant shall be required to pay California Department of Fish and Wildlife Notice of Determination & Environmental Impact Report fee pursuant to CDFW's current fee schedule, including all County processing fees. All checks are to be made payable to the Clerk of the Board Supervisors and submitted to the Planning Department within 5 days of the approval of the project by Planning Commission/City Council. 9. Any approval shall expire if Building Permits are not issued or approved use has not commenced within 2 years from the date of approval or a time extension has been granted. 10. Any modification or intensification of the approved use, including revisions in the operations of the business that is approved by this Minor Use Use Permit; improvements including new building construction; and/or other modifications/intensification beyond what is specifically approved by this Minor Use Permit, shall require the review and approval by the necessary discretionary body 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 Minor Use Permit for review by the City. 11. This project is subject to public art requirement outlined in Chapter 17.124 of the Development Code, in accordance with Development Agreement DRC2021-00180. The applicant shall be required to install art onsite pursuant to Development Code Section 17.124 with a minimum value of $200,000, pursuant to Development Agreement DRC2021-00180. No final approval, such as a final inspection or the a issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, for any development project (or if a multi-phased project, the final phase of a development project) that is subject to this requirement shall occur unless the public art requirement has been fulfilled to the satisfaction of the Planning Department. 12. 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. 13. Existing trees required to be preserved in place shall be protected with a construction barrier in accordance with the Development Code Section 17.80.050, and so noted on the grading plans. The location of those trees to be preserved in place and new locations for transplanted trees shall be shown on the detailed landscape plans. The applicant shall follow all of the arborist's recommendations regarding preservation, transplanting, and trimming methods. 14. Front yard and corner side yard landscaping and irrigation shall be required per the Development Code and/or . This requirement shall be in addition to the required street trees and slope planting. 15. www.CityofRC.us Page 2 of 23Printed: 9/15/2021 Project #: DRC2020-00202 DRC2020-00213, DRC2020-00265, DRC2020-00266, DRC2020-00267, DRC2020-00312, DRC2021-00180, SUBTPM20271 Project Name: EDR - Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Location: 12434 4TH ST - 022928350-0000 Project Type: Design Review Development Agreement, General Plan Amendment, Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Tentative Parcel Map, Tree Removal Permit, Zoning Map AmendmentALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Planning Department Standard Conditions of Approval 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. 16. Landscaping and irrigation systems required to be installed within the public right-of-way on the perimeter of this project area shall be continuously maintained by the developer. 17. The final design of the perimeter parkways, walls, landscaping, and sidewalks shall be included in the required landscape plans and shall be subject to Planning Director review and approval and coordinated for consistency with any parkway landscaping plan which may be required by the Engineering Services Department. 18. 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. 19. 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. 20. The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved plans which include all applicable 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. 21. 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. 22. Trash receptacle(s) are required and shall meet City standards. The final design, locations, and the number of trash receptacles shall be subject to Planning Director review and approval prior to the issuance of Building Permits. 23. The proposed public street shall be named Catherine Bridge Place. This street name shall be submitted for Planning Director review and approval in accordance with the adopted Street Naming Policy prior to approval of the final map 24. www.CityofRC.us Page 3 of 23Printed: 9/15/2021 Project #: DRC2020-00202 DRC2020-00213, DRC2020-00265, DRC2020-00266, DRC2020-00267, DRC2020-00312, DRC2021-00180, SUBTPM20271 Project Name: EDR - Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Location: 12434 4TH ST - 022928350-0000 Project Type: Design Review Development Agreement, General Plan Amendment, Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Tentative Parcel Map, Tree Removal Permit, Zoning Map AmendmentALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Planning Department Standard Conditions of Approval All Double Detector Checks (DDC) and Fire Department Connections (FDC) required and/or proposed shall be installed at locations that are not within direct view or line-of-sight of the office corner of the building. The specific locations of each DDC and FDC shall require the review and approval of the Planning Department and Fire Construction Services/Fire Department. All Double Detector Checks (DDC) and Fire Department Connections (FDC) screened behind a 4-foot high wall. For this project, these walls shall be constructed of poured in-place concrete with design elements incorporated to match the building Decorative paving shall be provided at each vehicle entrance to the site, behind the public right-of-way. These decoratively paved areas shall extend from the front property line to the building setback line and have a width equal to that of the driveway. 25. Downspouts shall not be visible from the exterior of any elevations of the buildings. All downspouts shall be routed through the interior of the building walls. 26. Engineering Services Department Please be advised of the following Special Conditions The applicant shall construct a public street along with east side of the project between 4th Street and 6th Street. The public street shall be a full width Industrial Street meeting the City Standard Plan 100-A. 1. (At-Grade Crossing) This project shall construct at-grade crossing improvements through the rail road along 6th Street. The developer shall be eligible for reimbursement of one-half the cost of the 6th Street at-grade crossing from future developments as they occur on APN: 0229-283-79. 2. The street lights shall be owned by the City. Developer shall be responsible to coordinate and pay all costs of street lights and to provide power to City owned street lights. 3. Development Impact Fees Due Prior to Building Permit Issuance: (Subject to Change / Periodic Increases - Refer to current fee schedule to determine current amounts) Drainage Impact Fee Transportation Impact Fee Police Impact Fee 4. www.CityofRC.us Page 4 of 23Printed: 9/15/2021 Project #: DRC2020-00202 DRC2020-00213, DRC2020-00265, DRC2020-00266, DRC2020-00267, DRC2020-00312, DRC2021-00180, SUBTPM20271 Project Name: EDR - Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Location: 12434 4TH ST - 022928350-0000 Project Type: Design Review Development Agreement, General Plan Amendment, Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Tentative Parcel Map, Tree Removal Permit, Zoning Map AmendmentALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Engineering Services Department Please be advised of the following Special Conditions 1) Electric: The Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Utility (RCMU) shall be the electrical service provider for all project related development. The Developer shall execute a Line Extension Agreement for electric service and shall construct electrical distribution facilities in accordance with such agreement and RCMU requirements and dedicate such facilities to the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Utility. RCMU’s proposed underground electric system will be located off of Etiwanda Ave and Sixth Street East of the proposed development. 2) Fiber: The proposed development is slated to be included in the City’s Fiber Optic Master Plan that would provide a City owned Fiber-to-the-Premise (FTTP) infrastructure. The City will require the developer to install a 1-4” UG Fiber Optic dark conduit on the frontage of the development (along the South side of Sixth Street) along the project boundary along with a 3’x4’x3’ pullbox on each end of the route and into the project boundary. The size, placement and location of the conduit and vaults shall be shown on the Street Improvement and/or Public Improvement Plans and subject to the Engineering Services Department's review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits or final map approval, whichever comes first. On site, the City will require 1-2” UG HDPE or equal fiber optic conduit to be placed underground within a duct and structure system to be installed joint trench by the Developer per Standard Drawing 135-137 and interconnected into the City's 4" fiber optic conduit. The size, placement and location of the conduit and/or vaults shall run into each of the development’s individual telecommunication room and be shown on the final dry utility onsite substructure plans and subject to the Engineering Services Department's review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits or final map approval, whichever comes first. 5. The applicant shall modify the existing traffic signal at the intersection of 4th Street and the Barrington Avenue to incorporate the new public street into an offset intersection with Barrington Avenue controlled by a single traffic signal. Furnish and install new traffic signal equipment as necessary per Caltrans standard plans and specifications plus 2019 revision, and City standard drawings. Furnish and install the necessary infrastructure to connect the signal to the adjacent signals at 4th Street and Etiwanda, and 4th Street and Santa Anita Avenues. 6. www.CityofRC.us Page 5 of 23Printed: 9/15/2021 Project #: DRC2020-00202 DRC2020-00213, DRC2020-00265, DRC2020-00266, DRC2020-00267, DRC2020-00312, DRC2021-00180, SUBTPM20271 Project Name: EDR - Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Location: 12434 4TH ST - 022928350-0000 Project Type: Design Review Development Agreement, General Plan Amendment, Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Tentative Parcel Map, Tree Removal Permit, Zoning Map AmendmentALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Engineering Services Department Please be advised of the following Special Conditions Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall submit for review plans for improvements identified below, these improvements shall be completed no later than issuance of the certificate of occupancy of the project's first building. 1. At the intersection of Etiwanda Ave. and Foothill Blvd. A. Modify the traffic signal to optimize coordination timing along Foothill Blvd between the I-15 and East Ave and implement a 140-second cycle length during the PM peak hour. B. Submit to the City fair share contributions to construct the addition of a second northbound left turn lane, a third eastbound through lane, and a third westbound through lane in the amount of $37,089. 2. At the intersection of the I-15 southbound ramps and Ontario Mills Dr./4th St. A. Restripe the southbound approach to provide one left turn lane, one through lane, and dual right turn lanes. B. Modify the existing traffic signal to implement a 130-second cycle length and overlap phasing for the northbound, southbound, and westbound right turn lanes. 3. At the intersection of the I-15 northbound ramps and 4th St. A. Modify the existing traffic signal to implement a 130-second cycle length. 7. Standard Conditions of Approval Dedication shall be made of the following rights-of-way on the perimeter streets (measured from street centerline): 60 total feet on 4th Street 44 total feet on 6th Street 66 total feet on the proposed Industrial Street (full right of way width) 8. Easements for public sidewalks placed outside the public right-of-way shall be dedicated to the City.9. Reciprocal access easements shall be provided where necessary ensuring access to all parcels by CC&Rs or by deeds and shall be recorded prior to the issuance of Building Permits, where no map is involved, for the utilities which serve both parcels, including but not limited to, water, sewer, storm drainage. 10. A final drainage study shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of Grading Permits. All drainage facilities shall be installed as required by the City Engineer. 11. Adequate provisions shall be made for acceptance and disposal of surface drainage entering the property from adjacent areas. 12. A lot line adjustment or a map shall be approved among the existing parcels meeting City Development Code requirements, prior to issuance of Building Permits. 13. www.CityofRC.us Page 6 of 23Printed: 9/15/2021 Project #: DRC2020-00202 DRC2020-00213, DRC2020-00265, DRC2020-00266, DRC2020-00267, DRC2020-00312, DRC2021-00180, SUBTPM20271 Project Name: EDR - Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Location: 12434 4TH ST - 022928350-0000 Project Type: Design Review Development Agreement, General Plan Amendment, Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Tentative Parcel Map, Tree Removal Permit, Zoning Map AmendmentALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Engineering Services Department Standard Conditions of Approval ** CD Information Required Prior to Sign-Off for Building Permit Prior to the issuance of building permits, if valuation is greater or equal to $100,000, a Diversion Deposit and a related administrative fee shall be paid for the Construction and Demolition Diversion Program. The deposit is fully refundable if at least 65% of all wastes generated during construction and demolition are diverted from landfills, and appropriate documentation is provided to the City. Applicant must identify if they are self-hauling or utilizing Burrtec prior to issuance of a building permit. Proof of diversion must be submitted to the Environmental Engineering Division within 60 days following the completion of the construction and / or demolition project. Contact Marissa Ostos, Environmental Engineering, at (909) 774-4062 for more information. Instructions and forms are available at the City's website, www.cityofrc.us, under City Hall / Engineering / Environmental Programs / Construction & Demolition Diversion Program. 14. Prior to approval of a lot merger, lot line adjustment, or a final map, a deposit shall be posted with the City covering the estimated cost of apportioning the assessments under Assessment Districts LMD 3B, SLD 1 & SLD 6 among the newly created parcel(s). 15. A signed consent and waiver form to join and/or form the appropriate Landscape and Lighting Districts and or Community Facility District shall be filed with the Engineering Services Department prior to issuance of Building Permits. Formation costs shall be borne by the developer. NOTE: The parcels are currently annexed into LMD 3B, SLD 1 & SLD 6. 16. 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. 17. www.CityofRC.us Page 7 of 23Printed: 9/15/2021 Project #: DRC2020-00202 DRC2020-00213, DRC2020-00265, DRC2020-00266, DRC2020-00267, DRC2020-00312, DRC2021-00180, SUBTPM20271 Project Name: EDR - Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Location: 12434 4TH ST - 022928350-0000 Project Type: Design Review Development Agreement, General Plan Amendment, Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Tentative Parcel Map, Tree Removal Permit, Zoning Map AmendmentALL 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: Street Name: 4th Street Curb & Gutter: Remove and replace as determined during design A.C. Pvmt: Grind and overlay as determined during design Side-walk : Remove and replace as determined during design Drive Appr.: Per City Standards and City Driveway Policy Street Lights: Per City Standards Street Trees: Per City Standards Bike Trail: Class II Bike Lane or as required by the City Engineer Street Name: 6th Street Curb & Gutter: Remove and replace as determined during design A.C. Pvmt: Grind and overlay as determined during design Side-walk : Remove and replace as determined during design Drive Appr.: Per City Standards and City Driveway Policy Street Lights: Per City Standards Street Trees: Per City Standards Bike Trail: Class II Bike Lane or as required by the City Engineer Street Name: Proposed Industrial Street Curb & Gutter: Per City Standards A.C. Pvmt: Per City Standards Side-walk : Per City Standards Drive Appr.: Per City Standards and City Driveway Policy Street Lights: Per City Standards Street Trees: Per City Standards Other: Modification to exist signalized intersection of Barrington and 4th to provide signalized access to new Industrial Street. Signal modification plans subject to review and approval of City Engineer. Notes: (a) Where applicable, median island includes landscaping and irrigation on meter. (b) Pavement reconstruction and overlays will be determined during plan check. 18. www.CityofRC.us Page 8 of 23Printed: 9/15/2021 Project #: DRC2020-00202 DRC2020-00213, DRC2020-00265, DRC2020-00266, DRC2020-00267, DRC2020-00312, DRC2021-00180, SUBTPM20271 Project Name: EDR - Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Location: 12434 4TH ST - 022928350-0000 Project Type: Design Review Development Agreement, General Plan Amendment, Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Tentative Parcel Map, Tree Removal Permit, Zoning Map AmendmentALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Engineering Services Department Standard Conditions of Approval Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 16.37.010, no person shall make connections from a source of energy, fuel or power to any building or structure which is regulated by technical codes and for which a permit is required unless, in addition to any and all other codes, regulations and ordinances, all improvements required by these conditions of development approval have been completed and accepted by the City Council, except: that in developments containing more than one building, structure or unit, the development may have energy connections made in equal proportion to the percentage of completion of all improvements required by these conditions of development approval, as determined by the City Engineer, provided that reasonable, safe and maintainable access to the property exists. In no case shall more than 95 percent of the buildings, structures or units be connected to energy sources prior to completion and acceptance of all improvements required by these conditions of development approval. 19. Improvement Plans and Construction: a.Street improvement plans, including street trees, street lights, and intersection safety lights on future signal poles, and traffic signal plans shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. Security shall be posted and an agreement executed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the City Attorney guaranteeing completion of the public and/or private street improvements, prior to final map approval or the issuance of Building Permits, whichever occurs first. b. Prior to any work being performed in public right-of-way, fees shall be paid and a construction permit shall be obtained from the Engineering Services Department in addition to any other permits required. c. Pavement striping, marking, traffic signing, street name signing, traffic signal conduit, and interconnect conduit shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. d. Signal conduit with pull boxes shall be installed with any new construction or reconstruction project along major or secondary streets and at intersections for future traffic signals and interconnect wiring. Pull boxes shall be placed on both sides of the street at 3 feet outside of BCR, ECR, or any other locations approved by the City Engineer. Notes: 1) Pull boxes shall be No. 6 at intersections and No. 5 along streets, a maximum of 200 feet apart, unless otherwise specified by the City Engineer. 2) Conduit shall be 3-inch 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 security 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 Department prior to submittal for first plan check. 20. www.CityofRC.us Page 9 of 23Printed: 9/15/2021 Project #: DRC2020-00202 DRC2020-00213, DRC2020-00265, DRC2020-00266, DRC2020-00267, DRC2020-00312, DRC2021-00180, SUBTPM20271 Project Name: EDR - Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Location: 12434 4TH ST - 022928350-0000 Project Type: Design Review Development Agreement, General Plan Amendment, Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Tentative Parcel Map, Tree Removal Permit, Zoning Map AmendmentALL 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: 4th Street Botanical Name: Platanus acerifolia Common Name: Min. Grow Space: 30 Spacing: 30 Size: 15 gallon minimum Qty.: to be determined during design Street Name: 6th Street Botanical Name: Magnolia grandiflora Common Name: St Mary Min. Grow Space: 20 Spacing: 20 Size: 15 gallon minimum Qty.: to be determined during design Street Name: Proposed Industrial Street (both sides of street) Botanical Name: Magnolia grandiflora Common Name: St Mary Min. Grow Space: 20 Spacing: 20 Size: 15 gallon minimum Qty.: to be determined during design 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. 21. www.CityofRC.us Page 10 of 23Printed: 9/15/2021 Project #: DRC2020-00202 DRC2020-00213, DRC2020-00265, DRC2020-00266, DRC2020-00267, DRC2020-00312, DRC2021-00180, SUBTPM20271 Project Name: EDR - Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Location: 12434 4TH ST - 022928350-0000 Project Type: Design Review Development Agreement, General Plan Amendment, Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Tentative Parcel Map, Tree Removal Permit, Zoning Map AmendmentALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Engineering Services Department Standard Conditions of Approval 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. 22. 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. 23. 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. 24. The developer shall be responsible for the relocation of existing utilities as necessary.25. 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. 26. Approvals have not been secured from all utilities and other interested agencies involved. Approval of the final parcel map will be subject to any requirements that may be received from them. 27. 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. 28. Fire Prevention / New Construction Unit Standard Conditions of Approval Fire apparatus access roads (fire lanes) can be included in an engineered onsite storm water retention plan. The ponding of storm water shall not exceed a designed depth of four (4) inches in the designated fire apparatus access road(s) and the area between the fire apparatus access road(s) and the exterior walls of all normally occupied buildings. Ponding design specifications for Building 2 appear to exceed the maximum allowable depth for onsite storm water retention. This Condition was acknowledged in the Responses letter posted Aug 27, 2020. 1. www.CityofRC.us Page 11 of 23Printed: 9/15/2021 Project #: DRC2020-00202 DRC2020-00213, DRC2020-00265, DRC2020-00266, DRC2020-00267, DRC2020-00312, DRC2021-00180, SUBTPM20271 Project Name: EDR - Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Location: 12434 4TH ST - 022928350-0000 Project Type: Design Review Development Agreement, General Plan Amendment, Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Tentative Parcel Map, Tree Removal Permit, Zoning Map AmendmentALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Fire Prevention / New Construction Unit Standard Conditions of Approval Existing parcel 22928351 is required to be annexed into Community Facilities District 85-1 (CFD 85-1). Please contact Kelly Guerra with the City of Rancho Cucamonga’s Special Districts Division at (909) 774-2582 or Kelly.Guerra@CityofRC.US to complete the annexation. The annexation requirement will not be considered complete until the applicant begins the annexation process and Special Districts notifies the Fire Marshal that the process has been started. 2. Access doors are required to be identified in accordance with Fire District Standard 5-5. The Standard has been uploaded to the Documents section. 3. Access doors are required to be distributed along the exterior of the building such that the lineal distance between adjacent access doors does not exceed 125 feet measured center to center. 4. Required alarm systems and supervision systems are required to be in accordance with Fire District Standard 9-3. The Standard has been uploaded to the Documents section. 5. Plans for the alarm and/or supervision (monitoring) system are required to be submitted separately and issued a separate permit. Submit all plans to the Building & Safety Department for routing to the Fire District. 6. Plans for the egress lighting are required to be submitted separately and issued a separate permit. Submit all plans to the Building & Safety Department for routing to the Fire District. 7. Plans for high piled combustible storage are required to be submitted separately and issued a separate permit. Submit all plans to the Building & Safety Department for routing to the Fire District. 8. Plans for the private, onsite fire underground water infrastructure are required to be submitted separately and issued a separate permit. Submit all plans to the Building & Safety Department for routing to the Fire District. 9. Plans for the public, offsite fire underground water infrastructure are required to be submitted separately and issued a separate permit. Plans are required to be submitted prior to or concurrently with the submittal of the Water District mylars. Submit all plans to the Building & Safety Department for routing to the Fire District. 10. Plans for the racks used for high piled combustible storage are required to be submitted separately and issued a separate permit. Submit all plans to the Building & Safety Department for routing to the Fire District. 11. Plans for the automatic fire sprinkler system are required to be submitted separately and issued a separate permit. Submit all plans to the Building & Safety Department for routing to the Fire District. 12. Plans for suppression systems are required to be submitted separately and issued a separate permit. Submit all plans to the Building & Safety Department for routing to the Fire District. 13. Plans for the temporary access and/or hydrants are required to be submitted separately and issued a separate permit. Submit all plans to the Building & Safety Department for routing to the Fire District. 14. Exterior doors and doors providing access to fire protection and life safety systems and equipment are required to have identification signage in accordance with Fire District Standard 5-5. The Standard has been uploaded to the Documents section. 15. www.CityofRC.us Page 12 of 23Printed: 9/15/2021 Project #: DRC2020-00202 DRC2020-00213, DRC2020-00265, DRC2020-00266, DRC2020-00267, DRC2020-00312, DRC2021-00180, SUBTPM20271 Project Name: EDR - Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Location: 12434 4TH ST - 022928350-0000 Project Type: Design Review Development Agreement, General Plan Amendment, Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Tentative Parcel Map, Tree Removal Permit, Zoning Map AmendmentALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Fire Prevention / New Construction Unit Standard Conditions of Approval Emergency responder radio coverage is required for the building(s) included in this project. San Bernardino County Information Services Department (ISD) conducts radio signal strength assessments for the entire county. It is highly recommended that a radio signal strength assessment is completed for this project. Where emergency responder radio coverage is determined to meet the requirements of the California Fire Code, an emergency responder radio system and/or associated equipment will not be required. Please contact Tim Trager with County ISD at 909-388-5563 or ttrager@isd.sbcounty.gov to schedule an assessment and/or obtain any available information about the project site. Where the existing emergency responder radio coverage is found to be below acceptable standards, an emergency responder radio system and associated equipment will be required to be provided in compliance and accordance with the California Fire Code. 16. Designated and conforming aerial apparatus access is required in accordance with Fire District Standard 5-1. Show aerial apparatus access on the fire access plan. The Standard has been uploaded to the Documents section. 17. Fire apparatus access (fire lane) design, construction, and identification are required to be in accordance with Fire District Standard 5-1. The Standard has been uploaded to the Documents section. 18. Fire flow information for this project is obtained from the Cucamonga Valley Water District (CVWD). CVWD can be reached at 909-944-6000 or custserv@cvwdwater.com. 19. Fire flow is required to be in accordance with Appendix B of the California Fire Code. The Fire District has adopted the appendix without local amendments except that the minimum fire flow for commercial buildings shall not be less than 1500 gpm. Proof of the availability of the required fire flow must be provided to the Fire District in the form of a letter or written report dated within the past 12 months. 20. Fire sprinkler are required to be installed in accordance with Fire District Standard 9-5. The Standard has been uploaded to the Documents section. 21. Gates installed across a commercial/industrial emergency vehicle access road (fire lane) are required to be in accordance with Standard 5-4. The Standard has been uploaded to the Documents section. 22. Identification of exterior perimeter fire access doors is required to be in accordance with Fire District Standard 5-5. The Standard has been uploaded to the Documents section. 23. High-piled combustible storage is required to be in accordance with Chapter 32 of the Fire Code and Fire District Standard 32-1. Please read and understand this Standard in its entirety to avoid delays in scheduling inspections and obtaining approvals. The Standard has been uploaded to the Documents section. 24. A Knox Box key box is required in accordance with Fire District Standard 5-9. Additional boxes may be required depending on the size of the building, the location of fire protection and life safety system controls, and the operational needs of the Fire District. The Standard has been uploaded to the Documents section. If an installed Knox Box is available to this project or business, keys for the building/suite/unit are required to be provided to the Fire Inspector at the final inspection. 25. www.CityofRC.us Page 13 of 23Printed: 9/15/2021 Project #: DRC2020-00202 DRC2020-00213, DRC2020-00265, DRC2020-00266, DRC2020-00267, DRC2020-00312, DRC2021-00180, SUBTPM20271 Project Name: EDR - Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Location: 12434 4TH ST - 022928350-0000 Project Type: Design Review Development Agreement, General Plan Amendment, Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Tentative Parcel Map, Tree Removal Permit, Zoning Map AmendmentALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Fire Prevention / New Construction Unit Standard Conditions of Approval A Knox key switch is required to be installed on motorized gates that are installed across or provide access to a fire access road (fire Lane). See Fire District Standard 5-3 for Residential Gates and Fire District Standard 5-4 for Commercial and Industrial Gates. 26. A Knox or Fire District padlock is required to be incorporated into the security system for a manually operated gate that are installed across or provides access to a fire access road (fire lane). 27. Coordinate landscaping with the roof access ladder points and address signage. Landscaping cannot obstruct roof access or clear visibility of address signage from time of installation to maturity of the shrubs and trees. 28. A fire service site plan is required in accordance with Fire District Standard 5-11. The Standard has been uploaded to the Documents section. 29. All of the Fire District Standards applicable are required to be reproduced on the plans. The project is required to meet all of the applicable codes, regulations, and standards in effect and adopted at the time of plan check submittal. Fire District Standards associated with construction and plan submittals can be found on the City of Rancho Cucamonga's website and accessed via https://www.dropbox.com/sh/4k4qdxhs4tp13c7/AAAdscMKMdW9WIQe725xWyU-a?dl=0 30. Roof access is required to be in accordance with Fire District Standard 5-6. The Standard has been uploaded to the Documents section. 31. Street address and unit/suite signage for commercial and industrial buildings are required to be in accordance with Fire District Standard 5-8. The Standard has been uploaded to the Documents section. 32. Fire apparatus access roads and emergency vehicle access is required to be identified with signs and/or other approved makings in accordance with Fire District Standard 5-1. A copy of the Standard has been uploaded to the Documents section. 33. Identification of fire protection systems and components, fire alarm systems and components, and equipment and devices associated with fire and life safety systems is required to be in accordance with Fire District Standards 5-5 and 5-10. The Standards have been uploaded to the Documents section. 34. Public and private fire service water mains, public and private hydrants, water control valves, fire sprinkler risers, fire department connections (FDCs), and other fire protection water related devices and equipment are required to be provided, designed, and installed in accordance with Fire District Standard 5-10. The Standard has been uploaded to the Documents section. 35. Building and Safety Services Department Please be advised of the following Special Conditions www.CityofRC.us Page 14 of 23Printed: 9/15/2021 Project #: DRC2020-00202 DRC2020-00213, DRC2020-00265, DRC2020-00266, DRC2020-00267, DRC2020-00312, DRC2021-00180, SUBTPM20271 Project Name: EDR - Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Location: 12434 4TH ST - 022928350-0000 Project Type: Design Review Development Agreement, General Plan Amendment, Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Tentative Parcel Map, Tree Removal Permit, Zoning Map AmendmentALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Building and Safety Services Department Please be advised of the following Special Conditions When the Entitlement Review is approved submit complete construction drawings including structural calculations to Building and Safety for plan review in accordance with the current edition of the CA Building and Fire Codes including all local ordinances and standards. The structure is required to be equipped with automatic fire sprinklers. A soils report is required. Disabled access to the site and building must be provided in accordance to the State of California published thresholds at the time of plan check submittal. The maximum exit access travel distance shall be 400'. Connection to the public sewer will be required. Utility easements may be required if water and sewer are from 4th street to serve building 2. 1. Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval 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”. 1. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with current adopted California Building Code and/or the California Residential Code, City Grading Standards, and accepted grading practices. The Grading and Drainage Plan(s) shall be in substantial conformance with the approved conceptual Grading and Drainage Plan. 2. A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified Engineer licensed by the State of California to perform such work. Two copies will be provided at grading and drainage plan submittal for review. Plans shall implement design recommendations per said report. 3. The final Grading and Drainage Plan, appropriate certifications and compaction reports shall be completed, submitted, and approved by the Engineering Services Department prior to the issuance of building permits. 4. A separate Grading and Drainage Plan check submittal is required for all new construction projects and for existing buildings where improvements being proposed will generate 50 cubic yards or more of combined cut and fill. The Grading and Drainage Plan shall be prepared, stamped, and wet signed by a California licensed Civil Engineer prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit. 5. The applicant shall comply with the City of Rancho Cucamonga Dust Control Measures and place a dust control sign on the project site prior to the issuance of a grading permit. All dust control sign(s) shall be located outside of the public right of way. 6. If a Rough Grading and Drainage Plan/Permit are submitted to the Engineering Services Department for review, the rough grading plan shall be a separate plan submittal and permit from Precise Grading and Drainage Plan/Permit. 7. www.CityofRC.us Page 15 of 23Printed: 9/15/2021 Project #: DRC2020-00202 DRC2020-00213, DRC2020-00265, DRC2020-00266, DRC2020-00267, DRC2020-00312, DRC2021-00180, SUBTPM20271 Project Name: EDR - Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Location: 12434 4TH ST - 022928350-0000 Project Type: Design Review Development Agreement, General Plan Amendment, Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Tentative Parcel Map, Tree Removal Permit, Zoning Map AmendmentALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval Prior to the issuance of a grading permit the applicant shall obtain written permission from the adjacent property owner(s) to construct wall(s) on property line(s) or provide a detail(s) showing the perimeter wall(s) to be constructed offset from the property line. 8. Prior to issuance of a grading permit the Final Grading and Drainage Plan shall show the accessibility path from the public right of way and the accessibility parking stalls to the building doors in conformance with the current adopted California Building Code. All accessibility ramps shall show sufficient detail including gradients, elevations, and dimensions and comply with the current adopted California Building Code. 9. 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. 10. 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. 11. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the grading and drainage plan shall show the maximum parking stall gradient at 7 percent. Accessibility parking stall grades shall be constructed per the, current adopted California Building Code. 12. The applicant shall provide a grading agreement and grading bond for all cut and fill combined exceeding 5,000 cubic yards prior to issuance of a grading permit. The grading agreement and bond shall be approved by the Engineering Services Department. 13. The final grading and drainage plan shall show existing topography a minimum of 100-feet beyond project boundary. 14. This project shall comply with the accessibility requirements of the current adopted California Building Code. 15. www.CityofRC.us Page 16 of 23Printed: 9/15/2021 Project #: DRC2020-00202 DRC2020-00213, DRC2020-00265, DRC2020-00266, DRC2020-00267, DRC2020-00312, DRC2021-00180, SUBTPM20271 Project Name: EDR - Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Location: 12434 4TH ST - 022928350-0000 Project Type: Design Review Development Agreement, General Plan Amendment, Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Tentative Parcel Map, Tree Removal Permit, Zoning Map AmendmentALL 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. 16. 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”. Note: As this project has been previously graded and the site soils have been compacted for building pads and parking lot purposes, the use of the Custom Soil Resource Report for San Bernardino County Southwestern Part by the United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service for natural soils is not acceptable for soil groundwater infiltration rates. 17. 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. 18. www.CityofRC.us Page 17 of 23Printed: 9/15/2021 Project #: DRC2020-00202 DRC2020-00213, DRC2020-00265, DRC2020-00266, DRC2020-00267, DRC2020-00312, DRC2021-00180, SUBTPM20271 Project Name: EDR - Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Location: 12434 4TH ST - 022928350-0000 Project Type: Design Review Development Agreement, General Plan Amendment, Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Tentative Parcel Map, Tree Removal Permit, Zoning Map AmendmentALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: 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. 19. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall obtain a signed and notarized letter from the adjacent property owner(s) for ALL work proposed on the adjacent property. The letter shall be scanned and pasted onto the permitted grading plan set. The letter shall show on either the title sheet or a detail sheet of the grading and drainage plan set. 20. Prior to approval of the project-specific storm water quality management plan, the applicant shall submit to the City Engineer, or his designee, a precise grading plan showing the location and elevations of existing topographical features, and showing the location and proposed elevations of proposed structures and drainage of the site. 21. A drainage study showing a 100-year, AMC 3 design storm event for on-site drainage shall be prepared and submitted to the Engineering Services Department for review and approval for on-site storm water drainage prior to issuance of a grading permit. The report shall contain water surface profile gradient calculations for all storm drain pipes 12-inches and larger in diameter. All reports shall be wet signed and sealed by the Engineer of Record. In addition, the project specific drainage study shall provide inlet calculations showing the proper sizing of the water quality management plan storm water flows into the proposed structural storm water treatment devices. 22. 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. 23. DESIGN ISSUE: The conceptual grading and drainage plan shows an area within the parking lot and fire lane where storm water will be ponding. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit the civil engineer of record shall submit a set of grading plans to the City of Rancho Cucamonga Building and Safety Department Fire Construction Services to review the plans and provide a maximum ponding depth of the storm water retention. 24. 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. 25. 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). 26. Prior to approval of the Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), the WQMP shall include a copy of the project Conditions of Approval. 27. www.CityofRC.us Page 18 of 23Printed: 9/15/2021 Project #: DRC2020-00202 DRC2020-00213, DRC2020-00265, DRC2020-00266, DRC2020-00267, DRC2020-00312, DRC2021-00180, SUBTPM20271 Project Name: EDR - Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Location: 12434 4TH ST - 022928350-0000 Project Type: Design Review Development Agreement, General Plan Amendment, Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Tentative Parcel Map, Tree Removal Permit, Zoning Map AmendmentALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval 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. 28. The Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (PWQMP) has been deemed “Acceptable”. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit a final project-specific Water Quality Management Plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Building Official. 29. Prior to the issuance of a Grading Permit the City of Rancho Cucamonga’s “Memorandum of Agreement of Storm Water Quality Management Plan” shall be submitted for review and approval by the Building Official and recorded with the County Recorder’s Office. 30. 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. 31. 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 Engineering Services Department 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. 32. 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. 33. 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. 34. 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. 35. www.CityofRC.us Page 19 of 23Printed: 9/15/2021 Project #: DRC2020-00202 DRC2020-00213, DRC2020-00265, DRC2020-00266, DRC2020-00267, DRC2020-00312, DRC2021-00180, SUBTPM20271 Project Name: EDR - Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Location: 12434 4TH ST - 022928350-0000 Project Type: Design Review Development Agreement, General Plan Amendment, Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Tentative Parcel Map, Tree Removal Permit, Zoning Map AmendmentALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval 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. 36. 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 final project-specific Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) may be prepared as a Phased WQMP and shall include all phases of the project. Construction of the storm water treatment structural devices may be constructed as construction progresses. 41. 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. 42. www.CityofRC.us Page 20 of 23Printed: 9/15/2021 Project #: DRC2020-00202 DRC2020-00213, DRC2020-00265, DRC2020-00266, DRC2020-00267, DRC2020-00312, DRC2021-00180, SUBTPM20271 Project Name: EDR - Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Location: 12434 4TH ST - 022928350-0000 Project Type: Design Review Development Agreement, General Plan Amendment, Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Tentative Parcel Map, Tree Removal Permit, Zoning Map AmendmentALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval 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. 43. As the use of drywells are proposed for the structural storm water treatment device, to meet the infiltration requirements of the current Municipal Separate Storm Sewers Systems (MS4) Permit, adequate source control and pollution prevention control BMPs shall be implemented to protect groundwater quality. The need for pre-treatment BMPs such as sedimentation or filtration shall be evaluated prior to infiltration and discussed in the final project-specific Water Quality Management Plan document. 44. www.CityofRC.us Page 21 of 23Printed: 9/15/2021 Project #: DRC2020-00202 DRC2020-00213, DRC2020-00265, DRC2020-00266, DRC2020-00267, DRC2020-00312, DRC2021-00180, SUBTPM20271 Project Name: EDR - Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Location: 12434 4TH ST - 022928350-0000 Project Type: Design Review Development Agreement, General Plan Amendment, Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Tentative Parcel Map, Tree Removal Permit, Zoning Map AmendmentALL 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 repair or maintenance activities, 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. 45. www.CityofRC.us Page 22 of 23Printed: 9/15/2021 Project #: DRC2020-00202 DRC2020-00213, DRC2020-00265, DRC2020-00266, DRC2020-00267, DRC2020-00312, DRC2021-00180, SUBTPM20271 Project Name: EDR - Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Location: 12434 4TH ST - 022928350-0000 Project Type: Design Review Development Agreement, General Plan Amendment, Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Tentative Parcel Map, Tree Removal Permit, Zoning Map AmendmentALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval 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. 46. www.CityofRC.us Page 23 of 23Printed: 9/15/2021 RESOLUTION NO. 21-60 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE DESIGN REVIEW DRC2020-00202, A REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW OF TWO NEW INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS TOTALING 2,175,000 SQUARE FEET ON CERTAIN PROPERTY LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 1,000 FEET EAST OF SANTA ANITA AVENUE AND 2,300 FEET WEST OF ETIWANDA AVENUE, NORTH OF 4TH STREET AND SOUTH OF 6TH STREET; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF – APNS: 0229-283-50 AND 51. A.Recitals. 1. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga, LLC filed an application for the approval of Design Review DRC2020-00202, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Design Review request is referred to as "the application." 2.On the 22nd day of September 2021, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing on that date. 3.All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B.Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1.This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2.Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced public hearing of September 22, 2021, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The 91.39-acre project site is located approximately 1,000 feet east of Santa Anita Avenue and 2,300 feet west of Etiwanda Avenue, north of 4th Street and south of 6th Street; and b.The project site is improved with an existing 1,431,000 square foot industrial warehouse building and an existing 23,240 square foot retail building and associated improvements such as parking areas, drive aisles, loading areas, landscaped areas and a rail spur which serves properties to the east of the project site. The site also includes an area comprising approximately 11-acres of vacant land which was previously used as a vineyard. All existing improvements, except for the rail spur, will be demolished as part of this project; and c.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 Industrial Warehouse, Heavy Industrial (HI) and General Industrial Employment (IE) and General Industrial (GI) Exhibit M PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 21-60 DR DRC2020-00202 – BRIDGE POINT RANCHO CUCAMONGA, LLC September 22, 2021 Page 2 Commercial Retail, and former vineyard Industrial (GI) District North Industrial Heavy Industrial (HI) Industrial Employment (IE) District South Industrial (City of Ontario) Industrial Industrial (Crossroads Business Park Specific Plan) West Industrial General Industrial (GI) Industrial Employment (IE) and Neo-Industrial (NI) District East Industrial and Public Facility Heavy Industrial (HI) and Civic/Regional Industrial Employment (IE) and Neo-Industrial (NI) District d.The project is for the development of two new industrial warehouse buildings on two new parcels of land: Building 1 will total approximately 1,422,500 square feet including a mezzanine not to exceed 25,000 square feet, and Building 2 will total approximately 752,500 square feet and include a mezzanine not to exceed 16,000 square feet; and e.The project also includes an application to subdivide the project site into two new parcels: Parcel 1 which will total approximately 55 acres in size and be developed with Building 1, and Parcel 2, which will total approximately 30 acres in size and be developed with Building 2; and f.The project complies with all requirements of the Development Code including setbacks, parking, design, and landscape coverage; and g.The project requires 469 parking stalls and 268 trailer loading stalls for Building 1 and 184 parking stalls and 91 trailer loading stalls for Building 2. Accordingly, the project provides 478 parking stalls and 268 trailer loading stalls for Building 1, and 221 parking stalls and 91 trailer loading stalls for Building 2; and h.The project scope includes General Plan Amendment DRC2020-00213, Zoning Map Amendment DRC2020-00267, Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM20271, Tree Removal Permit DRC2020- 00266, Minor Use Permit DRC2021-00315 and Development Agreement DRC2021-00180. 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 General Plan. The proposed industrial warehouse project will be consistent with the General Plan with the approval of General Plan Amendment DRC2020-00213, which will amend the General Plan land use designation of the project site PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 21-60 DR DRC2020-00202 – BRIDGE POINT RANCHO CUCAMONGA, LLC September 22, 2021 Page 3 from a split designation of General Industrial and Heavy Industrial to General Industrial, a land use designation which permits the proposed industrial warehouse use; and b. The proposed use is in accord with the objective of the Development Code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. Industrial warehouses, specifically Large Distribution/Fulfillment Centers, are permitted within the Neo-Industrial (NI) District subject to the approval of a Minor Use Permit. Minor Use Permit DRC2021-00315 was submitted for the operation of a Large Distribution/Fulfillment Center use. The project will be in compliance with the Zoning Map with approval of the related Zoning Map Amendment DRC2020-00267, which will amend the zoning designation of the project area which is currently split between the Neo-Industrial (NI) District and Industrial Employment (IE) District to Neo-Industrial (NI) District for the whole of the project area; and c. The proposed use is in compliance with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code. The project will be in compliance with the Development Code with approval of the related General Plan Amendment DRC2020-00213 and Zoning Map Amendment DRC2020-00267. Large Distribution/Fulfillment Centers are permitted within the Neo-Industrial (NI) District upon the approval of a Minor Use Permit. The project complies with all other development criteria outlined in the Development Code including setbacks, parking, and design; and 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 related environmental review outlines potential environmental impacts related to the project and identifies project-specific mitigation measures that reduce these impacts to less-than- significant. The proposed use will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 4. The Design Review, in addition to the General Plan Amendment, Tentative Parcel Map, Tree Removal Permit, Minor Use Permit, and Development Agreement (collectively, the “Project”) were environmentally reviewed pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City’s Local CEQA Guidelines. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15060(d), the City determined that an EIR would clearly be required for the Project, and therefore prepared an environmental impact report (EIR) that focused on the potentially significant effects of the Project. Based upon the facts and information contained in the EIR prepared for the Project and the entire record before it, the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council certify the final EIR for the Project, adopt findings of fact pursuant to CEQA, and adopt the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the Project, based upon the findings as follows: a. A Notice of Availability advertising the availability of the Draft EIR was circulated for a period of 45-days beginning on May 7, 2021 and ending on June 21, 2021; and b. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15025(c), the Planning Commission has reviewed the EIR in both its draft and final forms, attached as Exhibits C and D of the staff report accompanying the Planning Commission’s consideration of the Project and incorporated herein by this reference, and all comments received regarding the EIR and, based on the whole record before it, finds that the EIR was prepared in compliance with CEQA; and The Planning Commission further finds that this recommendation reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the Planning Commission; and c.The Planning Commission has also reviewed and considered the Mitigation Monitoring PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 21-60 DR DRC2020-00202 – BRIDGE POINT RANCHO CUCAMONGA, LLC September 22, 2021 Page 4 and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the project that has been prepared pursuant to the requirements of Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 and finds that such Program is designed to ensure compliance with the mitigation measures during project implementation. The Planning Commission, therefore, recommends the City Council adopt the MMRP for the project; and d. The custodian of records for the EIR, Mitigation Monitoring Program, and all other materials which constitute the record of proceedings upon which the City Council’s decision is based is the Planning Director of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Those documents are available for public review in the Planning Department of the City of Rancho Cucamonga located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730, telephone (909) 477-2750. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby recommends that the City Council approve the application subject to each and every condition set forth in the Conditions of Approval attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 22nd DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Francisco Oaxaca, Chairman ATTEST: Anne McIntosh, AICP, Secretary I, Anne McIntosh, AICP, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 22nd day of September 2021, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Conditions of Approval Community Development Department Project #: DRC2020-00202 DRC2020-00213, DRC2020-00265, DRC2020-00266, DRC2020-00267, DRC2020-00312, DRC2021-00180, SUBTPM20271 Project Name: EDR - Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Location: 12434 4TH ST - 022928350-0000 Project Type: Design Review Development Agreement, General Plan Amendment, Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Tentative Parcel Map, Tree Removal Permit, Zoning Map AmendmentALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Planning Department Please be advised of the following Special Conditions The project shall comply with all mitigation measures identified in the Environmental Impact Report SCH No. (2020100056) and the corresponding Mitigation Monitoring and Report Program. 1. No more than 10% of the building space shall be used for high-cube cold storage warehouse space, consistent with analyses conducted in the Environmental Impact Report. 2. Use of natural gas and installation of required infrastructure is prohibited and any modification to this prohibition may be subject to additional review under CEQA. 3. No sort use shall be operated on the Site during the operation of the project. A sort use means a fulfillment center that ships out smaller items, requiring extensive sorting, typically by manual means, as defined in the ITE Manual, and as further described in the project’s Draft EIR. 4. Standard Conditions of Approval For commercial and industrial projects, paint roll-up doors and service doors to match main building colors. 5. The applicant shall sign the Statement of Agreement and Acceptance of Conditions of Approval provided by the Planning Department. The signed Statement of Agreement and Acceptance of Conditions of Approval shall be returned to the Planning Department prior to the submittal of grading/construction plans for plan check, request for a business license, and/or commencement of the approved activity. 6. 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. In the event such a legal action is filed, the City shall estimate its expenses for litigation. The applicant shall deposit such amount with the City or enter into an agreement with the City to pay such expenses as they become due. 7. 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. 8. www.CityofRC.us Printed: 9/15/2021 Project #: DRC2020-00202 DRC2020-00213, DRC2020-00265, DRC2020-00266, DRC2020-00267, DRC2020-00312, DRC2021-00180, SUBTPM20271 Project Name: EDR - Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Location: 12434 4TH ST - 022928350-0000 Project Type: Design Review Development Agreement, General Plan Amendment, Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Tentative Parcel Map, Tree Removal Permit, Zoning Map AmendmentALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Planning Department Standard Conditions of Approval The applicant shall be required to pay California Department of Fish and Wildlife Notice of Determination & Environmental Impact Report fee pursuant to CDFW's current fee schedule, including all County processing fees. All checks are to be made payable to the Clerk of the Board Supervisors and submitted to the Planning Department within 5 days of the approval of the project by Planning Commission/City Council. 9. Any approval shall expire if Building Permits are not issued or approved use has not commenced within 2 years from the date of approval or a time extension has been granted. 10. Any modification or intensification of the approved use, including revisions in the operations of the business that is approved by this Minor Use Use Permit; improvements including new building construction; and/or other modifications/intensification beyond what is specifically approved by this Minor Use Permit, shall require the review and approval by the necessary discretionary body 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 Minor Use Permit for review by the City. 11. This project is subject to public art requirement outlined in Chapter 17.124 of the Development Code, in accordance with Development Agreement DRC2021-00180. The applicant shall be required to install art onsite pursuant to Development Code Section 17.124 with a minimum value of $200,000, pursuant to Development Agreement DRC2021-00180. No final approval, such as a final inspection or the a issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, for any development project (or if a multi-phased project, the final phase of a development project) that is subject to this requirement shall occur unless the public art requirement has been fulfilled to the satisfaction of the Planning Department. 12. 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. 13. Existing trees required to be preserved in place shall be protected with a construction barrier in accordance with the Development Code Section 17.80.050, and so noted on the grading plans. The location of those trees to be preserved in place and new locations for transplanted trees shall be shown on the detailed landscape plans. The applicant shall follow all of the arborist's recommendations regarding preservation, transplanting, and trimming methods. 14. Front yard and corner side yard landscaping and irrigation shall be required per the Development Code and/or . This requirement shall be in addition to the required street trees and slope planting. 15. www.CityofRC.us Page 2 of 23Printed: 9/15/2021 Project #: DRC2020-00202 DRC2020-00213, DRC2020-00265, DRC2020-00266, DRC2020-00267, DRC2020-00312, DRC2021-00180, SUBTPM20271 Project Name: EDR - Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Location: 12434 4TH ST - 022928350-0000 Project Type: Design Review Development Agreement, General Plan Amendment, Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Tentative Parcel Map, Tree Removal Permit, Zoning Map AmendmentALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Planning Department Standard Conditions of Approval 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. 16. Landscaping and irrigation systems required to be installed within the public right-of-way on the perimeter of this project area shall be continuously maintained by the developer. 17. The final design of the perimeter parkways, walls, landscaping, and sidewalks shall be included in the required landscape plans and shall be subject to Planning Director review and approval and coordinated for consistency with any parkway landscaping plan which may be required by the Engineering Services Department. 18. 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. 19. 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. 20. The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved plans which include all applicable 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. 21. 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. 22. Trash receptacle(s) are required and shall meet City standards. The final design, locations, and the number of trash receptacles shall be subject to Planning Director review and approval prior to the issuance of Building Permits. 23. The proposed public street shall be named Catherine Bridge Place. This street name shall be submitted for Planning Director review and approval in accordance with the adopted Street Naming Policy prior to approval of the final map 24. www.CityofRC.us Page 3 of 23Printed: 9/15/2021 Project #: DRC2020-00202 DRC2020-00213, DRC2020-00265, DRC2020-00266, DRC2020-00267, DRC2020-00312, DRC2021-00180, SUBTPM20271 Project Name: EDR - Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Location: 12434 4TH ST - 022928350-0000 Project Type: Design Review Development Agreement, General Plan Amendment, Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Tentative Parcel Map, Tree Removal Permit, Zoning Map AmendmentALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Planning Department Standard Conditions of Approval All Double Detector Checks (DDC) and Fire Department Connections (FDC) required and/or proposed shall be installed at locations that are not within direct view or line-of-sight of the office corner of the building. The specific locations of each DDC and FDC shall require the review and approval of the Planning Department and Fire Construction Services/Fire Department. All Double Detector Checks (DDC) and Fire Department Connections (FDC) screened behind a 4-foot high wall. For this project, these walls shall be constructed of poured in-place concrete with design elements incorporated to match the building Decorative paving shall be provided at each vehicle entrance to the site, behind the public right-of-way. These decoratively paved areas shall extend from the front property line to the building setback line and have a width equal to that of the driveway. 25. Downspouts shall not be visible from the exterior of any elevations of the buildings. All downspouts shall be routed through the interior of the building walls. 26. Engineering Services Department Please be advised of the following Special Conditions The applicant shall construct a public street along with east side of the project between 4th Street and 6th Street. The public street shall be a full width Industrial Street meeting the City Standard Plan 100-A. 1. (At-Grade Crossing) This project shall construct at-grade crossing improvements through the rail road along 6th Street. The developer shall be eligible for reimbursement of one-half the cost of the 6th Street at-grade crossing from future developments as they occur on APN: 0229-283-79. 2. The street lights shall be owned by the City. Developer shall be responsible to coordinate and pay all costs of street lights and to provide power to City owned street lights. 3. Development Impact Fees Due Prior to Building Permit Issuance: (Subject to Change / Periodic Increases - Refer to current fee schedule to determine current amounts) Drainage Impact Fee Transportation Impact Fee Police Impact Fee 4. www.CityofRC.us Page 4 of 23Printed: 9/15/2021 Project #: DRC2020-00202 DRC2020-00213, DRC2020-00265, DRC2020-00266, DRC2020-00267, DRC2020-00312, DRC2021-00180, SUBTPM20271 Project Name: EDR - Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Location: 12434 4TH ST - 022928350-0000 Project Type: Design Review Development Agreement, General Plan Amendment, Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Tentative Parcel Map, Tree Removal Permit, Zoning Map AmendmentALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Engineering Services Department Please be advised of the following Special Conditions 1) Electric: The Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Utility (RCMU) shall be the electrical service provider for all project related development. The Developer shall execute a Line Extension Agreement for electric service and shall construct electrical distribution facilities in accordance with such agreement and RCMU requirements and dedicate such facilities to the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Utility. RCMU’s proposed underground electric system will be located off of Etiwanda Ave and Sixth Street East of the proposed development. 2) Fiber: The proposed development is slated to be included in the City’s Fiber Optic Master Plan that would provide a City owned Fiber-to-the-Premise (FTTP) infrastructure. The City will require the developer to install a 1-4” UG Fiber Optic dark conduit on the frontage of the development (along the South side of Sixth Street) along the project boundary along with a 3’x4’x3’ pullbox on each end of the route and into the project boundary. The size, placement and location of the conduit and vaults shall be shown on the Street Improvement and/or Public Improvement Plans and subject to the Engineering Services Department's review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits or final map approval, whichever comes first. On site, the City will require 1-2” UG HDPE or equal fiber optic conduit to be placed underground within a duct and structure system to be installed joint trench by the Developer per Standard Drawing 135-137 and interconnected into the City's 4" fiber optic conduit. The size, placement and location of the conduit and/or vaults shall run into each of the development’s individual telecommunication room and be shown on the final dry utility onsite substructure plans and subject to the Engineering Services Department's review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits or final map approval, whichever comes first. 5. The applicant shall modify the existing traffic signal at the intersection of 4th Street and the Barrington Avenue to incorporate the new public street into an offset intersection with Barrington Avenue controlled by a single traffic signal. Furnish and install new traffic signal equipment as necessary per Caltrans standard plans and specifications plus 2019 revision, and City standard drawings. Furnish and install the necessary infrastructure to connect the signal to the adjacent signals at 4th Street and Etiwanda, and 4th Street and Santa Anita Avenues. 6. www.CityofRC.us Page 5 of 23Printed: 9/15/2021 Project #: DRC2020-00202 DRC2020-00213, DRC2020-00265, DRC2020-00266, DRC2020-00267, DRC2020-00312, DRC2021-00180, SUBTPM20271 Project Name: EDR - Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Location: 12434 4TH ST - 022928350-0000 Project Type: Design Review Development Agreement, General Plan Amendment, Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Tentative Parcel Map, Tree Removal Permit, Zoning Map AmendmentALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Engineering Services Department Please be advised of the following Special Conditions Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall submit for review plans for improvements identified below, these improvements shall be completed no later than issuance of the certificate of occupancy of the project's first building. 1. At the intersection of Etiwanda Ave. and Foothill Blvd. A. Modify the traffic signal to optimize coordination timing along Foothill Blvd between the I-15 and East Ave and implement a 140-second cycle length during the PM peak hour. B. Submit to the City fair share contributions to construct the addition of a second northbound left turn lane, a third eastbound through lane, and a third westbound through lane in the amount of $37,089. 2. At the intersection of the I-15 southbound ramps and Ontario Mills Dr./4th St. A. Restripe the southbound approach to provide one left turn lane, one through lane, and dual right turn lanes. B. Modify the existing traffic signal to implement a 130-second cycle length and overlap phasing for the northbound, southbound, and westbound right turn lanes. 3. At the intersection of the I-15 northbound ramps and 4th St. A. Modify the existing traffic signal to implement a 130-second cycle length. 7. Standard Conditions of Approval Dedication shall be made of the following rights-of-way on the perimeter streets (measured from street centerline): 60 total feet on 4th Street 44 total feet on 6th Street 66 total feet on the proposed Industrial Street (full right of way width) 8. Easements for public sidewalks placed outside the public right-of-way shall be dedicated to the City.9. Reciprocal access easements shall be provided where necessary ensuring access to all parcels by CC&Rs or by deeds and shall be recorded prior to the issuance of Building Permits, where no map is involved, for the utilities which serve both parcels, including but not limited to, water, sewer, storm drainage. 10. A final drainage study shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of Grading Permits. All drainage facilities shall be installed as required by the City Engineer. 11. Adequate provisions shall be made for acceptance and disposal of surface drainage entering the property from adjacent areas. 12. A lot line adjustment or a map shall be approved among the existing parcels meeting City Development Code requirements, prior to issuance of Building Permits. 13. www.CityofRC.us Page 6 of 23Printed: 9/15/2021 Project #: DRC2020-00202 DRC2020-00213, DRC2020-00265, DRC2020-00266, DRC2020-00267, DRC2020-00312, DRC2021-00180, SUBTPM20271 Project Name: EDR - Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Location: 12434 4TH ST - 022928350-0000 Project Type: Design Review Development Agreement, General Plan Amendment, Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Tentative Parcel Map, Tree Removal Permit, Zoning Map AmendmentALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Engineering Services Department Standard Conditions of Approval ** CD Information Required Prior to Sign-Off for Building Permit Prior to the issuance of building permits, if valuation is greater or equal to $100,000, a Diversion Deposit and a related administrative fee shall be paid for the Construction and Demolition Diversion Program. The deposit is fully refundable if at least 65% of all wastes generated during construction and demolition are diverted from landfills, and appropriate documentation is provided to the City. Applicant must identify if they are self-hauling or utilizing Burrtec prior to issuance of a building permit. Proof of diversion must be submitted to the Environmental Engineering Division within 60 days following the completion of the construction and / or demolition project. Contact Marissa Ostos, Environmental Engineering, at (909) 774-4062 for more information. Instructions and forms are available at the City's website, www.cityofrc.us, under City Hall / Engineering / Environmental Programs / Construction & Demolition Diversion Program. 14. Prior to approval of a lot merger, lot line adjustment, or a final map, a deposit shall be posted with the City covering the estimated cost of apportioning the assessments under Assessment Districts LMD 3B, SLD 1 & SLD 6 among the newly created parcel(s). 15. A signed consent and waiver form to join and/or form the appropriate Landscape and Lighting Districts and or Community Facility District shall be filed with the Engineering Services Department prior to issuance of Building Permits. Formation costs shall be borne by the developer. NOTE: The parcels are currently annexed into LMD 3B, SLD 1 & SLD 6. 16. 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. 17. www.CityofRC.us Page 7 of 23Printed: 9/15/2021 Project #: DRC2020-00202 DRC2020-00213, DRC2020-00265, DRC2020-00266, DRC2020-00267, DRC2020-00312, DRC2021-00180, SUBTPM20271 Project Name: EDR - Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Location: 12434 4TH ST - 022928350-0000 Project Type: Design Review Development Agreement, General Plan Amendment, Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Tentative Parcel Map, Tree Removal Permit, Zoning Map AmendmentALL 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: Street Name: 4th Street Curb & Gutter: Remove and replace as determined during design A.C. Pvmt: Grind and overlay as determined during design Side-walk : Remove and replace as determined during design Drive Appr.: Per City Standards and City Driveway Policy Street Lights: Per City Standards Street Trees: Per City Standards Bike Trail: Class II Bike Lane or as required by the City Engineer Street Name: 6th Street Curb & Gutter: Remove and replace as determined during design A.C. Pvmt: Grind and overlay as determined during design Side-walk : Remove and replace as determined during design Drive Appr.: Per City Standards and City Driveway Policy Street Lights: Per City Standards Street Trees: Per City Standards Bike Trail: Class II Bike Lane or as required by the City Engineer Street Name: Proposed Industrial Street Curb & Gutter: Per City Standards A.C. Pvmt: Per City Standards Side-walk : Per City Standards Drive Appr.: Per City Standards and City Driveway Policy Street Lights: Per City Standards Street Trees: Per City Standards Other: Modification to exist signalized intersection of Barrington and 4th to provide signalized access to new Industrial Street. Signal modification plans subject to review and approval of City Engineer. Notes: (a) Where applicable, median island includes landscaping and irrigation on meter. (b) Pavement reconstruction and overlays will be determined during plan check. 18. www.CityofRC.us Page 8 of 23Printed: 9/15/2021 Project #: DRC2020-00202 DRC2020-00213, DRC2020-00265, DRC2020-00266, DRC2020-00267, DRC2020-00312, DRC2021-00180, SUBTPM20271 Project Name: EDR - Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Location: 12434 4TH ST - 022928350-0000 Project Type: Design Review Development Agreement, General Plan Amendment, Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Tentative Parcel Map, Tree Removal Permit, Zoning Map AmendmentALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Engineering Services Department Standard Conditions of Approval Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 16.37.010, no person shall make connections from a source of energy, fuel or power to any building or structure which is regulated by technical codes and for which a permit is required unless, in addition to any and all other codes, regulations and ordinances, all improvements required by these conditions of development approval have been completed and accepted by the City Council, except: that in developments containing more than one building, structure or unit, the development may have energy connections made in equal proportion to the percentage of completion of all improvements required by these conditions of development approval, as determined by the City Engineer, provided that reasonable, safe and maintainable access to the property exists. In no case shall more than 95 percent of the buildings, structures or units be connected to energy sources prior to completion and acceptance of all improvements required by these conditions of development approval. 19. Improvement Plans and Construction: a.Street improvement plans, including street trees, street lights, and intersection safety lights on future signal poles, and traffic signal plans shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. Security shall be posted and an agreement executed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the City Attorney guaranteeing completion of the public and/or private street improvements, prior to final map approval or the issuance of Building Permits, whichever occurs first. b. Prior to any work being performed in public right-of-way, fees shall be paid and a construction permit shall be obtained from the Engineering Services Department in addition to any other permits required. c. Pavement striping, marking, traffic signing, street name signing, traffic signal conduit, and interconnect conduit shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. d. Signal conduit with pull boxes shall be installed with any new construction or reconstruction project along major or secondary streets and at intersections for future traffic signals and interconnect wiring. Pull boxes shall be placed on both sides of the street at 3 feet outside of BCR, ECR, or any other locations approved by the City Engineer. Notes: 1) Pull boxes shall be No. 6 at intersections and No. 5 along streets, a maximum of 200 feet apart, unless otherwise specified by the City Engineer. 2) Conduit shall be 3-inch 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 security 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 Department prior to submittal for first plan check. 20. www.CityofRC.us Page 9 of 23Printed: 9/15/2021 Project #: DRC2020-00202 DRC2020-00213, DRC2020-00265, DRC2020-00266, DRC2020-00267, DRC2020-00312, DRC2021-00180, SUBTPM20271 Project Name: EDR - Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Location: 12434 4TH ST - 022928350-0000 Project Type: Design Review Development Agreement, General Plan Amendment, Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Tentative Parcel Map, Tree Removal Permit, Zoning Map AmendmentALL 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: 4th Street Botanical Name: Platanus acerifolia Common Name: Min. Grow Space: 30 Spacing: 30 Size: 15 gallon minimum Qty.: to be determined during design Street Name: 6th Street Botanical Name: Magnolia grandiflora Common Name: St Mary Min. Grow Space: 20 Spacing: 20 Size: 15 gallon minimum Qty.: to be determined during design Street Name: Proposed Industrial Street (both sides of street) Botanical Name: Magnolia grandiflora Common Name: St Mary Min. Grow Space: 20 Spacing: 20 Size: 15 gallon minimum Qty.: to be determined during design 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. 21. www.CityofRC.us Page 10 of 23Printed: 9/15/2021 Project #: DRC2020-00202 DRC2020-00213, DRC2020-00265, DRC2020-00266, DRC2020-00267, DRC2020-00312, DRC2021-00180, SUBTPM20271 Project Name: EDR - Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Location: 12434 4TH ST - 022928350-0000 Project Type: Design Review Development Agreement, General Plan Amendment, Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Tentative Parcel Map, Tree Removal Permit, Zoning Map AmendmentALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Engineering Services Department Standard Conditions of Approval 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. 22. 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. 23. 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. 24. The developer shall be responsible for the relocation of existing utilities as necessary.25. 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. 26. Approvals have not been secured from all utilities and other interested agencies involved. Approval of the final parcel map will be subject to any requirements that may be received from them. 27. 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. 28. Fire Prevention / New Construction Unit Standard Conditions of Approval Fire apparatus access roads (fire lanes) can be included in an engineered onsite storm water retention plan. The ponding of storm water shall not exceed a designed depth of four (4) inches in the designated fire apparatus access road(s) and the area between the fire apparatus access road(s) and the exterior walls of all normally occupied buildings. Ponding design specifications for Building 2 appear to exceed the maximum allowable depth for onsite storm water retention. This Condition was acknowledged in the Responses letter posted Aug 27, 2020. 1. www.CityofRC.us Page 11 of 23Printed: 9/15/2021 Project #: DRC2020-00202 DRC2020-00213, DRC2020-00265, DRC2020-00266, DRC2020-00267, DRC2020-00312, DRC2021-00180, SUBTPM20271 Project Name: EDR - Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Location: 12434 4TH ST - 022928350-0000 Project Type: Design Review Development Agreement, General Plan Amendment, Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Tentative Parcel Map, Tree Removal Permit, Zoning Map AmendmentALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Fire Prevention / New Construction Unit Standard Conditions of Approval Existing parcel 22928351 is required to be annexed into Community Facilities District 85-1 (CFD 85-1). Please contact Kelly Guerra with the City of Rancho Cucamonga’s Special Districts Division at (909) 774-2582 or Kelly.Guerra@CityofRC.US to complete the annexation. The annexation requirement will not be considered complete until the applicant begins the annexation process and Special Districts notifies the Fire Marshal that the process has been started. 2. Access doors are required to be identified in accordance with Fire District Standard 5-5. The Standard has been uploaded to the Documents section. 3. Access doors are required to be distributed along the exterior of the building such that the lineal distance between adjacent access doors does not exceed 125 feet measured center to center. 4. Required alarm systems and supervision systems are required to be in accordance with Fire District Standard 9-3. The Standard has been uploaded to the Documents section. 5. Plans for the alarm and/or supervision (monitoring) system are required to be submitted separately and issued a separate permit. Submit all plans to the Building & Safety Department for routing to the Fire District. 6. Plans for the egress lighting are required to be submitted separately and issued a separate permit. Submit all plans to the Building & Safety Department for routing to the Fire District. 7. Plans for high piled combustible storage are required to be submitted separately and issued a separate permit. Submit all plans to the Building & Safety Department for routing to the Fire District. 8. Plans for the private, onsite fire underground water infrastructure are required to be submitted separately and issued a separate permit. Submit all plans to the Building & Safety Department for routing to the Fire District. 9. Plans for the public, offsite fire underground water infrastructure are required to be submitted separately and issued a separate permit. Plans are required to be submitted prior to or concurrently with the submittal of the Water District mylars. Submit all plans to the Building & Safety Department for routing to the Fire District. 10. Plans for the racks used for high piled combustible storage are required to be submitted separately and issued a separate permit. Submit all plans to the Building & Safety Department for routing to the Fire District. 11. Plans for the automatic fire sprinkler system are required to be submitted separately and issued a separate permit. Submit all plans to the Building & Safety Department for routing to the Fire District. 12. Plans for suppression systems are required to be submitted separately and issued a separate permit. Submit all plans to the Building & Safety Department for routing to the Fire District. 13. Plans for the temporary access and/or hydrants are required to be submitted separately and issued a separate permit. Submit all plans to the Building & Safety Department for routing to the Fire District. 14. Exterior doors and doors providing access to fire protection and life safety systems and equipment are required to have identification signage in accordance with Fire District Standard 5-5. The Standard has been uploaded to the Documents section. 15. www.CityofRC.us Page 12 of 23Printed: 9/15/2021 Project #: DRC2020-00202 DRC2020-00213, DRC2020-00265, DRC2020-00266, DRC2020-00267, DRC2020-00312, DRC2021-00180, SUBTPM20271 Project Name: EDR - Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Location: 12434 4TH ST - 022928350-0000 Project Type: Design Review Development Agreement, General Plan Amendment, Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Tentative Parcel Map, Tree Removal Permit, Zoning Map AmendmentALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Fire Prevention / New Construction Unit Standard Conditions of Approval Emergency responder radio coverage is required for the building(s) included in this project. San Bernardino County Information Services Department (ISD) conducts radio signal strength assessments for the entire county. It is highly recommended that a radio signal strength assessment is completed for this project. Where emergency responder radio coverage is determined to meet the requirements of the California Fire Code, an emergency responder radio system and/or associated equipment will not be required. Please contact Tim Trager with County ISD at 909-388-5563 or ttrager@isd.sbcounty.gov to schedule an assessment and/or obtain any available information about the project site. Where the existing emergency responder radio coverage is found to be below acceptable standards, an emergency responder radio system and associated equipment will be required to be provided in compliance and accordance with the California Fire Code. 16. Designated and conforming aerial apparatus access is required in accordance with Fire District Standard 5-1. Show aerial apparatus access on the fire access plan. The Standard has been uploaded to the Documents section. 17. Fire apparatus access (fire lane) design, construction, and identification are required to be in accordance with Fire District Standard 5-1. The Standard has been uploaded to the Documents section. 18. Fire flow information for this project is obtained from the Cucamonga Valley Water District (CVWD). CVWD can be reached at 909-944-6000 or custserv@cvwdwater.com. 19. Fire flow is required to be in accordance with Appendix B of the California Fire Code. The Fire District has adopted the appendix without local amendments except that the minimum fire flow for commercial buildings shall not be less than 1500 gpm. Proof of the availability of the required fire flow must be provided to the Fire District in the form of a letter or written report dated within the past 12 months. 20. Fire sprinkler are required to be installed in accordance with Fire District Standard 9-5. The Standard has been uploaded to the Documents section. 21. Gates installed across a commercial/industrial emergency vehicle access road (fire lane) are required to be in accordance with Standard 5-4. The Standard has been uploaded to the Documents section. 22. Identification of exterior perimeter fire access doors is required to be in accordance with Fire District Standard 5-5. The Standard has been uploaded to the Documents section. 23. High-piled combustible storage is required to be in accordance with Chapter 32 of the Fire Code and Fire District Standard 32-1. Please read and understand this Standard in its entirety to avoid delays in scheduling inspections and obtaining approvals. The Standard has been uploaded to the Documents section. 24. A Knox Box key box is required in accordance with Fire District Standard 5-9. Additional boxes may be required depending on the size of the building, the location of fire protection and life safety system controls, and the operational needs of the Fire District. The Standard has been uploaded to the Documents section. If an installed Knox Box is available to this project or business, keys for the building/suite/unit are required to be provided to the Fire Inspector at the final inspection. 25. www.CityofRC.us Page 13 of 23Printed: 9/15/2021 Project #: DRC2020-00202 DRC2020-00213, DRC2020-00265, DRC2020-00266, DRC2020-00267, DRC2020-00312, DRC2021-00180, SUBTPM20271 Project Name: EDR - Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Location: 12434 4TH ST - 022928350-0000 Project Type: Design Review Development Agreement, General Plan Amendment, Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Tentative Parcel Map, Tree Removal Permit, Zoning Map AmendmentALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Fire Prevention / New Construction Unit Standard Conditions of Approval A Knox key switch is required to be installed on motorized gates that are installed across or provide access to a fire access road (fire Lane). See Fire District Standard 5-3 for Residential Gates and Fire District Standard 5-4 for Commercial and Industrial Gates. 26. A Knox or Fire District padlock is required to be incorporated into the security system for a manually operated gate that are installed across or provides access to a fire access road (fire lane). 27. Coordinate landscaping with the roof access ladder points and address signage. Landscaping cannot obstruct roof access or clear visibility of address signage from time of installation to maturity of the shrubs and trees. 28. A fire service site plan is required in accordance with Fire District Standard 5-11. The Standard has been uploaded to the Documents section. 29. All of the Fire District Standards applicable are required to be reproduced on the plans. The project is required to meet all of the applicable codes, regulations, and standards in effect and adopted at the time of plan check submittal. Fire District Standards associated with construction and plan submittals can be found on the City of Rancho Cucamonga's website and accessed via https://www.dropbox.com/sh/4k4qdxhs4tp13c7/AAAdscMKMdW9WIQe725xWyU-a?dl=0 30. Roof access is required to be in accordance with Fire District Standard 5-6. The Standard has been uploaded to the Documents section. 31. Street address and unit/suite signage for commercial and industrial buildings are required to be in accordance with Fire District Standard 5-8. The Standard has been uploaded to the Documents section. 32. Fire apparatus access roads and emergency vehicle access is required to be identified with signs and/or other approved makings in accordance with Fire District Standard 5-1. A copy of the Standard has been uploaded to the Documents section. 33. Identification of fire protection systems and components, fire alarm systems and components, and equipment and devices associated with fire and life safety systems is required to be in accordance with Fire District Standards 5-5 and 5-10. The Standards have been uploaded to the Documents section. 34. Public and private fire service water mains, public and private hydrants, water control valves, fire sprinkler risers, fire department connections (FDCs), and other fire protection water related devices and equipment are required to be provided, designed, and installed in accordance with Fire District Standard 5-10. The Standard has been uploaded to the Documents section. 35. Building and Safety Services Department Please be advised of the following Special Conditions www.CityofRC.us Page 14 of 23Printed: 9/15/2021 Project #: DRC2020-00202 DRC2020-00213, DRC2020-00265, DRC2020-00266, DRC2020-00267, DRC2020-00312, DRC2021-00180, SUBTPM20271 Project Name: EDR - Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Location: 12434 4TH ST - 022928350-0000 Project Type: Design Review Development Agreement, General Plan Amendment, Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Tentative Parcel Map, Tree Removal Permit, Zoning Map AmendmentALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Building and Safety Services Department Please be advised of the following Special Conditions When the Entitlement Review is approved submit complete construction drawings including structural calculations to Building and Safety for plan review in accordance with the current edition of the CA Building and Fire Codes including all local ordinances and standards. The structure is required to be equipped with automatic fire sprinklers. A soils report is required. Disabled access to the site and building must be provided in accordance to the State of California published thresholds at the time of plan check submittal. The maximum exit access travel distance shall be 400'. Connection to the public sewer will be required. Utility easements may be required if water and sewer are from 4th street to serve building 2. 1. Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval 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”. 1. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with current adopted California Building Code and/or the California Residential Code, City Grading Standards, and accepted grading practices. The Grading and Drainage Plan(s) shall be in substantial conformance with the approved conceptual Grading and Drainage Plan. 2. A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified Engineer licensed by the State of California to perform such work. Two copies will be provided at grading and drainage plan submittal for review. Plans shall implement design recommendations per said report. 3. The final Grading and Drainage Plan, appropriate certifications and compaction reports shall be completed, submitted, and approved by the Engineering Services Department prior to the issuance of building permits. 4. A separate Grading and Drainage Plan check submittal is required for all new construction projects and for existing buildings where improvements being proposed will generate 50 cubic yards or more of combined cut and fill. The Grading and Drainage Plan shall be prepared, stamped, and wet signed by a California licensed Civil Engineer prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit. 5. The applicant shall comply with the City of Rancho Cucamonga Dust Control Measures and place a dust control sign on the project site prior to the issuance of a grading permit. All dust control sign(s) shall be located outside of the public right of way. 6. If a Rough Grading and Drainage Plan/Permit are submitted to the Engineering Services Department for review, the rough grading plan shall be a separate plan submittal and permit from Precise Grading and Drainage Plan/Permit. 7. www.CityofRC.us Page 15 of 23Printed: 9/15/2021 Project #: DRC2020-00202 DRC2020-00213, DRC2020-00265, DRC2020-00266, DRC2020-00267, DRC2020-00312, DRC2021-00180, SUBTPM20271 Project Name: EDR - Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Location: 12434 4TH ST - 022928350-0000 Project Type: Design Review Development Agreement, General Plan Amendment, Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Tentative Parcel Map, Tree Removal Permit, Zoning Map AmendmentALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval Prior to the issuance of a grading permit the applicant shall obtain written permission from the adjacent property owner(s) to construct wall(s) on property line(s) or provide a detail(s) showing the perimeter wall(s) to be constructed offset from the property line. 8. Prior to issuance of a grading permit the Final Grading and Drainage Plan shall show the accessibility path from the public right of way and the accessibility parking stalls to the building doors in conformance with the current adopted California Building Code. All accessibility ramps shall show sufficient detail including gradients, elevations, and dimensions and comply with the current adopted California Building Code. 9. 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. 10. 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. 11. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the grading and drainage plan shall show the maximum parking stall gradient at 7 percent. Accessibility parking stall grades shall be constructed per the, current adopted California Building Code. 12. The applicant shall provide a grading agreement and grading bond for all cut and fill combined exceeding 5,000 cubic yards prior to issuance of a grading permit. The grading agreement and bond shall be approved by the Engineering Services Department. 13. The final grading and drainage plan shall show existing topography a minimum of 100-feet beyond project boundary. 14. This project shall comply with the accessibility requirements of the current adopted California Building Code. 15. www.CityofRC.us Page 16 of 23Printed: 9/15/2021 Project #: DRC2020-00202 DRC2020-00213, DRC2020-00265, DRC2020-00266, DRC2020-00267, DRC2020-00312, DRC2021-00180, SUBTPM20271 Project Name: EDR - Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Location: 12434 4TH ST - 022928350-0000 Project Type: Design Review Development Agreement, General Plan Amendment, Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Tentative Parcel Map, Tree Removal Permit, Zoning Map AmendmentALL 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. 16. 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”. Note: As this project has been previously graded and the site soils have been compacted for building pads and parking lot purposes, the use of the Custom Soil Resource Report for San Bernardino County Southwestern Part by the United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service for natural soils is not acceptable for soil groundwater infiltration rates. 17. 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. 18. www.CityofRC.us Page 17 of 23Printed: 9/15/2021 Project #: DRC2020-00202 DRC2020-00213, DRC2020-00265, DRC2020-00266, DRC2020-00267, DRC2020-00312, DRC2021-00180, SUBTPM20271 Project Name: EDR - Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Location: 12434 4TH ST - 022928350-0000 Project Type: Design Review Development Agreement, General Plan Amendment, Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Tentative Parcel Map, Tree Removal Permit, Zoning Map AmendmentALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: 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. 19. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall obtain a signed and notarized letter from the adjacent property owner(s) for ALL work proposed on the adjacent property. The letter shall be scanned and pasted onto the permitted grading plan set. The letter shall show on either the title sheet or a detail sheet of the grading and drainage plan set. 20. Prior to approval of the project-specific storm water quality management plan, the applicant shall submit to the City Engineer, or his designee, a precise grading plan showing the location and elevations of existing topographical features, and showing the location and proposed elevations of proposed structures and drainage of the site. 21. A drainage study showing a 100-year, AMC 3 design storm event for on-site drainage shall be prepared and submitted to the Engineering Services Department for review and approval for on-site storm water drainage prior to issuance of a grading permit. The report shall contain water surface profile gradient calculations for all storm drain pipes 12-inches and larger in diameter. All reports shall be wet signed and sealed by the Engineer of Record. In addition, the project specific drainage study shall provide inlet calculations showing the proper sizing of the water quality management plan storm water flows into the proposed structural storm water treatment devices. 22. 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. 23. DESIGN ISSUE: The conceptual grading and drainage plan shows an area within the parking lot and fire lane where storm water will be ponding. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit the civil engineer of record shall submit a set of grading plans to the City of Rancho Cucamonga Building and Safety Department Fire Construction Services to review the plans and provide a maximum ponding depth of the storm water retention. 24. 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. 25. 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). 26. Prior to approval of the Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), the WQMP shall include a copy of the project Conditions of Approval. 27. www.CityofRC.us Page 18 of 23Printed: 9/15/2021 Project #: DRC2020-00202 DRC2020-00213, DRC2020-00265, DRC2020-00266, DRC2020-00267, DRC2020-00312, DRC2021-00180, SUBTPM20271 Project Name: EDR - Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Location: 12434 4TH ST - 022928350-0000 Project Type: Design Review Development Agreement, General Plan Amendment, Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Tentative Parcel Map, Tree Removal Permit, Zoning Map AmendmentALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval 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. 28. The Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (PWQMP) has been deemed “Acceptable”. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit a final project-specific Water Quality Management Plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Building Official. 29. Prior to the issuance of a Grading Permit the City of Rancho Cucamonga’s “Memorandum of Agreement of Storm Water Quality Management Plan” shall be submitted for review and approval by the Building Official and recorded with the County Recorder’s Office. 30. 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. 31. 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 Engineering Services Department 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. 32. 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. 33. 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. 34. 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. 35. www.CityofRC.us Page 19 of 23Printed: 9/15/2021 Project #: DRC2020-00202 DRC2020-00213, DRC2020-00265, DRC2020-00266, DRC2020-00267, DRC2020-00312, DRC2021-00180, SUBTPM20271 Project Name: EDR - Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Location: 12434 4TH ST - 022928350-0000 Project Type: Design Review Development Agreement, General Plan Amendment, Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Tentative Parcel Map, Tree Removal Permit, Zoning Map AmendmentALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval 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. 36. 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 final project-specific Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) may be prepared as a Phased WQMP and shall include all phases of the project. Construction of the storm water treatment structural devices may be constructed as construction progresses. 41. 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. 42. www.CityofRC.us Page 20 of 23Printed: 9/15/2021 Project #: DRC2020-00202 DRC2020-00213, DRC2020-00265, DRC2020-00266, DRC2020-00267, DRC2020-00312, DRC2021-00180, SUBTPM20271 Project Name: EDR - Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Location: 12434 4TH ST - 022928350-0000 Project Type: Design Review Development Agreement, General Plan Amendment, Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Tentative Parcel Map, Tree Removal Permit, Zoning Map AmendmentALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval 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. 43. As the use of drywells are proposed for the structural storm water treatment device, to meet the infiltration requirements of the current Municipal Separate Storm Sewers Systems (MS4) Permit, adequate source control and pollution prevention control BMPs shall be implemented to protect groundwater quality. The need for pre-treatment BMPs such as sedimentation or filtration shall be evaluated prior to infiltration and discussed in the final project-specific Water Quality Management Plan document. 44. www.CityofRC.us Page 21 of 23Printed: 9/15/2021 Project #: DRC2020-00202 DRC2020-00213, DRC2020-00265, DRC2020-00266, DRC2020-00267, DRC2020-00312, DRC2021-00180, SUBTPM20271 Project Name: EDR - Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Location: 12434 4TH ST - 022928350-0000 Project Type: Design Review Development Agreement, General Plan Amendment, Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Tentative Parcel Map, Tree Removal Permit, Zoning Map AmendmentALL 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 repair or maintenance activities, 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. 45. www.CityofRC.us Page 22 of 23Printed: 9/15/2021 Project #: DRC2020-00202 DRC2020-00213, DRC2020-00265, DRC2020-00266, DRC2020-00267, DRC2020-00312, DRC2021-00180, SUBTPM20271 Project Name: EDR - Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Location: 12434 4TH ST - 022928350-0000 Project Type: Design Review Development Agreement, General Plan Amendment, Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Tentative Parcel Map, Tree Removal Permit, Zoning Map AmendmentALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval 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. 46. www.CityofRC.us Page 23 of 23Printed: 9/15/2021 RESOLUTION NO. 21-61 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE TREE REMOVAL PERMIT DRC2020-00266 TO REMOVE UP TO 101 HERITAGE TREES, IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF TWO NEW INDUSTRIAL WAREHOUSE BUILDINGS LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 1,000 FEET EAST OF SANTA ANITA AVENUE AND 2,300 FEET WEST OF ETIWANDA AVENUE, NORTH OF 4TH STREET AND SOUTH OF 6TH STREET; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APNS: 0229-283-50 AND 51. A.Recitals. 1.Bridge Point rancho Cucamonga, LLC filed an application for Tree Removal Permit DRC2020-00266 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Tree Removal Permit request is referred to as "the application." 2.On the 22nd day of September 2021, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on said application and concluded said hearing on that date. 3.All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B.Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1.This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2.Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced public hearing on September 22, 2021, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The 91.39-acre project site is located approximately 1,000 feet east of Santa Anita Avenue and 2,300 feet west of Etiwanda Avenue, north of 4th Street and south of 6th Street; and b.The project site includes 589 non-heritage trees and 125 heritage trees. The project will result in the removal of 464 non-heritage trees and 101 heritage trees, thus necessitating a tree removal permit; and c.Pursuant to the tree replacement requirements established by the Development Code, the project will result in the planting of 712 trees, including 229 new street trees and 107 replacement heritage trees; and d.The existing land uses on, and General Plan land use and zoning designations for, the project site and the surrounding properties (relative to the above-noted parcels) are as follows: Exhibit N PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 21-61 TREE REMOVAL PERMIT DRC2020-00266 – BRIDGE POINT RANCHO CUCAMONGA, LLC September 22, 2021 Page 2 Land Use General Plan Zoning* Site Industrial Warehouse, Commercial Retail, and former vineyard Heavy Industrial (HI) and General Industrial (GI) Industrial Employment (IE) and General Industrial (GI) District North Industrial Heavy Industrial (HI) Industrial Employment (IE) District South Industrial (City of Ontario) Industrial Industrial (Crossroads Business Park Specific Plan) West Industrial General Industrial (GI) Industrial Employment (IE) and Neo-Industrial (NI) District East Industrial and Public Facility Heavy Industrial (HI) and Civic/Regional Industrial Employment (IE) and Neo-Industrial (NI) District e. The applicant is requesting the removal of up to 101 heritage trees. A Tree Inventory Report (Psomas, 2021) was submitted that reviews the health and condition of the trees within the project area. The report concludes that based on the fact that many of the trees are planted near pavement, structures, or within basins that likely have limited root development, minor damage and upheaval are expected to occur as the roots continue to develop. Further, stress in the form of reflected heat from nearby structures and pavement is expected to affect trees on the project site.; and f.This application is in conjunction with General Plan Amendment DRC2020- 00213, Zoning Map Amendment DRC2020-00267, Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM20271, Design Review DRC2020-00202, Minor Use Permit DRC2021-00315 and Development Agreement DRC2021-00180. 3.Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the abover eferenced meeting and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in Paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: a.The removal of the trees is necessary due to the condition of the trees related to proximity to existing structures. As noted in the Tree Inventory Report prepared for the project, the location of existing trees near pavement, structures or within basins will result in limited root development which will result in minor damage and upheaval. Thus, the removal of the trees is necessary; and Exhibit M PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 21-61 TREE REMOVAL PERMIT DRC2020-00266 – BRIDGE POINT RANCHO CUCAMONGA, LLC September 22, 2021 Page 3 b. The removal of the trees is necessary in order to construct improvements which will allow economic enjoyment of the property. Of the 125 heritage trees onsite, 101 will be removed as they are in conflict with the proposed development, including the construction of a new public street; and c. The removal of the trees will not negatively impact the neighborhood, the established character of the area, and property values. The removal of the trees will not negatively impact the neighborhood or the character of the area as there are a number of mature trees within the vicinity of the project site. Additionally, the applicant will plant 712 replacement trees including 229 street trees and 107 new heritage trees; and d. The removal of the trees is necessary to construct required improvements within the public street right-of-way or within a flood control or utility right-of-way. The removal of the subject trees is necessary to construct public improvements; and e. The trees cannot be preserved through pruning and proper maintenance or relocation. The trees to be removed conflict with the proposed improvements related to the construction of the proposed industrial warehouse development; and f. The trees do not constitute a significant natural resource in the city. The trees slated for removal do not constitute a significant natural resource as the trees in the surrounding area are not dependent for their survival or are they significant because of their size, species, location or aesthetic qualities; and g. Removal of the trees is not restricted by a Specific Plan, Community Plan, or condition of approval, nor are any of the trees to be removed identified as a historic landmark; and h. Every effort has been made to incorporate the trees into the design of the project and the only appropriate alternative is the removal of the trees. Of the 125 heritage trees identified onsite, the applicant has identified 24 heritage trees which will remain. The trees slated for removal are in conflict with the construction of important onsite improvements needed to improve circulation in the area, including the construction of a new public street, and cannot be incorporated into the project as a result of those improvements. Further, the trees must be removed in order to permit development of the site consistent with the densities and standards set forth in the General Plan and Development Code; and i. The removal of the trees will not have a negative impact on the health, safety, or viability of surrounding trees, nor will it negatively impact the aesthetics or general welfare of the surrounding area. The project site is in an area with a large number of mature trees and industrial development, at a great distance from residential areas or areas where the public is known to recreate. The impact on the surrounding area will be minimal with the planting of 712 replacement trees. 4. The Tree Removal Permit, in addition to the General Plan Amendment, Zoning Map Amendment, Tentative Parcel Map, Design Review, Minor Use Permit, and Development Agreement (collectively, the “Project”) were environmentally reviewed pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City’s Local CEQA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 21-61 TREE REMOVAL PERMIT DRC2020-00266 – BRIDGE POINT RANCHO CUCAMONGA, LLC September 22, 2021 Page 4 Guidelines. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15060(d), the City determined that an EIR would clearly be required for the Project, and therefore prepared an environmental impact report (EIR) that focused on the potentially significant effects of the Project. Based upon the facts and information contained in the EIR prepared for the Project and the entire record before it, the Planning Commission recommends the City Council certify the final EIR for the Project, adopt findings of fact pursuant to CEQA, and adopt the Mitigation monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the Project, based upon the findings as follows: a. A Notice of Availability advertising the availability of the Draft EIR was circulated for a period of 45-days beginning on May 7, 2021 and ending on June 21, 2021; and b. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15025(c), the Planning Commission has reviewed the EIR in both its draft and final forms, attached as Exhibits C and D of the staff report accompanying the Planning Commission’s consideration of the Project and incorporated herein by this reference, and all comments received regarding the EIR and, based on the whole record before it, finds that the EIR was prepared in compliance with CEQA; and . The Planning Commission further finds that this recommendation reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the Planning Commission; and c. The Planning Commission has also reviewed and considered the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the project that has been prepared pursuant to the requirements of Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 and finds that such Program is designed to ensure compliance with the mitigation measures during project implementation; and d. The custodian of records for the EIR, Mitigation Monitoring Program, and all other materials which constitute the record of proceedings upon which the City Council’s decision is based is the Planning Director of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Those documents are available for public review in the Planning Department of the City of Rancho Cucamonga located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730, telephone (909) 477-2750. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby recommends that the City Council approve 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 the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 22ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Francisco Oaxaca, Chairman PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 21-61 TREE REMOVAL PERMIT DRC2020-00266 – BRIDGE POINT RANCHO CUCAMONGA, LLC September 22, 2021 Page 5 ATTEST: Anne McIntosh, AICP, Secretary I, Anne McIntosh, AICP, Secretary of the Planning Commission for the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 22nd day of September 2021, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Conditions of Approval Community Development Department Project #: DRC2020-00202 DRC2020-00213, DRC2020-00265, DRC2020-00266, DRC2020-00267, DRC2020-00312, DRC2021-00180, SUBTPM20271 Project Name: EDR - Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Location: 12434 4TH ST - 022928350-0000 Project Type: Design Review Development Agreement, General Plan Amendment, Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Tentative Parcel Map, Tree Removal Permit, Zoning Map AmendmentALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Planning Department Please be advised of the following Special Conditions The project shall comply with all mitigation measures identified in the Environmental Impact Report SCH No. (2020100056) and the corresponding Mitigation Monitoring and Report Program. 1. No more than 10% of the building space shall be used for high-cube cold storage warehouse space, consistent with analyses conducted in the Environmental Impact Report. 2. Use of natural gas and installation of required infrastructure is prohibited and any modification to this prohibition may be subject to additional review under CEQA. 3. No sort use shall be operated on the Site during the operation of the project. A sort use means a fulfillment center that ships out smaller items, requiring extensive sorting, typically by manual means, as defined in the ITE Manual, and as further described in the project’s Draft EIR. 4. Standard Conditions of Approval For commercial and industrial projects, paint roll-up doors and service doors to match main building colors. 5. The applicant shall sign the Statement of Agreement and Acceptance of Conditions of Approval provided by the Planning Department. The signed Statement of Agreement and Acceptance of Conditions of Approval shall be returned to the Planning Department prior to the submittal of grading/construction plans for plan check, request for a business license, and/or commencement of the approved activity. 6. 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. In the event such a legal action is filed, the City shall estimate its expenses for litigation. The applicant shall deposit such amount with the City or enter into an agreement with the City to pay such expenses as they become due. 7. 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. 8. www.CityofRC.us Printed: 9/15/2021 Project #: DRC2020-00202 DRC2020-00213, DRC2020-00265, DRC2020-00266, DRC2020-00267, DRC2020-00312, DRC2021-00180, SUBTPM20271 Project Name: EDR - Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Location: 12434 4TH ST - 022928350-0000 Project Type: Design Review Development Agreement, General Plan Amendment, Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Tentative Parcel Map, Tree Removal Permit, Zoning Map AmendmentALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Planning Department Standard Conditions of Approval The applicant shall be required to pay California Department of Fish and Wildlife Notice of Determination & Environmental Impact Report fee pursuant to CDFW's current fee schedule, including all County processing fees. All checks are to be made payable to the Clerk of the Board Supervisors and submitted to the Planning Department within 5 days of the approval of the project by Planning Commission/City Council. 9. Any approval shall expire if Building Permits are not issued or approved use has not commenced within 2 years from the date of approval or a time extension has been granted. 10. Any modification or intensification of the approved use, including revisions in the operations of the business that is approved by this Minor Use Use Permit; improvements including new building construction; and/or other modifications/intensification beyond what is specifically approved by this Minor Use Permit, shall require the review and approval by the necessary discretionary body 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 Minor Use Permit for review by the City. 11. This project is subject to public art requirement outlined in Chapter 17.124 of the Development Code, in accordance with Development Agreement DRC2021-00180. The applicant shall be required to install art onsite pursuant to Development Code Section 17.124 with a minimum value of $200,000, pursuant to Development Agreement DRC2021-00180. No final approval, such as a final inspection or the a issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, for any development project (or if a multi-phased project, the final phase of a development project) that is subject to this requirement shall occur unless the public art requirement has been fulfilled to the satisfaction of the Planning Department. 12. 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. 13. Existing trees required to be preserved in place shall be protected with a construction barrier in accordance with the Development Code Section 17.80.050, and so noted on the grading plans. The location of those trees to be preserved in place and new locations for transplanted trees shall be shown on the detailed landscape plans. The applicant shall follow all of the arborist's recommendations regarding preservation, transplanting, and trimming methods. 14. Front yard and corner side yard landscaping and irrigation shall be required per the Development Code and/or . This requirement shall be in addition to the required street trees and slope planting. 15. www.CityofRC.us Page 2 of 23Printed: 9/15/2021 Project #: DRC2020-00202 DRC2020-00213, DRC2020-00265, DRC2020-00266, DRC2020-00267, DRC2020-00312, DRC2021-00180, SUBTPM20271 Project Name: EDR - Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Location: 12434 4TH ST - 022928350-0000 Project Type: Design Review Development Agreement, General Plan Amendment, Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Tentative Parcel Map, Tree Removal Permit, Zoning Map AmendmentALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Planning Department Standard Conditions of Approval 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. 16. Landscaping and irrigation systems required to be installed within the public right-of-way on the perimeter of this project area shall be continuously maintained by the developer. 17. The final design of the perimeter parkways, walls, landscaping, and sidewalks shall be included in the required landscape plans and shall be subject to Planning Director review and approval and coordinated for consistency with any parkway landscaping plan which may be required by the Engineering Services Department. 18. 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. 19. 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. 20. The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved plans which include all applicable 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. 21. 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. 22. Trash receptacle(s) are required and shall meet City standards. The final design, locations, and the number of trash receptacles shall be subject to Planning Director review and approval prior to the issuance of Building Permits. 23. The proposed public street shall be named Catherine Bridge Place. This street name shall be submitted for Planning Director review and approval in accordance with the adopted Street Naming Policy prior to approval of the final map 24. www.CityofRC.us Page 3 of 23Printed: 9/15/2021 Project #: DRC2020-00202 DRC2020-00213, DRC2020-00265, DRC2020-00266, DRC2020-00267, DRC2020-00312, DRC2021-00180, SUBTPM20271 Project Name: EDR - Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Location: 12434 4TH ST - 022928350-0000 Project Type: Design Review Development Agreement, General Plan Amendment, Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Tentative Parcel Map, Tree Removal Permit, Zoning Map AmendmentALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Planning Department Standard Conditions of Approval All Double Detector Checks (DDC) and Fire Department Connections (FDC) required and/or proposed shall be installed at locations that are not within direct view or line-of-sight of the office corner of the building. The specific locations of each DDC and FDC shall require the review and approval of the Planning Department and Fire Construction Services/Fire Department. All Double Detector Checks (DDC) and Fire Department Connections (FDC) screened behind a 4-foot high wall. For this project, these walls shall be constructed of poured in-place concrete with design elements incorporated to match the building Decorative paving shall be provided at each vehicle entrance to the site, behind the public right-of-way. These decoratively paved areas shall extend from the front property line to the building setback line and have a width equal to that of the driveway. 25. Downspouts shall not be visible from the exterior of any elevations of the buildings. All downspouts shall be routed through the interior of the building walls. 26. Engineering Services Department Please be advised of the following Special Conditions The applicant shall construct a public street along with east side of the project between 4th Street and 6th Street. The public street shall be a full width Industrial Street meeting the City Standard Plan 100-A. 1. (At-Grade Crossing) This project shall construct at-grade crossing improvements through the rail road along 6th Street. The developer shall be eligible for reimbursement of one-half the cost of the 6th Street at-grade crossing from future developments as they occur on APN: 0229-283-79. 2. The street lights shall be owned by the City. Developer shall be responsible to coordinate and pay all costs of street lights and to provide power to City owned street lights. 3. Development Impact Fees Due Prior to Building Permit Issuance: (Subject to Change / Periodic Increases - Refer to current fee schedule to determine current amounts) Drainage Impact Fee Transportation Impact Fee Police Impact Fee 4. www.CityofRC.us Page 4 of 23Printed: 9/15/2021 Project #: DRC2020-00202 DRC2020-00213, DRC2020-00265, DRC2020-00266, DRC2020-00267, DRC2020-00312, DRC2021-00180, SUBTPM20271 Project Name: EDR - Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Location: 12434 4TH ST - 022928350-0000 Project Type: Design Review Development Agreement, General Plan Amendment, Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Tentative Parcel Map, Tree Removal Permit, Zoning Map AmendmentALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Engineering Services Department Please be advised of the following Special Conditions 1) Electric: The Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Utility (RCMU) shall be the electrical service provider for all project related development. The Developer shall execute a Line Extension Agreement for electric service and shall construct electrical distribution facilities in accordance with such agreement and RCMU requirements and dedicate such facilities to the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Utility. RCMU’s proposed underground electric system will be located off of Etiwanda Ave and Sixth Street East of the proposed development. 2) Fiber: The proposed development is slated to be included in the City’s Fiber Optic Master Plan that would provide a City owned Fiber-to-the-Premise (FTTP) infrastructure. The City will require the developer to install a 1-4” UG Fiber Optic dark conduit on the frontage of the development (along the South side of Sixth Street) along the project boundary along with a 3’x4’x3’ pullbox on each end of the route and into the project boundary. The size, placement and location of the conduit and vaults shall be shown on the Street Improvement and/or Public Improvement Plans and subject to the Engineering Services Department's review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits or final map approval, whichever comes first. On site, the City will require 1-2” UG HDPE or equal fiber optic conduit to be placed underground within a duct and structure system to be installed joint trench by the Developer per Standard Drawing 135-137 and interconnected into the City's 4" fiber optic conduit. The size, placement and location of the conduit and/or vaults shall run into each of the development’s individual telecommunication room and be shown on the final dry utility onsite substructure plans and subject to the Engineering Services Department's review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits or final map approval, whichever comes first. 5. The applicant shall modify the existing traffic signal at the intersection of 4th Street and the Barrington Avenue to incorporate the new public street into an offset intersection with Barrington Avenue controlled by a single traffic signal. Furnish and install new traffic signal equipment as necessary per Caltrans standard plans and specifications plus 2019 revision, and City standard drawings. Furnish and install the necessary infrastructure to connect the signal to the adjacent signals at 4th Street and Etiwanda, and 4th Street and Santa Anita Avenues. 6. www.CityofRC.us Page 5 of 23Printed: 9/15/2021 Project #: DRC2020-00202 DRC2020-00213, DRC2020-00265, DRC2020-00266, DRC2020-00267, DRC2020-00312, DRC2021-00180, SUBTPM20271 Project Name: EDR - Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Location: 12434 4TH ST - 022928350-0000 Project Type: Design Review Development Agreement, General Plan Amendment, Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Tentative Parcel Map, Tree Removal Permit, Zoning Map AmendmentALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Engineering Services Department Please be advised of the following Special Conditions Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall submit for review plans for improvements identified below, these improvements shall be completed no later than issuance of the certificate of occupancy of the project's first building. 1. At the intersection of Etiwanda Ave. and Foothill Blvd. A. Modify the traffic signal to optimize coordination timing along Foothill Blvd between the I-15 and East Ave and implement a 140-second cycle length during the PM peak hour. B. Submit to the City fair share contributions to construct the addition of a second northbound left turn lane, a third eastbound through lane, and a third westbound through lane in the amount of $37,089. 2. At the intersection of the I-15 southbound ramps and Ontario Mills Dr./4th St. A. Restripe the southbound approach to provide one left turn lane, one through lane, and dual right turn lanes. B. Modify the existing traffic signal to implement a 130-second cycle length and overlap phasing for the northbound, southbound, and westbound right turn lanes. 3. At the intersection of the I-15 northbound ramps and 4th St. A. Modify the existing traffic signal to implement a 130-second cycle length. 7. Standard Conditions of Approval Dedication shall be made of the following rights-of-way on the perimeter streets (measured from street centerline): 60 total feet on 4th Street 44 total feet on 6th Street 66 total feet on the proposed Industrial Street (full right of way width) 8. Easements for public sidewalks placed outside the public right-of-way shall be dedicated to the City.9. Reciprocal access easements shall be provided where necessary ensuring access to all parcels by CC&Rs or by deeds and shall be recorded prior to the issuance of Building Permits, where no map is involved, for the utilities which serve both parcels, including but not limited to, water, sewer, storm drainage. 10. A final drainage study shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of Grading Permits. All drainage facilities shall be installed as required by the City Engineer. 11. Adequate provisions shall be made for acceptance and disposal of surface drainage entering the property from adjacent areas. 12. A lot line adjustment or a map shall be approved among the existing parcels meeting City Development Code requirements, prior to issuance of Building Permits. 13. www.CityofRC.us Page 6 of 23Printed: 9/15/2021 Project #: DRC2020-00202 DRC2020-00213, DRC2020-00265, DRC2020-00266, DRC2020-00267, DRC2020-00312, DRC2021-00180, SUBTPM20271 Project Name: EDR - Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Location: 12434 4TH ST - 022928350-0000 Project Type: Design Review Development Agreement, General Plan Amendment, Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Tentative Parcel Map, Tree Removal Permit, Zoning Map AmendmentALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Engineering Services Department Standard Conditions of Approval ** CD Information Required Prior to Sign-Off for Building Permit Prior to the issuance of building permits, if valuation is greater or equal to $100,000, a Diversion Deposit and a related administrative fee shall be paid for the Construction and Demolition Diversion Program. The deposit is fully refundable if at least 65% of all wastes generated during construction and demolition are diverted from landfills, and appropriate documentation is provided to the City. Applicant must identify if they are self-hauling or utilizing Burrtec prior to issuance of a building permit. Proof of diversion must be submitted to the Environmental Engineering Division within 60 days following the completion of the construction and / or demolition project. Contact Marissa Ostos, Environmental Engineering, at (909) 774-4062 for more information. Instructions and forms are available at the City's website, www.cityofrc.us, under City Hall / Engineering / Environmental Programs / Construction & Demolition Diversion Program. 14. Prior to approval of a lot merger, lot line adjustment, or a final map, a deposit shall be posted with the City covering the estimated cost of apportioning the assessments under Assessment Districts LMD 3B, SLD 1 & SLD 6 among the newly created parcel(s). 15. A signed consent and waiver form to join and/or form the appropriate Landscape and Lighting Districts and or Community Facility District shall be filed with the Engineering Services Department prior to issuance of Building Permits. Formation costs shall be borne by the developer. NOTE: The parcels are currently annexed into LMD 3B, SLD 1 & SLD 6. 16. 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. 17. www.CityofRC.us Page 7 of 23Printed: 9/15/2021 Project #: DRC2020-00202 DRC2020-00213, DRC2020-00265, DRC2020-00266, DRC2020-00267, DRC2020-00312, DRC2021-00180, SUBTPM20271 Project Name: EDR - Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Location: 12434 4TH ST - 022928350-0000 Project Type: Design Review Development Agreement, General Plan Amendment, Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Tentative Parcel Map, Tree Removal Permit, Zoning Map AmendmentALL 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: Street Name: 4th Street Curb & Gutter: Remove and replace as determined during design A.C. Pvmt: Grind and overlay as determined during design Side-walk : Remove and replace as determined during design Drive Appr.: Per City Standards and City Driveway Policy Street Lights: Per City Standards Street Trees: Per City Standards Bike Trail: Class II Bike Lane or as required by the City Engineer Street Name: 6th Street Curb & Gutter: Remove and replace as determined during design A.C. Pvmt: Grind and overlay as determined during design Side-walk : Remove and replace as determined during design Drive Appr.: Per City Standards and City Driveway Policy Street Lights: Per City Standards Street Trees: Per City Standards Bike Trail: Class II Bike Lane or as required by the City Engineer Street Name: Proposed Industrial Street Curb & Gutter: Per City Standards A.C. Pvmt: Per City Standards Side-walk : Per City Standards Drive Appr.: Per City Standards and City Driveway Policy Street Lights: Per City Standards Street Trees: Per City Standards Other: Modification to exist signalized intersection of Barrington and 4th to provide signalized access to new Industrial Street. Signal modification plans subject to review and approval of City Engineer. Notes: (a) Where applicable, median island includes landscaping and irrigation on meter. (b) Pavement reconstruction and overlays will be determined during plan check. 18. www.CityofRC.us Page 8 of 23Printed: 9/15/2021 Project #: DRC2020-00202 DRC2020-00213, DRC2020-00265, DRC2020-00266, DRC2020-00267, DRC2020-00312, DRC2021-00180, SUBTPM20271 Project Name: EDR - Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Location: 12434 4TH ST - 022928350-0000 Project Type: Design Review Development Agreement, General Plan Amendment, Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Tentative Parcel Map, Tree Removal Permit, Zoning Map AmendmentALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Engineering Services Department Standard Conditions of Approval Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 16.37.010, no person shall make connections from a source of energy, fuel or power to any building or structure which is regulated by technical codes and for which a permit is required unless, in addition to any and all other codes, regulations and ordinances, all improvements required by these conditions of development approval have been completed and accepted by the City Council, except: that in developments containing more than one building, structure or unit, the development may have energy connections made in equal proportion to the percentage of completion of all improvements required by these conditions of development approval, as determined by the City Engineer, provided that reasonable, safe and maintainable access to the property exists. In no case shall more than 95 percent of the buildings, structures or units be connected to energy sources prior to completion and acceptance of all improvements required by these conditions of development approval. 19. Improvement Plans and Construction: a.Street improvement plans, including street trees, street lights, and intersection safety lights on future signal poles, and traffic signal plans shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. Security shall be posted and an agreement executed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the City Attorney guaranteeing completion of the public and/or private street improvements, prior to final map approval or the issuance of Building Permits, whichever occurs first. b. Prior to any work being performed in public right-of-way, fees shall be paid and a construction permit shall be obtained from the Engineering Services Department in addition to any other permits required. c. Pavement striping, marking, traffic signing, street name signing, traffic signal conduit, and interconnect conduit shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. d. Signal conduit with pull boxes shall be installed with any new construction or reconstruction project along major or secondary streets and at intersections for future traffic signals and interconnect wiring. Pull boxes shall be placed on both sides of the street at 3 feet outside of BCR, ECR, or any other locations approved by the City Engineer. Notes: 1) Pull boxes shall be No. 6 at intersections and No. 5 along streets, a maximum of 200 feet apart, unless otherwise specified by the City Engineer. 2) Conduit shall be 3-inch 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 security 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 Department prior to submittal for first plan check. 20. www.CityofRC.us Page 9 of 23Printed: 9/15/2021 Project #: DRC2020-00202 DRC2020-00213, DRC2020-00265, DRC2020-00266, DRC2020-00267, DRC2020-00312, DRC2021-00180, SUBTPM20271 Project Name: EDR - Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Location: 12434 4TH ST - 022928350-0000 Project Type: Design Review Development Agreement, General Plan Amendment, Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Tentative Parcel Map, Tree Removal Permit, Zoning Map AmendmentALL 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: 4th Street Botanical Name: Platanus acerifolia Common Name: Min. Grow Space: 30 Spacing: 30 Size: 15 gallon minimum Qty.: to be determined during design Street Name: 6th Street Botanical Name: Magnolia grandiflora Common Name: St Mary Min. Grow Space: 20 Spacing: 20 Size: 15 gallon minimum Qty.: to be determined during design Street Name: Proposed Industrial Street (both sides of street) Botanical Name: Magnolia grandiflora Common Name: St Mary Min. Grow Space: 20 Spacing: 20 Size: 15 gallon minimum Qty.: to be determined during design 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. 21. www.CityofRC.us Page 10 of 23Printed: 9/15/2021 Project #: DRC2020-00202 DRC2020-00213, DRC2020-00265, DRC2020-00266, DRC2020-00267, DRC2020-00312, DRC2021-00180, SUBTPM20271 Project Name: EDR - Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Location: 12434 4TH ST - 022928350-0000 Project Type: Design Review Development Agreement, General Plan Amendment, Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Tentative Parcel Map, Tree Removal Permit, Zoning Map AmendmentALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Engineering Services Department Standard Conditions of Approval 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. 22. 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. 23. 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. 24. The developer shall be responsible for the relocation of existing utilities as necessary.25. 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. 26. Approvals have not been secured from all utilities and other interested agencies involved. Approval of the final parcel map will be subject to any requirements that may be received from them. 27. 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. 28. Fire Prevention / New Construction Unit Standard Conditions of Approval Fire apparatus access roads (fire lanes) can be included in an engineered onsite storm water retention plan. The ponding of storm water shall not exceed a designed depth of four (4) inches in the designated fire apparatus access road(s) and the area between the fire apparatus access road(s) and the exterior walls of all normally occupied buildings. Ponding design specifications for Building 2 appear to exceed the maximum allowable depth for onsite storm water retention. This Condition was acknowledged in the Responses letter posted Aug 27, 2020. 1. www.CityofRC.us Page 11 of 23Printed: 9/15/2021 Project #: DRC2020-00202 DRC2020-00213, DRC2020-00265, DRC2020-00266, DRC2020-00267, DRC2020-00312, DRC2021-00180, SUBTPM20271 Project Name: EDR - Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Location: 12434 4TH ST - 022928350-0000 Project Type: Design Review Development Agreement, General Plan Amendment, Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Tentative Parcel Map, Tree Removal Permit, Zoning Map AmendmentALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Fire Prevention / New Construction Unit Standard Conditions of Approval Existing parcel 22928351 is required to be annexed into Community Facilities District 85-1 (CFD 85-1). Please contact Kelly Guerra with the City of Rancho Cucamonga’s Special Districts Division at (909) 774-2582 or Kelly.Guerra@CityofRC.US to complete the annexation. The annexation requirement will not be considered complete until the applicant begins the annexation process and Special Districts notifies the Fire Marshal that the process has been started. 2. Access doors are required to be identified in accordance with Fire District Standard 5-5. The Standard has been uploaded to the Documents section. 3. Access doors are required to be distributed along the exterior of the building such that the lineal distance between adjacent access doors does not exceed 125 feet measured center to center. 4. Required alarm systems and supervision systems are required to be in accordance with Fire District Standard 9-3. The Standard has been uploaded to the Documents section. 5. Plans for the alarm and/or supervision (monitoring) system are required to be submitted separately and issued a separate permit. Submit all plans to the Building & Safety Department for routing to the Fire District. 6. Plans for the egress lighting are required to be submitted separately and issued a separate permit. Submit all plans to the Building & Safety Department for routing to the Fire District. 7. Plans for high piled combustible storage are required to be submitted separately and issued a separate permit. Submit all plans to the Building & Safety Department for routing to the Fire District. 8. Plans for the private, onsite fire underground water infrastructure are required to be submitted separately and issued a separate permit. Submit all plans to the Building & Safety Department for routing to the Fire District. 9. Plans for the public, offsite fire underground water infrastructure are required to be submitted separately and issued a separate permit. Plans are required to be submitted prior to or concurrently with the submittal of the Water District mylars. Submit all plans to the Building & Safety Department for routing to the Fire District. 10. Plans for the racks used for high piled combustible storage are required to be submitted separately and issued a separate permit. Submit all plans to the Building & Safety Department for routing to the Fire District. 11. Plans for the automatic fire sprinkler system are required to be submitted separately and issued a separate permit. Submit all plans to the Building & Safety Department for routing to the Fire District. 12. Plans for suppression systems are required to be submitted separately and issued a separate permit. Submit all plans to the Building & Safety Department for routing to the Fire District. 13. Plans for the temporary access and/or hydrants are required to be submitted separately and issued a separate permit. Submit all plans to the Building & Safety Department for routing to the Fire District. 14. Exterior doors and doors providing access to fire protection and life safety systems and equipment are required to have identification signage in accordance with Fire District Standard 5-5. The Standard has been uploaded to the Documents section. 15. www.CityofRC.us Page 12 of 23Printed: 9/15/2021 Project #: DRC2020-00202 DRC2020-00213, DRC2020-00265, DRC2020-00266, DRC2020-00267, DRC2020-00312, DRC2021-00180, SUBTPM20271 Project Name: EDR - Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Location: 12434 4TH ST - 022928350-0000 Project Type: Design Review Development Agreement, General Plan Amendment, Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Tentative Parcel Map, Tree Removal Permit, Zoning Map AmendmentALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Fire Prevention / New Construction Unit Standard Conditions of Approval Emergency responder radio coverage is required for the building(s) included in this project. San Bernardino County Information Services Department (ISD) conducts radio signal strength assessments for the entire county. It is highly recommended that a radio signal strength assessment is completed for this project. Where emergency responder radio coverage is determined to meet the requirements of the California Fire Code, an emergency responder radio system and/or associated equipment will not be required. Please contact Tim Trager with County ISD at 909-388-5563 or ttrager@isd.sbcounty.gov to schedule an assessment and/or obtain any available information about the project site. Where the existing emergency responder radio coverage is found to be below acceptable standards, an emergency responder radio system and associated equipment will be required to be provided in compliance and accordance with the California Fire Code. 16. Designated and conforming aerial apparatus access is required in accordance with Fire District Standard 5-1. Show aerial apparatus access on the fire access plan. The Standard has been uploaded to the Documents section. 17. Fire apparatus access (fire lane) design, construction, and identification are required to be in accordance with Fire District Standard 5-1. The Standard has been uploaded to the Documents section. 18. Fire flow information for this project is obtained from the Cucamonga Valley Water District (CVWD). CVWD can be reached at 909-944-6000 or custserv@cvwdwater.com. 19. Fire flow is required to be in accordance with Appendix B of the California Fire Code. The Fire District has adopted the appendix without local amendments except that the minimum fire flow for commercial buildings shall not be less than 1500 gpm. Proof of the availability of the required fire flow must be provided to the Fire District in the form of a letter or written report dated within the past 12 months. 20. Fire sprinkler are required to be installed in accordance with Fire District Standard 9-5. The Standard has been uploaded to the Documents section. 21. Gates installed across a commercial/industrial emergency vehicle access road (fire lane) are required to be in accordance with Standard 5-4. The Standard has been uploaded to the Documents section. 22. Identification of exterior perimeter fire access doors is required to be in accordance with Fire District Standard 5-5. The Standard has been uploaded to the Documents section. 23. High-piled combustible storage is required to be in accordance with Chapter 32 of the Fire Code and Fire District Standard 32-1. Please read and understand this Standard in its entirety to avoid delays in scheduling inspections and obtaining approvals. The Standard has been uploaded to the Documents section. 24. A Knox Box key box is required in accordance with Fire District Standard 5-9. Additional boxes may be required depending on the size of the building, the location of fire protection and life safety system controls, and the operational needs of the Fire District. The Standard has been uploaded to the Documents section. If an installed Knox Box is available to this project or business, keys for the building/suite/unit are required to be provided to the Fire Inspector at the final inspection. 25. www.CityofRC.us Page 13 of 23Printed: 9/15/2021 Project #: DRC2020-00202 DRC2020-00213, DRC2020-00265, DRC2020-00266, DRC2020-00267, DRC2020-00312, DRC2021-00180, SUBTPM20271 Project Name: EDR - Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Location: 12434 4TH ST - 022928350-0000 Project Type: Design Review Development Agreement, General Plan Amendment, Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Tentative Parcel Map, Tree Removal Permit, Zoning Map AmendmentALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Fire Prevention / New Construction Unit Standard Conditions of Approval A Knox key switch is required to be installed on motorized gates that are installed across or provide access to a fire access road (fire Lane). See Fire District Standard 5-3 for Residential Gates and Fire District Standard 5-4 for Commercial and Industrial Gates. 26. A Knox or Fire District padlock is required to be incorporated into the security system for a manually operated gate that are installed across or provides access to a fire access road (fire lane). 27. Coordinate landscaping with the roof access ladder points and address signage. Landscaping cannot obstruct roof access or clear visibility of address signage from time of installation to maturity of the shrubs and trees. 28. A fire service site plan is required in accordance with Fire District Standard 5-11. The Standard has been uploaded to the Documents section. 29. All of the Fire District Standards applicable are required to be reproduced on the plans. The project is required to meet all of the applicable codes, regulations, and standards in effect and adopted at the time of plan check submittal. Fire District Standards associated with construction and plan submittals can be found on the City of Rancho Cucamonga's website and accessed via https://www.dropbox.com/sh/4k4qdxhs4tp13c7/AAAdscMKMdW9WIQe725xWyU-a?dl=0 30. Roof access is required to be in accordance with Fire District Standard 5-6. The Standard has been uploaded to the Documents section. 31. Street address and unit/suite signage for commercial and industrial buildings are required to be in accordance with Fire District Standard 5-8. The Standard has been uploaded to the Documents section. 32. Fire apparatus access roads and emergency vehicle access is required to be identified with signs and/or other approved makings in accordance with Fire District Standard 5-1. A copy of the Standard has been uploaded to the Documents section. 33. Identification of fire protection systems and components, fire alarm systems and components, and equipment and devices associated with fire and life safety systems is required to be in accordance with Fire District Standards 5-5 and 5-10. The Standards have been uploaded to the Documents section. 34. Public and private fire service water mains, public and private hydrants, water control valves, fire sprinkler risers, fire department connections (FDCs), and other fire protection water related devices and equipment are required to be provided, designed, and installed in accordance with Fire District Standard 5-10. The Standard has been uploaded to the Documents section. 35. Building and Safety Services Department Please be advised of the following Special Conditions www.CityofRC.us Page 14 of 23Printed: 9/15/2021 Project #: DRC2020-00202 DRC2020-00213, DRC2020-00265, DRC2020-00266, DRC2020-00267, DRC2020-00312, DRC2021-00180, SUBTPM20271 Project Name: EDR - Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Location: 12434 4TH ST - 022928350-0000 Project Type: Design Review Development Agreement, General Plan Amendment, Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Tentative Parcel Map, Tree Removal Permit, Zoning Map AmendmentALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Building and Safety Services Department Please be advised of the following Special Conditions When the Entitlement Review is approved submit complete construction drawings including structural calculations to Building and Safety for plan review in accordance with the current edition of the CA Building and Fire Codes including all local ordinances and standards. The structure is required to be equipped with automatic fire sprinklers. A soils report is required. Disabled access to the site and building must be provided in accordance to the State of California published thresholds at the time of plan check submittal. The maximum exit access travel distance shall be 400'. Connection to the public sewer will be required. Utility easements may be required if water and sewer are from 4th street to serve building 2. 1. Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval 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”. 1. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with current adopted California Building Code and/or the California Residential Code, City Grading Standards, and accepted grading practices. The Grading and Drainage Plan(s) shall be in substantial conformance with the approved conceptual Grading and Drainage Plan. 2. A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified Engineer licensed by the State of California to perform such work. Two copies will be provided at grading and drainage plan submittal for review. Plans shall implement design recommendations per said report. 3. The final Grading and Drainage Plan, appropriate certifications and compaction reports shall be completed, submitted, and approved by the Engineering Services Department prior to the issuance of building permits. 4. A separate Grading and Drainage Plan check submittal is required for all new construction projects and for existing buildings where improvements being proposed will generate 50 cubic yards or more of combined cut and fill. The Grading and Drainage Plan shall be prepared, stamped, and wet signed by a California licensed Civil Engineer prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit. 5. The applicant shall comply with the City of Rancho Cucamonga Dust Control Measures and place a dust control sign on the project site prior to the issuance of a grading permit. All dust control sign(s) shall be located outside of the public right of way. 6. If a Rough Grading and Drainage Plan/Permit are submitted to the Engineering Services Department for review, the rough grading plan shall be a separate plan submittal and permit from Precise Grading and Drainage Plan/Permit. 7. www.CityofRC.us Page 15 of 23Printed: 9/15/2021 Project #: DRC2020-00202 DRC2020-00213, DRC2020-00265, DRC2020-00266, DRC2020-00267, DRC2020-00312, DRC2021-00180, SUBTPM20271 Project Name: EDR - Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Location: 12434 4TH ST - 022928350-0000 Project Type: Design Review Development Agreement, General Plan Amendment, Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Tentative Parcel Map, Tree Removal Permit, Zoning Map AmendmentALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval Prior to the issuance of a grading permit the applicant shall obtain written permission from the adjacent property owner(s) to construct wall(s) on property line(s) or provide a detail(s) showing the perimeter wall(s) to be constructed offset from the property line. 8. Prior to issuance of a grading permit the Final Grading and Drainage Plan shall show the accessibility path from the public right of way and the accessibility parking stalls to the building doors in conformance with the current adopted California Building Code. All accessibility ramps shall show sufficient detail including gradients, elevations, and dimensions and comply with the current adopted California Building Code. 9. 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. 10. 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. 11. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the grading and drainage plan shall show the maximum parking stall gradient at 7 percent. Accessibility parking stall grades shall be constructed per the, current adopted California Building Code. 12. The applicant shall provide a grading agreement and grading bond for all cut and fill combined exceeding 5,000 cubic yards prior to issuance of a grading permit. The grading agreement and bond shall be approved by the Engineering Services Department. 13. The final grading and drainage plan shall show existing topography a minimum of 100-feet beyond project boundary. 14. This project shall comply with the accessibility requirements of the current adopted California Building Code. 15. www.CityofRC.us Page 16 of 23Printed: 9/15/2021 Project #: DRC2020-00202 DRC2020-00213, DRC2020-00265, DRC2020-00266, DRC2020-00267, DRC2020-00312, DRC2021-00180, SUBTPM20271 Project Name: EDR - Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Location: 12434 4TH ST - 022928350-0000 Project Type: Design Review Development Agreement, General Plan Amendment, Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Tentative Parcel Map, Tree Removal Permit, Zoning Map AmendmentALL 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. 16. 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”. Note: As this project has been previously graded and the site soils have been compacted for building pads and parking lot purposes, the use of the Custom Soil Resource Report for San Bernardino County Southwestern Part by the United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service for natural soils is not acceptable for soil groundwater infiltration rates. 17. 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. 18. www.CityofRC.us Page 17 of 23Printed: 9/15/2021 Project #: DRC2020-00202 DRC2020-00213, DRC2020-00265, DRC2020-00266, DRC2020-00267, DRC2020-00312, DRC2021-00180, SUBTPM20271 Project Name: EDR - Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Location: 12434 4TH ST - 022928350-0000 Project Type: Design Review Development Agreement, General Plan Amendment, Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Tentative Parcel Map, Tree Removal Permit, Zoning Map AmendmentALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: 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. 19. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall obtain a signed and notarized letter from the adjacent property owner(s) for ALL work proposed on the adjacent property. The letter shall be scanned and pasted onto the permitted grading plan set. The letter shall show on either the title sheet or a detail sheet of the grading and drainage plan set. 20. Prior to approval of the project-specific storm water quality management plan, the applicant shall submit to the City Engineer, or his designee, a precise grading plan showing the location and elevations of existing topographical features, and showing the location and proposed elevations of proposed structures and drainage of the site. 21. A drainage study showing a 100-year, AMC 3 design storm event for on-site drainage shall be prepared and submitted to the Engineering Services Department for review and approval for on-site storm water drainage prior to issuance of a grading permit. The report shall contain water surface profile gradient calculations for all storm drain pipes 12-inches and larger in diameter. All reports shall be wet signed and sealed by the Engineer of Record. In addition, the project specific drainage study shall provide inlet calculations showing the proper sizing of the water quality management plan storm water flows into the proposed structural storm water treatment devices. 22. 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. 23. DESIGN ISSUE: The conceptual grading and drainage plan shows an area within the parking lot and fire lane where storm water will be ponding. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit the civil engineer of record shall submit a set of grading plans to the City of Rancho Cucamonga Building and Safety Department Fire Construction Services to review the plans and provide a maximum ponding depth of the storm water retention. 24. 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. 25. 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). 26. Prior to approval of the Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), the WQMP shall include a copy of the project Conditions of Approval. 27. www.CityofRC.us Page 18 of 23Printed: 9/15/2021 Project #: DRC2020-00202 DRC2020-00213, DRC2020-00265, DRC2020-00266, DRC2020-00267, DRC2020-00312, DRC2021-00180, SUBTPM20271 Project Name: EDR - Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Location: 12434 4TH ST - 022928350-0000 Project Type: Design Review Development Agreement, General Plan Amendment, Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Tentative Parcel Map, Tree Removal Permit, Zoning Map AmendmentALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval 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. 28. The Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (PWQMP) has been deemed “Acceptable”. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit a final project-specific Water Quality Management Plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Building Official. 29. Prior to the issuance of a Grading Permit the City of Rancho Cucamonga’s “Memorandum of Agreement of Storm Water Quality Management Plan” shall be submitted for review and approval by the Building Official and recorded with the County Recorder’s Office. 30. 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. 31. 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 Engineering Services Department 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. 32. 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. 33. 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. 34. 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. 35. www.CityofRC.us Page 19 of 23Printed: 9/15/2021 Project #: DRC2020-00202 DRC2020-00213, DRC2020-00265, DRC2020-00266, DRC2020-00267, DRC2020-00312, DRC2021-00180, SUBTPM20271 Project Name: EDR - Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Location: 12434 4TH ST - 022928350-0000 Project Type: Design Review Development Agreement, General Plan Amendment, Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Tentative Parcel Map, Tree Removal Permit, Zoning Map AmendmentALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval 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. 36. 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 final project-specific Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) may be prepared as a Phased WQMP and shall include all phases of the project. Construction of the storm water treatment structural devices may be constructed as construction progresses. 41. 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. 42. www.CityofRC.us Page 20 of 23Printed: 9/15/2021 Project #: DRC2020-00202 DRC2020-00213, DRC2020-00265, DRC2020-00266, DRC2020-00267, DRC2020-00312, DRC2021-00180, SUBTPM20271 Project Name: EDR - Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Location: 12434 4TH ST - 022928350-0000 Project Type: Design Review Development Agreement, General Plan Amendment, Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Tentative Parcel Map, Tree Removal Permit, Zoning Map AmendmentALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval 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. 43. As the use of drywells are proposed for the structural storm water treatment device, to meet the infiltration requirements of the current Municipal Separate Storm Sewers Systems (MS4) Permit, adequate source control and pollution prevention control BMPs shall be implemented to protect groundwater quality. The need for pre-treatment BMPs such as sedimentation or filtration shall be evaluated prior to infiltration and discussed in the final project-specific Water Quality Management Plan document. 44. www.CityofRC.us Page 21 of 23Printed: 9/15/2021 Project #: DRC2020-00202 DRC2020-00213, DRC2020-00265, DRC2020-00266, DRC2020-00267, DRC2020-00312, DRC2021-00180, SUBTPM20271 Project Name: EDR - Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Location: 12434 4TH ST - 022928350-0000 Project Type: Design Review Development Agreement, General Plan Amendment, Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Tentative Parcel Map, Tree Removal Permit, Zoning Map AmendmentALL 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 repair or maintenance activities, 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. 45. www.CityofRC.us Page 22 of 23Printed: 9/15/2021 Project #: DRC2020-00202 DRC2020-00213, DRC2020-00265, DRC2020-00266, DRC2020-00267, DRC2020-00312, DRC2021-00180, SUBTPM20271 Project Name: EDR - Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Location: 12434 4TH ST - 022928350-0000 Project Type: Design Review Development Agreement, General Plan Amendment, Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Tentative Parcel Map, Tree Removal Permit, Zoning Map AmendmentALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval 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. 46. www.CityofRC.us Page 23 of 23Printed: 9/15/2021 RESOLUTION NO. 21-62 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE MINOR USE PERMIT DRC2021-00315, A REQUEST TO ALLOW A LARGE DISTRIBUTION/FULFILLMENT CENTER (E-COMMERCE DISTRIBUTION) USE RELATED TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF TWO NEW INDUSTRIAL WAREHOUSE BUILDINGS TOTALING APPROXIMATELY 2,175,000 SQUARE FEET ON CERTAIN PROPERTY LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 1,000 FEET EAST OF SANTA ANITA AVENUE AND 2,300 FEET WEST OF ETIWANDA AVENUE, NORTH OF 4TH STREET AND SOUTH OF 6TH STREET; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF – APNS: 0229-283-50 AND 51. A.Recitals. 1. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga, LLC filed an application for the approval of Minor Use Permit DRC2021-00315, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Minor Use Permit request is referred to as "the application." 2.On September 22, 2021, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing on that date. 3.All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B.Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1.This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2.Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced public hearing on September 22, 2021, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The 91.39-acre project site is located approximately 1,000 feet east of Santa Anita Avenue and 2,300 feet west of Etiwanda Avenue, north of 4th Street and south of 6th Street and is improved with an existing 1,431,000 square foot industrial warehouse building and an existing 23,240 square foot retail building and associated improvements such as parking areas, drive aisles, loading areas, landscaped areas and a rail spur which serves properties to the east of the project site. The site also includes an area comprising approximately 11-acres of vacant land which was previously used as a vineyard. All existing improvements, with the exception of an existing rail spur, will be demolished as part of this project 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 Industrial Warehouse, Heavy Industrial (HI) and General Industrial Employment (IE) and General Industrial (GI) Exhibit O PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 21-62 MUP DRC2021-00315 – BRIDGE POINT RANCHO CUCAMONGA, LLC September 22, 2021 Page 2 Commercial Retail, and former vineyard Industrial (GI) District North Industrial Heavy Industrial (HI) Industrial Employment (IE) District South Industrial (City of Ontario) Industrial Industrial (Crossroads Business Park Specific Plan) West Industrial General Industrial (GI) Industrial Employment (IE) and Neo-Industrial (NI) District East Industrial and Public Facility Heavy Industrial (HI) and Civic/Regional Industrial Employment (IE) and Neo-Industrial (NI) District c. The project site is improved with an existing 1,431,000 square foot industrial warehouse building and an existing 23,240 square foot retail building and associated improvements such as parking areas, drive aisles, loading areas, landscaped areas and a rail spur which serves properties to the east of the project site. The site also includes an area comprising approximately 11-acres of vacant land which was previously used as a vineyard. All existing improvements, with the exception of the rail spur, will be demolished as part of this project; and d. The project scope includes General Plan Amendment DRC2020-00213, Zoning Map Amendment DRC2020-00267, Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM20271, Design Review DRC2020-00202, Tree Removal Permit DRC2020-00266, Minor Use Permit DRC2021-00315 and Development Agreement DRC2021-00180; and e. The project is for the development of two new industrial warehouse buildings on two new parcels of land: Building 1 will total approximately 1,422,500 square feet including a mezzanine not to exceed 25,000 square feet, and Building 2 will total approximately 752,500 square feet and include a mezzanine not to exceed 16,000 square feet; and f. The project requires 469 parking stalls and 268 trailer loading stalls for Building 1 and 184 parking stalls and 91 trailer loading stalls for Building 2. Accordingly, the project provides 478 parking stalls and 268 trailer loading stalls for Building 1, and 221 parking stalls and 91 trailer loading stalls for Building 2; and g. The project’s compliance with the related development standards is shown in the following tables: Development Standard Required Proposed Complies? Building Height Maximum 35 feet (at front Building 1: 54 feet; Building 2: YES PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 21-62 MUP DRC2021-00315 – BRIDGE POINT RANCHO CUCAMONGA, LLC September 22, 2021 Page 3 Parking Ratio Required Parking Provided Parking Complies? Warehouse/storage and office 1 per 1,000 sf for the first 20,000 sf; 1 per 2,000 sf for the next 20,000 sf, and 1 per 4,000 sf for remaining sf Office requires 1 per 250 sf Building 1: 469 stalls; Building 2: 268 stalls Building 1: 478; Building 2: 268 YES Trailer Loading Stalls 1 per loading dock Building 1: 184; Building 2: 91 Building 1: 221; Building 2: 91 YES 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 site is physically suited for the type, density, and intensity of the proposed use including access, utilities, and the absence of physical constraints, and can be conditioned to meet all related performance criteria and development standards. setback) and 75 feet (1-foot increment from the front setback line) 50 feet Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 50-60% Building 1: 59.2%; Building 2: 57.8% YES Front Building Setback 45 feet (4th Street); 35 feet (6th Street) Building 1: ~118 feet (4th Street); Building 2: ~215 feet (6th Street) YES Street Side Setback 25 Feet (Street A) Building 1: ~185 feet; Building 2: ~93 feet YES Average Depth of Landscape 45 feet (4th Street); 35 feet (6th Street); 25 feet (Street A) 45 feet (4th Street); ~72 feet (6th Street); 25 feet (Street A) YES Parking Setback 25 feet (4th Street); 20 feet (6th Street); 15 feet (Street A) 46 feet (4th Street); ~72 feet (6th Street); 25 feet (Street A) YES Interior Side Yard Setback Min. 5 feet Building 1: 136 feet Building 2: 45 feet YES Rear Yard Setback Min. 0 feet Building 1: 77 feet Building 2: ~90 feet YES Open Space/Landscape Standards 10% 10% YES PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 21-62 MUP DRC2021-00315 – BRIDGE POINT RANCHO CUCAMONGA, LLC September 22, 2021 Page 4 b. The operating characteristics of the proposed use, including traffic, noise, light, and other characteristics, will be in keeping with the character of the neighborhood and other adjacent uses in the vicinity. The project involves the demolition of an existing industrial warehouse use and the construction of two new industrial warehouse uses of similar scale and characteristics. The proposed use is required to comply with all relevant industrial performance standards pursuant to Development Code Section 17.66.110 for noise, vibration, particulate matter and air contaminants, odor, and humidity, heat, and glare. Further, the Environmental Impact Report prepared for the project identified mitigation measures which when implemented will mitigate traffic characteristics to less than significant levels. c. The proposed improvements of the site, including building design, height and bulk of buildings, setbacks fencing, landscaping, signage size and location are compatible with the surrounding neighborhood or area. The project meets all relevant development standards including height, setbacks, fencing and landscaping. The buildings design, including bulk and massing, comply with design criteria established by the Development Code. Specifically, the project meets design provisions established by Development Code Section 17.122.030. d. The proposed use shall not result in conditions that would be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare of the community. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared for the project which determined that, with the implementation of certain mitigation measures, the project will not result in significant environmental impacts. The project includes the construction of a new public street, running north-south along the eastern property line of the project site, which will connect 4th Street and 6th Street thereby improving traffic circulation within the vicinity of the project. The new public street will also improve vehicular access, as well as emergency access, to the project site and proposed industrial buildings and users. e. Adequate public facilities and services are available to serve the proposed use of will be made available concurrent with the proposed development. The project has street frontage on 4th Street, 6th Street and a new north-south public street proposed to be located along the eastern property line of the project site which will connect 4th Street and 6th Street. The site is served, or will be conditioned to be served by, services and utilities provided by Burrtec Waste Industries, Cucamonga Valley Water District, Southern California Edison, Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Utility, and all other public and private services that accommodate the operation of Large Distribution/Fulfillment Center (E- Commerce Distribution). f. Allowing the proposed use at the proposed location would be consistent with and help achieve the goals, objectives and policies of the general plan and the development code. Large Distribution/Fulfillment Center (E-Commerce Distribution) is permitted within the Neo-Industrial (NI) District subject to the approval of a Minor Use Permit. Allowing the proposed use at the proposed location would achieve General Plan Policy ED-1.5 (Support housing opportunities for workers of all income ranges) and Policy ED-4.5 (Review and understand the fiscal, job creation, and economic benefits of new proposed uses in the City’s industrial-zoned areas) as the developer has agreed to pay a Community Benefit Fee to offset any impact to the City’s affordable housing demand as a result of the number of jobs anticipated to be created by the use. The project would also achieve ED-4.3 (Improve connectivity between development projects to create a more cohesive atmosphere) as the project involves the construction of a new north-south public street which connects 4th Street and 6th Street, thereby improving connectivity within the vicinity of the project site. g. The project would not result in a negative effect to the City’s land use inventory available for residential and economic development, consistent with the intent of the general plan land PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 21-62 MUP DRC2021-00315 – BRIDGE POINT RANCHO CUCAMONGA, LLC September 22, 2021 Page 5 use element. The project site proposes to be redesignated from a currently split-zoned orientation between the Neo-Industrial (NI) and Industrial Employment (IE) Districts to Neo-Industrial (NI) which does not permit residential development. The applicant has provided a Fiscal Impact Analysis (Kosmont, 2020, rev. 2021) which estimates that the project will result in the creation of approximately 1,678 jobs and a total estimated net fiscal impact to the City of $402,700 annually. Policy ED-1.5 requires that the City “Support housing opportunities for workers of all income ranges.” As such, and to offset any impacts on the project’s impacts to affordable housing demand, the developer and the City have negotiated a development agreement which will result in the developer paying the City a Community Benefit Fee in the amount of $9 million within the first five years of the operation of both Building 1 and Building 2. 4.The Minor Use Permit, in addition to the General Plan Amendment, Zoning Map Amendment, Tentative Parcel Map, Design Review, Tree Removal Permit and Development Agreement (collectively, the “Project”) were environmentally reviewed pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City’s Local CEQA Guidelines. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15060(d), the City determined that an EIR would clearly be required for the Project, and therefore prepared an environmental impact report (EIR) that focused on the potentially significant effects of the Project. Based upon the facts and information contained in the EIR prepared for the Project and the entire record before it, the Planning Commission recommends the City Council certify the final EIR for the Project, adopt findings of fact pursuant to CEQA, and adopt the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the Project, based upon the findings as follows Based upon the facts and information contained in the environmental assessment prepared for the project, the Planning Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect upon the environment and recommends the City Council certify an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), incorporated herein by this reference, based upon the findings as follows. a. A Notice of Availability advertising the availability of the Draft EIR was circulated for a period of 45-days beginning on May 7, 2021 and ending on June 21, 2021; and b. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15025(c), the Planning Commission has reviewed the EIR in both its draft and final forms, attached as Exhibit C and D of the staff report accompanying the Planning Commission’s consideration of the Project and incorporated herein by this reference, and all comments received regarding the EIR and, based on the whole record before it, finds that the EIR was prepared in compliance with CEQA; and The Planning Commission further finds that this recommendation reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the Planning Commission; and c. The Planning Commission has also reviewed and considered the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the project that has been prepared pursuant to the requirements of Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 and finds that such Program is designed to ensure compliance with the mitigation measures during project implementation; and d. The custodian of records for the EIR, Mitigation Monitoring Program, and all other materials which constitute the record of proceedings upon which the City Council’s decision is based is the Planning Director of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Those documents are available for public review in the Planning Department of the City of Rancho Cucamonga located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730, telephone (909) 477-2750. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 21-62 MUP DRC2021-00315 – BRIDGE POINT RANCHO CUCAMONGA, LLC September 22, 2021 Page 6 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby hereby recommends that the City Council approve the application subject to each and every condition set forth below and in the Conditions of Approval, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 22nd DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Francisco Oaxaca, Chairman ATTEST: Anne McIntosh, AICP, Secretary I, Anne McIntosh, AICP, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 22nd day of September 2021, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Conditions of Approval Community Development Department Project #: DRC2020-00202 DRC2020-00213, DRC2020-00265, DRC2020-00266, DRC2020-00267, DRC2020-00312, DRC2021-00180, SUBTPM20271 Project Name: EDR - Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Location: 12434 4TH ST - 022928350-0000 Project Type: Design Review Development Agreement, General Plan Amendment, Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Tentative Parcel Map, Tree Removal Permit, Zoning Map AmendmentALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Planning Department Please be advised of the following Special Conditions The project shall comply with all mitigation measures identified in the Environmental Impact Report SCH No. (2020100056) and the corresponding Mitigation Monitoring and Report Program. 1. No more than 10% of the building space shall be used for high-cube cold storage warehouse space, consistent with analyses conducted in the Environmental Impact Report. 2. Use of natural gas and installation of required infrastructure is prohibited and any modification to this prohibition may be subject to additional review under CEQA. 3. No sort use shall be operated on the Site during the operation of the project. A sort use means a fulfillment center that ships out smaller items, requiring extensive sorting, typically by manual means, as defined in the ITE Manual, and as further described in the project’s Draft EIR. 4. Standard Conditions of Approval For commercial and industrial projects, paint roll-up doors and service doors to match main building colors. 5. The applicant shall sign the Statement of Agreement and Acceptance of Conditions of Approval provided by the Planning Department. The signed Statement of Agreement and Acceptance of Conditions of Approval shall be returned to the Planning Department prior to the submittal of grading/construction plans for plan check, request for a business license, and/or commencement of the approved activity. 6. 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. In the event such a legal action is filed, the City shall estimate its expenses for litigation. The applicant shall deposit such amount with the City or enter into an agreement with the City to pay such expenses as they become due. 7. 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. 8. www.CityofRC.us Printed: 9/15/2021 Project #: DRC2020-00202 DRC2020-00213, DRC2020-00265, DRC2020-00266, DRC2020-00267, DRC2020-00312, DRC2021-00180, SUBTPM20271 Project Name: EDR - Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Location: 12434 4TH ST - 022928350-0000 Project Type: Design Review Development Agreement, General Plan Amendment, Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Tentative Parcel Map, Tree Removal Permit, Zoning Map AmendmentALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Planning Department Standard Conditions of Approval The applicant shall be required to pay California Department of Fish and Wildlife Notice of Determination & Environmental Impact Report fee pursuant to CDFW's current fee schedule, including all County processing fees. All checks are to be made payable to the Clerk of the Board Supervisors and submitted to the Planning Department within 5 days of the approval of the project by Planning Commission/City Council. 9. Any approval shall expire if Building Permits are not issued or approved use has not commenced within 2 years from the date of approval or a time extension has been granted. 10. Any modification or intensification of the approved use, including revisions in the operations of the business that is approved by this Minor Use Use Permit; improvements including new building construction; and/or other modifications/intensification beyond what is specifically approved by this Minor Use Permit, shall require the review and approval by the necessary discretionary body 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 Minor Use Permit for review by the City. 11. This project is subject to public art requirement outlined in Chapter 17.124 of the Development Code, in accordance with Development Agreement DRC2021-00180. The applicant shall be required to install art onsite pursuant to Development Code Section 17.124 with a minimum value of $200,000, pursuant to Development Agreement DRC2021-00180. No final approval, such as a final inspection or the a issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, for any development project (or if a multi-phased project, the final phase of a development project) that is subject to this requirement shall occur unless the public art requirement has been fulfilled to the satisfaction of the Planning Department. 12. 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. 13. Existing trees required to be preserved in place shall be protected with a construction barrier in accordance with the Development Code Section 17.80.050, and so noted on the grading plans. The location of those trees to be preserved in place and new locations for transplanted trees shall be shown on the detailed landscape plans. The applicant shall follow all of the arborist's recommendations regarding preservation, transplanting, and trimming methods. 14. Front yard and corner side yard landscaping and irrigation shall be required per the Development Code and/or . This requirement shall be in addition to the required street trees and slope planting. 15. www.CityofRC.us Page 2 of 23Printed: 9/15/2021 Project #: DRC2020-00202 DRC2020-00213, DRC2020-00265, DRC2020-00266, DRC2020-00267, DRC2020-00312, DRC2021-00180, SUBTPM20271 Project Name: EDR - Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Location: 12434 4TH ST - 022928350-0000 Project Type: Design Review Development Agreement, General Plan Amendment, Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Tentative Parcel Map, Tree Removal Permit, Zoning Map AmendmentALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Planning Department Standard Conditions of Approval 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. 16. Landscaping and irrigation systems required to be installed within the public right-of-way on the perimeter of this project area shall be continuously maintained by the developer. 17. The final design of the perimeter parkways, walls, landscaping, and sidewalks shall be included in the required landscape plans and shall be subject to Planning Director review and approval and coordinated for consistency with any parkway landscaping plan which may be required by the Engineering Services Department. 18. 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. 19. 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. 20. The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved plans which include all applicable 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. 21. 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. 22. Trash receptacle(s) are required and shall meet City standards. The final design, locations, and the number of trash receptacles shall be subject to Planning Director review and approval prior to the issuance of Building Permits. 23. The proposed public street shall be named Catherine Bridge Place. This street name shall be submitted for Planning Director review and approval in accordance with the adopted Street Naming Policy prior to approval of the final map 24. www.CityofRC.us Page 3 of 23Printed: 9/15/2021 Project #: DRC2020-00202 DRC2020-00213, DRC2020-00265, DRC2020-00266, DRC2020-00267, DRC2020-00312, DRC2021-00180, SUBTPM20271 Project Name: EDR - Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Location: 12434 4TH ST - 022928350-0000 Project Type: Design Review Development Agreement, General Plan Amendment, Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Tentative Parcel Map, Tree Removal Permit, Zoning Map AmendmentALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Planning Department Standard Conditions of Approval All Double Detector Checks (DDC) and Fire Department Connections (FDC) required and/or proposed shall be installed at locations that are not within direct view or line-of-sight of the office corner of the building. The specific locations of each DDC and FDC shall require the review and approval of the Planning Department and Fire Construction Services/Fire Department. All Double Detector Checks (DDC) and Fire Department Connections (FDC) screened behind a 4-foot high wall. For this project, these walls shall be constructed of poured in-place concrete with design elements incorporated to match the building Decorative paving shall be provided at each vehicle entrance to the site, behind the public right-of-way. These decoratively paved areas shall extend from the front property line to the building setback line and have a width equal to that of the driveway. 25. Downspouts shall not be visible from the exterior of any elevations of the buildings. All downspouts shall be routed through the interior of the building walls. 26. Engineering Services Department Please be advised of the following Special Conditions The applicant shall construct a public street along with east side of the project between 4th Street and 6th Street. The public street shall be a full width Industrial Street meeting the City Standard Plan 100-A. 1. (At-Grade Crossing) This project shall construct at-grade crossing improvements through the rail road along 6th Street. The developer shall be eligible for reimbursement of one-half the cost of the 6th Street at-grade crossing from future developments as they occur on APN: 0229-283-79. 2. The street lights shall be owned by the City. Developer shall be responsible to coordinate and pay all costs of street lights and to provide power to City owned street lights. 3. Development Impact Fees Due Prior to Building Permit Issuance: (Subject to Change / Periodic Increases - Refer to current fee schedule to determine current amounts) Drainage Impact Fee Transportation Impact Fee Police Impact Fee 4. www.CityofRC.us Page 4 of 23Printed: 9/15/2021 Project #: DRC2020-00202 DRC2020-00213, DRC2020-00265, DRC2020-00266, DRC2020-00267, DRC2020-00312, DRC2021-00180, SUBTPM20271 Project Name: EDR - Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Location: 12434 4TH ST - 022928350-0000 Project Type: Design Review Development Agreement, General Plan Amendment, Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Tentative Parcel Map, Tree Removal Permit, Zoning Map AmendmentALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Engineering Services Department Please be advised of the following Special Conditions 1) Electric: The Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Utility (RCMU) shall be the electrical service provider for all project related development. The Developer shall execute a Line Extension Agreement for electric service and shall construct electrical distribution facilities in accordance with such agreement and RCMU requirements and dedicate such facilities to the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Utility. RCMU’s proposed underground electric system will be located off of Etiwanda Ave and Sixth Street East of the proposed development. 2) Fiber: The proposed development is slated to be included in the City’s Fiber Optic Master Plan that would provide a City owned Fiber-to-the-Premise (FTTP) infrastructure. The City will require the developer to install a 1-4” UG Fiber Optic dark conduit on the frontage of the development (along the South side of Sixth Street) along the project boundary along with a 3’x4’x3’ pullbox on each end of the route and into the project boundary. The size, placement and location of the conduit and vaults shall be shown on the Street Improvement and/or Public Improvement Plans and subject to the Engineering Services Department's review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits or final map approval, whichever comes first. On site, the City will require 1-2” UG HDPE or equal fiber optic conduit to be placed underground within a duct and structure system to be installed joint trench by the Developer per Standard Drawing 135-137 and interconnected into the City's 4" fiber optic conduit. The size, placement and location of the conduit and/or vaults shall run into each of the development’s individual telecommunication room and be shown on the final dry utility onsite substructure plans and subject to the Engineering Services Department's review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits or final map approval, whichever comes first. 5. The applicant shall modify the existing traffic signal at the intersection of 4th Street and the Barrington Avenue to incorporate the new public street into an offset intersection with Barrington Avenue controlled by a single traffic signal. Furnish and install new traffic signal equipment as necessary per Caltrans standard plans and specifications plus 2019 revision, and City standard drawings. Furnish and install the necessary infrastructure to connect the signal to the adjacent signals at 4th Street and Etiwanda, and 4th Street and Santa Anita Avenues. 6. www.CityofRC.us Page 5 of 23Printed: 9/15/2021 Project #: DRC2020-00202 DRC2020-00213, DRC2020-00265, DRC2020-00266, DRC2020-00267, DRC2020-00312, DRC2021-00180, SUBTPM20271 Project Name: EDR - Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Location: 12434 4TH ST - 022928350-0000 Project Type: Design Review Development Agreement, General Plan Amendment, Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Tentative Parcel Map, Tree Removal Permit, Zoning Map AmendmentALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Engineering Services Department Please be advised of the following Special Conditions Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall submit for review plans for improvements identified below, these improvements shall be completed no later than issuance of the certificate of occupancy of the project's first building. 1. At the intersection of Etiwanda Ave. and Foothill Blvd. A. Modify the traffic signal to optimize coordination timing along Foothill Blvd between the I-15 and East Ave and implement a 140-second cycle length during the PM peak hour. B. Submit to the City fair share contributions to construct the addition of a second northbound left turn lane, a third eastbound through lane, and a third westbound through lane in the amount of $37,089. 2. At the intersection of the I-15 southbound ramps and Ontario Mills Dr./4th St. A. Restripe the southbound approach to provide one left turn lane, one through lane, and dual right turn lanes. B. Modify the existing traffic signal to implement a 130-second cycle length and overlap phasing for the northbound, southbound, and westbound right turn lanes. 3. At the intersection of the I-15 northbound ramps and 4th St. A. Modify the existing traffic signal to implement a 130-second cycle length. 7. Standard Conditions of Approval Dedication shall be made of the following rights-of-way on the perimeter streets (measured from street centerline): 60 total feet on 4th Street 44 total feet on 6th Street 66 total feet on the proposed Industrial Street (full right of way width) 8. Easements for public sidewalks placed outside the public right-of-way shall be dedicated to the City.9. Reciprocal access easements shall be provided where necessary ensuring access to all parcels by CC&Rs or by deeds and shall be recorded prior to the issuance of Building Permits, where no map is involved, for the utilities which serve both parcels, including but not limited to, water, sewer, storm drainage. 10. A final drainage study shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of Grading Permits. All drainage facilities shall be installed as required by the City Engineer. 11. Adequate provisions shall be made for acceptance and disposal of surface drainage entering the property from adjacent areas. 12. A lot line adjustment or a map shall be approved among the existing parcels meeting City Development Code requirements, prior to issuance of Building Permits. 13. www.CityofRC.us Page 6 of 23Printed: 9/15/2021 Project #: DRC2020-00202 DRC2020-00213, DRC2020-00265, DRC2020-00266, DRC2020-00267, DRC2020-00312, DRC2021-00180, SUBTPM20271 Project Name: EDR - Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Location: 12434 4TH ST - 022928350-0000 Project Type: Design Review Development Agreement, General Plan Amendment, Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Tentative Parcel Map, Tree Removal Permit, Zoning Map AmendmentALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Engineering Services Department Standard Conditions of Approval ** CD Information Required Prior to Sign-Off for Building Permit Prior to the issuance of building permits, if valuation is greater or equal to $100,000, a Diversion Deposit and a related administrative fee shall be paid for the Construction and Demolition Diversion Program. The deposit is fully refundable if at least 65% of all wastes generated during construction and demolition are diverted from landfills, and appropriate documentation is provided to the City. Applicant must identify if they are self-hauling or utilizing Burrtec prior to issuance of a building permit. Proof of diversion must be submitted to the Environmental Engineering Division within 60 days following the completion of the construction and / or demolition project. Contact Marissa Ostos, Environmental Engineering, at (909) 774-4062 for more information. Instructions and forms are available at the City's website, www.cityofrc.us, under City Hall / Engineering / Environmental Programs / Construction & Demolition Diversion Program. 14. Prior to approval of a lot merger, lot line adjustment, or a final map, a deposit shall be posted with the City covering the estimated cost of apportioning the assessments under Assessment Districts LMD 3B, SLD 1 & SLD 6 among the newly created parcel(s). 15. A signed consent and waiver form to join and/or form the appropriate Landscape and Lighting Districts and or Community Facility District shall be filed with the Engineering Services Department prior to issuance of Building Permits. Formation costs shall be borne by the developer. NOTE: The parcels are currently annexed into LMD 3B, SLD 1 & SLD 6. 16. 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. 17. www.CityofRC.us Page 7 of 23Printed: 9/15/2021 Project #: DRC2020-00202 DRC2020-00213, DRC2020-00265, DRC2020-00266, DRC2020-00267, DRC2020-00312, DRC2021-00180, SUBTPM20271 Project Name: EDR - Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Location: 12434 4TH ST - 022928350-0000 Project Type: Design Review Development Agreement, General Plan Amendment, Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Tentative Parcel Map, Tree Removal Permit, Zoning Map AmendmentALL 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: Street Name: 4th Street Curb & Gutter: Remove and replace as determined during design A.C. Pvmt: Grind and overlay as determined during design Side-walk : Remove and replace as determined during design Drive Appr.: Per City Standards and City Driveway Policy Street Lights: Per City Standards Street Trees: Per City Standards Bike Trail: Class II Bike Lane or as required by the City Engineer Street Name: 6th Street Curb & Gutter: Remove and replace as determined during design A.C. Pvmt: Grind and overlay as determined during design Side-walk : Remove and replace as determined during design Drive Appr.: Per City Standards and City Driveway Policy Street Lights: Per City Standards Street Trees: Per City Standards Bike Trail: Class II Bike Lane or as required by the City Engineer Street Name: Proposed Industrial Street Curb & Gutter: Per City Standards A.C. Pvmt: Per City Standards Side-walk : Per City Standards Drive Appr.: Per City Standards and City Driveway Policy Street Lights: Per City Standards Street Trees: Per City Standards Other: Modification to exist signalized intersection of Barrington and 4th to provide signalized access to new Industrial Street. Signal modification plans subject to review and approval of City Engineer. Notes: (a) Where applicable, median island includes landscaping and irrigation on meter. (b) Pavement reconstruction and overlays will be determined during plan check. 18. www.CityofRC.us Page 8 of 23Printed: 9/15/2021 Project #: DRC2020-00202 DRC2020-00213, DRC2020-00265, DRC2020-00266, DRC2020-00267, DRC2020-00312, DRC2021-00180, SUBTPM20271 Project Name: EDR - Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Location: 12434 4TH ST - 022928350-0000 Project Type: Design Review Development Agreement, General Plan Amendment, Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Tentative Parcel Map, Tree Removal Permit, Zoning Map AmendmentALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Engineering Services Department Standard Conditions of Approval Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 16.37.010, no person shall make connections from a source of energy, fuel or power to any building or structure which is regulated by technical codes and for which a permit is required unless, in addition to any and all other codes, regulations and ordinances, all improvements required by these conditions of development approval have been completed and accepted by the City Council, except: that in developments containing more than one building, structure or unit, the development may have energy connections made in equal proportion to the percentage of completion of all improvements required by these conditions of development approval, as determined by the City Engineer, provided that reasonable, safe and maintainable access to the property exists. In no case shall more than 95 percent of the buildings, structures or units be connected to energy sources prior to completion and acceptance of all improvements required by these conditions of development approval. 19. Improvement Plans and Construction: a.Street improvement plans, including street trees, street lights, and intersection safety lights on future signal poles, and traffic signal plans shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. Security shall be posted and an agreement executed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the City Attorney guaranteeing completion of the public and/or private street improvements, prior to final map approval or the issuance of Building Permits, whichever occurs first. b. Prior to any work being performed in public right-of-way, fees shall be paid and a construction permit shall be obtained from the Engineering Services Department in addition to any other permits required. c. Pavement striping, marking, traffic signing, street name signing, traffic signal conduit, and interconnect conduit shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. d. Signal conduit with pull boxes shall be installed with any new construction or reconstruction project along major or secondary streets and at intersections for future traffic signals and interconnect wiring. Pull boxes shall be placed on both sides of the street at 3 feet outside of BCR, ECR, or any other locations approved by the City Engineer. Notes: 1) Pull boxes shall be No. 6 at intersections and No. 5 along streets, a maximum of 200 feet apart, unless otherwise specified by the City Engineer. 2) Conduit shall be 3-inch 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 security 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 Department prior to submittal for first plan check. 20. www.CityofRC.us Page 9 of 23Printed: 9/15/2021 Project #: DRC2020-00202 DRC2020-00213, DRC2020-00265, DRC2020-00266, DRC2020-00267, DRC2020-00312, DRC2021-00180, SUBTPM20271 Project Name: EDR - Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Location: 12434 4TH ST - 022928350-0000 Project Type: Design Review Development Agreement, General Plan Amendment, Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Tentative Parcel Map, Tree Removal Permit, Zoning Map AmendmentALL 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: 4th Street Botanical Name: Platanus acerifolia Common Name: Min. Grow Space: 30 Spacing: 30 Size: 15 gallon minimum Qty.: to be determined during design Street Name: 6th Street Botanical Name: Magnolia grandiflora Common Name: St Mary Min. Grow Space: 20 Spacing: 20 Size: 15 gallon minimum Qty.: to be determined during design Street Name: Proposed Industrial Street (both sides of street) Botanical Name: Magnolia grandiflora Common Name: St Mary Min. Grow Space: 20 Spacing: 20 Size: 15 gallon minimum Qty.: to be determined during design 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. 21. www.CityofRC.us Page 10 of 23Printed: 9/15/2021 Project #: DRC2020-00202 DRC2020-00213, DRC2020-00265, DRC2020-00266, DRC2020-00267, DRC2020-00312, DRC2021-00180, SUBTPM20271 Project Name: EDR - Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Location: 12434 4TH ST - 022928350-0000 Project Type: Design Review Development Agreement, General Plan Amendment, Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Tentative Parcel Map, Tree Removal Permit, Zoning Map AmendmentALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Engineering Services Department Standard Conditions of Approval 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. 22. 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. 23. 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. 24. The developer shall be responsible for the relocation of existing utilities as necessary.25. 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. 26. Approvals have not been secured from all utilities and other interested agencies involved. Approval of the final parcel map will be subject to any requirements that may be received from them. 27. 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. 28. Fire Prevention / New Construction Unit Standard Conditions of Approval Fire apparatus access roads (fire lanes) can be included in an engineered onsite storm water retention plan. The ponding of storm water shall not exceed a designed depth of four (4) inches in the designated fire apparatus access road(s) and the area between the fire apparatus access road(s) and the exterior walls of all normally occupied buildings. Ponding design specifications for Building 2 appear to exceed the maximum allowable depth for onsite storm water retention. This Condition was acknowledged in the Responses letter posted Aug 27, 2020. 1. www.CityofRC.us Page 11 of 23Printed: 9/15/2021 Project #: DRC2020-00202 DRC2020-00213, DRC2020-00265, DRC2020-00266, DRC2020-00267, DRC2020-00312, DRC2021-00180, SUBTPM20271 Project Name: EDR - Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Location: 12434 4TH ST - 022928350-0000 Project Type: Design Review Development Agreement, General Plan Amendment, Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Tentative Parcel Map, Tree Removal Permit, Zoning Map AmendmentALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Fire Prevention / New Construction Unit Standard Conditions of Approval Existing parcel 22928351 is required to be annexed into Community Facilities District 85-1 (CFD 85-1). Please contact Kelly Guerra with the City of Rancho Cucamonga’s Special Districts Division at (909) 774-2582 or Kelly.Guerra@CityofRC.US to complete the annexation. The annexation requirement will not be considered complete until the applicant begins the annexation process and Special Districts notifies the Fire Marshal that the process has been started. 2. Access doors are required to be identified in accordance with Fire District Standard 5-5. The Standard has been uploaded to the Documents section. 3. Access doors are required to be distributed along the exterior of the building such that the lineal distance between adjacent access doors does not exceed 125 feet measured center to center. 4. Required alarm systems and supervision systems are required to be in accordance with Fire District Standard 9-3. The Standard has been uploaded to the Documents section. 5. Plans for the alarm and/or supervision (monitoring) system are required to be submitted separately and issued a separate permit. Submit all plans to the Building & Safety Department for routing to the Fire District. 6. Plans for the egress lighting are required to be submitted separately and issued a separate permit. Submit all plans to the Building & Safety Department for routing to the Fire District. 7. Plans for high piled combustible storage are required to be submitted separately and issued a separate permit. Submit all plans to the Building & Safety Department for routing to the Fire District. 8. Plans for the private, onsite fire underground water infrastructure are required to be submitted separately and issued a separate permit. Submit all plans to the Building & Safety Department for routing to the Fire District. 9. Plans for the public, offsite fire underground water infrastructure are required to be submitted separately and issued a separate permit. Plans are required to be submitted prior to or concurrently with the submittal of the Water District mylars. Submit all plans to the Building & Safety Department for routing to the Fire District. 10. Plans for the racks used for high piled combustible storage are required to be submitted separately and issued a separate permit. Submit all plans to the Building & Safety Department for routing to the Fire District. 11. Plans for the automatic fire sprinkler system are required to be submitted separately and issued a separate permit. Submit all plans to the Building & Safety Department for routing to the Fire District. 12. Plans for suppression systems are required to be submitted separately and issued a separate permit. Submit all plans to the Building & Safety Department for routing to the Fire District. 13. Plans for the temporary access and/or hydrants are required to be submitted separately and issued a separate permit. Submit all plans to the Building & Safety Department for routing to the Fire District. 14. Exterior doors and doors providing access to fire protection and life safety systems and equipment are required to have identification signage in accordance with Fire District Standard 5-5. The Standard has been uploaded to the Documents section. 15. www.CityofRC.us Page 12 of 23Printed: 9/15/2021 Project #: DRC2020-00202 DRC2020-00213, DRC2020-00265, DRC2020-00266, DRC2020-00267, DRC2020-00312, DRC2021-00180, SUBTPM20271 Project Name: EDR - Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Location: 12434 4TH ST - 022928350-0000 Project Type: Design Review Development Agreement, General Plan Amendment, Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Tentative Parcel Map, Tree Removal Permit, Zoning Map AmendmentALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Fire Prevention / New Construction Unit Standard Conditions of Approval Emergency responder radio coverage is required for the building(s) included in this project. San Bernardino County Information Services Department (ISD) conducts radio signal strength assessments for the entire county. It is highly recommended that a radio signal strength assessment is completed for this project. Where emergency responder radio coverage is determined to meet the requirements of the California Fire Code, an emergency responder radio system and/or associated equipment will not be required. Please contact Tim Trager with County ISD at 909-388-5563 or ttrager@isd.sbcounty.gov to schedule an assessment and/or obtain any available information about the project site. Where the existing emergency responder radio coverage is found to be below acceptable standards, an emergency responder radio system and associated equipment will be required to be provided in compliance and accordance with the California Fire Code. 16. Designated and conforming aerial apparatus access is required in accordance with Fire District Standard 5-1. Show aerial apparatus access on the fire access plan. The Standard has been uploaded to the Documents section. 17. Fire apparatus access (fire lane) design, construction, and identification are required to be in accordance with Fire District Standard 5-1. The Standard has been uploaded to the Documents section. 18. Fire flow information for this project is obtained from the Cucamonga Valley Water District (CVWD). CVWD can be reached at 909-944-6000 or custserv@cvwdwater.com. 19. Fire flow is required to be in accordance with Appendix B of the California Fire Code. The Fire District has adopted the appendix without local amendments except that the minimum fire flow for commercial buildings shall not be less than 1500 gpm. Proof of the availability of the required fire flow must be provided to the Fire District in the form of a letter or written report dated within the past 12 months. 20. Fire sprinkler are required to be installed in accordance with Fire District Standard 9-5. The Standard has been uploaded to the Documents section. 21. Gates installed across a commercial/industrial emergency vehicle access road (fire lane) are required to be in accordance with Standard 5-4. The Standard has been uploaded to the Documents section. 22. Identification of exterior perimeter fire access doors is required to be in accordance with Fire District Standard 5-5. The Standard has been uploaded to the Documents section. 23. High-piled combustible storage is required to be in accordance with Chapter 32 of the Fire Code and Fire District Standard 32-1. Please read and understand this Standard in its entirety to avoid delays in scheduling inspections and obtaining approvals. The Standard has been uploaded to the Documents section. 24. A Knox Box key box is required in accordance with Fire District Standard 5-9. Additional boxes may be required depending on the size of the building, the location of fire protection and life safety system controls, and the operational needs of the Fire District. The Standard has been uploaded to the Documents section. If an installed Knox Box is available to this project or business, keys for the building/suite/unit are required to be provided to the Fire Inspector at the final inspection. 25. www.CityofRC.us Page 13 of 23Printed: 9/15/2021 Project #: DRC2020-00202 DRC2020-00213, DRC2020-00265, DRC2020-00266, DRC2020-00267, DRC2020-00312, DRC2021-00180, SUBTPM20271 Project Name: EDR - Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Location: 12434 4TH ST - 022928350-0000 Project Type: Design Review Development Agreement, General Plan Amendment, Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Tentative Parcel Map, Tree Removal Permit, Zoning Map AmendmentALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Fire Prevention / New Construction Unit Standard Conditions of Approval A Knox key switch is required to be installed on motorized gates that are installed across or provide access to a fire access road (fire Lane). See Fire District Standard 5-3 for Residential Gates and Fire District Standard 5-4 for Commercial and Industrial Gates. 26. A Knox or Fire District padlock is required to be incorporated into the security system for a manually operated gate that are installed across or provides access to a fire access road (fire lane). 27. Coordinate landscaping with the roof access ladder points and address signage. Landscaping cannot obstruct roof access or clear visibility of address signage from time of installation to maturity of the shrubs and trees. 28. A fire service site plan is required in accordance with Fire District Standard 5-11. The Standard has been uploaded to the Documents section. 29. All of the Fire District Standards applicable are required to be reproduced on the plans. The project is required to meet all of the applicable codes, regulations, and standards in effect and adopted at the time of plan check submittal. Fire District Standards associated with construction and plan submittals can be found on the City of Rancho Cucamonga's website and accessed via https://www.dropbox.com/sh/4k4qdxhs4tp13c7/AAAdscMKMdW9WIQe725xWyU-a?dl=0 30. Roof access is required to be in accordance with Fire District Standard 5-6. The Standard has been uploaded to the Documents section. 31. Street address and unit/suite signage for commercial and industrial buildings are required to be in accordance with Fire District Standard 5-8. The Standard has been uploaded to the Documents section. 32. Fire apparatus access roads and emergency vehicle access is required to be identified with signs and/or other approved makings in accordance with Fire District Standard 5-1. A copy of the Standard has been uploaded to the Documents section. 33. Identification of fire protection systems and components, fire alarm systems and components, and equipment and devices associated with fire and life safety systems is required to be in accordance with Fire District Standards 5-5 and 5-10. The Standards have been uploaded to the Documents section. 34. Public and private fire service water mains, public and private hydrants, water control valves, fire sprinkler risers, fire department connections (FDCs), and other fire protection water related devices and equipment are required to be provided, designed, and installed in accordance with Fire District Standard 5-10. The Standard has been uploaded to the Documents section. 35. Building and Safety Services Department Please be advised of the following Special Conditions www.CityofRC.us Page 14 of 23Printed: 9/15/2021 Project #: DRC2020-00202 DRC2020-00213, DRC2020-00265, DRC2020-00266, DRC2020-00267, DRC2020-00312, DRC2021-00180, SUBTPM20271 Project Name: EDR - Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Location: 12434 4TH ST - 022928350-0000 Project Type: Design Review Development Agreement, General Plan Amendment, Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Tentative Parcel Map, Tree Removal Permit, Zoning Map AmendmentALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Building and Safety Services Department Please be advised of the following Special Conditions When the Entitlement Review is approved submit complete construction drawings including structural calculations to Building and Safety for plan review in accordance with the current edition of the CA Building and Fire Codes including all local ordinances and standards. The structure is required to be equipped with automatic fire sprinklers. A soils report is required. Disabled access to the site and building must be provided in accordance to the State of California published thresholds at the time of plan check submittal. The maximum exit access travel distance shall be 400'. Connection to the public sewer will be required. Utility easements may be required if water and sewer are from 4th street to serve building 2. 1. Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval 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”. 1. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with current adopted California Building Code and/or the California Residential Code, City Grading Standards, and accepted grading practices. The Grading and Drainage Plan(s) shall be in substantial conformance with the approved conceptual Grading and Drainage Plan. 2. A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified Engineer licensed by the State of California to perform such work. Two copies will be provided at grading and drainage plan submittal for review. Plans shall implement design recommendations per said report. 3. The final Grading and Drainage Plan, appropriate certifications and compaction reports shall be completed, submitted, and approved by the Engineering Services Department prior to the issuance of building permits. 4. A separate Grading and Drainage Plan check submittal is required for all new construction projects and for existing buildings where improvements being proposed will generate 50 cubic yards or more of combined cut and fill. The Grading and Drainage Plan shall be prepared, stamped, and wet signed by a California licensed Civil Engineer prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit. 5. The applicant shall comply with the City of Rancho Cucamonga Dust Control Measures and place a dust control sign on the project site prior to the issuance of a grading permit. All dust control sign(s) shall be located outside of the public right of way. 6. If a Rough Grading and Drainage Plan/Permit are submitted to the Engineering Services Department for review, the rough grading plan shall be a separate plan submittal and permit from Precise Grading and Drainage Plan/Permit. 7. www.CityofRC.us Page 15 of 23Printed: 9/15/2021 Project #: DRC2020-00202 DRC2020-00213, DRC2020-00265, DRC2020-00266, DRC2020-00267, DRC2020-00312, DRC2021-00180, SUBTPM20271 Project Name: EDR - Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Location: 12434 4TH ST - 022928350-0000 Project Type: Design Review Development Agreement, General Plan Amendment, Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Tentative Parcel Map, Tree Removal Permit, Zoning Map AmendmentALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval Prior to the issuance of a grading permit the applicant shall obtain written permission from the adjacent property owner(s) to construct wall(s) on property line(s) or provide a detail(s) showing the perimeter wall(s) to be constructed offset from the property line. 8. Prior to issuance of a grading permit the Final Grading and Drainage Plan shall show the accessibility path from the public right of way and the accessibility parking stalls to the building doors in conformance with the current adopted California Building Code. All accessibility ramps shall show sufficient detail including gradients, elevations, and dimensions and comply with the current adopted California Building Code. 9. 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. 10. 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. 11. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the grading and drainage plan shall show the maximum parking stall gradient at 7 percent. Accessibility parking stall grades shall be constructed per the, current adopted California Building Code. 12. The applicant shall provide a grading agreement and grading bond for all cut and fill combined exceeding 5,000 cubic yards prior to issuance of a grading permit. The grading agreement and bond shall be approved by the Engineering Services Department. 13. The final grading and drainage plan shall show existing topography a minimum of 100-feet beyond project boundary. 14. This project shall comply with the accessibility requirements of the current adopted California Building Code. 15. www.CityofRC.us Page 16 of 23Printed: 9/15/2021 Project #: DRC2020-00202 DRC2020-00213, DRC2020-00265, DRC2020-00266, DRC2020-00267, DRC2020-00312, DRC2021-00180, SUBTPM20271 Project Name: EDR - Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Location: 12434 4TH ST - 022928350-0000 Project Type: Design Review Development Agreement, General Plan Amendment, Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Tentative Parcel Map, Tree Removal Permit, Zoning Map AmendmentALL 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. 16. 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”. Note: As this project has been previously graded and the site soils have been compacted for building pads and parking lot purposes, the use of the Custom Soil Resource Report for San Bernardino County Southwestern Part by the United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service for natural soils is not acceptable for soil groundwater infiltration rates. 17. 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. 18. www.CityofRC.us Page 17 of 23Printed: 9/15/2021 Project #: DRC2020-00202 DRC2020-00213, DRC2020-00265, DRC2020-00266, DRC2020-00267, DRC2020-00312, DRC2021-00180, SUBTPM20271 Project Name: EDR - Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Location: 12434 4TH ST - 022928350-0000 Project Type: Design Review Development Agreement, General Plan Amendment, Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Tentative Parcel Map, Tree Removal Permit, Zoning Map AmendmentALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: 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. 19. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall obtain a signed and notarized letter from the adjacent property owner(s) for ALL work proposed on the adjacent property. The letter shall be scanned and pasted onto the permitted grading plan set. The letter shall show on either the title sheet or a detail sheet of the grading and drainage plan set. 20. Prior to approval of the project-specific storm water quality management plan, the applicant shall submit to the City Engineer, or his designee, a precise grading plan showing the location and elevations of existing topographical features, and showing the location and proposed elevations of proposed structures and drainage of the site. 21. A drainage study showing a 100-year, AMC 3 design storm event for on-site drainage shall be prepared and submitted to the Engineering Services Department for review and approval for on-site storm water drainage prior to issuance of a grading permit. The report shall contain water surface profile gradient calculations for all storm drain pipes 12-inches and larger in diameter. All reports shall be wet signed and sealed by the Engineer of Record. In addition, the project specific drainage study shall provide inlet calculations showing the proper sizing of the water quality management plan storm water flows into the proposed structural storm water treatment devices. 22. 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. 23. DESIGN ISSUE: The conceptual grading and drainage plan shows an area within the parking lot and fire lane where storm water will be ponding. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit the civil engineer of record shall submit a set of grading plans to the City of Rancho Cucamonga Building and Safety Department Fire Construction Services to review the plans and provide a maximum ponding depth of the storm water retention. 24. 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. 25. 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). 26. Prior to approval of the Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), the WQMP shall include a copy of the project Conditions of Approval. 27. www.CityofRC.us Page 18 of 23Printed: 9/15/2021 Project #: DRC2020-00202 DRC2020-00213, DRC2020-00265, DRC2020-00266, DRC2020-00267, DRC2020-00312, DRC2021-00180, SUBTPM20271 Project Name: EDR - Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Location: 12434 4TH ST - 022928350-0000 Project Type: Design Review Development Agreement, General Plan Amendment, Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Tentative Parcel Map, Tree Removal Permit, Zoning Map AmendmentALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval 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. 28. The Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (PWQMP) has been deemed “Acceptable”. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit a final project-specific Water Quality Management Plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Building Official. 29. Prior to the issuance of a Grading Permit the City of Rancho Cucamonga’s “Memorandum of Agreement of Storm Water Quality Management Plan” shall be submitted for review and approval by the Building Official and recorded with the County Recorder’s Office. 30. 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. 31. 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 Engineering Services Department 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. 32. 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. 33. 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. 34. 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. 35. www.CityofRC.us Page 19 of 23Printed: 9/15/2021 Project #: DRC2020-00202 DRC2020-00213, DRC2020-00265, DRC2020-00266, DRC2020-00267, DRC2020-00312, DRC2021-00180, SUBTPM20271 Project Name: EDR - Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Location: 12434 4TH ST - 022928350-0000 Project Type: Design Review Development Agreement, General Plan Amendment, Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Tentative Parcel Map, Tree Removal Permit, Zoning Map AmendmentALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval 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. 36. 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 final project-specific Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) may be prepared as a Phased WQMP and shall include all phases of the project. Construction of the storm water treatment structural devices may be constructed as construction progresses. 41. 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. 42. www.CityofRC.us Page 20 of 23Printed: 9/15/2021 Project #: DRC2020-00202 DRC2020-00213, DRC2020-00265, DRC2020-00266, DRC2020-00267, DRC2020-00312, DRC2021-00180, SUBTPM20271 Project Name: EDR - Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Location: 12434 4TH ST - 022928350-0000 Project Type: Design Review Development Agreement, General Plan Amendment, Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Tentative Parcel Map, Tree Removal Permit, Zoning Map AmendmentALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval 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. 43. As the use of drywells are proposed for the structural storm water treatment device, to meet the infiltration requirements of the current Municipal Separate Storm Sewers Systems (MS4) Permit, adequate source control and pollution prevention control BMPs shall be implemented to protect groundwater quality. The need for pre-treatment BMPs such as sedimentation or filtration shall be evaluated prior to infiltration and discussed in the final project-specific Water Quality Management Plan document. 44. www.CityofRC.us Page 21 of 23Printed: 9/15/2021 Project #: DRC2020-00202 DRC2020-00213, DRC2020-00265, DRC2020-00266, DRC2020-00267, DRC2020-00312, DRC2021-00180, SUBTPM20271 Project Name: EDR - Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Location: 12434 4TH ST - 022928350-0000 Project Type: Design Review Development Agreement, General Plan Amendment, Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Tentative Parcel Map, Tree Removal Permit, Zoning Map AmendmentALL 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 repair or maintenance activities, 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. 45. www.CityofRC.us Page 22 of 23Printed: 9/15/2021 Project #: DRC2020-00202 DRC2020-00213, DRC2020-00265, DRC2020-00266, DRC2020-00267, DRC2020-00312, DRC2021-00180, SUBTPM20271 Project Name: EDR - Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Location: 12434 4TH ST - 022928350-0000 Project Type: Design Review Development Agreement, General Plan Amendment, Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Tentative Parcel Map, Tree Removal Permit, Zoning Map AmendmentALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval 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. 46. www.CityofRC.us Page 23 of 23Printed: 9/15/2021 RESOLUTION NO. 21-63 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE APPROVING DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DRC2021-00180, BETWEEN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA AND BRIDGE POINT RANCHO CUCAMONGA, LLC, TO FACILITATE THE DEVELOPMENT OF TWO NEW INDUSTRIAL WAREHOUSE BUILDINGS TOTALING 2,175,000 SQUARE FEET ON PROPERTY LOCATED APPROXIAMTELY 1,000 FEET EAST OF SANTA ANITA, AVENUE AND 2,300 FEET WEST OF ETIWANDA AVENUE, NORTH OF 4TH STREET AND SOUTH OF 6TH STREET – APNS: 0229-283-50 AND 51. A.Recitals. 1.Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga, LLC filed an application for Development Agreement Amendment DRC2021-00180 as described in the title of this Ordinance. Hereinafter the subject Development Agreement is referred to as the “Application." Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga, LLC are successors in interest in all or portions of the property subject to the Development Agreement and are hereinafter referred to collectively as “Owner.” 2. On September 22, 2021, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the Application and adopted Resolution No. XX-XX recommending approval of the Application. 4.All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Ordinance have occurred. B.Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1.This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2.Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced public hearing on September 22, 2021, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The Application applies to the approximately 91.39-acre project site which comprises two parcels APN: 0229-283-50 and 0229-283-51. The project site is improved with an existing 1,431,000 square foot industrial warehouse building and an existing 23,240 square foot retail building and associated improvements such as parking areas, drive aisles, loading areas, landscaped areas and a rail spur which serves properties to the east of the project site. The site also includes an area comprising approximately 11-acres of vacant land which was previously used as a vineyard. All existing improvements, with the exception of the rail spur, will be demolished as part of this project. b.Concurrent with this Application, the Applicant has also applied for General Plan Amendment DRC2020-00213, Zoning Map Amendment DRC2020-00267, Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM20271, Design Review DRC2020-00202, Tree Removal Permit DRC2020-00266, and Minor Use Permit DRC2021-00315 to construct two new industrial Exhibit P PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 21-63 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DRC2021-00180 – BRIDGE POINT RANCHO CUCAMONGA, LLC September 22, 2021 Page 2 warehouse buildings on two new parcels of land: Parcel 1, totaling about 55 acres, will be improved with Building 1 totaling approximately 1,422,500 square feet, including a mezzanine not to exceed 25,000 square feet; Parcel 2, totaling about 30 acres, will be improved with Building 2 totaling approximately 752,500 square feet, including a mezzanine not to exceed 16,000 square feet. Associated improvements include new parking, drive aisles, truck parking and loading areas, and a new north-south public street located along the easterly boundary of the project site which will connect 4th Street and 6th Street. Collectively, these approvals are referred to herein as the “Project.” c.Development of the project is governed by the City’s General Plan and the Development Agreement between the City and Owner’s predecessor in interest. d.The existing Land Use, General Plan ad Zoning Designations for the project site and adjacent properties are as follows: Land Use General Plan Zoning* Site Industrial Warehouse, Commercial Retail and former vineyard Heavy Industrial (HI) and General Industrial (GI) Industrial Employment (IE) and General Industrial (GI) District North Industrial Heavy Industrial (HI) Industrial Employment (IE) District South Industrial (City of Ontario) Industrial Industrial (Crossroads Business Park Specific Plan) West Industrial General Industrial (GI) Industrial Employment (IE) and Neo-Industrial (NI) District East Industrial and Public Facility Heavy Industrial (HI) and Civic/Regional Industrial Employment (IE) and Neo-Industrial (NI) District e.As part of the Project, and in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), the City has prepared Environmental Impact Report SCH No. 2020100056 (EIR), which analyzed the potential environmental impacts of the project and related approvals. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 21-63 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DRC2021-00180 – BRIDGE POINT RANCHO CUCAMONGA, LLC September 22, 2021 Page 3 f.Pursuant to Section 17.22.060 of the Development Code, Development Agreements have been determined to be beneficial to the public in that: Development Agreements increase the certainty in the approval of development projects, thereby preventing the waste of resources, reducing the cost of development to the consumer, and encouraging investment in and commitment to comprehensive planning, all leading to the maximum efficient utilization of resources at the least economic cost to the public. Development Agreements provide assurance to the applicant for a development project that upon approval of the project, the applicant may proceed with the project in accordance with existing policies, rules and regulations, and subject to conditions of approval, thereby strengthening the public planning process, encouraging private participation in comprehensive planning, and reducing the economic costs of development. Development Agreements enable the City to plan for and finance public facilities, including, but not limited to, streets, sewerage, transportation, drinking water, school, and utility facilities, thereby removing a serious impediment to the development of new housing.” The proposed Development Agreement Amendment is being made and entered into for the Project to ensure that the above three goals are fulfilled. 3.Based upon the substantial evidence presented to the Planning Commission during the above-referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in Paragraphs 1 and 2 above, the Planning Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: a.The Application is consistent with the objectives, policies, and general land uses specified in the General Plan and any applicable Specific Plans. The proposed Development Agreement the construction of the Project, subject to the approval of the General Plan Amendment DRC2020-00213, Zoning Map Amendment DRC2020-00267, Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM20271, Design Review DRC2020-00202, Tree Removal Permit DRC2020-00266 and Minor Use Permit DRC2021-00315, respectively. b.The Application is compatible and in conformity with public convenience, general welfare, and good land use and zoning practice. The proposed Development Agreement will increase certainty and provide assurances that any impacts from the Project will be offset, including potential impacts to affordable housing stock through the payment of fees by the developer. c.The Application will not adversely affect the orderly development of property or the preservation of property values. The proposed Development Agreement Amendment will prevent the inefficient use of resources, reduce the public cost of development, and encourage comprehensive planning. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 21-63 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DRC2021-00180 – BRIDGE POINT RANCHO CUCAMONGA, LLC September 22, 2021 Page 4 4. The Development Agreement, in addition to the General Plan Amendment, Zoning Map Amendment, Tentative Parcel Map, Design Review, Tree Removal Permit and Minor Use Permit (collectively, the “Project”) were environmentally reviewed pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City’s Local CEQA Guidelines. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15060(d), the City determined that an EIR would clearly be required for the Project, and therefore prepared an environmental impact report (EIR) that focused on the potentially significant effects of the Project. Based upon the facts and information contained in the EIR prepared for the Project and the entire record before it, the Planning Commission recommends the City Council certify the final EIR for the Project, adopt findings of fact pursuant to CEQA, and adopt the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the Project, based upon the findings as follows: a. A Notice of Availability advertising the availability of the Draft EIR was circulated for a period of 45-days beginning on May 7, 2021 and ending on June 21, 2021; and b. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15025(c), the Planning Commission has reviewed the EIR in both its draft and final forms, attached as Exhibit C and D of the staff report accompanying the Planning Commission’s consideration of the Project and incorporated herein by this reference, and all comments received regarding the EIR and, based on the whole record before it, finds that the EIR was prepared in compliance with CEQA; and The Planning Commission further finds that this recommendation reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the Planning Commission; and c. The Planning Commission has also reviewed and considered the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the project that has been prepared pursuant to the requirements of Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 and finds that such Program is designed to ensure compliance with the mitigation measures during project implementation; and d. The custodian of records for the EIR, Mitigation Monitoring Program, and all other materials which constitute the record of proceedings upon which the City Council’s decision is based is the Planning Director of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Those documents are available for public review in the Planning Department of the City of Rancho Cucamonga located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730, telephone (909) 477-2750. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby recommends that the City Council approve the application subject to each and every condition set forth below and 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. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 21-63 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DRC2021-00180 – BRIDGE POINT RANCHO CUCAMONGA, LLC September 22, 2021 Page 5 APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 22nd DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Francisco Oaxaca, Chairman ATTEST: Anne McIntosh, AICP, Secretary I, Anne McIntosh, AICP, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 22nd day of September 2021, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: 11231-0001\2567614v7.doc RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: Janice C. Reynolds City Clerk 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER’S USE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. _______ REGARDING THE BRIDGE POINT RANCHO CUCAMONGA PROJECT, RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (this “Agreement” or this “Development Agreement”) is made and entered into as of the “Effective Date” set forth herein, by and between BRIDGE POINT RANCHO CUCAMONGA, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“Developer”), and the CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, a California municipal corporation (“City”). RECITALS Section 1. On ____________, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga (“Council”) adopted the following resolutions: A. Resolution No. _______________, approving General Plan Amendment DRC2020-00213; B. Resolution No. _______________, approving Design Review DRC2020-00202; C. Resolution No. _______________, approving Tentative Parcel Map 20271; D. Resolution No. _______________, approving Tree Removal Permit DRC2020- 00266; E. Resolution No. _______________, approving Minor Use Permit DRC2021-00315; and F. Resolution No. _______________, certifying, after making appropriate findings, an Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) identified as SCH No. 2020100056. Section 2. On ___________, the City Council introduced Ordinance No. _________, and following second reading adopted Ordinance No. ____, approving Zoning Map Amendment DRC2020-00267. Section 3. Collectively, the resolutions identified in Section 1 of the recitals and ordinance identified in Section 2 of the recitals (collectively, “Project Entitlements”) amended the City’s land use regulations to allow the demolition of the existing buildings on-site (a 23,240 square-foot (“sf”) retail building and a 1,431,000-sf warehouse building) -2- 11231-0001\2567614v7.doc and associated improvements, and permit the redevelopment and operation of the site with two high-cube warehouse buildings for a distribution/fulfillment center with ancillary office space, including the 1,422,500 square foot (“sf”) Building 1 and 752,500 sf Building 2 along with the construction of a new public roadway, internal drive aisles, parking, on-site landscaping, lighting, and utility connections. Section 4. California Government Code Section 65864, et seq. authorizes cities to enter into binding development agreements with persons having legal or equitable interests in real property for the development of such property. Developer is owner of the Site, as defined below and generally described as a 91.4-acre site located at 12434 4th Street in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County, California comprising tax Assessor Parcel Numbers (APNs) 0229-283-50 and -51, and has a legal interest in the real property subject to this Agreement. Section 5. City and Developer mutually desire to enter into this Development Agreement to develop the Project in accordance with the terms set forth herein. Section 6. On _____________, the City Council introduced Ordinance No. _____ (the “Approving Ordinance”), and following second reading adopted Ordinance No. ______, thereby approving this Development Agreement between the City and Developer. The Approving Ordinance is effective as of ________________. All requirements of the California Environment Quality Act have been met with respect to the Project, Project Entitlements, and this Agreement, and this Agreement is consistent with the City’s General Plan. AGREEMENT NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto agree as follows: Section 1. Definitions. In this Agreement, unless the context otherwise requires, the following terms shall have the following meaning: “Approving Ordinance” means Ordinance No. _______, which approved this Agreement. “Building 1” means the 1,422,500 sf building identified as “Building 1” in the Development Plan. “Building 2” means the 752,500 sf building identified as “Building 2” in the Development Plan. “City” means the City of Rancho Cucamonga. “Community Benefit Fee” means any fee required under Section 11(B) of this Agreement. “Developer” means Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company. “Development Plan” means those plans, specifications, and images attached hereto, collectively marked as Exhibit “B” and incorporated herein by this reference. “Effective Date” shall mean the date that the Approving Ordinance becomes effective. -2- 11231-0001\2567614v7.doc “ITE Manual” means the Institute of Traffic Engineers’ Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition. “Material Handling Equipment” shall mean all equipment intended for use in connection with the Project’s operation for the purpose of loading or unloading goods and materials, including all forklifts. “MMRP” shall refer to the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program included in the Project’s Final EIR and on file in City’s Planning Department. “Non-Sort” means a fulfillment center that ships large box items that are processed primarily with automation rather than through manual means, as defined in the ITE Manual, and as further described in the Project’s Draft EIR. “Project” means the proposed development of the Site, consistent with the terms and conditions of the Project Entitlements. “Project Entitlements” mean the Resolutions and Ordinance described in recitals Sections 1 through 3. “Site” means the real property that is the subject of the Project Entitlements and as legally described, depicted and identified in Exhibit “A”. “Sort” means a fulfillment center that ships out smaller items, requiring extensive sorting, typically by manual means, as defined in the ITE Manual, and as further described in the Project’s Draft EIR. “Term” means the initial six (6) year term of this Agreement, beginning from the Effective Date, and any extension pursuant to Section 6. “TIA” means the Project’s final traffic impact analyses for Non-Sort Uses included in the application for the Project Entitlements and on file in the City’s Engineering Services Department, which is incorporated herein by this reference. Section 2. Recitals. The recitals are part of this Agreement and shall be enforceable as any other provision of this Agreement. Section 3. Interest of Developer. Developer warrants and represents that, as of the Effective Date, it will have legal title to or an equitable interest in the Site; that it has full legal right to enter into this Agreement; and that the persons executing this Agreement on behalf of Developer have been duly authorized to do so. Section 4. Binding Effect of Agreement. Developer hereby subjects the Project and the Site to the covenants, reservations, and restrictions as set forth in this Agreement. The City and the Developer hereby declare their specific intent that the covenants, reservations and restrictions as set forth herein shall be deemed covenants running with the land and shall pass to and be binding upon Developer’s successors and assigns in title or interest to the Project and/or Site. Each and every contract, deed or other instrument hereinafter executed, covering or conveying the Project and/or Site or any portion thereof shall -3- 11231-0001\2567614v7.doc conclusively be held to have been executed, delivered, and accepted subject to the covenants, reservations and restrictions expressed in this Agreement, regardless of whether such covenants, reservations and restrictions are set forth in such contract, deed or other instrument. The City and Developer hereby further declare their understanding and intent that the benefit of such covenants, reservations, and restrictions touch and concern the land by enhancing and increasing the enjoyment and use of the Site by Developer and the future occupants of the Project, the intended beneficiaries of such covenants, reservations and restrictions, and by furthering the public purposes for which this Agreement is adopted. Section 5. Relationship of Parties. It is understood that the contractual relationship between City and Developer is such that City and Developer are each an independent party and neither is the agent or partner of the other for any purpose whatsoever and neither shall be considered to be the agent or partner of the other for any purpose whatsoever. Section 6. Term of Agreement. The Term of this Agreement shall commence on the Effective Date and shall continue for six (6) consecutive calendar years thereafter, unless the Term is otherwise terminated, modified, or extended in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement. So long as there are no material changes to the Project, the Developer is not then in breach beyond the notice and cure periods set forth in this Agreement, and the Developer has made all payments to the City as required pursuant to this Agreement, Developer has an option to extend the Term one time for an additional nine (9) years for a total Term of fifteen (15) years. To exercise this option, Developer must, no less than ninety (90) days’ prior to the expiration of the Term, both: (i) provide City with written notice of the intent to exercise the option and (ii) pay to City two million dollars ($2,000,000.00). Upon receipt of such notice and payment, City shall provide written confirmation that the Developer’s option to extend the Term has been exercised and accepted. The Term shall not be extended until City provides written confirmation to Developer, which notice shall not be unreasonably withheld and shall be provided prior to the expiration of the Agreement provided that Developer has provided required notice and full payment. Section 7. Timing of Development. Because the California Supreme Court held in Pardee Construction Co. v. City of Camarillo, 37 Cal.3d 465 (1984), that failure of the parties to provide for the timing of development resulting in a later adopted initiative restricting the timing of development to prevail over such parties’ agreement, it is the parties’ intent to cure that deficiency by acknowledging and providing that Developer shall have the right (without obligation), subject to the provisions of this Development Agreement, to complete the Project in such order and at such rate and at such times as Developer deems appropriate within the exercise of its subjective business judgment. Section 8. Assignment. In the event of a proposed transfer of interest in the Site or any portion thereof or in this Agreement by Developer to a transferee, Developer agrees to comply with the following conditions: (i) At least thirty (30) days prior to any such assignment, Developer shall provide the City with written notice thereof along with written evidence and -4- 11231-0001\2567614v7.doc documentation, of a form and substance satisfactory to the City, demonstrating the experience, capability, competence and financial ability of the proposed assignee to carry out and complete Development Plan and comply with the terms of this Agreement. (ii) At least thirty (30) days prior to any such assignment, Developer shall also provide satisfactory evidence that the transferee will assume in writing through an assignment and assumption agreement all remaining obligations of Developer under this Agreement. The assignment and assumption agreement shall be in a form satisfactory to the City Attorney. (iii) The City Manager shall have consented to the assignment of this Agreement, which consent will not be unreasonably withheld. Any assignment of this Agreement not made in strict compliance with the foregoing conditions shall constitute an event of default by the Developer pursuant to Section 18. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the terms, covenants and conditions of this Agreement shall be binding upon any transferee whether or not such an assignment and assumption agreement is signed by the assignee upon acquiring the Property. Section 9. General Standards and Restrictions Pertaining to Development of the Site. The following specific restrictions shall apply to the use of the Site pursuant to this Development Agreement: A. Developer shall have the right to develop and operate the Project on the Site in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement and the Project Entitlements and City shall have the right to control development of the Site in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement and the Project Entitlements. B. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, no Sort use shall be operated on the Site during the useful life of the Project’s two buildings. Due to City’s reliance on the traffic mitigation identified in this Agreement and the Draft EIR pertaining solely to Non- Sort uses, this provision shall survive expiration of this Agreement. C. The type, density, intensity, configuration of uses, size, and location of buildings and other improvements and provisions for the reservation or dedication of land for public purposes, location of public improvements, together with other terms and conditions of development applicable to the Site, shall be as set forth in this Development Agreement, including the Development Plan, and the Project Entitlements, except as modifications may be made pursuant to Section 16. D. All public improvements, including landscaping, irrigation, sidewalk, traffic improvements and public streets, as set forth in the Development Plan, Project Entitlements, and this Development Agreement, shall be installed by the Developer in the time and manner described in the Development Plan, Project Entitlements, and this Development Agreement. Section 10. Effect of City Regulations on Development of Project. Developer is entitled to protections afforded by the development agreement statute, Government Code -5- 11231-0001\2567614v7.doc Section 65864 et seq., including a vested right to develop the Project site in accordance with the rules, regulations and official policies in effect as of the Effective Date. The City acknowledges that, pursuant to Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code Section 17.02.020, Ordinance No. 982 does not apply to the Project’s Entitlements which are governed by the regulations in effect when the applications were deemed complete (March 11, 2021) except as expressly addressed herein. No future modification of City’s code or ordinances, or adoption of any code, ordinance, regulation, whether adopted by the City Council or through the initiative or referendum process, which conflicts with this Agreement shall apply to the Property or modify this Agreement without amendment hereto to so provide by the parties. A. The provisions of this Section 10 shall not preclude the application to the development of the Site those changes in City ordinances, regulations, plans, or specifications which are specifically mandated and required by changes in state or federal laws or regulations as provided in California Government Code Section 65869.5 or any successor provision or provisions. In the event such changes in the law prevent or preclude compliance with one or more of the provisions of this Agreement, such provisions of this Agreement shall be modified or suspended or performance thereof delayed, as may be necessary to comply with such changes in the law. B. The category of Development Impact Fees (“DIF”) applicable to the Project shall be those in effect as of the Agreement’s Effective Date (i.e. new DIF categories which may be adopted by the City after the Agreement’s Effective Date shall not apply to the Project), however the existing DIF and other development fees associated with the construction and development of the Project, including but not limited to land use approvals, development fees, building permits, etc., shall be pursuant to the rates as annually adjusted and in effect at the time application is made for such approvals or permits. C. Nothing herein shall prevent the application of health, safety, and accessibility regulations (e.g., fire, building, seismic, plumbing, and electric codes and requirements under the Americans with Disabilities Act or similar accessibility statute) that become applicable to the City as a whole. D. The parties acknowledge and agree that the City is restricted in its authority to limit its police power by contract and that the limitations, reservations and exceptions set forth in this Section 10 are intended to reserve to the City all of its police power which cannot be so limited. Section 11. Developer’s Obligations. In consideration of the rights and benefits Developer is guaranteed under this Agreement, the Developer agrees to provide each and every one of the community benefits and other measures set forth in this Section 11. A. Material Handling Equipment. Designation of City of Rancho Cucamonga as Point of Sale for Material Handling Equipment. The City of Rancho Cucamonga shall be designated as the point of sale for the Material Handling Equipment used in the Project’s operations. Developer shall include a requirement in all tenant leases that tenants shall designate the City of Rancho Cucamonga as the point of sale for the Material Handling Equipment used in the Project’s operations. City shall be a third party beneficiary to all such terms included in tenant leases. -6- 11231-0001\2567614v7.doc B. Community Benefit Fee. Developer shall pay to City the Community Benefit Fees in the amount and schedule as set forth below. The Community Benefit Fees are intended to address affordable housing demand, fire protection services, environmental justice, and related increases to City services associated with warehouse development. i. Community Benefit Fee amount and schedule: Payment Amount Due Payment 1 $3,000,000.00 Upon issuance of a grading permit, provided that no grading permit shall be issued until the fee is paid. Payment 2a $650,000.00 Upon issuance of a certificate of occupancy for Building 1, provided that no certificate of occupancy shall be issued until the fee is paid. Payment 2b $350,000.00 Upon issuance of a certificate of occupancy for Building 2, provided that no certificate of occupancy shall be issued under the fee is paid. Payment 3a $1,000,000.00 Upon the third anniversary of issuance of a final certificate of occupancy for Building 1 Payment 3b $500,000.00 Upon the third anniversary of issuance of a final certificate of occupancy Building 2 Payment 4a $2,250,000.00 Upon the fifth anniversary of issuance of a final certificate of occupancy Building 1 Payment 4b $1,250,000.00 Upon the fifth anniversary of issuance of a final certificate of occupancy Building 2 ii. If a Community Benefit Fee payment is scheduled to be due, pursuant to the schedule above, after the Term of this Agreement, then such community benefit fee payment shall automatically become due and owing on the final day of the Term. Developer may pay any of the Community Benefit Fee payments in advance of the scheduled due date, which early payment shall reduce the Consumer Price Index (CPI)-based inflationary increase applied to such payments pursuant to paragraph (v) below. iii. If Developer has not received a building permit for construction of the second building’s structure (whether Building 1 or Building 2) within twenty-four (24) months of issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the first building, then Developer shall pay an additional one million dollars ($1,000,000.00) Community Benefit Fee to City, due no later than twenty-six (26) months from the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the first building, in order to compensate for the deferred payment of the second building’s Community Benefit Fees. Whether Building 1 or Building 2 is the first building constructed depends on Developer’s Project phasing. iv. Except for Payment 1 described above, up to fifty percent (50%) of the Community Benefit Fees received by City for Buildings 1 and/or 2, as identified in paragraph (i) of paragraph B of this Section 11, shall be refunded to Developer if, within the Term of this Agreement, a Project tenant generates five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000.00) in sales tax to the City annually for any three (3) consecutive years, provided that Developer can demonstrate that the tenant responsible for generating five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000.00) in sales tax received by the City for any three (3) consecutive year period has a lease covering the entire Term -7- 11231-0001\2567614v7.doc of this Agreement. The refund shall correspond to the Project building in which the tenant has met the requirements of this paragraph and shall be paid to Developer thirty (30) days following the expiration of the Term. By way of example only, if the tenant of Building 1 generates five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000.00) during each of years three, four, and five of the Term, then City shall refund to Developer an amount equal to fifty (50) percent of payments 2a, 3a, and/or 4a received by City within thirty days following the conclusion of the Term. The City shall have no further reimbursement obligation after this Agreement has expired. v. Any Community Benefit Fee payment made after the first anniversary of the Effective Date of this Agreement is considered a deferred Community Benefit Fee payment and is subject to a CPI-based inflationary increase, if any, based on the CPI – All Urban Consumers for Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario California as published by the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics (or any successor thereto). Under no circumstance will the amount of each deferred Community Benefit Fee payment be lower than the amount identified in the table above. vi. Payment of the Community Benefit Fees above shall satisfy all but two hundred thousand dollars ($200,000.00) of Developer’s public art requirements under Ordinance 912 (codified at Chapter 17.124 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code), which may be satisfied either through the procurement of art or payment of an in-lieu fee. vii. Payment of the Community Benefit Fees above shall fully satisfy any future commercial linkage fee adopted by the City, even if said fees are higher than the amounts specified above. viii. Late Charges, Interest. If Developer fails to pay a Community Benefit Fee payment by the due date, City shall give written notice to Developer (or its successor) of such delinquency in accordance with Section 24. If Developer fails to pay the Community Benefit Fee within thirty (30) days after such notice is served on Developer (the “Period to Cure”) then Developer shall pay a late charge in the amount equal to one quarter of one percent (0.25%) of the Community Benefit Fee due but not paid. The Parties acknowledge and agree that the amount of the costs and expenses that City will incur in the event the Community Benefit Fee is not paid when due is extremely difficult to calculate, and that the late charge set forth in the immediately preceding sentence is a reasonable, good faith estimate of such costs and expenses, but payment of such late charge shall not limit the City’s remedies following any default by Developer under this Agreement. If any Community Benefit Fee, is not paid within the Period to Cure, then such Community Benefit Fee (including any late charge) shall also bear interest, from the due date until paid, at the rate that is the lesser of (i) ten percent (10%) per annum, or (ii) the highest rate permitted by applicable law. C. Traffic Improvements. Developer shall submit off-site plans that meet or exceed the ninety percent (90%) design stage for Catherine Bridge Place, 4th Street, and 6th Street, as determined by the City Engineer, for issuance of a grading permit. i. Timing of Traffic Improvements. The traffic improvements identified in paragraph (ii) below shall be completed, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, no later than by issuance of the certificate of occupancy of the Project’s first building (whether Building 1 or -8- 11231-0001\2567614v7.doc Building 2). However, in the event that Developer is unable to complete the improvements by issuance of certificate of occupancy of the Project’s first building, despite Developer’s commercially reasonable efforts, due to processing, required coordination with other projects, or other issues outside of Developer’s control, then Developer shall issue a bond, satisfactory in form and value to the City Engineer, for the remaining work and shall be obligated to complete the required improvements within one year of issuance of the certificate of occupancy for the Project’s first building. For those improvements identified below requiring coordination and approval by Caltrans, City shall cooperate with Developer on Developer’s efforts to obtain Caltrans approval; however, if Developer is unable to achieve 90% plan check review, as determined by the City Engineer, despite best efforts due to processing delays by Caltrans, then issuance of grading and building permits for the Project shall not be delayed provided that all other requirements for issuance of grading and building permits have been met. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the City will only issue a temporary certificate of occupancy for the Project until the improvements that require Caltrans approval are completed. Unless the improvements are completed within one year, the temporary certificate of occupancy shall expire, unless an extension is mutually agreed to by both Parties. ii. Traffic Improvements. Developer shall construct the following traffic improvements consistent with the demands outlined in the Project’s TIA for a Non-Sort use and determined necessary by the City Engineer: a. I-15 NB Ramps & 4th St: Modify the traffic signal to implement a 130-second cycle length; b. Etiwanda Ave. & Foothill Blvd: Modify the timing of existing traffic signals between the I-15 and East Avenue to optimize traffic signal coordination along Foothill Boulevard by implementing a 140-second cycle length during the PM peak hour; and c. I-15 SB Ramps & Ontario Mills Dr./4th St: Modify the traffic signal to implement a 130-second cycle length and overlap phasing for the WB right turn lane, restripe the SB approach to provide one left turn lane, one through lane, and dual right turn lanes, and modify the traffic signal to implement overlap phasing for NB and SB right turn lanes. iii. Developer’s provision of traffic improvements pursuant to this Section 11(C) will satisfy any Condition of Approval pertaining to the impacts mitigated by the required traffic improvements described above. D. Fair Share Payment to Remaining Traffic Improvements. Developer shall pay a fair share fee into the City’s Industrial Area Traffic Improvement Fund, equivalent to the amounts calculated in the TIA for a non-Sort use: $37,089 (the “Fair Share Fee”). The Fair Share Fee shall be due prior to issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for the Project. Developer’s payment of the Fair Share Fee for remaining traffic improvements pursuant to this Section 11(D) will satisfy any Condition of Approval pertaining to required contributions to the City’s Industrial Area Traffic Improvement Fund for impacts mitigated by the improvements listed in the TIA for the Non-Sort use but not required to be constructed in Section 11(C)(ii). -9- 11231-0001\2567614v7.doc E. New Public Street. Developer shall construct, consistent with the City’s standards and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, a new public street (known as Catherine Bridge Place) on the east side of the Project site between 4th and 6th Streets, to be classified as an Industrial Collector (66-foot full-width right-of-way), as shown in Exhibit C of this Agreement depicting the proposed cross section for Catherine Bridge Place with one travel lane, landscaped parkway in each direction, and a sidewalk on the west side of the street. Developer shall be responsible for all costs associated with the design and construction of the new public street. City shall accept dedication of the public street and the related improvements in the same manner as it accepts other similar public improvements constructed as part of private development projects in the City upon completion of the public street and related improvements. Developer shall provide a standard one- year warranty for the improvements, excluding normal roadway wear and tear. No certificate of occupancy for any Project component will be issued for the Project until the improvements are completed and accepted by City which the City shall not unreasonably delay. Developer’s provision of a new public street pursuant to this Section 11(E) will satisfy any Condition of Approval pertaining to required provision of a new public street on the east side of the Project site between 4th and 6th Streets. F. 6th Street At-Grade Crossing Contribution. Developer shall work in good faith with the City in its effort to acquire and obtain approval from the California Public Utility Commission and BNSF Railway to permit an at-grade, railroad spur crossing at 6th Street connecting the existing roadway on either side of the railroad (6th Street Crossing”); provided, however, that such efforts by Developer do not include changes to the Project or monetary expenditures by Developer outside of the in-lieu fee described below. Developer shall pay one million dollars ($1,000,000.00) as an in-lieu fee to City and contribution toward the 6th Street Crossing. The fee required pursuant to this Section 11(F) shall be due upon the issuance of the first building permit for the Project. Developer’s contribution to the City to achieve the 6th Street Crossing will satisfy any Condition of Approval pertaining to the 6th Street Crossing. G. Financing Districts. The City may initiate (i) proceedings to form one or more special assessment districts (each, an “Assessment District”) to levy special benefit assessments (the “Special Benefit Assessments”) or (ii) proceedings to form one or more Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982 (Government Code Sections 53311 et seq.) Community Facilities Districts (each, a “CFD,” and collectively, with the Assessment Districts, the “Districts,” or individually, a “District”) to levy special taxes (the “CFD Taxes”), to finance the construction or acquisition of public facilities, including but not limited to the construction of eligible street improvements, right-of-ways, appurtenant facilities, and other authorized improvements benefiting properties within the City’s industrial zoning districts, and the maintenance and operation of public streets, parkways, medians, public right-of-ways, public safety, and any other improvements or services benefiting properties within all industrial zones throughout the City (the “Facilities and Services”). Developer shall not oppose the formation of any District or the annexation of lands to any District, and shall vote in favor of any such Special Benefit Assessments or CFD Taxes for a District; provided, however, that in no event shall the annual total, combined amount of the Special Benefit Assessments and CFD Taxes for the Districts exceed forty-nine thousand, one-hundred and seventy dollars ($49,170.00) per acre for the Site (the “Max Levy”). The Max Levy shall increase annually by an amount determined necessary to fund the Facilities and Services, but such annual increase shall be no less than two percent (2%) and no more than six percent (6%). Developer shall satisfy its obligations under this paragraph G. prior to the -10- 11231-0001\2567614v7.doc issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for the Project. The provisions of this paragraph G. shall not apply to or affect the validity of any existing Assessment District or CFD applicable to the Site as of the Effective Date. H. Solar Panels and Purchase Agreement. Developer shall install a solar collector system that covers a percentage of the Project’s total roof area, with such percentage based on the formula outlined in Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code Section 17.76.020(B), as amended by Ordinance No. 982, which requires in part that the renewable energy system shall be built to generate an amount of electricity sufficient to meet the following criteria: (a) annualized building demand based on the approved use; and (b) annualized demand required to charge fully electric vehicles and trucks, assuming that all vehicles and trucks to the site are fully electric; and (c) a reasonable rate of efficiency loss over 10 years. Such percentage shall be established pursuant to a study to be prepared by Developer and approved by the City, with City review time fully reimbursed by the Developer and paid prior to any issuance of the first building permit. The final percentage of required roof area coverage shall be confirmed by the City Engineer. The Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Utility (“RCMU”) and Developer agree to execute a power purchase agreement, a draft of which is attached as Exhibit “D” to this Agreement (“Power Purchase Agreement”), within six (6) months of the Effective Date, provided that no certificate of occupancy shall be issued for the Project until the Power Purchase Agreement is executed. The solar collector system shall be metered separately from the metered power usage demand of the Project’s two buildings. The Power Purchase Agreement will commit the City to purchase all electricity produced by the Project at market rate for at least 25 years, which market rate shall be specified in the executed Power Purchase Agreement. I. RCMU Connection. The Project shall utilize RCMU for electricity and high-speed broadband provided that within ten (10) months of City Council approval of the Project, RCMU has brought all required infrastructure for electricity and high-speed broadband (“Required Infrastructure”) to the Project site at the locations identified in Exhibit “E” at RCMU’s sole cost and expense. “Required Infrastructure” shall include all underground ducts and structures and surface mounted equipment (except for transformers) and cabling to serve both buildings on the property. This requirement shall satisfy any Condition of Approval pertaining to the Project’s electric and fiber optic connection to RCMU. J. Other City Fees. Developer is responsible for other applicable existing development fees, with the exception of any public arts fees required by Ordinance 912, except that Developer shall be liable for two hundred thousand dollars ($200,000.00) public arts requirement, which may be satisfied by Developer as either through the procurement of art or payment of an in-lieu fee. K. MMRP Compliance Costs. The MMRP includes mitigation measures applicable to the Project that may require City to verify compliance outside of City’s plan check process for the Project. Accordingly, Developer shall reimburse City for all compliance costs, including City staff and consultant time and expenses, incurred in verifying Developer’s compliance with the MMRP, except for such costs associated with mitigation measures that are verified during plan check and recovered by City through development fees. City shall submit an invoice for such costs on an as-needed basis and Developer shall pay the invoice to City within thirty (30) days of receipt. -11- 11231-0001\2567614v7.doc L. Developer’s obligations under this Section 11 may extend past the Term of this Agreement. Therefore, this Section 11 shall survive the expiration or termination of the Term; provided, however, that upon termination of this Agreement pursuant to Section 27 below, all of Developer’s obligations hereunder shall be terminated and of no further force and effect. Section 12. City’s Obligations. The City shall reasonably expedite review and processing of all plans and issuance of all permits associated with the Project. The City shall refund not more than fifty percent (50%) of the community Benefit Fee payments identified in Section 11(B)(i), exclusive of Payment 1, consistent with and provided the provisions and conditions of Section 11(B)(iv) are satisfied. Section 13. Annual Review. During the Term of this Development Agreement, City shall annually review the extent of good faith compliance by Developer with the terms of this Development Agreement. Developer shall file an annual report with the City providing information regarding compliance with the terms of this Development Agreement no later than sixty (60) days prior to the anniversary of the Effective Date. Annual reports shall include all information necessary for the City to assess Developer’s compliance with the terms and provisions of this Agreement. Developer shall have the right to cause the annual report to be filed by any lessee then occupying the Site provided, however, that Developer shall remain primarily responsible for such filing. Section 14. Indemnification and Legal Challenge. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Developer agrees to, and shall, defend, indemnify and hold City and its elected officials, officers, contractors serving as City officials, agents, and employees (“Indemnitees”) harmless from liability for damage and/or claims for damage for personal injuries, including death, and claims for property damage, and with respect to all other actions and liabilities for damages caused or alleged to have been caused by reason of Developer’s activities in connection with the construction of the Project or Developer’s operation of the permitted use, and which may arise from the direct or indirect operations of Developer or those of Developer’s contractors, agents, tenants, employees or any other persons acting on Developer’s behalf, which relate to the Developer’s construction of the Project or operation of the permitted use. This indemnity provision applies to all damages and claims for damage, as described above, regardless of whether or not the City prepared, supplied, or approved the plans, specifications, or other documents for the Project. Notwithstanding, the foregoing indemnity shall not include indemnification against (i) suits and actions brought by Developer by reason of City's default or alleged default hereunder, or (ii) suits and actions caused solely by or resulting solely from City's acts or omissions, or (iii) suits and actions arising from the sole negligence or willful misconduct of City; provided further, however, that the foregoing indemnity shall not apply to claims pertaining to City’s operation of those portions of the Site dedicated to City after the dedication thereof. In the event of any legal action challenging the validity, applicability, or interpretation of any provision of this Agreement, any of the Project Entitlements including, without limitation, the City’s General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, Design Review, EIR, or any other supporting document relating to the Project, the Developer shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless the Indemnitees, and each of them, with respect to all liability, costs and expenses incurred by, and/or awarded against, the City or any of the Indemnitees in relation to such -12- 11231-0001\2567614v7.doc action. The City shall have the right to select counsel of its choice. The parties hereby agree to cooperate in defending such action. In the event of any litigation challenging the effectiveness of this Agreement, or any portion hereof, this Agreement shall remain in full force and effect while such litigation, including any appellate review, is pending, unless otherwise ordered by the court. Absent issuance of an injunction, the Developer may elect to continue development under this Agreement pending completion of the litigation but it shall do so at its sole risk, and the City shall not be liable for any loss suffered as a result thereof. Section 15. Amendments. This Agreement may be amended or canceled, in whole or in part, only by mutual written consent of the parties and then in the manner provided for in California Government Code Section 65868, et seq., or successor provisions thereto. Section 16. Minor Amendments to Development Plan. Upon the written application of Developer, minor modifications and changes to the Development Plan, including modifications to the building design or footprint affecting setbacks, parking layout and design, and landscape design may be approved by the Planning Director. Substantial changes in the Development Plan, as determined by the Planning Director, shall be processed through the process required by law to amend or modify the Development Plan. Upon the approval of substantial changes to the Development Plan, Developer and City shall amend this Agreement to memorialize and acknowledge the revised Development Plan. Section 17. Enforcement. In the event of a default under the provisions of this Agreement by Developer, City shall give written notice to Developer (or its successor) by registered or certified mail addressed at the address stated in this Agreement, and if such violation is not corrected to the reasonable satisfaction of City within thirty (30) days after such notice is served on Developer, or if not corrected within such reasonable time as may be required to cure the breach or default if said breach or default cannot be cured within said thirty (30) days (provided that acts to cure the breach or default must be commenced within said thirty (30) days and must thereafter be diligently pursued by Developer), then City may, without further notice, declare a default under this Agreement and, upon any such declaration of default, City may bring any action necessary to specifically enforce the obligations of Developer growing out of the operation of this Development Agreement, apply to any court, state or federal, for injunctive relief against any violation by Developer of any provision of this Agreement, or apply for such other relief as may be appropriate. Section 18. Event of Default. Developer is in default under this Agreement upon the happening of one or more of the following events or conditions: A. If a material warranty, representation or statement made or furnished by Developer to City set forth herein or in any document incorporated by reference herein is false or proved to have been false in any material respect when it was made; B. If a finding and determination is made by City following an annual review pursuant to Section 13 hereinabove, upon the basis of substantial evidence, that Developer has not complied -13- 11231-0001\2567614v7.doc in good faith with any material terms and conditions of this Agreement, after notice and opportunity to cure as described in Section 17 hereinabove; or C. A breach by Developer of any of the provisions or terms of this Agreement, after notice and opportunity to cure as provided in Section 17 hereinabove. Section 19. No Waiver of Remedies. City does not waive any claim of defect in performance by Developer if on periodic review City does not enforce this Agreement. Nonperformance by Developer shall not be excused because performance by Developer of the obligations herein contained would be unprofitable, difficult or expensive or because of a failure of any third party or entity, other than City. Subject to the provisions of Section 20, all other remedies at law or in equity which are not otherwise provided for in this Agreement are available to each party to pursue in the event that there is a breach of this Development Agreement by the other party (subject to applicable notice and cure periods). No waiver by City or Developer of any breach or default under this Development Agreement by the other party shall be deemed to be a waiver of any other subsequent breach thereof or default hereunder. Section 20. City Not Liable For Damages. It is acknowledged by the parties that the City would not have entered into this Agreement if it could be held liable in damages under or with respect to this Agreement or the application thereof. Consequently, and except for the payment of attorney’s fees in accordance with this Agreement, the City shall not be liable in damages to the Developer, or to any assignee, transferee or any other person, and the Developer covenants on behalf of itself and its successors in interest not to sue for or claim any damages: A. For any breach of this Agreement; B. For the taking, impairment or restriction of any right or interest conveyed or provided hereunder or pursuant hereto; C. Arising out of or connected with any dispute, controversy or issue regarding the application or interpretation or effect of the provisions of this Agreement; or D. For any injury to or interference with the rights of the property owner, allegedly or actually arising out of, or incurred in connection with, the parties entering this Agreement, or their exercise of any rights under this Agreement. The parties hereby warrant that each enters into this Agreement with the understanding that if the City defaults on its obligations under this Agreement due to an action taken by the electorate of the City in the exercise of the reserved powers of initiative and referendum, this Agreement shall be modified or suspended to the extent required by Government Code Section 65869.5 and the Developer’s right to seek specific performance, a writ of mandate, or other mandatory relief shall be limited by such force as the action taken by the electorate may have in light of state law as determined by any court of competent jurisdiction, in which case the Developer’s principal remedy shall lie in reformation of this Agreement -14- 11231-0001\2567614v7.doc Section 21. Rights of Lenders Under this Agreement. Should Developer place or cause to be placed any encumbrance or lien on the Project, or any part thereof, the beneficiary (“Lender”) of said encumbrance or lien shall have the right at any time during the term of this Agreement and the existence of said encumbrance or lien to: A. Do any act or thing required of Developer under this Agreement, or cure any default of Developer under this Agreement within the time limits set forth in Section 17, and any such act or thing done or performed by Lender or cure shall be as effective as if done by Developer; B. Realize on the security afforded by the encumbrance or lien by exercising foreclosure proceedings or power of sale or other remedy afforded in law or in equity or by the security document evidencing the encumbrance or lien (hereinafter referred to as “a trust deed”); C. Transfer, convey or assign the title of Developer to the Project to any purchaser at any foreclosure sale, whether the foreclosure sale be conducted pursuant to court order or pursuant to a power of sale contained in a trust deed; and D. Acquire and succeed to the interest of Developer by virtue of any foreclosure sale, whether the foreclosure sale is conducted pursuant to a court order or pursuant to a power of sale contained in a trust deed. Should any Lender require or request an amendment of this Agreement in respect of the rights and remedies granted to a Lender, City hereby agrees to execute and deliver such an amendment so long as the proposed amendment does not materially and adversely affect the rights, powers, and remedies of the City in respect of a default by Developer hereunder. Section 22. Notice to Lender. City shall give written notice of any default or breach under this Agreement by Developer to Lender (if known by City) simultaneously with such notice of default City gives to Developer and afford Lender the opportunity after receipt of service of the notice to: A. Cure the breach or default within thirty (30) days after service of said notice, where the default can be cured by the payment of money; B. Cure the breach or default within thirty (30) days after service of said notice where the breach or default can be cured by something other than the payment of money and can be cured within that time; or C. Cure the breach or default in such reasonable time as may be required where something other than payment of money is required to cure the breach or default and cannot be performed within thirty (30) days after said notice, provided that acts to cure the breach or default are commenced within a thirty (30) day period after service of said notice of default on Lender by City and are thereafter diligently continued by Lender. Section 23. Action by Lender. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, a Lender may forestall any action by City for a breach or default under the terms of this Agreement by Developer by commencing proceedings to foreclose its encumbrance or lien on the Project. The proceedings so commenced may be for foreclosure of the -15- 11231-0001\2567614v7.doc encumbrance by order of court or for foreclosure of the encumbrance under a power of sale contained in the instrument creating the encumbrance or lien. The proceedings shall not, however, forestall any such action by the City for the default or breach by Developer unless: A. They are commenced within thirty (30) days after service on Developer (and on Lender if Lender’s address is provided to the City) of the notice described hereinabove; B. They are, after having been commenced, diligently pursued in the manner required by law to completion; and C. Lender keeps and performs all of the terms, covenants, and conditions of this Agreement requiring the payment or expenditure of money by Developer until the foreclosure proceedings are complete or are discharged by redemption, satisfaction, or payment. Section 24. Notice. Any notice required to be given by the terms of this Agreement shall be provided by email and certified mail, return receipt requested, at the address of the respective parties as specified below or at any other such address as may be later specified by the parties hereto. To Developer: Heather Crossner Senior Vice President, Development Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga, LLC 11100 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 700 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Email: hcrossner@bridgeindustrial.com and Legal Department Bridge Industrial 9525 West Bryn Mawr, Suite 700 Rosemont, IL 60018 Email: dhemmer@bridgeindustrial.com To City: City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California, 91730 Attention: City Manager Email: JGillison@Cityofrc.us With a Copy to: Richards, Watson & Gershon 350 S. Grand Avenue, 37th Floor Los Angeles, California 90071 Attention: Nicholas R. Ghirelli Email: nghirelli@rwglaw.com -16- 11231-0001\2567614v7.doc Section 25. Attorneys’ Fees. In any proceedings arising from the enforcement of this Agreement or because of an alleged breach or default hereunder, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover its costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees and experts’ fees incurred during the proceeding (including appeals) as may be fixed within the discretion of the court. Section 26. Binding Effect. This Agreement shall bind, and the benefits and burdens hereof shall inure to, the respective parties hereto and their legal representatives, executors, administrators, successors and assigns, wherever the context requires or admits. Section 27. Termination. Notwithstanding any other provision contained herein, this Agreement may be terminated at any time upon the written mutual agreement of both parties. Section 28. Applicable Law and Venue. This Agreement shall be construed in accordance with and governed by the laws of the State of California. Venue for any action or litigation brought for breach or to enforce any provision of this Agreement shall be the Superior Court of the County of San Bernardino, California. Section 29. Partial Invalidity. If any provisions of this Agreement shall be deemed to be invalid, illegal, or unenforceable, the validity, legality, or enforceability of the remaining provisions hereof shall not in any way be affected or impaired thereby. Section 30. Recordation. The City Clerk shall record this Agreement in the Official Records of the County Recorder of the County of San Bernardino within ten (10) business days following the Effective Date. Upon the expiration of the terms of this Agreement and the request of the Property Owner, the City will execute and deliver, in recordable form, an instrument confirming that this Agreement is terminated and of no further force or effect. Section 31. Force Majeure. In the event that either party hereto shall be delayed or hindered or prevented from performance of any act required hereunder by reason of acts of God, strikes, lockouts, labor troubles, inability to procure materials, riots, insurrection, terrorism, war or other reason of similar nature not the fault of the party delayed in performing the work or doing the acts required under the terms of this Agreement, then the performance of such act shall be excused for the period of the delay caused by the foregoing. Financial inability shall not be deemed an excuse for delay under this Section 31. Section 32. Integrated Agreement. This Development Agreement consists of this Agreement together with all Exhibits attached hereto, and all of the same are hereby incorporated by reference. The provisions of this Agreement shall govern over any inconsistent or conflicting provisions set forth in the Exhibits. No representation or promise, verbal or written, not expressly set forth herein shall be binding or have any force or effect. Section 33. Time of Essence. Time is of the essence in every provision hereof in which time is a factor. Section 34. Operating Memoranda. The provisions of this Agreement require a close degree of cooperation between the City and Developer. The anticipated refinements to the -17- 11231-0001\2567614v7.doc Project may demonstrate that clarifications to this Agreement and the Project Entitlements are appropriate with respect to the implementation of this Agreement and the Project Entitlements. If, when, and as it becomes necessary or appropriate to take implementing actions or make such changes, adjustments or clarifications, the Parties may effectuate such actions, changes, adjustments or clarifications through an operating memorandum (“Operating Memorandum”) approved by the parties in writing which references this Section. Such Operating Memorandum shall not require public notices and hearings or an amendment to this Agreement unless it is required by Sections 15 or 16 above. The City Manager shall be authorized, after consultation with and approval of Developer, to determine whether a requested adjustment, clarification or implementing action (i) may be effectuated pursuant to this Section 34 and is consistent with the intent and purpose of this Agreement and the Project Entitlements or (ii) is of the type that would constitute an amendment to this Agreement and thus would require compliance with the provisions of Section 15 or Section 16 above. The authority to enter into such Operating Memorandum is hereby delegated to the City Manager, and the City Manager is hereby authorized to execute any Operating Memorandum hereunder without further City Council action. [SIGNATURES ON NEXT PAGE] -18- 11231-0001\2567614v7.doc IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement has been executed by the parties and shall be effective on the Effective Date set forth hereinabove. CITY: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, a Municipal Corporation Dated: By: L. Dennis Michael Mayor DEVELOPER: (Signatures of two principals required) Dated: By: Print Name: Title: ATTEST: Janice C. Reynolds City Clerk Dated: By: Print Name: Title: Approved as to form: James L. Markman City Attorney -19- 11231-0001\2567614v7.doc A Notary Public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document. State of California ) County of San Bernardino ) On _________________________, before me, , (insert name and title of the officer) Notary Public, personally appeared , who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Signature (Seal) -20- 11231-0001\2567614v7.doc A Notary Public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document. State of California ) County of San Bernardino ) On _________________________, before me, , (insert name and title of the officer) Notary Public, personally appeared , who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Signature (Seal) A-1 11231-0001\2567614v7.doc EXHIBIT “A-1” LEGAL DESCRIPTION A-2- 11231-0001\2567614v7.doc A-2-1 11231-0001\2567614v7.doc EXHIBIT “A-2” SITE MAP B-1 11231-0001\2567614v7.doc EXHIBIT “B” DEVELOPMENT PLAN ON FILE IN THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT; TO BE ADDED PRIOR TO RECORDING C-1 11231-0001\2567614v7.doc EXHIBIT “C” Cross Section - Catherine Bridge Place D-1 11231-0001\2567614v7.doc EXHIBIT “D” Draft Power Purchase Agreement INDUSTRIAL ZONING DISTRICT RENEWABLE POWER PURCHASE AGREEMENT between CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA and ________ INDUSTRIAL ZONING DISTRICT RENEWABLE POWER PURCHASE AGREEMENT D-2 TABLE OF CONTENT 1. DOCUMENTS INCLUDED ......................................................................................... 3 2. SELLER’S FACILITY AND COMMERCIAL OPERATION DATE .................... 3 3. CONTRACT CAPACITY AND QUANTITY; TERM; CONTRACT PRICE; BILLING; COLLATERAL REQUIREMENT .......................................................... 6 4. GREEN ATTRIBUTES; RESOURCE ADEQUACY BENEFITS; ERR REQUIREMENTS ...................................................................................................... 10 5. REPRESENTATION AND WARRANTIES; COVENANTS ................................. 11 6. GENERAL CONDITIONS ......................................................................................... 13 7. INDEMNITY ............................................................................................................... 17 8. LIMITATION OF DAMAGES .................................................................................. 17 9. INSURANCE ............................................................................................................... 18 10. NOTICES ..................................................................................................................... 21 11. FORCE MAJEURE .................................................................................................... 21 12. EVENTS OF DEFAULT AND TERMINATION .................................................... 22 13. GOVERNMENTAL CHARGES ............................................................................... 25 14. RELEASE OF INFORMATION AND RECORDING CONVERSATION .......... 25 15. ASSIGNMENT ............................................................................................................ 26 16. GOVERNING LAW .................................................................................................... 26 17. DISPUTE RESOLUTION .......................................................................................... 26 18. MISCELLANEOUS .................................................................................................... 27 APPENDIX A – DEFINITIONS .............................................................................................................. 30 APPENDIX B – COMMERCIAL OPERATION DATE CONFIRMATION LETTER ................... 40 APPENDIX C – FORECASTING REQUIREMENTS ......................................................................... 41 APPENDIX D – DESCRIPTION OF THE FACILITY ........................................................................ 42 APPENDIX E – INDUSTRIAL ZONING DISTRICT RENEWABLE PPA MILESTONES AND EXAMPLE ACTION STEPS ..................................................................................... 43 APPENDIX F – NOTICES LIST ............................................................................................................ 45 APPENDIX G – FORM OF LETTER OF CREDIT ............................................................................. 47 APPENDIX H – FORM OF CONSENT TO ASSIGNMENT .............................................................. 50 D-3 11231-0001\2567614v7.doc The City of Rancho Cucamonga, a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of California (“Buyer” or “RCMU”), and _________(“Seller”), a ________________, hereby enter into this Power Purchase Agreement (“Agreement”) made and effective as of the Execution Date. Seller and Buyer are sometimes referred to in this Agreement jointly as “Parties” or individually as “Party.” In consideration of the mutual promises and obligations stated in this Agreement and its appendices, the Parties agree as follows: ARTICLE ONE. DOCUMENTS INCLUDED This Agreement includes the following appendices, which are specifically incorporated herein and made a part of this Agreement: Appendix A Definitions Appendix B Commercial Operation Date Confirmation Letter Appendix C Forecasting Requirements Appendix D Description of the Facility Appendix E Seller’s Milestone Schedule Appendix F Notices List Appendix G Form of Letter of Credit Appendix H Form of Consent to Assignment This Agreement specifically incorporates herein by reference as if appended hereto the following documents (collectively referred to herein as the “Referenced Documents”): Industrial Zoning District Renewable PPA Application, submitted by Seller, dated __________ Industrial Zoning District Renewable PPA Generation Forecast, dated _____________ Project Phasing Plan, approved by the City of Rancho Cucamonga on _____________ To the extent any provisions of the Referenced Documents conflict with any other provisions of the Agreement, the other provisions of the Agreement shall control. ARTICLE TWO. SELLER’S FACILITY AND COMMERCIAL OPERATION DATE This Agreement governs Buyer’s purchase of the Product from the electrical generating facility (hereinafter referred to as the “Facility” or “Project”) as described in this Section. 1.1. Facility Location. The Facility is physically located at: D-4- 11231-0001\2567614v7.doc _____________________________. 1.2. Facility Name. The Facility is named _____________. 1.2.1. The Facility’s renewable resource is _______. 1.3. Interconnection Point. The Facility is connected to the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Utility (RCMU’s) electric system at __________ distribution circuit at a service voltage of __12____ kV. 1.4. Delivery Point. The Delivery Point for Energy is the Interconnection Point. 1.5. Facility Description. A description of the Facility, including a summary of its significant components, a drawing showing the general arrangements of the Facility, and a single line diagram illustrating the interconnection of the Facility and loads with the Transmission/Distribution Owner’s electric distribution system, is attached and incorporated herein as Appendix D. 1.6. Commercial Operation. 1.6.1. The Facility’s expected Commercial Operation Date is _______. 1.6.2. Seller shall achieve Commercial Operation no later than the expected Commercial Operation Date specified in Section 2.6.1, which date shall be no later than _______ (__) months from the Execution Date of this Agreement. The expected Commercial Operation Date specified in Section 2.6.1 may be extended for only the following reasons: 1.6.2.1. If Seller has taken all commercially reasonable actions (including but not limited to Seller’s timely filing of all required applications and documents, payment of all applicable fees, and completion of all electric system upgrades needed, if any) to have the Project physically interconnected to the Transmission/Distribution Owner’s distribution system, but fails to secure any necessary commitments from the Transmission/Distribution Owner for such interconnection and upgrades due to delays beyond Seller’s reasonable control, then the expected Commercial Operation Date specified in Section 2.6.1 shall be extended for the number of days necessary to physically interconnect the Facility; provided, however, that such delay may not extend the expected Commercial Operation Date specified in Section 2.6.1 for a period of more than six (6) months; or 1.6.2.2. If Seller has taken all commercially reasonable actions (including but not limited to Seller’s timely filing of all required applications and documents and payment of all applicable fees, if any) to obtain permits necessary to construct and operate the facility but fails to secure any such permits due to delays beyond Seller’s reasonable control, then the expected Commercial Operation Date specified in D-5- 11231-0001\2567614v7.doc Section 2.6.1 shall be extended for the number of days necessary to secure such permits; provided, however, that such delay may not extend the expected Commercial Operation Date specified in Section 2.6.1 for a period of more than six (6) months; or 1.6.2.3. In the event of Force Majeure, the expected Commercial Operation Date specified in Section 2.6.1 shall be extended on a day-to-day basis for a cumulative period of not more than six (6) months; provided that Seller complies with Section 10. 1.6.2.4. Extensions under Section 2.6.2.1, 2.6.2.2, and 2.6.2.3, to the extent they may occur concurrently, shall run concurrently. 1.6.3. Seller shall provide Notice to Buyer of the Commercial Operation Date of the Facility at least thirty (30) days prior to such date. 1.6.4. Notwithstanding anything in this Agreement, if Seller is unable to achieve Commercial Operation by the expected Commercial Operation Date specified in Section 2.6.1, which may be extended pursuant to Section 2.6.2, then Seller shall either (i) terminate the Agreement, in which case Buyer may retain the full Reservation Deposit, or (ii) pay to Buyer daily delay damages in the amount of twenty cents ($0.20) for each kilowatt of Contract Capacity for each day beyond the expected Commercial Operation Date specified in Section 2.6.1, as may be extended pursuant to Section 2.6.2, that Seller requires to achieve Commercial Operation. 1.6.5. Commercial Operation shall occur only when all of the following conditions have been satisfied: 1.6.5.1. the Facility’s status as an Eligible Renewable Energy Resource is demonstrated by Seller’s receipt of pre-certification from the CEC; 1.6.5.2. the Parties have executed and exchanged the “Commercial Operation Date Confirmation Letter” attached as Appendix B; 1.6.5.3. Seller is in compliance with all applicable requirements of the RCMU Electric Service Rule 22 – Generating Facility Interconnections; 1.6.5.4. Seller has furnished to Buyer all insurance documents required under Section 9; 1.6.5.5. Seller has provided thirty (30) days’ Notice prior to the Commercial Operation Date as required under Section 2.6.3; 1.6.5.6. Seller has obtained all permits necessary to operate the Facility and is in compliance with all Laws applicable to the operation of the Facility; D-6- 11231-0001\2567614v7.doc 1.6.5.7. Seller has successfully installed and tested the Facility at its full Contract Capacity, and the Facility is capable of reliably generating at its full Contract Capacity; and 1.6.5.8. Seller has satisfied the Collateral Requirement set forth in Section 3.9. 1.6.5.9. The City of Rancho Cucamonga has approved the Phasing Plan submitted by Seller for the Facility. ARTICLE THREE. CONTRACT CAPACITY AND QUANTITY; TERM; CONTRACT PRICE; BILLING; COLLATERAL REQUIREMENT 1.7. Contract Capacity. Pursuant to the Phasing Plan approved by the City of Rancho Cucamonga, the Contract Capacity is as follows: Phase 1: _____ kW, alternating current (AC). Phase 2: _____ kW, alternating current (AC). Phase 3: _____ kW, alternating current (AC). 1.8. Contract Quantity. 1.8.1. The “Contract Quantity” during each Contract Year is the amount set forth in the applicable Contract Year in the “Delivery Term Contract Quantity Schedule,” set forth in Appendix F , which amount is net of Station Use. Seller shall have the option to update the Delivery Term Contract Quantity Schedule one (1) time prior to Commercial Operation Date by an amount not to exceed a five percent (5%) increase or decrease from the Contract Quantity specified as of the Execution Date. 1.8.2. At least ninety (90) days prior to the occurrence of a Phasing Plan Transition Event, Seller shall provide Notice to Buyer that includes the following information (i) the new Contract Capacity consistent with Section 3.1; (ii) the date upon which the changed Contract Capacity will be available to Buyer; and (iii) documentation reasonably satisfactory to Buyer demonstrating that the requirements of the Phasing Plan have been met. 1.8.3. Within thirty (30) days of receiving Notice from Seller pursuant to Section 3.2.2., the City Manager shall cause the Contract Quantity values specified in Appendix F to be modified for the applicable Contract Years consistent with the Phasing Plan, and such modification shall be considered an element of the administration of this Agreement and shall not require the consent of the Parties hereto. Upon such modification, the City Manager shall promptly provide a copy of such revised Appendix F to Seller. D-7- 11231-0001\2567614v7.doc 1.9. Transaction. During the Delivery Term, Seller shall sell and deliver, or cause to be delivered, and Buyer shall purchase and receive, all Product produced by or associated with the Facility that is delivered to the Delivery Point. In no event shall Seller have the right to procure the Product from sources other than the Facility for sale or delivery to Buyer under this Agreement. Buyer shall have no obligation to receive or purchase the Product from Seller prior to the Commercial Operation Date or after the end of the Delivery Term. 1.10. Term of Agreement; Survival of Rights and Obligations. 1.10.1. The term shall commence upon the Execution Date of this Agreement and shall remain in effect until the conclusion of the Delivery Term unless terminated sooner pursuant to Sections 10.4 or 11 of this Agreement (the “Term”). 1.10.2. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Agreement, all of the rights and obligations that this Agreement expressly provides survive termination as well as the rights and obligations that arise from Seller’s or Buyer’s covenants, agreements, representations, and warranties applicable to, or to be performed, at or during any time before or as a result of the termination of this Agreement. 1.11. Delivery Term. Seller shall deliver the Product from the Facility to Buyer for a period of twenty-five (25) Contract Years for all generation technologies. The Delivery Term shall commence on the Commercial Operation Date and continue until the end of the last Contract Year unless the Agreement is terminated sooner pursuant to the terms of the Agreement. 1.12. Contract Price. 1.12.1. Throughout the Delivery Term, and subject to and in accordance with the terms of this Agreement, Buyer shall pay the Contract Price to Seller for the Product based on the amount of Delivered Energy. The Contract Price shall be $__ per MWh of Delivered Energy. 1.12.2. In any Contract Year, if the amount of Delivered Energy exceeds one hundred fifteen percent (115%) of the annual Contract Quantity amount, the Contract Price for such Delivered Energy in excess of one hundred fifteen percent (115%) shall be adjusted to be seventy-five percent (75%) of the applicable Contract Price. 1.12.3. Seller shall curtail production of the Facility in accordance with the applicable Notice after receipt of: (a) Notice from Buyer that Buyer has been instructed by the CAISO or the Transmission/Distribution Owner or any other jurisdictional entity to curtail Energy deliveries; or (b) Notice that Seller has been given a curtailment order or similar instruction in order to respond to an Emergency; or (c) Notice of a Curtailment Order issued by Buyer. Buyer shall have no obligation to pay Seller for any Product D-8- 11231-0001\2567614v7.doc delivered in violation of this Section 3.6.3. Seller shall assume all liability and reimburse Buyer for any and all costs and charges incurred by Buyer, including but not limited to CAISO penalties, as a result of Seller delivering Energy in violation of the Section 3.6.3. Buyer shall have no obligation to pay Seller for any Product that Seller would have been able to deliver but for the fact of a curtailment pursuant to subsection (a) or (b) of the first sentence of this Section 3.6.3. 1.12.4. Buyer shall have the right, but not the obligation, to issue to Seller a Curtailment Order. Buyer shall pay Seller the Contract Price for the Product Seller would have been able to deliver but for the fact that Buyer issued a Curtailment Order (“Paid Curtailed Product”) as calculated pursuant to Section 3.6.5. 1.12.5. No later than fifteen (15) days after the end of a calendar month in which Buyer issued a Curtailment Order, Seller shall prepare and provide to Buyer a calculation of the amount of Product the Facility would have been able to deliver under Sections 3.6.4 for the applicable month. Seller shall apply accepted industry standards in making such calculation and take into consideration past performance of the Facility, and other relevant information, including but not limited to, Facility availability, weather, water flow, and solar irradiance data for the period of time during the Buyer issued Curtailment Order. Upon Buyer’s request, Seller shall promptly provide to Buyer any additional and supporting documentation necessary for Buyer to audit and verify Seller’s calculation. 1.13. Billing. 1.13.1. The amount of Delivered Energy shall be determined by the meter specified in Section 6.2.1 or Check Meter, as applicable. Buyer has no obligation to purchase from Seller any Energy that is not or cannot be delivered to the Delivery Point, regardless of circumstance. Buyer will not be obligated to pay Seller for any Product that Seller delivers in violation of Section 3.6.3, including any Product Seller delivers in excess of the amount specified in any Curtailment Order. 1.13.2. For the purpose of calculating monthly payments under this Agreement, the amount recorded by the meter specified in Section 6.2.1 or Check Meter, as applicable, will be multiplied by the Contract Price noted in Section 3.6.1, as possibly adjusted under Section 3.6.2, less any Energy produced by the Facility for which Buyer is not obligated to pay Seller as set forth in Section 3.7.1. 1.13.3. On or before the last Business Day of the month immediately following each calendar month, Seller shall determine the amount of Delivered Energy received by Buyer pursuant to this Agreement for each monthly period and issue an invoice showing the calculation of the payment. Seller shall also D-9- 11231-0001\2567614v7.doc provide to Buyer: (a) records of metered data sufficient to document and verify the generation of Delivered Energy by the Facility during the preceding month; (b) access to any records; and (c) an invoice, in the format specified by Buyer. 1.13.4. In the event an invoice or portion thereof or any other claim or adjustment arising hereunder, is disputed, payment of the undisputed portion of the invoice shall be required to be made when due, with Notice of the objection given to the other Party. Any invoice dispute or invoice adjustment shall be in writing and shall state the basis for the dispute or adjustment. Payment of the disputed amount shall not be required until the dispute is resolved. In the event adjustments to payments are required as a result of inaccurate meter(s), Buyer in its reasonable discretion shall determine the correct amount of Delivered Energy received under this Agreement during any period of inaccuracy and recompute the amount due from Buyer to Seller for the Delivered Energy delivered during the period of inaccuracy. The Parties agree to use good faith efforts to resolve the dispute or identify the adjustment as soon as possible. Upon resolution of the dispute or calculation of the adjustment, any required payment shall be made within thirty (30) days of such resolution. 1.13.5. All interest paid or payable under this Agreement shall be computed as simple interest using the Interest Rate and, unless specified otherwise in this Agreement, shall be paid concurrently with the payment or refund of the underlying amount on which such interest is payable. 1.14. Title and Risk of Loss. Title to and risk of loss related to the Energy from the Facility shall transfer from Seller to Buyer at the Delivery Point. Seller warrants that it will deliver to Buyer the Product from the Facility free and clear of all liens, security interests, claims, and encumbrances or any interest therein or thereto by any person. 1.15. Collateral Requirement. On or before the Commercial Operation Date, Seller shall post and thereafter maintain a collateral requirement equal to sixty dollars ($60.00) for each kilowatt of Contract Capacity (the “Collateral Requirement”). The Collateral Requirement will be held by Buyer and must be in the form of either cash deposit or Letter of Credit. The Collateral Requirement shall be posted to Buyer and maintained at all times during the Delivery Term. Buyer shall be entitled to draw upon the Collateral Requirement for any damages arising upon Buyer’s declaration of an Early Termination Date as set forth in Section 12.3. In the event that Buyer draws on the Collateral Requirement, Seller shall promptly replenish such Collateral Requirement to the amount specified in this Section 3.9. Buyer shall return the unused portion of the Collateral Requirement to Seller promptly at the end of the Delivery Term, once all payment obligations of the Seller under this Agreement have been satisfied. Buyer shall pay simple interest on cash held to D-10- 11231-0001\2567614v7.doc satisfy the Collateral Requirements at the rate and in the manner set forth in Section 3.7.5. ARTICLE FOUR. GREEN ATTRIBUTES; RESOURCE ADEQUACY BENEFITS; ERR REQUIREMENTS 1.16. Green Attributes. Seller hereby provides and conveys all green attributes associated with all electricity generation from the project to buyer as part of the product being delivered. seller represents and warrants that seller holds the rights to all green attributes from the project, and seller agrees to convey and hereby conveys all such green attributes to buyer as included in the delivery of the product from the project. 1.17. Conveyance of Product. Throughout the Delivery Term, Seller shall provide and convey the Product to Buyer in accordance with the terms of this Agreement, and Buyer shall have the exclusive right to the Product. Seller shall, at its own cost, take all actions and execute all documents or instruments that are reasonable and necessary to effectuate the use of the Green Attributes, Resource Adequacy Benefits, if any, and Capacity Attributes, if any, for Buyer’s benefit throughout the Delivery Term. 1.18. WREGIS. Seller shall cause and allow Buyer, or Buyer’s agent, to be the “Qualified Reporting Entity” and “Account Holder” (as such terms are defined by WREGIS) for the Facility within thirty (30) days after the Commercial Operation Date. In the event that Buyer is not the Qualified Reporting Entity, Seller shall, at its sole expense, take all actions necessary and provide any documentation requested by Buyer in support of WREGIS account administration and compliance with the California Renewables Portfolio Standard. Seller, at its sole expense, shall take all necessary steps and submit/file all necessary documentation to ensure that the Facility remains an Eligible Renewable Energy Resource throughout the Delivery Term as outlined in Section 4.5 and that all WREGIS Certificates associated with the Product accrue to Buyer and will satisfy the requirements of the California Renewables Portfolio Standard. 1.19. Resource Adequacy Benefits. 1.19.1. During the Delivery Term, Seller grants, pledges, assigns and otherwise commits to Buyer all of the Contract Capacity, including Capacity Attributes, if any, from the Project to enable Buyer to meet its Resource Adequacy or successor program requirements, as the CAISO or other regional entity may prescribe (“Resource Adequacy Requirements”). 1.19.2. Seller shall cooperate in good faith with and comply with reasonable requests of Buyer to enable Buyer to maximize anyResource Adequacy Benefits attributable to the Facility or any credits that reduce the Resource Adequacy Requirements of the Buyer. D-11- 11231-0001\2567614v7.doc 1.20. Eligible Renewable Energy Resource. Seller shall take all actions necessary to achieve and maintain status as an Eligible Renewable Energy Resource (“ERR”) throughout the Delivery Term. Within thirty (30) days after the Commercial Operation Date, Seller shall file an application or other appropriate request with the CEC for CEC Certification for the Facility. Seller shall expeditiously seek CEC Certification, including promptly responding to any requests for information from the requesting authority. ARTICLE FIVE. REPRESENTATION AND WARRANTIES; COVENANTS 1.21. Representations and Warranties. On the Execution Date, each Party represents and warrants to the other Party that: 1.21.1. it is duly organized, validly existing and in good standing under the Laws of the jurisdiction of its formation; 1.21.2. the execution, delivery and performance of this Agreement are within its powers, have been duly authorized by all necessary action and do not violate any of the terms and conditions in its governing documents, any contracts to which it is a party or any Laws; 1.21.3. this Agreement and each other document executed and delivered in accordance with this Agreement constitutes a legally valid and binding obligation enforceable against it in accordance with its terms; 1.21.4. it is not Bankrupt and there are no proceedings pending or being contemplated by it or, to its knowledge, threatened against it which would result in it being or becoming Bankrupt; and 1.21.5. there is not pending or, to its knowledge, threatened against it or any of its Affiliates any legal proceedings that could materially adversely affect its ability to perform its obligations under this Agreement. 1.22. General Covenants. Each Party covenants that throughout the Term of this Agreement: 1.22.1. it shall continue to be duly organized, validly existing and in good standing under the Laws of the jurisdiction of its formation; 1.22.2. it shall maintain (or obtain from time to time as required, including through renewal, as applicable) all regulatory authorizations necessary for it to legally perform its obligations under this Agreement; and 1.22.3. it shall perform its obligations under this Agreement in a manner that does not violate any of the terms and conditions in its governing documents, any contracts to which it is a party, or any Law. D-12- 11231-0001\2567614v7.doc 1.23. Seller’s Representations, Warranties and Covenants. In addition to the representations, warranties and covenants specified in Sections 5.1 and 5.2, Seller makes the following additional representations, warranties and covenants to Buyer, as of the Execution Date: 1.23.1. Seller has met all applicable legal and regulatory requirements to sell wholesale electricity in California; 1.23.2. Seller, and, if applicable, its successors, represents and warrants that throughout the Delivery Term of this Agreement that: (i) the Project qualifies and is certified by the CEC as an ERR as such term is defined in Public Utilities Code Section 399.12 or Section 399.16; and (ii) the Project’s output delivered to Buyer qualifies under the requirements of the California Renewables Portfolio Standard. To the extent a change in law occurs after execution of this Agreement that causes this representation and warranty to be materially false or misleading, it shall not be an Event of Default if Seller has used commercially reasonable efforts to comply with such change in law; 1.23.3. Seller and, if applicable, its successors, represents and warrants that throughout the Delivery Term of this Agreement the Renewable Energy Credits transferred to Buyer conform to the definition and attributes required for compliance with the California Renewables Portfolio Standard, as set forth in the California Energy Commission’s Enforcement Procedures for the Renewables Portfolio Standard for Local Publicly Owned Electric Utilities adopted on December 22, 2020, and as may be modified by subsequent decision of the California Energy Commission or by subsequent legislation. To the extent a change in law occurs after execution of this Agreement that causes this representation and warranty to be materially false or misleading, it shall not be an Event of Default if Seller has used commercially reasonable efforts to comply with such change in law; 1.23.4. Throughout the Delivery Term, Seller shall: (a) own and operate the Facility; (b) deliver the Product to Buyer free and clear of all liens, security interests, claims, and encumbrances or any interest therein or thereto by any individual or entity; and (c) hold the rights to all of the Product; 1.23.5. Seller is acting for its own account, has made its own independent decision to enter into this Agreement and as to whether this Agreement is appropriate or proper for it based upon its own judgment, is not relying upon the advice or recommendations of the Buyer in so doing, and is capable of assessing the merits of, and understands and accepts, the terms, conditions and risks of this Agreement; 1.23.6. Throughout the Delivery Term: (a) Seller shall not convey, transfer, allocate, designate, award, report or otherwise provide any or all of the Product, or any portion thereof, or any benefits derived therefrom, to any D-13- 11231-0001\2567614v7.doc party other than Buyer; and (b) Seller shall not start-up or operate the Facility per instruction of or for the benefit of any third party, except as required by other Laws; 1.23.7. The construction of the Facility shall comply with all Laws, including applicable state and local laws, building standards, and interconnection requirements; 1.23.8. No other person or entity, including any other generating facility, has any rights in connection with Seller’s Interconnection Agreement or Seller’s Interconnection Facilities and no other persons or entities shall have any such rights during the Term; 1.23.9. During the Delivery Term, Seller shall not allow any other person or entity, including any other generating facility, to use Seller’s Interconnection Facilities; and 1.23.10. All representations made by Seller in its Industrial Zoning District Renewable PPA Application are true and correct. 1.23.11. Pursuant to the requirements of Section 17.76.020 of Chapter 17.76 of (Alternative Energy Systems and Facilities) of Article IV (Site Development Provisions) of Title 17 (Development Code) of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code, the Contract Capacity, during the applicable phase, is sufficient to meet the annualized customer load. ARTICLE SIX. GENERAL CONDITIONS 1.24. Interconnection Requirements. During the Delivery Term, Seller shall comply with all contractual, metering, and applicable interconnection requirements, including those set forth in the RCMU Electric Service Rule 22,, Transmission/Distribution Owner’s applicable tariffs, the CAISO Tariff and implementing CAISO standards and requirements, and all Laws so as to be able to deliver Energy to the Delivery Point. Seller shall provide and maintain during the Delivery Term, at its cost, all data processing gateways or remote intelligence gateways, telemetering equipment and data acquisition services, and associated measuring and recording equipment necessary to meet all applicable WREGIS and RCMU requirements applicable to the Facility during the Delivery Term. 1.25. Metering Requirements. 1.25.1. All Energy from the Project must be delivered through a single revenue quality meter and that meter must be dedicated exclusively to the Project. All Delivered Energy purchased under this Agreement must be measured by the Project’s revenue quality meter(s) to be eligible for payment under this Agreement. Seller shall bear all costs relating to all metering equipment installed to accommodate the Project. D-14- 11231-0001\2567614v7.doc 1.25.2. Buyer may, at its sole cost, furnish and install one Check Meter at the interconnection associated with the Facility at a location provided by Seller that is compliant with Buyer’s electric service requirements. The Check Meter may be interconnected with Buyer’s communication network, or the communication network of Buyer’s Agent, to permit periodic, remote collection of revenue quality meter data. In the event that Buyer elects to install a Check Meter, Buyer may compare the Check Meter data to the Facility’s revenue meter data. If the deviation between the Facility’s revenue meter data and the Check Meter data for any comparison is greater than 0.3%, Buyer may provide Notice to Seller of such deviation and the Parties shall mutually arrange for a meter check or recertification of the Check Meter or the Facility’s revenue meter, as applicable. Each Party shall bear its own costs for any meter check or recertification. Testing procedures and standards for the Check Meter shall be the same as for a comparable Buyer-owned meter. Parties shall have the right to have representatives present during all such tests. The Check Meter, if Buyer elects to install a Check Meter, is intended to be used for back-up purposes in the event of a failure or other malfunction of the Facility’s revenue meter, and Check Meter data shall only be used to validate the Facility’s revenue meter data and, in the event of a failure or other malfunction of the Facility’s revenue meter, in place of the Facility’s revenue meter until such time that the Facility’s revenue meter is recertified. 1.26. Meter Data. Seller hereby agrees to provide all meter data to Buyer in a form acceptable to Buyer, including any inspection, testing and calibration data and reports. Seller shall grant Buyer and Buyer’s agent the right to retrieve the meter readings from Seller or Seller’s meter reading agent. 1.27. Standard of Care. Seller shall: (a) maintain and operate the Facility and Interconnection Facilities in conformance with RCMU Rule 22, all Laws, and Prudent Electrical Practices; (b) obtain any governmental authorizations and permits required for the construction and operation of the Facility and Interconnection Facilities; and (c) generate, schedule and perform transmission services in compliance with all applicable RCMU rulesand Prudent Electrical Practices. Seller shall reimburse Buyer for any and all losses, damages, claims, penalties, or liability Buyer incurs as a result of Seller’s failure to obtain or maintain any governmental authorizations and permits required for construction and operation of the Facility throughout the Term of this Agreement. 1.28. Access Rights. 1.28.1. Operations Logs. Seller shall maintain a complete and accurate log of all material operations and maintenance information on a daily basis. Such log shall include, but not be limited to, information on power production, fuel consumption (if applicable), efficiency, availability, maintenance performed, outages, results of inspections, manufacturer recommended services, D-15- 11231-0001\2567614v7.doc replacements, electrical characteristics of the generators, control settings or adjustments of equipment and protective devices. Seller shall provide this information electronically to Buyer within twenty (20) days of Buyer’s request. 1.28.2. Access Rights. Buyer, its authorized agents, employees and inspectors may, on reasonable advance notice under the circumstances, visit the Project during normal business hours for purposes reasonably connected with this Agreement. Buyer, its authorized agents, employees and inspectors must (a) at all times adhere to all safety and security procedures as may be required by Seller; and (b) not interfere with the operation of the Project. Buyer shall make reasonable efforts to coordinate its emergency activities with the safety and security departments, if any, of the Project operator. Seller shall keep Buyer advised of current procedures for contacting the Project operator’s safety and security departments, if any exist. 1.29. Protection of Property. Seller shall be solely responsible for protecting its own facilities from possible damage resulting from electrical disturbances or faults caused by the operation, faulty operation, or non-operation of the Transmission/Distribution Owner's facilities. Buyer shall not be liable for any such damages so caused. 1.30. Forecasting. Seller shall comply with the forecasting in Appendix C. 1.31. Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Seller acknowledges that a Governmental Authority may require Buyer to take certain actions with respect to greenhouse gas emissions attributable to the generation of Energy, including, but not limited to, reporting, registering, tracking, allocating for or accounting for such emissions. Promptly following Buyer’s written request, Seller agrees to take all commercially reasonable actions and execute or provide any and all documents, information, or instruments with respect to generation by the Facility reasonably necessary to permit Buyer to comply with such requirements, if any. 1.32. Reporting and Record Retention. 1.32.1. Seller shall use commercially reasonable efforts to meet the Milestone Schedule set forth in Appendix E and avoid or minimize any delays in meeting such schedule. Seller shall provide Project development status reports in a format and a frequency, which shall not exceed one (1) report per month, specified by the Buyer. The report shall describe Seller’s progress relative to the development, construction, and startup of the Facility, as well as a Notice of any anticipated change to the Commercial Operation Date and whether Seller is on schedule to meet the Commercial Operation Date. D-16- 11231-0001\2567614v7.doc 1.32.2. Seller shall within ten (10) Business Days of receipt thereof provide to Buyer copies of any Interconnection Agreement and all other material reports, studies and analyses furnished by any Transmission/Distribution Owner, and any correspondence with the Transmission/Distribution Owner related thereto, concerning the interconnection of the Facility to the Transmission/Distribution Owner’s electric system or the transmission of Energy on the Transmission/Distribution Owners’ electric system. 1.32.3. Seller shall provide to Buyer on the Commercial Operation Date, and within thirty (30) days after the completion of each Contract Year thereafter during the Delivery Term, a copy of any inspection and maintenance report regarding the Facility that was also provided to the Transmission/Distribution Owner during the previous Contract Year. 1.33. Tax Withholding Documentation. Upon Buyer’s request, Seller shall promptly provide to Buyer Internal Revenue Service tax Form W-9 and California tax Form 590 (or their equivalent), completed with Seller’s information, and any other documentation necessary for Buyer to comply with its tax reporting or withholding obligations with respect to Seller. 1.34. Modifications to Facility. During the Delivery Term, Seller shall not repower or materially modify or alter the Facility without the written consent of Buyer. Material modifications or alterations include, but are not limited to, (a) movement of the Site, (b) changes that may increase or decrease the expected output of the Facility other than as allowed under Section 3.2, (c) changes that may affect the generation profile of the Facility, (d) changes that may affect the ability to accurately measure the output of Product from the Facility and (e) changes that conflict with elections, information, or requirements specified elsewhere in this Agreement. Material modifications or alterations do not include maintenance and repairs performed in accordance with Prudent Electrical Practices. Seller shall provide to Buyer Notice not less than ninety (90) days before any proposed repowering, modification, or alteration occurs describing the repowering, modification, or alteration to Buyer’s reasonable satisfaction. 1.35. No Additional Incentives. Seller agrees that during the Term of this Agreement it shall not seek additional compensation or other benefits pursuant to the Self-Generation Incentive Program, as defined in CPUC Decision 01-03- 073, the California Solar Initiative, as defined in CPUC Decision 06-01-024, Buyer’s net energy metering tariff, or other similar California ratepayer subsidized program relating to energy production with respect to the Facility. 1.36. Site Control. Seller shall have Site Control as of the earlier of: (a) the Commercial Operation Date; or (b) any date before the Commercial Operation Date to the extent necessary for the Seller to perform its obligations under this Agreement and, in each case, Seller shall maintain Site Control throughout the D-17- 11231-0001\2567614v7.doc Delivery Term. Seller shall promptly provide Buyer with Notice if there is any change in the status of Seller’s Site Control. ARTICLE SEVEN. INDEMNITY 1.37. Seller shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless Buyer and its directors, officers, officials, and employees against and from any and all loss, liability, damage, expense, and costs (including without limitation costs and fees of litigation and reasonable attorneys’ fees) of every nature resulting from or arising out of Seller’s performance of its obligations under this Agreement, or its failure to comply with any of its obligations contained in this Agreement, except such loss or damage which was caused by the sole negligence or willful misconduct of Buyer. 1.38. Buyer shall not be responsible for any cost of decommissioning or demolition of the Facility or any environmental or other liability associated with the decommissioning or demolition of the Facility without regard to the timing or cause of the decommissioning or demolition. Seller agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless, Buyer for any costs incurred by Buyer if and to the extent that Seller’s actions or inactions causes any or all of them to become required, whether statutorily or otherwise, to bear the cost of any decommissioning or demolition of the Facility or any environmental or other liability associated therewith, including, but not limited to, any investigations, actions, suits, claims, demands, losses, liabilities, penalties, and expenses (including reasonable attorneys’ fees) associated with clean-up costs and defense costs. The indemnity requirements set forth in this Section shall survive the termination of this Agreement. ARTICLE EIGHT. LIMITATION OF DAMAGES EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED IN THIS AGREEMENT THERE IS NO WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, AND ANY AND ALL IMPLIED WARRANTIES ARE DISCLAIMED. LIABILITY SHALL BE LIMITED TO DIRECT ACTUAL DAMAGES ONLY, SUCH DIRECT ACTUAL DAMAGES SHALL BE THE SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE REMEDY AND ALL OTHER REMEDIES OR DAMAGES AT LAW OR IN EQUITY ARE WAIVED UNLESS EXPRESSLY HEREIN PROVIDED. NEITHER PARTY SHALL BE LIABLE FOR CONSEQUENTIAL, INCIDENTAL, PUNITIVE, EXEMPLARY OR INDIRECT DAMAGES, LOST PROFITS OR OTHER BUSINESS INTERRUPTION DAMAGES, BY STATUTE, IN TORT OR CONTRACT, UNDER ANY INDEMNITY PROVISION OR OTHERWISE. UNLESS EXPRESSLY HEREIN PROVIDED, AND SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 7 (INDEMNITY), IT IS THE INTENT OF THE PARTIES THAT THE LIMITATIONS HEREIN IMPOSED ON REMEDIES AND THE MEASURE OF DAMAGES BE WITHOUT REGARD TO THE CAUSE OR CAUSES RELATED THERETO, INCLUDING THE NEGLIGENCE OF ANY PARTY, D-18- 11231-0001\2567614v7.doc WHETHER SUCH NEGLIGENCE BE SOLE, JOINT OR CONCURRENT, OR ACTIVE OR PASSIVE. ARTICLE NINE. INSURANCE 1.39. Insurance Coverage. Seller shall, at its own expense, starting on the Execution Date and until the end of the Term, and for such additional periods as may be specified below, provide and maintain in effect the following insurance policies and minimum limits of coverage as specified below, and such additional coverage as may be required by Law, with insurance companies authorized to do business in the state in which the services are to be performed, with an A.M. Best’s Insurance Rating of not less than A-:VII. 1.39.1. Commercial General Liability Insurance. Commercial general liability insurance, written on an occurrence, not claims-made basis, covering all operations by or on behalf of Seller arising out of or connected with this Agreement, including coverage for bodily injury, broad form property damage, personal and advertising injury, products/completed operations, contractual liability, premises-operations, owners and contractors protective, hazard, explosion, collapse and underground. Such insurance must bear a combined single limit per occurrence and annual aggregate of not less than five million dollars ($5,000,000.00), exclusive of defense costs, for all coverages. Such insurance must contain standard cross-liability and severability of interest provisions. The Seller shall name the Buyer, its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers as additional insureds on the completed operations policy. The completed operations policy shall be as broad as one of the following ISO forms CG 20 37, 2039, or CG 20 40. Completed operations coverage must be maintained for a period of not less than four (4) years after this Agreement terminates. If Seller elects, with Buyer’s written concurrence, to use a “claims made” form of commercial general liability insurance, then the following additional requirements apply: (a) the retroactive date of the policy must be prior to the Execution Date; and (b) either the coverage must be maintained for a period of not less than four (4) years after this Agreement terminates, or the policy must provide for a supplemental extended reporting period of not less than four (4) years after this Agreement terminates. Governmental agencies which have an established record of self-insurance may provide the required coverage through self-insurance. 1.39.2. Workers’ Compensation Insurance. Workers’ compensation insurance with statutory limits, as required by the state having jurisdiction over Seller’s employees, and employer’s liability insurance with limits of not less than: (a) bodily injury by accident - one million dollars ($1,000,000.00) each accident; (b) bodily injury by disease - one million dollars ($1,000,000.00) policy limit; and (c) bodily injury by disease - one million dollars ($1,000,000.00) each employee. D-19- 11231-0001\2567614v7.doc 1.39.3. Commercial Automobile Liability Insurance. Commercial automobile liability insurance covering bodily injury and property damage with a combined single limit of not less than one million dollars ($1,000,000.00) per occurrence. Such insurance must cover liability arising out of Seller’s use of all owned, non-owned and hired automobiles in the performance of the Agreement. 1.39.4. Umbrella/excess liability Insurance. Umbrella/excess liability insurance, written on an occurrence, not claims-made basis, providing coverage excess of the underlying employer’s liability, commercial general liability, and commercial automobile liability insurance, on terms at least as broad as the underlying coverage, with limits of not less than four million dollars ($4,000,000.00) per occurrence and in the annual aggregate. 1.39.5. Pollution Liability Insurance. If the scope of work involves areas of known pollutants or contaminants, pollution liability coverage will be required to cover bodily injury, property damage, including clean-up costs and defense costs resulting from sudden, and accidental conditions, including the discharge, dispersal, release or escape of smoke, vapors, soot, fumes, acids, alkalis, toxic chemicals, hydrocarbons, liquids or gases, waste materials or other irritants, contaminants or pollutants into or upon land, the atmosphere or any water course or body of water shall be maintained. The limit will not be less than one million dollars ($1,000,000.00) per occurrence or claim, and $2,000,000 policy aggregate for bodily injury and property damage. The policy will endorse RCMU as additional insured. If the contractor maintains broader coverage and/or higher limits than the minimums shown above for all policies, the City requires and shall be entitled to the broader coverage and/or higher limits maintained by the contractor. Any available insurance proceeds in excess of the specified minimum limits of insurance and coverage shall be available to the City. 1.40. Additional Insurance Provisions. 1.40.1. On or before the later of (a) sixty (60) days after the Execution Date and (b) the date immediately preceding commencement of construction of the Facility, and again within a reasonable time after coverage is renewed or replaced, Seller shall furnish to Buyer certificates of insurance evidencing the coverage required above, written on forms and with deductibles reasonably acceptable to Buyer. Notwithstanding the foregoing sentence, Seller shall in no event furnish Buyer certificates of insurance evidencing required coverage later than the Commercial Operation Date. All deductibles, co-insurance and self-insured retentions applicable to the insurance above must be paid by Seller. All certificates of insurance must note that the insurers issuing coverage must endeavor to provide Buyer with at least thirty (30) days’ prior written notice in the event of cancellation of coverage. Buyer’s receipt of certificates that do not comply with the requirements stated in this Section 9.2.1, or Seller’s failure to provide such D-20- 11231-0001\2567614v7.doc certificates, do not limit or relieve Seller of the duties and responsibility of maintaining insurance in compliance with the requirements in this Section 9 and do not constitute a waiver of any of the requirements of Section 9. 1.40.2. Insurance coverage described above in Section 9.1 shall provide for thirty (30) days written Notice to Buyer prior to cancellation, termination, alteration, or material change of such insurance. 1.40.3. Evidence of coverage described above in Section 9.1 shall state that coverage provided is primary and is not excess to or contributing with any insurance or self-insurance maintained by Buyer. 1.40.4. Buyer shall have the right to inspect or obtain a copy of the original policy(ies) of insurance. 1.40.5. All insurance certificates, endorsements, cancellations, terminations, alterations, and material changes of such insurance must be issued, clearly labeled with this Agreement’s identification number and submitted in accordance with Section 10 and Appendix F. 1.40.6. The insurance requirements set forth in Section 9.1 shall apply as primary insurance to, without a right of contribution from, any other insurance maintained by or afforded to Buyer, its subsidiaries and Affiliates, and their respective officers, directors, shareholders, agents, and employees, regardless of any conflicting provision in Seller's policies to the contrary. To the extent permitted by Law, Seller and its insurers shall be required to waive all rights of recovery from or subrogation against Buyer, its subsidiaries and Affiliates, and their respective officers, directors, shareholders, agents, employees and insurers. The commercial general liability insurance required in Section 9.1.1 and the umbrella/excess liability insurance required in Section 9.1.4 must name Buyer, its subsidiaries and Affiliates, and their respective officers, directors, shareholders, agents and employees, as additional insureds for liability arising out of Seller’s construction, use or ownership of the Facility. The Worker’s Compensation policy shall be endorsed with a waiver of subrogation in favor of the Buyer for all work performed by the Seller, its employees, agents and subcontractors. 1.40.7. Seller shall remain liable for all acts, omissions or default of any subcontractor or subsupplier and shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless Buyer for any and all loss or damages, as well as all costs, charges and expenses which Buyer may suffer, incur, or bear as a result of any acts, omissions or default by or on behalf of any subcontractor or subsupplier. 1.40.8. If Seller fails to comply with any of the provisions of this Section 9, Seller, among other things and without restricting Buyer’s remedies under Law or otherwise, shall, at its own cost, act as an insurer and provide D-21- 11231-0001\2567614v7.doc insurance in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Section 9. With respect to the required commercial general liability insurance set forth in Section 9.1.1, umbrella/excess liability insurance set forth in Section 9.1.4, commercial automobile liability insurance set forth in Section 9.1.3, and pollution liability insurance set forth in Section 9.1.5 Seller shall provide a current, full and complete defense to Buyer, its subsidiaries and Affiliates, and their respective officers, directors, shareholders, agents, employees, assigns, and successors in interest, in response to a third party claim in the same manner that an insurer with an A.M. Best’s Insurance Rating of A-:VII would have, had the insurance been maintained in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth in this Section 9 and given the required additional insured wording in the commercial general liability insurance and umbrella/excess liability insurance, and standard “Who is an Insured” provision in commercial automobile liability form. ARTICLE TEN. NOTICES Notices (other than forecasts and scheduling requests) shall, unless otherwise specified herein, be in writing and may be delivered by hand delivery, United States mail, overnight courier service, facsimile, or electronic messaging (e-mail). A notice sent by facsimile transmission or e-mail will be recognized and shall be deemed received on the Business Day on which such notice was transmitted if received before 5 p.m. Pacific prevailing time (and if received after 5 p.m., on the next Business Day) and a notice by overnight mail or courier shall be deemed to have been received on the next Business Day after such Notice is sent or such earlier time as is confirmed by the receiving Party unless it confirms a prior oral communication, in which case any such notice shall be deemed received on the day sent. A Party may change its addresses by providing notice of same in accordance with this provision. All Notices, requests, invoices, statements or payments for this Facility must reference this Agreements identification number. Notices shall be provided as indicated in Appendix F. ARTICLE ELEVEN. FORCE MAJEURE 1.41. No Default for Force Majeure. Neither Party shall be in default in the performance of any of its obligations set forth in this Agreement when and to the extent failure of performance is caused by Force Majeure. 1.42. Requirements Applicable to Claiming Party. If a Party, because of Force Majeure, is rendered wholly or partly unable to perform its obligations when due under this Agreement, such Party (the “Claiming Party”) shall be excused from whatever performance is affected by the Force Majeure to the extent so affected. In order to be excused from its performance obligations under this Agreement by reason of Force Majeure: 1.42.1. The Claiming Party, on or before the fourteenth (14th) day after the initial occurrence of the claimed Force Majeure, must give the other Party Notice describing the particulars of the occurrence; and D-22- 11231-0001\2567614v7.doc 1.42.2. The Claiming Party must provide timely evidence reasonably sufficient to establish that the occurrence constitutes Force Majeure as defined in this Agreement. 1.43. Limitations. The suspension of the Claiming Party’s performance due to Force Majeure may not be greater in scope or longer in duration than is required by such Force Majeure. In addition, the Claiming Party shall use diligent efforts to remedy its inability to perform. When the Claiming Party is able to resume performance of its obligations under this Agreement, the Claiming Party shall give the other Party prompt Notice to that effect. 1.44. Termination. Either Party may terminate this Agreement on at least five (5) Business Days’ prior Notice, in the event of Force Majeure which materially interferes with such Party’s ability to perform its obligations under this Agreement and which (a) extends for more than 365 consecutive days, (b) extends for more than a total of 365 days in any consecutive 540-day period, or (c) is consistent with Section 2.6.2.3. ARTICLE TWELVE. EVENTS OF DEFAULT AND TERMINATION 1.45. Termination. Unless terminated earlier pursuant to Section 11.4 or this Section 12, this Agreement automatically terminates immediately following the last day of the Delivery Term. 1.46. Events of Default. An “Event of Default” means, with respect to a Party, the occurrence of any of the following: 1.46.1. With respect to either Party: 1.46.1.1. A Party becomes Bankrupt; 1.46.1.2. Except for an obligation to make payment when due, if there is a failure of a Party to perform any material covenant or obligation set forth in this Agreement (except to the extent such failure provides a separate termination right for the non-breaching Party or to the extent excused by Force Majeure), if such failure is not remedied within thirty (30) days after Notice thereof from the non-breaching Party to the breaching Party; 1.46.1.3. A Party fails to make any payment due and owing under this Agreement, if such failure is not cured within ten (10) Business Days after Notice from the non-breaching Party to the breaching Party; or 1.46.1.4. Any representation or warranty made by a Party (a) is false or misleading in any material respect when made or (b) becomes false or misleading in any material respect during the Term. 1.46.2. With respect to Seller: D-23- 11231-0001\2567614v7.doc 1.46.2.1. Seller fails to take all corrective actions specified in any Buyer Notice, within the time frame set forth in such Notice, that the Facility is out of compliance with any term of this Agreement; provided that if such corrective action falls under a specific termination right under Section 12.2.2, then the time frame, if any, set forth for such right shall apply; 1.46.2.2. The Facility has not achieved Commercial Operation by the expected Commercial Operation Date specified in Section 2.6.1 and Seller has not elected to pay daily delay damages pursuant to Section 2.6.4; 1.46.2.3. Subject to Section 11, Seller delivers less than eighty percent (80%) of the applicable Contract Quantity from the Facility to Buyer for a period of two (2) consecutive Contract Years; 1.46.2.4. Seller fails to maintain its status as an ERR as set forth in Section 4.5 of the Agreement; 1.46.2.5. Seller abandons the Facility; 1.46.2.6. Seller installs generating equipment at the Facility that exceeds the Contract Capacity and such excess generating capacity is not removed within five (5) Business Days after Notice from Buyer; 1.46.2.7. Seller delivers or attempts to deliver to the Delivery Point for sale under this Agreement product that was not generated by the Facility; 1.46.2.8. Seller fails to install any of the equipment or devices necessary for the Facility to satisfy the Contract Capacity set forth in Section 3.1; 1.46.2.9. An unauthorized assignment of the Agreement, as set forth in Section 15; 1.46.2.10. Seller fails to reimburse Buyer any amounts due under this Agreement; 1.46.2.11. Seller breaches the requirements in Section 6.12 regarding incentives; or 1.46.2.12. Seller fails to maintain the Collateral Requirement set forth in Section 3.9. 1.46.2.13. The annualized customer load associated with the Facility pursuant to Section 17.76.020 of Chapter 17.76 of (Alternative Energy Systems and Facilities) of Article IV (Site Development Provisions) of Title 17 (Development Code) of the Rancho D-24- 11231-0001\2567614v7.doc Cucamonga Municipal Code is less than fifty percent (50%) of the Contract Quantity, as measured over a Contract Year. 1.47. Declaration of an Event of Default. If an Event of Default has occurred, the non-defaulting Party shall have the right to: (a) send Notice, designating a day, no earlier than five (5) days after such Notice and no later than twenty (20) days after such Notice, as an early termination date of this Agreement (“Early Termination Date”); (b) accelerate all amounts owing between the Parties; (c) terminate this Agreement and end the Delivery Term effective as of the Early Termination Date; (d) collect any Settlement Amount under Section 12.5; and (e) if the defaulting party is the Seller and Buyer terminates the Agreement prior to the start of the Commercial Operation Date, Buyer shall have the right to retain the entire Reservation Deposit. 1.48. Suspension of Performance. If an Event of Default shall have occurred, the non-defaulting Party has the right to immediately suspend performance under this Agreement and pursue all remedies available at Law or in equity against the defaulting Party (including monetary damages), except to the extent that such remedies are limited by the terms of this Agreement. 1.49. Calculation of Settlement Amount. 1.49.1. If either Party exercises a termination right under Section 12.3 after the Commercial Operation Date, the non-defaulting Party shall calculate a settlement amount (“Settlement Amount”) equal to the amount of the non- defaulting Party’s aggregate Losses and Costs less any Gains, determined as of the Early Termination Date. Prior to the Commercial Operation Date, the Settlement Amount shall be Zero dollars ($0). 1.49.2. If the non-defaulting Party’s aggregate Gains exceed its aggregate Losses and Costs, if any, determined as of the Early Termination Date, the Settlement Amount shall be Zero dollars ($0). 1.49.3. The Buyer shall not have to enter into replacement transactions to establish a Settlement Amount. 1.49.4. Buyer shall have the right to draw upon the Collateral Requirement to collect any Settlement Amount owed to Buyer. 1.50. Rights and Remedies Are Cumulative. The rights and remedies of the Parties pursuant to this Section 12 shall be cumulative and in addition to the rights of the Parties otherwise provided in this Agreement. 1.51. Duty to Mitigate. Buyer and Seller shall each have a duty to mitigate damages pursuant to this Agreement, and each shall use reasonable efforts to minimize D-25- 11231-0001\2567614v7.doc any damages it may incur as a result of the other Party’s non-performance of this Agreement, including with respect to termination of this Agreement. ARTICLE THIRTEEN. GOVERNMENTAL CHARGES 1.52. Governmental Charges. Seller shall pay or cause to be paid all taxes imposed by any Governmental Authority (“Governmental Charges”) on or with respect to the Product or the Transaction arising at the Delivery Point, including, but not limited to, ad valorem taxes and other taxes attributable to the Project, land, land rights or interests in land for the Project. Buyer shall pay or cause to be paid all Governmental Charges on or with respect to the Product or the Transaction from the Delivery Point. In the event Seller is required by Law or regulation to remit or pay Governmental Charges which are Buyer’s responsibility hereunder, Buyer shall reimburse Seller for such Governmental Charges within thirty (30) days of Notice by Seller. If Buyer is required by Law or regulation to remit or pay Governmental Charges which are Seller’s responsibility hereunder, Buyer may deduct such amounts from payments to Seller with respect to payments under the Agreement; if Buyer elects not to deduct such amounts from Seller’s payments, Seller shall reimburse Buyer for such amounts within thirty (30) days of Notice from Buyer. Nothing shall obligate or cause a Party to pay or be liable to pay any Governmental Charges for which it is exempt under the Law. A Party that is exempt at any time and for any reason from one or more Governmental Charges bears the risk that such exemption shall be lost or the benefit of such exemption reduced; and thus, in the event a Party’s exemption is lost or reduced, each Party’s responsibility with respect to such Governmental Charge shall be in accordance with the first four sentences of this Section. ARTICLE FOURTEEN. RELEASE OF INFORMATION AND RECORDING CONVERSATION 1.53. Release of Information. Seller authorizes Buyer to release to the FERC, CEC, CAISO, CPUC, other Governmental Authority, and/or media outlet information regarding the Facility, including the Seller’s name and location, and the size, location and operational characteristics of the Facility, the Term, the ERR type, photographs of the project, the Commercial Operation Date, greenhouse gas emissions data, and the net power rating of the Facility, as requested from time to time pursuant to the CEC’s, CPUC’s or applicable Governmental Authority’s rules and regulations. 1.54. Public Announcements. Seller shall make no public announcement regarding any aspect of this Agreement or the role of Seller in regards to the development or operation of the Project without the prior written consent of Buyer, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld. Any public announcement by Seller must comply with California Business and Professions Code § 17580.5 and with the Guides for the Use of Environmental D-26- 11231-0001\2567614v7.doc Marketing Claims, published by the Federal Trade Commission, as it may be updated from time to time. ARTICLE FIFTEEN. ASSIGNMENT 1.55. General Assignment. Except as provided in Sections 15.2 and 15.3, Seller may not assign this Agreement or its rights hereunder without the prior written consent of the Buyer, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed so long as among other things (a) the assignee assumes the Seller’s payment and performance obligations under this Agreement, (b) the assignee agrees in writing to be bound by the terms and conditions hereof, (c) Seller delivers evidence satisfactory to Buyer of the proposed assignee’s technical and financial capability to meet or exceed Seller’s obligations hereunder and (d) the Seller delivers such tax and enforceability assurance as Buyer may reasonably request. 1.56. Assignment to Financing Providers. Seller may assign this Agreement as collateral for any financing or refinancing of the Project (including any tax equity or lease financing) with the prior written consent of the Buyer, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed. The Parties agree that, the consent provided to Buyer in accordance with this Section 15.2 shall be in a form substantially similar to the Form of Financing Consent attached hereto as Appendix H; provided that (a) Buyer shall not be required to consent to any additional terms or conditions beyond those contained in Appendix H, including extension of any cure periods or additional remedies for financing providers, and (b) Seller shall be responsible at Buyer’s request for Buyer’s reasonable costs and attorneys’ fees associated with the review, negotiation, execution and delivery of documents in connection with such assignment. 1.57. Notice of Change in Control. Except in connection with public market transactions of the equity interests or capital stock of Seller or Seller’s Affiliates, Seller shall provide Buyer notice of any direct change of control of Seller (whether voluntary or by operation of Law). ARTICLE SIXTEEN. GOVERNING LAW This agreement and the rights and duties of the parties hereunder shall be governed by and construed, enforced, and performed in accordance with the laws of the State of California, without regard to principles of conflicts of law. To the extent enforceable at such time, each party waives its respective right to any jury trial with respect to any litigation arising under or in connection with this agreement. ARTICLE SEVENTEEN. DISPUTE RESOLUTION 1.58. Intent of the Parties. The sole procedure to resolve any claim arising out of or relating to this Agreement is the dispute resolution procedure set forth in this Section 17, except that either Party may seek an injunction in Superior Court in San Bernardino County, California if such action is necessary to prevent D-27- 11231-0001\2567614v7.doc irreparable harm, in which case both Parties nonetheless will continue to pursue resolution of all other aspects of the dispute by means of this procedure. 1.59. Management Negotiations. 1.59.1. The Parties will attempt in good faith to resolve any controversy or claim arising out of or relating to this Agreement by prompt negotiations between each Party’s authorized representative, or such other person designated in writing as a representative of the Party (each a “Manager”). Either Manager may request a meeting, to be held in person or telephonically, to initiate negotiations to be held within ten (10) Business Days of the other Party’s receipt of such request, at a mutually agreed time and place. 1.59.2. All communication and writing exchanged between the Parties in connection with these negotiations shall be deemed inadmissible as evidence such that it cannot be used or referred to in any subsequent judicial or arbitration process between the Parties, whether with respect to this dispute or any other. 1.59.3. If the matter is not resolved within forty-five (45) days of commencement of negotiations under Section 17.2.1, or if the Party receiving the written request to meet refuses or does not meet within the ten (10) Business Day period specified in Section 17.2.1, either Party may initiate arbitration of the controversy or claim according to the terms of Section 17.3. 1.60. Arbitration Initiation. If the dispute cannot be resolved by negotiation as set forth in Section 17.2 above, then the Parties shall resolve such controversy through arbitration (“Arbitration”). The Arbitration shall be adjudicated by one retired judge or justice from the JAMS panel. The Arbitration shall take place in San Bernardino County, California, and shall be administered by and in accordance with JAMS’ Commercial Arbitration Rules. If the Parties cannot mutually agree on the arbitrator who will adjudicate the dispute, then JAMS shall provide the Parties with an arbitrator pursuant to its then- applicable Commercial Arbitration Rules. The arbitrator shall have no affiliation with, financial or other interest in, or prior employment with either Party and shall be knowledgeable in the field of the dispute. Either Party may initiate Arbitration by filing with the JAMS a notice of intent to arbitrate at any time following the unsuccessful conclusion of the management negotiations provided for in Section 17.2. ARTICLE EIGHTEEN. MISCELLANEOUS 1.61. Severability. If any provision in this Agreement is determined to be invalid, void or unenforceable by any court having jurisdiction, such determination shall not invalidate, void, or make unenforceable any other provision, agreement or covenant of this Agreement. Any provision of this Agreement D-28- 11231-0001\2567614v7.doc held invalid or unenforceable only in part or degree will remain in full force and effect to the extent not held invalid or unenforceable. 1.62. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts each of which shall be deemed an original and all of which shall be deemed one and the same Agreement. Delivery of an executed counterpart of this Agreement by facsimile or PDF transmission will be deemed as effective as delivery of an originally executed counterpart. Each Party delivering an executed counterpart of this Agreement by facsimile or PDF transmission shall also deliver an originally executed counterpart, but the failure of any Party to deliver an originally executed counterpart of this Agreement shall not affect the validity or effectiveness of this Agreement. 1.63. General. No amendment to or modification of this Agreement shall be enforceable unless reduced to writing and executed by both Parties. This Agreement shall not impart any rights enforceable by any third party other than a permitted successor or assignee bound to this Agreement. Waiver by a Party of any default by the other Party shall not be construed as a waiver of any other default. The term “including” when used in this Agreement shall be by way of example only and shall not be considered in any way to be in limitation. The headings used herein are for convenience and reference purposes only. 1.64. Interpretation. Whenever this Agreement specifically refers to any Law, tariff, Governmental Authority, regional reliability council, Transmission/Distribution Owner, or credit rating agency, the Parties hereby agree that the references also refers to any successor to such Law, tariff or organization. 1.65. Construction. The Agreement will not be construed against any Party as a result of the preparation, substitution, or other event of negotiation, drafting or execution thereof. 1.66. Forward Contract. The Parties acknowledge and agree that this Agreement constitutes a “forward contract” within the meaning of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, and Buyer and Seller are “forward contract merchants” within the meaning of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. Each Party further agrees that, for all purposes of this Agreement, each Party waives and agrees not to assert the applicability of the provisions of 11 U.S.C. § 366 in any Bankruptcy proceeding wherein such Party is a debtor. In any such proceeding, each Party further waives the right to assert that the other Party is a provider of last resort to the extent such term relates to 11 U.S.C. §366 or another provision of 11 U.S.C. § 101-1532. 1.67. Change in Electric Market Design. If a change in the CAISO Tariff renders this Agreement or any provisions hereof incapable of being performed or administered, then any Party may request that Buyer and Seller enter into negotiations to make the minimum changes to this Agreement necessary to D-29- 11231-0001\2567614v7.doc make this Agreement capable of being performed and administered, while attempting to preserve to the maximum extent possible the benefits, burdens, and obligations set forth in this Agreement as of the Execution Date. Upon delivery of such a request, Buyer and Seller shall engage in such negotiations in good faith. If Buyer and Seller are unable, within sixty (60) days after delivery of such request, to agree upon changes to this Agreement or to resolve issues relating to changes to this Agreement, then any Party may submit issues pertaining to changes to this Agreement to the dispute resolution process set forth in Article 17. Notwithstanding the foregoing, (i) a change in cost shall not in and of itself be deemed to render this Agreement or any of the provisions hereof incapable of being performed or administered, and (ii) all of the unaffected provisions of this Agreement shall remain in full force and effect during any period of such negotiation or dispute resolution. 1.68. Further Assurances. Each of the Parties hereto agrees to provide such information, execute and deliver any instruments and documents and to take such other actions as may be necessary or reasonably requested by the other Party which are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Agreement and which do not involve the assumptions of obligations other than those provided for in this Agreement, to give full effect to this Agreement and to carry out the intent of this Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each Party has caused this Agreement to be duly executed by its authorized representative as of the date of last signature provided below. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA (Seller) (Buyer) (Signature) (Signature) (Type/Print Name) (Type/Print Name) (Title) (Title) (Date) (Date) D-30- 11231-0001\2567614v7.doc Appendix A – Definitions “Affiliate” means, with respect to a Party, any entity that, directly or indirectly, through one or more intermediaries, controls, or is controlled by, or is under common control with that Party. “Arbitration" has the meaning set forth in Section 17. “As-Available Facility” means a generating facility that is powered by one of the following sources, except for a de minimis amount of Energy from other sources: (a) wind, (b) solar energy, (c) hydroelectric potential derived from small conduit water distribution facilities that do not have storage capability, or (d) other variable sources of energy that are contingent upon natural forces other than geothermal. “Available Capacity” means the rated alternating current (AC) generating capacity of the Facility, expressed in whole kilowatts, that is available to generate Product. “Bankrupt” means with respect to any entity, such entity: (a) Files a petition or otherwise commences, authorizes or acquiesces in the commencement of a proceeding or cause of action under any bankruptcy, insolvency, reorganization or similar law, or has any such petition filed or commenced against it; (b) Makes an assignment or any general arrangement for the benefit of creditors; (c) Otherwise becomes bankrupt or insolvent (however evidenced); (d) Has a liquidator, administrator, receiver, trustee, conservator or similar official appointed with respect to such entity or any substantial portion of its property or assets; or (e) Is generally unable to pay its debts as they fall due. “Baseload Facility” means a generating facility that does not qualify as an As-Available Facility. “Business Day” means any day except a Saturday, Sunday, a Federal Reserve Bank holiday, or the Friday following Thanksgiving during the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. local time for the relevant Party’s principal place of business where the relevant Party in each instance shall be the Party from whom the notice, payment or delivery is being sent. “CAISO” means the California Independent System Operator Corporation or any successor entity performing similar functions. “CAISO Grid” means the system of transmission lines and associated facilities that have been placed under the CAISO’s operational control. “CAISO Tariff” means the CAISO FERC Electric Tariff, Fifth Replacement Volume No. 1, as amended from time to time. D-31- 11231-0001\2567614v7.doc “California Renewables Portfolio Standard” means the renewable energy program and policies codified in California Public Utilities Code Sections 399.11 through 399.33 and California Public Resources Code Sections 25740 through 25751, as such provisions may be amended or supplemented from time to time. “Capacity Attributes” means any current or future defined characteristic, certificate, tag, credit, or ancillary service attribute, whether general in nature or specific as to the location or any other attribute of the Project, intended to value any aspect of the capacity of the Project to produce Energy or ancillary services, including, but not limited to, any accounting construct so that the full Contract Capacity of the Project may be counted toward a Resource Adequacy Requirement or any other measure by the CPUC, the CAISO, the FERC, or any other entity invested with the authority under federal or state Law, to require Buyer to procure, or to procure at Buyer’s expense, Resource Adequacy Benefits or other such products. “CEC” means the California Energy Commission or its successor agency. “CEC Certification” means certification by the CEC that the Facility is an ERR and that all Energy produced by the Facility qualifies as generation from an ERR. “CEC Pre-Certification” means provisional certification of the proposed Facility as an ERR by the CEC upon submission by a facility of a complete application and required supplemental information. “Check Meter” means the Buyer revenue-quality meter section(s) or meter(s), which Buyer may require at its discretion, and which will include those devices normally supplied by Buyer or Seller under the applicable utility electric service requirements. “City Manager” means the City Manager of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. “Claiming Party” has the meaning set forth in Section 10.2. “Commercial Operation” means the Contract Capacity has been installed and the Facility is operating and able to produce and deliver the Product to Buyer pursuant to the terms of this Agreement. “Commercial Operation Date” means the date on which the Facility achieves Commercial Operation. “Contract Capacity” means the amount of electric energy generating capacity, set forth in Section 3.1, that Seller commits to install at the Site. “Contract Price” has the meaning set forth in Section 3.6. “Contract Quantity” has the meaning set forth in Section 3.2. “Contract Year” means a period of twelve (12) consecutive months with the first Contract Year commencing on the Commercial Operation Date and each subsequent Contract Year commencing on the anniversary of the Commercial Operation Date. D-32- 11231-0001\2567614v7.doc “Costs” means (a) brokerage fees, commissions and other similar third-party transaction costs and expenses reasonably incurred either in terminating any arrangement pursuant to which it has hedged its obligations or in entering into new arrangements which replace the Transaction; and (b) all reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses incurred in connection with the termination of the Transaction. “CPUC” means the California Public Utilities Commission, or successor entity. “Credit Rating” means, with respect to any entity, (a) the rating then assigned to such entity’s unsecured senior long-term debt obligations (not supported by third party credit enhancements), or (b) if such entity does not have a rating for its unsecured senior long-term debt obligations, then the rating assigned to such entity as an issuer rating by S&P and/or Moody’s. If the entity is rated by both S&P and Moody’s and such ratings are not equivalent, the lower of the two ratings shall determine the Credit Rating. If the entity is rated by either S&P or Moody’s, but not both, then the available rating shall determine the Credit Rating. “Current Inverters” means devices used to convert DC electric energy to alternating current electric energy. “Curtailment Order” means any instruction from Buyer to Seller to reduce the delivery of Energy from the Facility for any reason other than as set forth in Sections 3.6.3 (a) or (b). “DC” means direct current. “DC Collection System” means the DC equipment, cables, components, devices and materials that interconnect the Photovoltaic Modules with the Current Inverters. “Delivered Energy” means all Energy produced from the Facility and delivered by Seller to the Delivery Point, expressed in kWh, as recorded by the meter specified in Section 6.2.1 or the Check Meter, as applicable. “Delivery Point” has the meaning set forth in Section 2.5. “Delivery Term” has the meaning set forth in Section 3.5. “Early Termination Date” has the meaning set forth in Section 12.3. “Eligible Renewable Energy Resource” or “ERR” has the meaning set forth in Public Utilities Code Sections 399.12 or Section 399.16 and California Public Resources Code Section 25741, as these code provision may be amended or supplemented from time to time. “Emergency” means (a) an actual or imminent condition or situation which jeopardizes the integrity of the electric system or the integrity of any other systems to which the electric system is connected or any condition so defined and declared by the CAISO; or (b) an emergency condition as defined under an Interconnection Agreement and any abnormal interconnection or system condition that requires automatic or immediate manual action to prevent or limit loss of load or generation supply, that could adversely affect the reliability of the D-33- 11231-0001\2567614v7.doc electric system or generation supply, that could adversely affect the reliability of any interconnected system, or that could otherwise pose a threat to public safety. “Energy” means three-phase, 60-cycle alternating current electric energy measured in kWh, net of Station Use. For purposes of the definition of “Green Attributes,” the word “energy” shall have the meaning set forth in this definition. “Execution Date” means the latest signature date found at the end of the Agreement. “Facility” has the meaning set forth in Section 2. The terms “Facility” or “Project” as used in this Agreement are interchangeable. “FERC” means the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission or any successor government agency. “Force Majeure” means an event or circumstance which prevents one Party from performing its obligations under the Agreement, which event or circumstance was not anticipated as of the Execution Date, which is not within the reasonable control of, or the result of the negligence of, the Claiming Party, and which, by the exercise of due diligence, the Claiming Party is unable to overcome or avoid or cause to be avoided, including war, riot, civil disturbance or disobedience, terrorism, sabotage, strike or labor dispute. Force Majeure does not include: (a) the lack of wind, sun, or other fuel source of an inherently intermittent nature; (b) reductions in generation from the Facility resulting from ordinary wear and tear, deferred maintenance or operator error; or (c) any delay in providing, or cancellation of, interconnection service by a Transmission/Distribution Owner or the CAISO, except to the extent such delay or cancellation is the result of a Force Majeure claimed by the Transmission/Distribution Owner or the CAISO. Force Majeure may include delays in performance or inability to perform or comply with the terms and conditions of this Agreement due to delays in obtaining necessary equipment, labor, or materials or other issues caused by or attributable to pandemics or epidemics, including the disease designated COVID-19 or the related virus designated SARS-CoV-2 or any mutations thereof (collectively, “COVID-19”), if the elements of Force Majeure defined in the first sentence hereof (other than the requirement that the event or circumstance was not anticipated as of the date the Agreement was agreed to) have been satisfied; provided, however, that the general existence of COVID-19 shall not be sufficient to prove the existence of a Force Majeure absent a showing of other facts and circumstances which in the aggregate establish that a Force Majeure as defined in the first sentence hereof (other than the requirement that the event or circumstance was not anticipated as of the date the Agreement was agreed to) has occurred. “Gains” means with respect to any Party, an amount equal to the present value of the economic benefit to it, if any (exclusive of Costs), resulting from the termination of the Transaction, determined in a commercially reasonable manner, subject to Section 12.5. Factors used in determining economic benefit may include, without limitation, reference to information either available to it internally or supplied by one or more third parties, including, without limitation, quotations (either firm or indicative) of relevant rates, prices, yields, yield curves, volatilities, spreads or other relevant market data in the relevant markets, market price referent, market prices for a comparable transaction, forward price curves based on economic analysis of the relevant markets, settlement prices for a comparable transaction at liquid trading platforms D-34- 11231-0001\2567614v7.doc (e.g., NYMEX), all of which should be calculated for the remaining Delivery Term to determine the value of the Product. “Governmental Authority” means any federal, state, local or municipal government, governmental department, commission, board, bureau, agency, or instrumentality, or any judicial, regulatory or administrative body, having jurisdiction as to the matter in question. “Governmental Charges” has the meaning set forth in Section 13.1. “Green Attributes” means any and all credits, benefits, emissions reductions, offsets, and allowances, howsoever entitled, attributable to the generation from the Project, and its avoided emission of pollutants. Green Attributes include but are not limited to Renewable Energy Credits, as well as: (1) any avoided emission of pollutants to the air, soil or water such as sulfur oxides (SOx), nitrogen oxides (NOx), carbon monoxide (CO) and other pollutants; (2) any avoided emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, sulfur hexafluoride and other greenhouse gases (GHGs) that have been determined by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or otherwise by law, to contribute to the actual or potential threat of altering the Earth’s climate by trapping heat in the atmosphere; (3) the reporting rights to these avoided emissions, such as Green Tag Reporting Rights. Green Tag Reporting Rights are the right of a Green Tag Purchaser to report the ownership of accumulated Green Tags in compliance with federal or state law, if applicable, and to a federal or state agency or any other party at the Green Tag Purchaser’s discretion, and include without limitation those Green Tag Reporting Rights accruing under Section 1605(b) of The Energy Policy Act of 1992 and any present or future federal, state, or local law, regulation or bill, and international or foreign emissions trading program. Green Tags are accumulated on a MWh basis and one Green Tag represents the Green Attributes associated with one (1) MWh of Energy. Green Attributes do not include (i) any energy, capacity, reliability or other power attributes from the Project, (ii) production tax credits associated with the construction or operation of the Project and other financial incentives in the form of credits, reductions, or allowances associated with the project that are applicable to a state or federal income taxation obligation, (iii) fuel-related subsidies or “tipping fees” that may be paid to Seller to accept certain fuels, or local subsidies received by the generator for the destruction of particular preexisting pollutants or the promotion of local environmental benefits, or (iv) emission reduction credits encumbered or used by the Project for compliance with local, state, or federal operating and/or air quality permits. If the Project is a biomass or biogas facility and Seller receives any tradable Green Attributes based on the greenhouse gas reduction benefits or other emission offsets attributed to its fuel usage, it shall provide Buyer with sufficient Green Attributes to ensure that there are zero net emissions associated with the production of electricity from the Project. “Interconnection Agreement” means the small generator interconnection agreement entered into separately between Seller, Transmission/Distribution Owner, and CAISO (as appropriate) obtained by Seller pursuant to Transmission/Distribution Owner’s Wholesale Distribution Tariff. “Interconnection Facilities” has the meaning set forth in the tariff applicable to the Seller’s Interconnection Agreement. D-35- 11231-0001\2567614v7.doc “Interconnection Point” has the meaning set forth in Section 2.3. “Interest Rate” means the rate per annum equal to the “Monthly” Federal Funds Rate (as reset on a monthly basis based on the latest month for which such rate is available) as reported in Federal Reserve Bank Publication H.15-519, or its successor publication. “JAMS” means JAMS, Inc. or its successor entity, a judicial arbitration and mediation service. “kW” means kilowatt. “kWh” means kilowatt-hour. “kWPDC” means peak DC power. “Law” means any statute, law, treaty, rule, regulation, ordinance, code, permit, enactment, injunction, order, writ, decision, authorization, judgment, decree or other legal or regulatory determination or restriction by a court or Governmental Authority of competent jurisdiction, including any of the foregoing that are enacted, amended, or issued after the Execution Date, and which becomes effective during the Delivery Term; or any binding interpretation of the foregoing. “Letter of Credit” means an irrevocable, non-transferable standby letter of credit issued either by a U.S. commercial bank or a foreign bank with a U.S. branch office with a Credit Rating of at least “A-” by S&P and “A3” by Moody’s (without a “credit watch”, “negative outlook” or other rating decline alert if its Credit Rating is “A-” by S&P or “A3” by Moody’s). The Letter of Credit must be substantially in the form as contained in Appendix G to this Agreement; provided that if the Letter of Credit is issued by a branch of a foreign bank, Buyer may require changes to such form. “Losses” means, with respect to any Party, an amount equal to the present value of the economic loss to it, if any (exclusive of Costs), resulting from the termination of the Transaction, determined in a commercially reasonable manner, subject to Section 12.5. Factors used in determining the loss of economic benefit may include, without limitation, reference to information either available to it internally or supplied by one or more third parties including, without limitation, quotations (either firm or indicative) of relevant rates, prices, yields, yield curves, volatilities, spreads or other relevant market data in the relevant markets, market price referent, market prices for a comparable transaction, forward price curves based on economic analysis of the relevant markets, settlement prices for a comparable transaction at liquid trading platforms (e.g. NYMEX), all of which should be calculated for the remaining term of the Transaction to determine the value of the Product. “Manager” has the meaning set forth in Section 17.2. “Mechanical Completion” means that all equipment and systems that are necessary to generate the effective capacity of the Facility are installed. The Facility is mechanically, electrically, and structurally constructed with all control systems installed and connected. The D-36- 11231-0001\2567614v7.doc Facility is functionally complete to the extent necessary to begin commissioning and testing of the Facility, though commissioning and testing need not have commenced.” “MW” means megawatt (AC). “MWh” means megawatt-hour. “Notice,” unless otherwise specified in the Agreement, means written communications by a Party to be delivered by hand delivery, United States mail, overnight courier service, facsimile or electronic messaging (e-mail). “Party” means the Buyer or Seller individually, and “Parties” means both collectively. For purposes of Section 16 (Governing Law) the word “party” or “parties” shall have the meaning set forth in this definition. “Phasing Plan” means the plan submitted by Seller to the City of Rancho Cucamonga specifying the phases of the Project and the Contract Capacity associated with each Phase, and further, consistent with the requirements of Section 17.76.020 of Chapter 17.76 of (Alternative Energy Systems and Facilities) of Article IV (Site Development Provisions) of Title 17 (Development Code) of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code. “Phasing Plan Transition Event” means the occurrence of an event that transitions the Facility from one Phase to a different Phase as specified in the Phasing Plan. “Photovoltaic Module” means the individual module or component that produces DC electric energy from sun light. “Photovoltaic Module DC Rating” means, for each Photovoltaic Module installed or to be installed at the Site, the number (expressed in kWPDC) stated on the nameplate affixed thereto representing the manufacturer’s maximum (at “peak” sunlight) DC power rating at the standard test condition (“Pmp” or Power maximum at peak). “Product” means all Energy produced by the Facility throughout the Delivery Term, net of Station Use and electrical losses from the Facility to the Delivery Point; all Green Attributes; all Capacity Attributes, if any; and all Resource Adequacy Benefits, if any; generated by, associated with or attributable to the Facility throughout the Delivery Term. “Project” has the meaning set forth in Section 2. The terms “Facility” and “Project” as used in this Agreement are interchangeable. “Prudent Electrical Practices” means those practices, methods and acts that would be implemented and followed by prudent operators of electric energy generating facilities in the Western United States, similar to the Facility, during the relevant time period, which practices, methods and acts, in the exercise of prudent and responsible professional judgment in the light of the facts known at the time the decision was made, could reasonably have been expected to accomplish the desired result consistent with good business practices, reliability and safety. Prudent Electrical Practices shall include, at a minimum, those professionally responsible practices, methods and acts described in the preceding sentence that comply with manufacturers’ D-37- 11231-0001\2567614v7.doc warranties, restrictions in this Agreement, and the requirements of Governmental Authorities, WECC standards, the CAISO and Laws. Prudent Electrical Practices also includes taking reasonable steps to ensure that: (a) Equipment, materials, resources, and supplies, including spare parts inventories, are available to meet the Facility’s needs; (b) Sufficient operating personnel are available at all times and are adequately experienced and trained and licensed as necessary to operate the Facility properly and efficiently, and are capable of responding to reasonably foreseeable emergency conditions at the Facility and Emergencies whether caused by events on or off the Site; (c) Preventive, routine, and non-routine maintenance and repairs are performed on a basis that ensures reliable, long term and safe operation of the Facility, and are performed by knowledgeable, trained, and experienced personnel utilizing proper equipment and tools; (d) Appropriate monitoring and testing are performed to ensure equipment is functioning as designed; (e) Equipment is not operated in a reckless manner, in violation of manufacturer’s guidelines or in a manner unsafe to workers, the general public, or the Transmission/Distribution Owner’s electric system or contrary to environmental laws, permits or regulations or without regard to defined limitations such as, flood conditions, safety inspection requirements, operating voltage, current, volt ampere reactive (VAR) loading, frequency, rotational speed, polarity, synchronization, and control system limits; and (f) Equipment and components are designed and manufactured to meet or exceed the standard of durability that is generally used for electric energy generating facilities operating in the Western United States and will function properly over the full range of ambient temperature and weather conditions reasonably expected to occur at the Site and under both normal and emergency conditions. “Renewable Energy Credit” has the meaning set forth in Public Utilities Code Section 399.12(h), as may be amended from time to time or as further defined or supplemented by Law. “Reservation Deposit” means the deposit submitted by Seller to Buyer at the time Seller submitted its application for an Industrial Zoning District Renewable PPA contract, which amount shall equal four dollars ($4.00) for each kilowatt of proposed alternating current (AC) generator capacity. Buyer shall return the Reservation Deposit to Seller once the Project achieves Commercial Operation by crediting Seller the full amount of the Reservation Deposit on Buyer’s first payment for delivered Product. Buyer shall retain the full amount of the Reservation Deposit in the event the Project does not achieve Commercial Operation by the Commercial Operation Date. “Resource Adequacy Benefits” means the rights and privileges attached to the Facility that satisfy any entity’s resource adequacy obligations, as those obligations are set forth in any D-38- 11231-0001\2567614v7.doc Resource Adequacy Rulings and shall include any local, zonal, or otherwise locational attributes associated with the Facility. “Resource Adequacy Requirements” has the meaning set forth in Section 4.4.1. “Resource Adequacy Rulings” means any other resource adequacy laws, rules or regulations enacted, adopted or promulgated by any applicable Governmental Authority, as such decisions, rulings, Laws, rules or regulations may be amended or modified from time-to-time during the Delivery Term. “Restricted Period” has the meaning set forth in Section 12.8.1. “Settlement Amount” has the meaning set forth in Section 12.5. “Site” means the real property on which the Facility is, or will be, located, as further described in Appendix D. “Site Control” means the Seller: (a) owns the Site, (b) leases the Site, (c) is the holder of a right-of-way grant or similar instrument with respect to the Site, or (d) prior to the Commercial Operation Date, has the unilaterally exercisable contractual right to acquire or cause to be acquired on its behalf any of (a), (b), or (c). “Station Use” means energy consumed within the Facility’s electric energy distribution system as losses, as well as energy used to operate the Facility’s auxiliary equipment. The auxiliary equipment may include, but is not limited to, forced and induced draft fans, cooling towers, boiler feeds pumps, lubricating oil systems, plant lighting, fuel handling systems, control systems, and sump pumps. This use is not to exceed 1% of average annual output. “Term” has the meaning set forth in Section 3.4.1. “Transaction” means the particular transaction described in Section 3.3. “Transmission/Distribution Owner” means any entity or entities responsible for operating the electric distribution system or transmission system, as applicable, at and beyond the Interconnection Point. “WECC” means the Western Electricity Coordinating Council, the regional reliability council for the Western United States, Northwestern Mexico and Southwestern Canada. “WREGIS” means the Western Renewable Energy Generating Information System or any successor renewable energy tracking program. “WREGIS Certificates” has the same meaning as “Certificate” as defined by WREGIS in the WREGIS Operating Rules and are designated as eligible for complying with the California Renewables Portfolio Standard. D-39- 11231-0001\2567614v7.doc “WREGIS Operating Rules” means those operating rules and requirements adopted by WREGIS as of December 2010, as subsequently amended, supplemented or replaced (in whole or in part) from time to time. *** End of Appendix A *** D-40- 11231-0001\2567614v7.doc Appendix B – Commercial Operation Date Confirmation Letter In accordance with the terms of that certain Industrial Zoning District Renewable Power Purchase Agreement dated ________(“Agreement”) for the Facility named ________________________ by and between CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA “Buyer”) and ____________________ (“Seller”), this letter serves to document the Parties further agreement that (i) the conditions precedent to the occurrence of the Commercial Operation Date have been satisfied as of this _____ day of _________, ______. This letter shall confirm the Commercial Operation Date, as defined in the Agreement, as the date referenced in the preceding sentence. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each Party has caused this Agreement to be duly executed by its authorized representative as of the date of last signature provided below: By: By: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA (Seller) (Buyer) (Signature) (Signature) (Type/Print Name) (Type/Print Name) (Title) (Title) (Date) (Date) *** End of Appendix B *** D-41- 11231-0001\2567614v7.doc Appendix C – Forecasting Requirements A. AVAILABLE CAPACITY FORECASTING. Seller shall provide the Available Capacity forecasts described below. [The following bracketed language applies to As-Available solar or wind Projects only] [Seller’s availability forecasts below shall include Project availability and updated status of [The following bracketed language applies to solar Projects only] [photovoltaic panels, inverters, transformers, and any other equipment that may impact availability] or [The following bracketed language applies to wind Projects only] [transformers, wind turbine unit status, and any other equipment that may impact availability].] [The following bracketed language applies to As-Available Product only] Seller shall use commercially reasonable efforts to forecast the Available Capacity of the Project accurately and to transmit such information in a format reasonably acceptable to Buyer. Buyer and Seller shall agree upon reasonable changes to the requirements and procedures set forth below from time-to-time, as necessary. 1. Annual Forecast of Available Capacity. No later than (I) the earlier of July 1 of the first calendar year following the Execution Date or one hundred and eighty (180) days before the first day of the first Contract Year of the Delivery Term (“First Annual Forecast Date”), and (II) on or before July 1 for each calendar year from the First Annual Forecast Date for every subsequent Contract Year during the Delivery Term, Seller shall provide to Buyer a non-binding forecast of the hourly Available Capacity for each day in each month of the following calendar year in a form reasonably acceptable to Buyer. 2. Monthly Forecast of Available Capacity. Ten (10) Business Days before the beginning of each month during the Delivery Term, Seller shall provide to Buyer a non- binding forecast of the hourly Available Capacity for each day of the following month in a form reasonably acceptable to Buyer. *** End of Appendix C *** D-42- 11231-0001\2567614v7.doc Appendix D – Description of the Facility Seller should complete the information below and attach a description of the Facility, including a summary of its significant components, a drawing showing the general arrangements of the Facility, and a single line diagram illustrating the interconnection of the Facility and loads with Buyer’s electric distribution system. Name of the Facility: Address of the Facility: Description of the Facility, including a summary of its significant components, such as for solar photovoltaic [Photovoltaic Modules, DC Collection System, Current Inverters], meteorological station, instrumentation and any other related electrical equipment: Drawing showing the general arrangement of the Facility: A single-line diagram illustrating the interconnection of the Facility with Buyer: A legal description of the Site, including a Site map: Longitude and latitude of the centroid of the Site: *** End of Appendix D *** D-43- 11231-0001\2567614v7.doc APPENDIX E – INDUSTRIAL ZONING DISTRICT RENEWABLE PPA MILESTONES AND EXAMPLE ACTION STEPS Action Deadline Date Completed Responsible Party Step 1: Submit Application Seller Step 2: Approve Application Buyer Step 3: Sign Conditional PPA Both Step 4: Acquire Interconnection Agreement Seller Step 4A: Submit copy of Interconnection Agreement to Buyer Seller Step 5: Submit confirmation of RPS precertification requirement and provide Copy of precertification application to Buyer Seller Step 6: File Project with WREGIS and submit proof to Buyer. Seller Step 7: Pay Interconnection Fee and submit proof to Buyer. Seller Step 8: Acquire Conditional Use Permit and Construction Permits Seller Step 8A: Submit proof of permits to Buyer. Seller Step 9: Notify Buyer 10 days prior to construction start. Seller Step 10: Submit proof of insurance to Buyer. Seller Step 11: Mechanical Completion. Seller Step 12: Notify Buyer 30 days in advance of the Commercial Operation Date. Seller Step 12: Commercial Operation Date Seller Step 13: Submit application for certification to CEC. Seller *** End of Appendix E *** D-44- 11231-0001\2567614v7.doc Appendix F – Delivery Term Contract Quantity Schedule Dated: XXXXX XX, 20XX Delivery Term Contract Quantity Schedule Contract Year Contract Quantity (kWh/Yr) Phase Effective Date 1 Phase 1 XXXXX XX, 20XX 2 Phase 1 XXXXX XX, 20XX 3 Phase 1 XXXXX XX, 20XX 4 Phase 1 XXXXX XX, 20XX 5 Phase 1 XXXXX XX, 20XX 6 Phase 1 XXXXX XX, 20XX 7 Phase 1 XXXXX XX, 20XX 8 Phase 1 XXXXX XX, 20XX 9 Phase 1 XXXXX XX, 20XX 10 Phase 1 XXXXX XX, 20XX 11 Phase 1 XXXXX XX, 20XX 12 Phase 1 XXXXX XX, 20XX 13 Phase 1 XXXXX XX, 20XX 14 Phase 1 XXXXX XX, 20XX 15 Phase 1 XXXXX XX, 20XX 16 Phase 1 XXXXX XX, 20XX 17 Phase 1 XXXXX XX, 20XX 18 Phase 1 XXXXX XX, 20XX 19 Phase 1 XXXXX XX, 20XX 20 Phase 1 XXXXX XX, 20XX 21 Phase 1 XXXXX XX, 20XX 22 Phase 1 XXXXX XX, 20XX 23 Phase 1 XXXXX XX, 20XX 24 Phase 1 XXXXX XX, 20XX 25 Phase 1 XXXXX XX, 20XX *** End of Appendix F*** D-45- 11231-0001\2567614v7.doc Appendix G – Notices List Name: ______(“Seller”) Name: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, a (“Buyer” or “RCMU”) All Notices: [Seller to complete] All Notices: Delivery Address: Delivery Address: Street: City: State: Zip: Mail Address: (if different from above) Mail Address: Attn: Attn: Phone: Phone: Facsimile: Facsimile: DUNS: DUNS: Federal Tax ID Number: Federal Tax ID Number: Invoices: Invoices: Attn: Attn: Phone: Phone: Facsimile: Facsimile: Payments: Payments: Attn: Attn: Phone: Phone: Facsimile: Facsimile: Wire Transfer: Wire Transfer: BNK: ABA: ACCT: BNK: ABA: ACCT: Credit and Collections: Credit and Collections: Attn: Attn: Phone: Phone: Facsimile: Facsimile: With additional Notices of an Event of Default to Contract Manager: Contract Manager: Attn: Attn: D-46- 11231-0001\2567614v7.doc Phone: Phone: Facsimile: *** End of Appendix G*** D-47- 11231-0001\2567614v7.doc Appendix H – FORM OF LETTER OF CREDIT Issuing Bank Letterhead and Address STANDBY LETTER OF CREDIT NO. XXXXXXXX Date: [insert issue date] Beneficiary: City of Rancho Cucamonga Applicant: [Insert name and address of Applicant] Attention: Letter of Credit Amount: [insert amount] Expiry Date: [insert expiry date] Ladies and Gentlemen: By order of [insert name of Applicant] (“Applicant”), we hereby issue in favor of City of Rancho Cucamonga (the “Beneficiary”) our irrevocable standby letter of credit No. [insert number of letter of credit] (“Letter of Credit”), for the account of Applicant, for drawings up to but not to exceed the aggregate sum of U.S. $ [insert amount in figures followed by (amount in words)] (“Letter of Credit Amount”). This Letter of Credit is available with [insert name of issuing bank, and the city and state in which it is located] by sight payment, at our offices located at the address stated below, effective immediately, and it will expire at our close of business on [insert expiry date] (the “Expiry Date”). Funds under this Letter of Credit are available to the Beneficiary against presentation of the following documents: 1. Beneficiary’s signed and dated sight draft in the form of Exhibit A hereto, referencing this Letter of Credit No. [insert number] and stating the amount of the demand; and 2. One of the following statements signed by an authorized representative or officer of Beneficiary: A. “Pursuant to the terms of that certain [insert name of the agreement] (the “Agreement”), dated [insert date of the Agreement], between Beneficiary and [insert name of Seller under the Agreement], Beneficiary is entitled to draw under Letter of D-48- 11231-0001\2567614v7.doc Credit No. [insert number] amounts owed by [insert name of Seller under the Agreement] under the Agreement; or B. “Letter of Credit No. [insert number] will expire in thirty (30) days or less and [insert name of Seller under the Agreement] has not provided replacement security acceptable to Beneficiary. Special Conditions: 1. Partial and multiple drawings under this Letter of Credit are allowed; 2. All banking charges associated with this Letter of Credit are for the account of the Applicant; 3. This Letter of Credit is not transferable; and 4. The Expiry Date of this Letter of Credit shall be automatically extended without a written amendment for a period of one year and on each successive Expiry Date, unless at least sixty (60) days before the then current Expiry Date, we notify you by registered mail or courier that we elect not to extend the Expiry Date of this Letter of Credit for such additional period. We engage with you that drafts drawn under and in compliance with the terms of this Letter of Credit will be duly honored upon presentation, on or before the Expiry Date (or after the Expiry Date as provided below), at our offices at [insert issuing bank’s address for drawings]. All demands for payment shall be made by presentation of originals or copies of documents; or by facsimile transmission of documents to [insert fax number], Attention: [insert name of issuing bank’s receiving department], with originals or copies of documents to follow by overnight mail. If presentation is made by facsimile transmission, you may contact us at [insert phone number] to confirm our receipt of the transmission. Your failure to seek such a telephone confirmation does not affect our obligation to honor such a presentation. Our payments against complying presentations under this Letter of Credit will be made no later than on the sixth (6th) banking day following a complying presentation. Except as stated herein, this Letter of Credit is not subject to any condition or qualification. It is our individual obligation, which is not contingent upon reimbursement and is not affected by any agreement, document, or instrument between us and the Applicant or between the Beneficiary and the Applicant or any other party. Except as otherwise specifically stated herein, this Letter of Credit is subject to and governed by the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits, 2007 Revision, International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) Publication No. 600 (the “UCP 600”); provided that, if this Letter of Credit expires during an interruption of our business as described in Article 36 of the UCP 600, we will honor drafts presented in compliance with this Letter of Credit within thirty (30) days after the resumption of our business and effect payment accordingly. The law of the State of California shall apply to any matters not covered by the UCP 600. D-49- 11231-0001\2567614v7.doc For telephone assistance regarding this Letter of Credit, please contact us at [insert number and any other necessary details]. Very truly yours, [insert name of issuing bank] By: Authorized Signature Name: [print or type name] Title: *** End of Appendix H*** D-50- 11231-0001\2567614v7.doc Appendix I – FORM OF CONSENT TO ASSIGNMENT CONSENT AND AGREEMENT This CONSENT AND AGREEMENT (“Consent and Agreement”) is entered into as of [_______ __, 2___], between CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA (“RCMU”), and [_________________] , as collateral agent (in such capacity, “Financing Provider”), for the benefit of various financial institutions (collectively, the “Secured Parties”) providing financing to [_______] (“Seller”). RCMU, Seller, and the Financing Provider shall each individually be referred to as a “Party” and collectively as the “Parties”. Recitals A. Pursuant to that certain Power Purchase Agreement dated as of _____________, 2___ (as amended, modified, supplemented or restated from time to time, as including all related agreements, instruments and documents, collectively, the “Assigned Agreement”) between RCMU and Seller, RCMU has agreed to purchase energy from Seller. B. The Secured Parties have provided, or have agreed to provide, to Seller financing (including a financing lease) pursuant to one or more agreements (the “Financing Documents”), and require that Financing Provider be provided certain rights with respect to the “Assigned Agreement” and the “Assigned Agreement Accounts,” each as defined below, in connection with such financing. C. In consideration for the execution and delivery of the Assigned Agreement, RCMU has agreed to enter into this Consent and Agreement for the benefit of Seller. Agreement 1. Definitions. Any capitalized term used but not defined herein shall have the meaning specified for such term in the Assigned Agreement. 2. Consent. Subject to the terms and conditions below, RCMU consents to and approves the pledge and assignment by Seller to Financing Provider pursuant to the Loan Agreement and/or Security Agreement of (a) the Assigned Agreement, and (b) the accounts, revenues and proceeds of the Assigned Agreement (collectively, the “Assigned Agreement Accounts”). 3. Limitations on Assignment. Financing Provider acknowledges and confirms that, notwithstanding any provision to the contrary under applicable law or in any Financing Document executed by Seller, Financing Provider shall not assume, sell or otherwise dispose of the Assigned Agreement (whether by foreclosure sale, conveyance in lieu of foreclosure or otherwise) unless, on or before the date of any such assumption, sale or disposition, Financing Provider or any third party, as the case may be, assuming, purchasing or otherwise acquiring the D-51- 11231-0001\2567614v7.doc Assigned Agreement (a) cures any and all defaults of Seller under the Assigned Agreement which are capable of being cured and which are not personal to the Seller, (b) executes and delivers to RCMU a written assumption of all of Seller’s rights and obligations under the Assigned Agreement in form and substance reasonably satisfactory to RCMU, (c) otherwise satisfies and complies with all requirements of the Assigned Agreement, (d) provides such tax and enforceability assurance as RCMU may reasonably request, and (e) is a Permitted Transferee (as defined below). Financing Provider further acknowledges that the assignment of the Assigned Agreement and the Assigned Agreement Accounts is for security purposes only and that Financing Provider has no rights under the Assigned Agreement or the Assigned Agreement Accounts to enforce the provisions of the Assigned Agreement or the Assigned Agreement Accounts unless and until an event of default has occurred and is continuing under the Financing Documents between Seller and Financing Provider (a “Financing Default”), in which case Financing Provider shall be entitled to all of the rights and benefits and subject to all of the obligations which Seller then has or may have under the Assigned Agreement to the same extent and in the same manner as if Financing Provider were an original party to the Assigned Agreement. “Permitted Transferee” means any person or entity who is reasonably acceptable to RCMU. Financing Provider may from time to time, following the occurrence of a Financing Default, notify RCMU in writing of the identity of a proposed transferee of the Assigned Agreement, which proposed transferee may include Financing Provider, in connection with the enforcement of Financing Provider’s rights under the Financing Documents, and RCMU shall, within thirty (30) business days of its receipt of such written notice, confirm to Financing Provider whether or not such proposed transferee is a “Permitted Transferee” (together with a written statement of the reason(s) for any negative determination) it being understood that if RCMU shall fail to so respond within such thirty (30) business day period such proposed transferee shall be deemed to be a “Permitted Transferee”. 4. Cure Rights. (a) Notice to Financing Provider by RCMU. RCMU shall, concurrently with the delivery of any notice of an event of default under the Assigned Agreement (each, an “Event of Default”) to Seller (a “Default Notice”), provide a copy of such Default Notice to Financing Provider pursuant to Section 9(a) of this Consent and Agreement. In addition, Seller shall provide a copy of the Default Notice to Financing Provider the next business day after receipt from RCMU, independent of any agreement of RCMU to deliver such Default Notice. (b) Cure Period Available to Financing Provider Prior to Any Termination by RCMU. Upon the occurrence of an Event of Default, subject to (i) the expiration of the relevant cure periods provided to Seller under the Assigned Agreement, and (ii) Section 4(a) above, RCMU shall not terminate the Assigned Agreement unless it or Seller provides Financing Provider with notice of the Event of Default and affords Financing Provider an Additional Cure Period (as defined below) to cure such Event of Default. For purposes of this Agreement “Additional Cure Period” means (i) with respect to a monetary default, ten (10) days in addition to the cure period (if any) provided to Seller in the Assigned Agreement, and (ii) with respect to a non-monetary default, thirty (30) days in addition to the cure period (if any) provided to Seller in the Assigned Agreement. D-52- 11231-0001\2567614v7.doc (c) Failure by RCMU to Deliver Default Notice. If neither RCMU nor Seller delivers a Default Notice to Financing Provider as provided in Section 4(a), the Financing Provider’s applicable cure period shall begin on the date on which notice of an Event of Default is delivered to Financing Provider by either RCMU or Seller. Except for a delay in the commencement of the cure period for Financing Provider and a delay in RCMU’s ability to terminate the Assigned Agreement (in each case only if both RCMU and Seller fail to deliver notice of an Event of Default to Financing Provider), failure of RCMU to deliver any Default Notice shall not waive RCMU’s right to take any action under the Assigned Agreement and will not subject RCMU to any damages or liability for failure to provide such notice. (d) Extension for Foreclosure Proceedings. If possession of the Project (as defined in the Assigned Agreement) is necessary for Financing Provider to cure an Event of Default and Financing Provider commences foreclosure proceedings against Seller within thirty (30) days of receiving notice of an Event of Default from RCMU or Seller, whichever is received first, Financing Provider shall be allowed a reasonable additional period to complete such foreclosure proceedings, such period not to exceed ninety (90) days; provided, however, that Financing Provider shall provide a written notice to RCMU that it intends to commence foreclosure proceedings with respect to Seller within ten (10) business days of receiving a notice of such Event of Default from RCMU or Seller, whichever is received first. In the event Financing Provider succeeds to Seller’s interest in the Project as a result of foreclosure proceedings, the Financing Provider or a purchaser or grantee pursuant to such foreclosure shall be subject to the requirements of Section 3 of this Consent and Agreement. 5. Setoffs and Deductions. Each of Seller and Financing Provider agrees that RCMU shall have the right to set off or deduct from payments due to Seller each and every amount due RCMU from Seller whether or not arising out of or in connection with the Assigned Agreement. Financing Provider further agrees that it takes the assignment for security purposes of the Assigned Agreement and the Assigned Agreement Accounts subject to any defenses or causes of action RCMU may have against Seller. 6. No Representation or Warranty. Seller and Financing Provider each recognizes and acknowledges that RCMU makes no representation or warranty, express or implied, that Seller has any right, title, or interest in the Assigned Agreement or as to the priority of the assignment for security purposes of the Assigned Agreement or the Assigned Agreement Accounts. Financing Provider is responsible for satisfying itself as to the existence and extent of Seller’s right, title, and interest in the Assigned Agreement, and Financing Provider releases RCMU from any liability resulting from the assignment for security purposes of the Assigned Agreement and the Assigned Agreement Accounts. 7. Amendment to Assigned Agreement. Financing Provider acknowledges and agrees that RCMU may agree with Seller to modify or amend the Assigned Agreement, and that RCMU is not obligated to notify Financing Provider of any such amendment or modification to the Assigned Agreement. Financing Provider hereby releases RCMURCMU from all liability arising out of or in connection with the making of any amendment or modification to the Assigned Agreement. D-53- 11231-0001\2567614v7.doc 8. Payments under Assigned Agreement. RCMU shall make all payments due to Seller under the Assigned Agreement from and after the date hereof to [__________], as depositary agent, to ABA No. [__________], Account No. [__________], and Seller hereby irrevocably consents to any and all such payments being made in such manner. Each of Seller, RCMU and Financing Provider agrees that each such payment by RCMU to such depositary agent of amounts due to Seller from RCMU under the Assigned Agreement shall satisfy RCMU’s corresponding payment obligation under the Assigned Agreement. 9. Miscellaneous. (a) Notices. All notices hereunder shall be in writing and shall be deemed received (i) at the close of business of the date of receipt, if delivered by hand or by facsimile or other electronic means, or (ii) when signed for by recipient, if sent registered or certified mail, postage prepaid, provided such notice was properly addressed to the appropriate address indicated on the signature page hereof or to such other address as a party may designate by prior written notice to the other parties, at the address set forth below: If to Financing Provider: Name: Address: Attn: Telephone: Facsimile: Email: If to RCMU: Name: Address: Attn: Telephone: Facsimile: Email: (b) No Assignment. This Consent and Agreement shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the successors and assigns of RCMU, and shall be binding on and inure to the benefit of the Financing Provider, the Secured Parties and their respective successors and permitted transferees and assigns under the loan agreement and/or security agreement. D-54- 11231-0001\2567614v7.doc (c) No Modification. This Consent and Agreement is neither a modification of nor an amendment to the Assigned Agreement. (d) Choice of Law. The parties hereto agree that this Consent and Agreement shall be construed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of California, excluding any choice of law rules which may direct the application of the laws of another jurisdiction. (e) No Waiver. No term, covenant or condition hereof shall be deemed waived and no breach excused unless such waiver or excuse shall be in writing and signed by the party claimed to have so waived or excused. (f) Counterparts. This Consent and Agreement may be executed in one or more duplicate counterparts, and when executed and delivered by all the parties listed below, shall constitute a single binding agreement. (g) No Third Party Beneficiaries. There are no third party beneficiaries to this Consent and Agreement. (h) Severability. The invalidity or unenforceability of any provision of this Consent and Agreement shall not affect the validity or enforceability of any other provision of this Consent and Agreement, which shall remain in full force and effect. (i) Amendments. This Consent and Agreement may be modified, amended, or rescinded only by writing expressly referring to this Consent and Agreement and signed by all parties hereto. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of RCMU and Financing Provider has duly executed this Consent and Agreement as of the date first written above. City of Rancho Cucamonga (RCMU) By: _________________________________ Name: _______________________________ Title: ________________________________ [____________________________________] (Financing Provider), as collateral agent By: _________________________________ Name: _______________________________ Title: ________________________________ D-55- 11231-0001\2567614v7.doc ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The undersigned hereby acknowledges the Consent and Agreement set forth above, makes the agreements set forth therein as applicable to Seller, including the obligation of Seller to provide a copy of any Default Notice it receives from RCMU to Financing Provider the next business day after receipt by Seller, and confirms that the Financing Provider identified above and the Secured Parties have provided or are providing financing to the undersigned. [________________________][name of Seller] By: _________________________________ Name: _______________________________ Title: ________________________________ *** End of Appendix I*** E-1 11231-0001\2567614v7.doc Exhibit “E” RCMU Connections Conditions of Approval Community Development Department Project #: DRC2020-00202 DRC2020-00213, DRC2020-00265, DRC2020-00266, DRC2020-00267, DRC2020-00312, DRC2021-00180, SUBTPM20271 Project Name: EDR - Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Location: 12434 4TH ST - 022928350-0000 Project Type: Design Review Development Agreement, General Plan Amendment, Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Tentative Parcel Map, Tree Removal Permit, Zoning Map AmendmentALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Planning Department Please be advised of the following Special Conditions The project shall comply with all mitigation measures identified in the Environmental Impact Report SCH No. (2020100056) and the corresponding Mitigation Monitoring and Report Program. 1. No more than 10% of the building space shall be used for high-cube cold storage warehouse space, consistent with analyses conducted in the Environmental Impact Report. 2. Use of natural gas and installation of required infrastructure is prohibited and any modification to this prohibition may be subject to additional review under CEQA. 3. No sort use shall be operated on the Site during the operation of the project. A sort use means a fulfillment center that ships out smaller items, requiring extensive sorting, typically by manual means, as defined in the ITE Manual, and as further described in the project’s Draft EIR. 4. Standard Conditions of Approval For commercial and industrial projects, paint roll-up doors and service doors to match main building colors. 5. The applicant shall sign the Statement of Agreement and Acceptance of Conditions of Approval provided by the Planning Department. The signed Statement of Agreement and Acceptance of Conditions of Approval shall be returned to the Planning Department prior to the submittal of grading/construction plans for plan check, request for a business license, and/or commencement of the approved activity. 6. 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. In the event such a legal action is filed, the City shall estimate its expenses for litigation. The applicant shall deposit such amount with the City or enter into an agreement with the City to pay such expenses as they become due. 7. 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. 8. www.CityofRC.us Printed: 9/15/2021 Project #: DRC2020-00202 DRC2020-00213, DRC2020-00265, DRC2020-00266, DRC2020-00267, DRC2020-00312, DRC2021-00180, SUBTPM20271 Project Name: EDR - Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Location: 12434 4TH ST - 022928350-0000 Project Type: Design Review Development Agreement, General Plan Amendment, Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Tentative Parcel Map, Tree Removal Permit, Zoning Map AmendmentALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Planning Department Standard Conditions of Approval The applicant shall be required to pay California Department of Fish and Wildlife Notice of Determination & Environmental Impact Report fee pursuant to CDFW's current fee schedule, including all County processing fees. All checks are to be made payable to the Clerk of the Board Supervisors and submitted to the Planning Department within 5 days of the approval of the project by Planning Commission/City Council. 9. Any approval shall expire if Building Permits are not issued or approved use has not commenced within 2 years from the date of approval or a time extension has been granted. 10. Any modification or intensification of the approved use, including revisions in the operations of the business that is approved by this Minor Use Use Permit; improvements including new building construction; and/or other modifications/intensification beyond what is specifically approved by this Minor Use Permit, shall require the review and approval by the necessary discretionary body 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 Minor Use Permit for review by the City. 11. This project is subject to public art requirement outlined in Chapter 17.124 of the Development Code, in accordance with Development Agreement DRC2021-00180. The applicant shall be required to install art onsite pursuant to Development Code Section 17.124 with a minimum value of $200,000, pursuant to Development Agreement DRC2021-00180. No final approval, such as a final inspection or the a issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, for any development project (or if a multi-phased project, the final phase of a development project) that is subject to this requirement shall occur unless the public art requirement has been fulfilled to the satisfaction of the Planning Department. 12. 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. 13. Existing trees required to be preserved in place shall be protected with a construction barrier in accordance with the Development Code Section 17.80.050, and so noted on the grading plans. The location of those trees to be preserved in place and new locations for transplanted trees shall be shown on the detailed landscape plans. The applicant shall follow all of the arborist's recommendations regarding preservation, transplanting, and trimming methods. 14. Front yard and corner side yard landscaping and irrigation shall be required per the Development Code and/or . This requirement shall be in addition to the required street trees and slope planting. 15. www.CityofRC.us Page 2 of 23Printed: 9/15/2021 Project #: DRC2020-00202 DRC2020-00213, DRC2020-00265, DRC2020-00266, DRC2020-00267, DRC2020-00312, DRC2021-00180, SUBTPM20271 Project Name: EDR - Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Location: 12434 4TH ST - 022928350-0000 Project Type: Design Review Development Agreement, General Plan Amendment, Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Tentative Parcel Map, Tree Removal Permit, Zoning Map AmendmentALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Planning Department Standard Conditions of Approval 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. 16. Landscaping and irrigation systems required to be installed within the public right-of-way on the perimeter of this project area shall be continuously maintained by the developer. 17. The final design of the perimeter parkways, walls, landscaping, and sidewalks shall be included in the required landscape plans and shall be subject to Planning Director review and approval and coordinated for consistency with any parkway landscaping plan which may be required by the Engineering Services Department. 18. 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. 19. 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. 20. The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved plans which include all applicable 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. 21. 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. 22. Trash receptacle(s) are required and shall meet City standards. The final design, locations, and the number of trash receptacles shall be subject to Planning Director review and approval prior to the issuance of Building Permits. 23. The proposed public street shall be named Catherine Bridge Place. This street name shall be submitted for Planning Director review and approval in accordance with the adopted Street Naming Policy prior to approval of the final map 24. www.CityofRC.us Page 3 of 23Printed: 9/15/2021 Project #: DRC2020-00202 DRC2020-00213, DRC2020-00265, DRC2020-00266, DRC2020-00267, DRC2020-00312, DRC2021-00180, SUBTPM20271 Project Name: EDR - Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Location: 12434 4TH ST - 022928350-0000 Project Type: Design Review Development Agreement, General Plan Amendment, Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Tentative Parcel Map, Tree Removal Permit, Zoning Map AmendmentALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Planning Department Standard Conditions of Approval All Double Detector Checks (DDC) and Fire Department Connections (FDC) required and/or proposed shall be installed at locations that are not within direct view or line-of-sight of the office corner of the building. The specific locations of each DDC and FDC shall require the review and approval of the Planning Department and Fire Construction Services/Fire Department. All Double Detector Checks (DDC) and Fire Department Connections (FDC) screened behind a 4-foot high wall. For this project, these walls shall be constructed of poured in-place concrete with design elements incorporated to match the building Decorative paving shall be provided at each vehicle entrance to the site, behind the public right-of-way. These decoratively paved areas shall extend from the front property line to the building setback line and have a width equal to that of the driveway. 25. Downspouts shall not be visible from the exterior of any elevations of the buildings. All downspouts shall be routed through the interior of the building walls. 26. Engineering Services Department Please be advised of the following Special Conditions The applicant shall construct a public street along with east side of the project between 4th Street and 6th Street. The public street shall be a full width Industrial Street meeting the City Standard Plan 100-A. 1. (At-Grade Crossing) This project shall construct at-grade crossing improvements through the rail road along 6th Street. The developer shall be eligible for reimbursement of one-half the cost of the 6th Street at-grade crossing from future developments as they occur on APN: 0229-283-79. 2. The street lights shall be owned by the City. Developer shall be responsible to coordinate and pay all costs of street lights and to provide power to City owned street lights. 3. Development Impact Fees Due Prior to Building Permit Issuance: (Subject to Change / Periodic Increases - Refer to current fee schedule to determine current amounts) Drainage Impact Fee Transportation Impact Fee Police Impact Fee 4. www.CityofRC.us Page 4 of 23Printed: 9/15/2021 Project #: DRC2020-00202 DRC2020-00213, DRC2020-00265, DRC2020-00266, DRC2020-00267, DRC2020-00312, DRC2021-00180, SUBTPM20271 Project Name: EDR - Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Location: 12434 4TH ST - 022928350-0000 Project Type: Design Review Development Agreement, General Plan Amendment, Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Tentative Parcel Map, Tree Removal Permit, Zoning Map AmendmentALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Engineering Services Department Please be advised of the following Special Conditions 1) Electric: The Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Utility (RCMU) shall be the electrical service provider for all project related development. The Developer shall execute a Line Extension Agreement for electric service and shall construct electrical distribution facilities in accordance with such agreement and RCMU requirements and dedicate such facilities to the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Utility. RCMU’s proposed underground electric system will be located off of Etiwanda Ave and Sixth Street East of the proposed development. 2) Fiber: The proposed development is slated to be included in the City’s Fiber Optic Master Plan that would provide a City owned Fiber-to-the-Premise (FTTP) infrastructure. The City will require the developer to install a 1-4” UG Fiber Optic dark conduit on the frontage of the development (along the South side of Sixth Street) along the project boundary along with a 3’x4’x3’ pullbox on each end of the route and into the project boundary. The size, placement and location of the conduit and vaults shall be shown on the Street Improvement and/or Public Improvement Plans and subject to the Engineering Services Department's review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits or final map approval, whichever comes first. On site, the City will require 1-2” UG HDPE or equal fiber optic conduit to be placed underground within a duct and structure system to be installed joint trench by the Developer per Standard Drawing 135-137 and interconnected into the City's 4" fiber optic conduit. The size, placement and location of the conduit and/or vaults shall run into each of the development’s individual telecommunication room and be shown on the final dry utility onsite substructure plans and subject to the Engineering Services Department's review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits or final map approval, whichever comes first. 5. The applicant shall modify the existing traffic signal at the intersection of 4th Street and the Barrington Avenue to incorporate the new public street into an offset intersection with Barrington Avenue controlled by a single traffic signal. Furnish and install new traffic signal equipment as necessary per Caltrans standard plans and specifications plus 2019 revision, and City standard drawings. Furnish and install the necessary infrastructure to connect the signal to the adjacent signals at 4th Street and Etiwanda, and 4th Street and Santa Anita Avenues. 6. www.CityofRC.us Page 5 of 23Printed: 9/15/2021 Project #: DRC2020-00202 DRC2020-00213, DRC2020-00265, DRC2020-00266, DRC2020-00267, DRC2020-00312, DRC2021-00180, SUBTPM20271 Project Name: EDR - Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Location: 12434 4TH ST - 022928350-0000 Project Type: Design Review Development Agreement, General Plan Amendment, Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Tentative Parcel Map, Tree Removal Permit, Zoning Map AmendmentALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Engineering Services Department Please be advised of the following Special Conditions Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall submit for review plans for improvements identified below, these improvements shall be completed no later than issuance of the certificate of occupancy of the project's first building. 1. At the intersection of Etiwanda Ave. and Foothill Blvd. A. Modify the traffic signal to optimize coordination timing along Foothill Blvd between the I-15 and East Ave and implement a 140-second cycle length during the PM peak hour. B. Submit to the City fair share contributions to construct the addition of a second northbound left turn lane, a third eastbound through lane, and a third westbound through lane in the amount of $37,089. 2. At the intersection of the I-15 southbound ramps and Ontario Mills Dr./4th St. A. Restripe the southbound approach to provide one left turn lane, one through lane, and dual right turn lanes. B. Modify the existing traffic signal to implement a 130-second cycle length and overlap phasing for the northbound, southbound, and westbound right turn lanes. 3. At the intersection of the I-15 northbound ramps and 4th St. A. Modify the existing traffic signal to implement a 130-second cycle length. 7. Standard Conditions of Approval Dedication shall be made of the following rights-of-way on the perimeter streets (measured from street centerline): 60 total feet on 4th Street 44 total feet on 6th Street 66 total feet on the proposed Industrial Street (full right of way width) 8. Easements for public sidewalks placed outside the public right-of-way shall be dedicated to the City.9. Reciprocal access easements shall be provided where necessary ensuring access to all parcels by CC&Rs or by deeds and shall be recorded prior to the issuance of Building Permits, where no map is involved, for the utilities which serve both parcels, including but not limited to, water, sewer, storm drainage. 10. A final drainage study shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of Grading Permits. All drainage facilities shall be installed as required by the City Engineer. 11. Adequate provisions shall be made for acceptance and disposal of surface drainage entering the property from adjacent areas. 12. A lot line adjustment or a map shall be approved among the existing parcels meeting City Development Code requirements, prior to issuance of Building Permits. 13. www.CityofRC.us Page 6 of 23Printed: 9/15/2021 Project #: DRC2020-00202 DRC2020-00213, DRC2020-00265, DRC2020-00266, DRC2020-00267, DRC2020-00312, DRC2021-00180, SUBTPM20271 Project Name: EDR - Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Location: 12434 4TH ST - 022928350-0000 Project Type: Design Review Development Agreement, General Plan Amendment, Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Tentative Parcel Map, Tree Removal Permit, Zoning Map AmendmentALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Engineering Services Department Standard Conditions of Approval ** CD Information Required Prior to Sign-Off for Building Permit Prior to the issuance of building permits, if valuation is greater or equal to $100,000, a Diversion Deposit and a related administrative fee shall be paid for the Construction and Demolition Diversion Program. The deposit is fully refundable if at least 65% of all wastes generated during construction and demolition are diverted from landfills, and appropriate documentation is provided to the City. Applicant must identify if they are self-hauling or utilizing Burrtec prior to issuance of a building permit. Proof of diversion must be submitted to the Environmental Engineering Division within 60 days following the completion of the construction and / or demolition project. Contact Marissa Ostos, Environmental Engineering, at (909) 774-4062 for more information. Instructions and forms are available at the City's website, www.cityofrc.us, under City Hall / Engineering / Environmental Programs / Construction & Demolition Diversion Program. 14. Prior to approval of a lot merger, lot line adjustment, or a final map, a deposit shall be posted with the City covering the estimated cost of apportioning the assessments under Assessment Districts LMD 3B, SLD 1 & SLD 6 among the newly created parcel(s). 15. A signed consent and waiver form to join and/or form the appropriate Landscape and Lighting Districts and or Community Facility District shall be filed with the Engineering Services Department prior to issuance of Building Permits. Formation costs shall be borne by the developer. NOTE: The parcels are currently annexed into LMD 3B, SLD 1 & SLD 6. 16. 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. 17. www.CityofRC.us Page 7 of 23Printed: 9/15/2021 Project #: DRC2020-00202 DRC2020-00213, DRC2020-00265, DRC2020-00266, DRC2020-00267, DRC2020-00312, DRC2021-00180, SUBTPM20271 Project Name: EDR - Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Location: 12434 4TH ST - 022928350-0000 Project Type: Design Review Development Agreement, General Plan Amendment, Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Tentative Parcel Map, Tree Removal Permit, Zoning Map AmendmentALL 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: Street Name: 4th Street Curb & Gutter: Remove and replace as determined during design A.C. Pvmt: Grind and overlay as determined during design Side-walk : Remove and replace as determined during design Drive Appr.: Per City Standards and City Driveway Policy Street Lights: Per City Standards Street Trees: Per City Standards Bike Trail: Class II Bike Lane or as required by the City Engineer Street Name: 6th Street Curb & Gutter: Remove and replace as determined during design A.C. Pvmt: Grind and overlay as determined during design Side-walk : Remove and replace as determined during design Drive Appr.: Per City Standards and City Driveway Policy Street Lights: Per City Standards Street Trees: Per City Standards Bike Trail: Class II Bike Lane or as required by the City Engineer Street Name: Proposed Industrial Street Curb & Gutter: Per City Standards A.C. Pvmt: Per City Standards Side-walk : Per City Standards Drive Appr.: Per City Standards and City Driveway Policy Street Lights: Per City Standards Street Trees: Per City Standards Other: Modification to exist signalized intersection of Barrington and 4th to provide signalized access to new Industrial Street. Signal modification plans subject to review and approval of City Engineer. Notes: (a) Where applicable, median island includes landscaping and irrigation on meter. (b) Pavement reconstruction and overlays will be determined during plan check. 18. www.CityofRC.us Page 8 of 23Printed: 9/15/2021 Project #: DRC2020-00202 DRC2020-00213, DRC2020-00265, DRC2020-00266, DRC2020-00267, DRC2020-00312, DRC2021-00180, SUBTPM20271 Project Name: EDR - Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Location: 12434 4TH ST - 022928350-0000 Project Type: Design Review Development Agreement, General Plan Amendment, Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Tentative Parcel Map, Tree Removal Permit, Zoning Map AmendmentALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Engineering Services Department Standard Conditions of Approval Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 16.37.010, no person shall make connections from a source of energy, fuel or power to any building or structure which is regulated by technical codes and for which a permit is required unless, in addition to any and all other codes, regulations and ordinances, all improvements required by these conditions of development approval have been completed and accepted by the City Council, except: that in developments containing more than one building, structure or unit, the development may have energy connections made in equal proportion to the percentage of completion of all improvements required by these conditions of development approval, as determined by the City Engineer, provided that reasonable, safe and maintainable access to the property exists. In no case shall more than 95 percent of the buildings, structures or units be connected to energy sources prior to completion and acceptance of all improvements required by these conditions of development approval. 19. Improvement Plans and Construction: a.Street improvement plans, including street trees, street lights, and intersection safety lights on future signal poles, and traffic signal plans shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. Security shall be posted and an agreement executed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the City Attorney guaranteeing completion of the public and/or private street improvements, prior to final map approval or the issuance of Building Permits, whichever occurs first. b. Prior to any work being performed in public right-of-way, fees shall be paid and a construction permit shall be obtained from the Engineering Services Department in addition to any other permits required. c. Pavement striping, marking, traffic signing, street name signing, traffic signal conduit, and interconnect conduit shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. d. Signal conduit with pull boxes shall be installed with any new construction or reconstruction project along major or secondary streets and at intersections for future traffic signals and interconnect wiring. Pull boxes shall be placed on both sides of the street at 3 feet outside of BCR, ECR, or any other locations approved by the City Engineer. Notes: 1) Pull boxes shall be No. 6 at intersections and No. 5 along streets, a maximum of 200 feet apart, unless otherwise specified by the City Engineer. 2) Conduit shall be 3-inch 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 security 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 Department prior to submittal for first plan check. 20. www.CityofRC.us Page 9 of 23Printed: 9/15/2021 Project #: DRC2020-00202 DRC2020-00213, DRC2020-00265, DRC2020-00266, DRC2020-00267, DRC2020-00312, DRC2021-00180, SUBTPM20271 Project Name: EDR - Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Location: 12434 4TH ST - 022928350-0000 Project Type: Design Review Development Agreement, General Plan Amendment, Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Tentative Parcel Map, Tree Removal Permit, Zoning Map AmendmentALL 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: 4th Street Botanical Name: Platanus acerifolia Common Name: Min. Grow Space: 30 Spacing: 30 Size: 15 gallon minimum Qty.: to be determined during design Street Name: 6th Street Botanical Name: Magnolia grandiflora Common Name: St Mary Min. Grow Space: 20 Spacing: 20 Size: 15 gallon minimum Qty.: to be determined during design Street Name: Proposed Industrial Street (both sides of street) Botanical Name: Magnolia grandiflora Common Name: St Mary Min. Grow Space: 20 Spacing: 20 Size: 15 gallon minimum Qty.: to be determined during design 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. 21. www.CityofRC.us Page 10 of 23Printed: 9/15/2021 Project #: DRC2020-00202 DRC2020-00213, DRC2020-00265, DRC2020-00266, DRC2020-00267, DRC2020-00312, DRC2021-00180, SUBTPM20271 Project Name: EDR - Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Location: 12434 4TH ST - 022928350-0000 Project Type: Design Review Development Agreement, General Plan Amendment, Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Tentative Parcel Map, Tree Removal Permit, Zoning Map AmendmentALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Engineering Services Department Standard Conditions of Approval 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. 22. 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. 23. 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. 24. The developer shall be responsible for the relocation of existing utilities as necessary.25. 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. 26. Approvals have not been secured from all utilities and other interested agencies involved. Approval of the final parcel map will be subject to any requirements that may be received from them. 27. 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. 28. Fire Prevention / New Construction Unit Standard Conditions of Approval Fire apparatus access roads (fire lanes) can be included in an engineered onsite storm water retention plan. The ponding of storm water shall not exceed a designed depth of four (4) inches in the designated fire apparatus access road(s) and the area between the fire apparatus access road(s) and the exterior walls of all normally occupied buildings. Ponding design specifications for Building 2 appear to exceed the maximum allowable depth for onsite storm water retention. This Condition was acknowledged in the Responses letter posted Aug 27, 2020. 1. www.CityofRC.us Page 11 of 23Printed: 9/15/2021 Project #: DRC2020-00202 DRC2020-00213, DRC2020-00265, DRC2020-00266, DRC2020-00267, DRC2020-00312, DRC2021-00180, SUBTPM20271 Project Name: EDR - Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Location: 12434 4TH ST - 022928350-0000 Project Type: Design Review Development Agreement, General Plan Amendment, Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Tentative Parcel Map, Tree Removal Permit, Zoning Map AmendmentALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Fire Prevention / New Construction Unit Standard Conditions of Approval Existing parcel 22928351 is required to be annexed into Community Facilities District 85-1 (CFD 85-1). Please contact Kelly Guerra with the City of Rancho Cucamonga’s Special Districts Division at (909) 774-2582 or Kelly.Guerra@CityofRC.US to complete the annexation. The annexation requirement will not be considered complete until the applicant begins the annexation process and Special Districts notifies the Fire Marshal that the process has been started. 2. Access doors are required to be identified in accordance with Fire District Standard 5-5. The Standard has been uploaded to the Documents section. 3. Access doors are required to be distributed along the exterior of the building such that the lineal distance between adjacent access doors does not exceed 125 feet measured center to center. 4. Required alarm systems and supervision systems are required to be in accordance with Fire District Standard 9-3. The Standard has been uploaded to the Documents section. 5. Plans for the alarm and/or supervision (monitoring) system are required to be submitted separately and issued a separate permit. Submit all plans to the Building & Safety Department for routing to the Fire District. 6. Plans for the egress lighting are required to be submitted separately and issued a separate permit. Submit all plans to the Building & Safety Department for routing to the Fire District. 7. Plans for high piled combustible storage are required to be submitted separately and issued a separate permit. Submit all plans to the Building & Safety Department for routing to the Fire District. 8. Plans for the private, onsite fire underground water infrastructure are required to be submitted separately and issued a separate permit. Submit all plans to the Building & Safety Department for routing to the Fire District. 9. Plans for the public, offsite fire underground water infrastructure are required to be submitted separately and issued a separate permit. Plans are required to be submitted prior to or concurrently with the submittal of the Water District mylars. Submit all plans to the Building & Safety Department for routing to the Fire District. 10. Plans for the racks used for high piled combustible storage are required to be submitted separately and issued a separate permit. Submit all plans to the Building & Safety Department for routing to the Fire District. 11. Plans for the automatic fire sprinkler system are required to be submitted separately and issued a separate permit. Submit all plans to the Building & Safety Department for routing to the Fire District. 12. Plans for suppression systems are required to be submitted separately and issued a separate permit. Submit all plans to the Building & Safety Department for routing to the Fire District. 13. Plans for the temporary access and/or hydrants are required to be submitted separately and issued a separate permit. Submit all plans to the Building & Safety Department for routing to the Fire District. 14. Exterior doors and doors providing access to fire protection and life safety systems and equipment are required to have identification signage in accordance with Fire District Standard 5-5. The Standard has been uploaded to the Documents section. 15. www.CityofRC.us Page 12 of 23Printed: 9/15/2021 Project #: DRC2020-00202 DRC2020-00213, DRC2020-00265, DRC2020-00266, DRC2020-00267, DRC2020-00312, DRC2021-00180, SUBTPM20271 Project Name: EDR - Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Location: 12434 4TH ST - 022928350-0000 Project Type: Design Review Development Agreement, General Plan Amendment, Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Tentative Parcel Map, Tree Removal Permit, Zoning Map AmendmentALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Fire Prevention / New Construction Unit Standard Conditions of Approval Emergency responder radio coverage is required for the building(s) included in this project. San Bernardino County Information Services Department (ISD) conducts radio signal strength assessments for the entire county. It is highly recommended that a radio signal strength assessment is completed for this project. Where emergency responder radio coverage is determined to meet the requirements of the California Fire Code, an emergency responder radio system and/or associated equipment will not be required. Please contact Tim Trager with County ISD at 909-388-5563 or ttrager@isd.sbcounty.gov to schedule an assessment and/or obtain any available information about the project site. Where the existing emergency responder radio coverage is found to be below acceptable standards, an emergency responder radio system and associated equipment will be required to be provided in compliance and accordance with the California Fire Code. 16. Designated and conforming aerial apparatus access is required in accordance with Fire District Standard 5-1. Show aerial apparatus access on the fire access plan. The Standard has been uploaded to the Documents section. 17. Fire apparatus access (fire lane) design, construction, and identification are required to be in accordance with Fire District Standard 5-1. The Standard has been uploaded to the Documents section. 18. Fire flow information for this project is obtained from the Cucamonga Valley Water District (CVWD). CVWD can be reached at 909-944-6000 or custserv@cvwdwater.com. 19. Fire flow is required to be in accordance with Appendix B of the California Fire Code. The Fire District has adopted the appendix without local amendments except that the minimum fire flow for commercial buildings shall not be less than 1500 gpm. Proof of the availability of the required fire flow must be provided to the Fire District in the form of a letter or written report dated within the past 12 months. 20. Fire sprinkler are required to be installed in accordance with Fire District Standard 9-5. The Standard has been uploaded to the Documents section. 21. Gates installed across a commercial/industrial emergency vehicle access road (fire lane) are required to be in accordance with Standard 5-4. The Standard has been uploaded to the Documents section. 22. Identification of exterior perimeter fire access doors is required to be in accordance with Fire District Standard 5-5. The Standard has been uploaded to the Documents section. 23. High-piled combustible storage is required to be in accordance with Chapter 32 of the Fire Code and Fire District Standard 32-1. Please read and understand this Standard in its entirety to avoid delays in scheduling inspections and obtaining approvals. The Standard has been uploaded to the Documents section. 24. A Knox Box key box is required in accordance with Fire District Standard 5-9. Additional boxes may be required depending on the size of the building, the location of fire protection and life safety system controls, and the operational needs of the Fire District. The Standard has been uploaded to the Documents section. If an installed Knox Box is available to this project or business, keys for the building/suite/unit are required to be provided to the Fire Inspector at the final inspection. 25. www.CityofRC.us Page 13 of 23Printed: 9/15/2021 Project #: DRC2020-00202 DRC2020-00213, DRC2020-00265, DRC2020-00266, DRC2020-00267, DRC2020-00312, DRC2021-00180, SUBTPM20271 Project Name: EDR - Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Location: 12434 4TH ST - 022928350-0000 Project Type: Design Review Development Agreement, General Plan Amendment, Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Tentative Parcel Map, Tree Removal Permit, Zoning Map AmendmentALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Fire Prevention / New Construction Unit Standard Conditions of Approval A Knox key switch is required to be installed on motorized gates that are installed across or provide access to a fire access road (fire Lane). See Fire District Standard 5-3 for Residential Gates and Fire District Standard 5-4 for Commercial and Industrial Gates. 26. A Knox or Fire District padlock is required to be incorporated into the security system for a manually operated gate that are installed across or provides access to a fire access road (fire lane). 27. Coordinate landscaping with the roof access ladder points and address signage. Landscaping cannot obstruct roof access or clear visibility of address signage from time of installation to maturity of the shrubs and trees. 28. A fire service site plan is required in accordance with Fire District Standard 5-11. The Standard has been uploaded to the Documents section. 29. All of the Fire District Standards applicable are required to be reproduced on the plans. The project is required to meet all of the applicable codes, regulations, and standards in effect and adopted at the time of plan check submittal. Fire District Standards associated with construction and plan submittals can be found on the City of Rancho Cucamonga's website and accessed via https://www.dropbox.com/sh/4k4qdxhs4tp13c7/AAAdscMKMdW9WIQe725xWyU-a?dl=0 30. Roof access is required to be in accordance with Fire District Standard 5-6. The Standard has been uploaded to the Documents section. 31. Street address and unit/suite signage for commercial and industrial buildings are required to be in accordance with Fire District Standard 5-8. The Standard has been uploaded to the Documents section. 32. Fire apparatus access roads and emergency vehicle access is required to be identified with signs and/or other approved makings in accordance with Fire District Standard 5-1. A copy of the Standard has been uploaded to the Documents section. 33. Identification of fire protection systems and components, fire alarm systems and components, and equipment and devices associated with fire and life safety systems is required to be in accordance with Fire District Standards 5-5 and 5-10. The Standards have been uploaded to the Documents section. 34. Public and private fire service water mains, public and private hydrants, water control valves, fire sprinkler risers, fire department connections (FDCs), and other fire protection water related devices and equipment are required to be provided, designed, and installed in accordance with Fire District Standard 5-10. The Standard has been uploaded to the Documents section. 35. Building and Safety Services Department Please be advised of the following Special Conditions www.CityofRC.us Page 14 of 23Printed: 9/15/2021 Project #: DRC2020-00202 DRC2020-00213, DRC2020-00265, DRC2020-00266, DRC2020-00267, DRC2020-00312, DRC2021-00180, SUBTPM20271 Project Name: EDR - Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Location: 12434 4TH ST - 022928350-0000 Project Type: Design Review Development Agreement, General Plan Amendment, Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Tentative Parcel Map, Tree Removal Permit, Zoning Map AmendmentALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Building and Safety Services Department Please be advised of the following Special Conditions When the Entitlement Review is approved submit complete construction drawings including structural calculations to Building and Safety for plan review in accordance with the current edition of the CA Building and Fire Codes including all local ordinances and standards. The structure is required to be equipped with automatic fire sprinklers. A soils report is required. Disabled access to the site and building must be provided in accordance to the State of California published thresholds at the time of plan check submittal. The maximum exit access travel distance shall be 400'. Connection to the public sewer will be required. Utility easements may be required if water and sewer are from 4th street to serve building 2. 1. Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval 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”. 1. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with current adopted California Building Code and/or the California Residential Code, City Grading Standards, and accepted grading practices. The Grading and Drainage Plan(s) shall be in substantial conformance with the approved conceptual Grading and Drainage Plan. 2. A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified Engineer licensed by the State of California to perform such work. Two copies will be provided at grading and drainage plan submittal for review. Plans shall implement design recommendations per said report. 3. The final Grading and Drainage Plan, appropriate certifications and compaction reports shall be completed, submitted, and approved by the Engineering Services Department prior to the issuance of building permits. 4. A separate Grading and Drainage Plan check submittal is required for all new construction projects and for existing buildings where improvements being proposed will generate 50 cubic yards or more of combined cut and fill. The Grading and Drainage Plan shall be prepared, stamped, and wet signed by a California licensed Civil Engineer prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit. 5. The applicant shall comply with the City of Rancho Cucamonga Dust Control Measures and place a dust control sign on the project site prior to the issuance of a grading permit. All dust control sign(s) shall be located outside of the public right of way. 6. If a Rough Grading and Drainage Plan/Permit are submitted to the Engineering Services Department for review, the rough grading plan shall be a separate plan submittal and permit from Precise Grading and Drainage Plan/Permit. 7. www.CityofRC.us Page 15 of 23Printed: 9/15/2021 Project #: DRC2020-00202 DRC2020-00213, DRC2020-00265, DRC2020-00266, DRC2020-00267, DRC2020-00312, DRC2021-00180, SUBTPM20271 Project Name: EDR - Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Location: 12434 4TH ST - 022928350-0000 Project Type: Design Review Development Agreement, General Plan Amendment, Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Tentative Parcel Map, Tree Removal Permit, Zoning Map AmendmentALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval Prior to the issuance of a grading permit the applicant shall obtain written permission from the adjacent property owner(s) to construct wall(s) on property line(s) or provide a detail(s) showing the perimeter wall(s) to be constructed offset from the property line. 8. Prior to issuance of a grading permit the Final Grading and Drainage Plan shall show the accessibility path from the public right of way and the accessibility parking stalls to the building doors in conformance with the current adopted California Building Code. All accessibility ramps shall show sufficient detail including gradients, elevations, and dimensions and comply with the current adopted California Building Code. 9. 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. 10. 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. 11. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the grading and drainage plan shall show the maximum parking stall gradient at 7 percent. Accessibility parking stall grades shall be constructed per the, current adopted California Building Code. 12. The applicant shall provide a grading agreement and grading bond for all cut and fill combined exceeding 5,000 cubic yards prior to issuance of a grading permit. The grading agreement and bond shall be approved by the Engineering Services Department. 13. The final grading and drainage plan shall show existing topography a minimum of 100-feet beyond project boundary. 14. This project shall comply with the accessibility requirements of the current adopted California Building Code. 15. www.CityofRC.us Page 16 of 23Printed: 9/15/2021 Project #: DRC2020-00202 DRC2020-00213, DRC2020-00265, DRC2020-00266, DRC2020-00267, DRC2020-00312, DRC2021-00180, SUBTPM20271 Project Name: EDR - Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Location: 12434 4TH ST - 022928350-0000 Project Type: Design Review Development Agreement, General Plan Amendment, Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Tentative Parcel Map, Tree Removal Permit, Zoning Map AmendmentALL 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. 16. 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”. Note: As this project has been previously graded and the site soils have been compacted for building pads and parking lot purposes, the use of the Custom Soil Resource Report for San Bernardino County Southwestern Part by the United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service for natural soils is not acceptable for soil groundwater infiltration rates. 17. 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. 18. www.CityofRC.us Page 17 of 23Printed: 9/15/2021 Project #: DRC2020-00202 DRC2020-00213, DRC2020-00265, DRC2020-00266, DRC2020-00267, DRC2020-00312, DRC2021-00180, SUBTPM20271 Project Name: EDR - Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Location: 12434 4TH ST - 022928350-0000 Project Type: Design Review Development Agreement, General Plan Amendment, Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Tentative Parcel Map, Tree Removal Permit, Zoning Map AmendmentALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: 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. 19. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall obtain a signed and notarized letter from the adjacent property owner(s) for ALL work proposed on the adjacent property. The letter shall be scanned and pasted onto the permitted grading plan set. The letter shall show on either the title sheet or a detail sheet of the grading and drainage plan set. 20. Prior to approval of the project-specific storm water quality management plan, the applicant shall submit to the City Engineer, or his designee, a precise grading plan showing the location and elevations of existing topographical features, and showing the location and proposed elevations of proposed structures and drainage of the site. 21. A drainage study showing a 100-year, AMC 3 design storm event for on-site drainage shall be prepared and submitted to the Engineering Services Department for review and approval for on-site storm water drainage prior to issuance of a grading permit. The report shall contain water surface profile gradient calculations for all storm drain pipes 12-inches and larger in diameter. All reports shall be wet signed and sealed by the Engineer of Record. In addition, the project specific drainage study shall provide inlet calculations showing the proper sizing of the water quality management plan storm water flows into the proposed structural storm water treatment devices. 22. 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. 23. DESIGN ISSUE: The conceptual grading and drainage plan shows an area within the parking lot and fire lane where storm water will be ponding. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit the civil engineer of record shall submit a set of grading plans to the City of Rancho Cucamonga Building and Safety Department Fire Construction Services to review the plans and provide a maximum ponding depth of the storm water retention. 24. 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. 25. 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). 26. Prior to approval of the Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), the WQMP shall include a copy of the project Conditions of Approval. 27. www.CityofRC.us Page 18 of 23Printed: 9/15/2021 Project #: DRC2020-00202 DRC2020-00213, DRC2020-00265, DRC2020-00266, DRC2020-00267, DRC2020-00312, DRC2021-00180, SUBTPM20271 Project Name: EDR - Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Location: 12434 4TH ST - 022928350-0000 Project Type: Design Review Development Agreement, General Plan Amendment, Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Tentative Parcel Map, Tree Removal Permit, Zoning Map AmendmentALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval 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. 28. The Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (PWQMP) has been deemed “Acceptable”. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit a final project-specific Water Quality Management Plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Building Official. 29. Prior to the issuance of a Grading Permit the City of Rancho Cucamonga’s “Memorandum of Agreement of Storm Water Quality Management Plan” shall be submitted for review and approval by the Building Official and recorded with the County Recorder’s Office. 30. 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. 31. 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 Engineering Services Department 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. 32. 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. 33. 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. 34. 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. 35. www.CityofRC.us Page 19 of 23Printed: 9/15/2021 Project #: DRC2020-00202 DRC2020-00213, DRC2020-00265, DRC2020-00266, DRC2020-00267, DRC2020-00312, DRC2021-00180, SUBTPM20271 Project Name: EDR - Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Location: 12434 4TH ST - 022928350-0000 Project Type: Design Review Development Agreement, General Plan Amendment, Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Tentative Parcel Map, Tree Removal Permit, Zoning Map AmendmentALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval 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. 36. 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 final project-specific Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) may be prepared as a Phased WQMP and shall include all phases of the project. Construction of the storm water treatment structural devices may be constructed as construction progresses. 41. 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. 42. www.CityofRC.us Page 20 of 23Printed: 9/15/2021 Project #: DRC2020-00202 DRC2020-00213, DRC2020-00265, DRC2020-00266, DRC2020-00267, DRC2020-00312, DRC2021-00180, SUBTPM20271 Project Name: EDR - Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Location: 12434 4TH ST - 022928350-0000 Project Type: Design Review Development Agreement, General Plan Amendment, Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Tentative Parcel Map, Tree Removal Permit, Zoning Map AmendmentALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval 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. 43. As the use of drywells are proposed for the structural storm water treatment device, to meet the infiltration requirements of the current Municipal Separate Storm Sewers Systems (MS4) Permit, adequate source control and pollution prevention control BMPs shall be implemented to protect groundwater quality. The need for pre-treatment BMPs such as sedimentation or filtration shall be evaluated prior to infiltration and discussed in the final project-specific Water Quality Management Plan document. 44. www.CityofRC.us Page 21 of 23Printed: 9/15/2021 Project #: DRC2020-00202 DRC2020-00213, DRC2020-00265, DRC2020-00266, DRC2020-00267, DRC2020-00312, DRC2021-00180, SUBTPM20271 Project Name: EDR - Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Location: 12434 4TH ST - 022928350-0000 Project Type: Design Review Development Agreement, General Plan Amendment, Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Tentative Parcel Map, Tree Removal Permit, Zoning Map AmendmentALL 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 repair or maintenance activities, 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. 45. www.CityofRC.us Page 22 of 23Printed: 9/15/2021 Project #: DRC2020-00202 DRC2020-00213, DRC2020-00265, DRC2020-00266, DRC2020-00267, DRC2020-00312, DRC2021-00180, SUBTPM20271 Project Name: EDR - Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Location: 12434 4TH ST - 022928350-0000 Project Type: Design Review Development Agreement, General Plan Amendment, Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Tentative Parcel Map, Tree Removal Permit, Zoning Map AmendmentALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval 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. 46. www.CityofRC.us Page 23 of 23Printed: 9/15/2021 DATE: September 22, 2021 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Anne McIntosh, AICP, Planning Director INITIATED BY: Lori Sassoon, Deputy City Manager SUBJECT: Findings of General Plan Conformity for Real Property Acquisition of Approximately 1.10 Acres Located at the Southwest Corner of San Bernardino Road and Klusman Avenue; APN: 0208-151-24 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission take the following action: • Adopt the attached Resolution finding that the proposed acquisition of 1.10 acres of real property located at the southwest corner of San Bernardino Road and Klusman Avenue is in conformance with the City’s General Plan. (APN: 0208-151-24) BACKGROUND: Government Code Section 65402(a) requires a city's planning agency, i.e. Planning Commission, review and report upon whether the location, purpose, and extent of a proposed real property acquisition by the city for public purposes is consistent with the General Plan as described below: (a) If a general plan or part thereof has been adopted, no real property shall be acquired by dedication or otherwise for street, square, park or other public purposes, and no real property shall be disposed of, no street shall be vacated or abandoned, and no public building or structure shall be constructed or authorized, if the adopted general plan or part thereof applies thereto, until the location, purpose and extent of such acquisition or disposition, such street vacation or abandonment, or such public building or structure have been submitted to and reported upon by the planning agency as to conformity with said adopted general plan or part thereof. The planning agency shall render its report as to conformity with said adopted general plan or part thereof within forty (40) days after the matter was submitted to it, or such longer period of time as may be designated by the legislative body. SITE BACKGROUND: The subject parcel (the "site") is an L-shaped parcel of 1.10 acres located at the southwest corner of the intersection of San Bernardino Avenue and Klusman Road. It is currently owned by the Cucamonga Valley Water District. The site has dimensions of approximately 312 feet (north-south) by 208 (east-west). The site is partially developed with an uninhabited structure known as the Chinatown House. The site is bound by single-family residences to the north and commercial development to the south. To the west is both commercial development and vacant land. To the east is the Chino Basin Watermaster building. Page 2 PLANNING COMMISSION FINDINGS OF GENERAL PLAN CONFORMITY - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA September 22, 2021 Page 2 The existing General Plan, and Zoning designation for the site and adjacent properties are as follows: General Plan Zoning Site Mixed Use Mixed Use North Low (2.0-4.0 du/ac) Low (2.0-4.0 du/ac) South Mixed Use Community Commercial East Mixed Use Utility West Mixed Use Mixed Use Retail ANALYSIS: The City is in the process of the acquisition of the site for potential economic and affordable housing development. However, no determination has been made as to any potential project for the site, nor has there been any determination as to whether and how the Chinatown House would be incorporated into a potential project. Staff has reviewed the proposed real property acquisition and has determined that the location, purpose, and the extent of the acquisition conforms with the applicable policies set forth in the City's General Plan, including: • Land use policy LU-2.4 which promotes complementary infill development, rehabilitation, and re-use, that contributes positively to the surrounding residential neighborhood area. • Land use policy LU-3.7 which encourages “new development projects to build on vacant infill sites within a built- out area, and/or redevelop previously developed properties that are underutilized”, such as the site, that have fallen into disuse. • Community mobility policy CM-2.2 which encourages “all feasible measures to reduce total vehicle miles traveled by automobiles, including enhanced transit access and land use approaches that provide compact and focused development along major transit corridors” such Foothill Boulevard, which is in proximity to the site and a route for Omnitrans (bus transit). • Housing Element Objective HE-2.1, which promotes the expansion of a range of housing opportunities available by location, price, and tenure to low- and moderate-income households. FISCAL IMPACT: None by this action COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / GOAL(S) ADDRESSED: This action is in keeping with the City Council’s core values of providing continuous improvement and providing and nurturing a high quality of life for all. The acquisition of the property will be the first step towards improving the underutilized site and providing new housing opportunities in the city. EXHIBITS: Exhibit A - Aerial Photo of the Subject Site Exhibit B - Draft Resolution 21-56 Findings of General Plan Conformity Exhibit A RESOLUTION NO. 21-56 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, FINDING THAT THE PROPOSED ACQUISITION OF APPROXIMATELY 1.10 ACRES OF REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAN BERNARDINO ROAD AND KLUSMAN AVENUE (APN: 0208-151-24) IS IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE CITY’S GENERAL PLAN A.Recitals. 1.The City of Rancho Cucamonga proposes the acquisition of 1.10 acres of real property as described in the title of this Resolution (the “Proposed Acquisition"). 2.On the 22nd day of September 2021, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga received and considered the Proposed Acquisition and its relation to the City’s General Plan, and thereafter adopted this Resolution. 3.All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B.Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2.Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced Planning Commission meeting of September 22, 2021, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a.The subject property (the “Site”) is a parcel of 1.10 acres located at the southwest corner of San Bernardino Road and Klusman Avenue. b. The Site is an L-shaped parcel with dimensions of approximately 312 feet (north to south) by approximately 208 feet (east to west). The northern part of the Site is partially developed with an uninhabited structure commonly known as the Chinatown House. c.The existing General Plan and Zoning designations for the Site and adjacent properties are as described below. The surrounding land uses include single-family residences to the north and commercial development to the south. To the west is both commercial development and vacant land. To the east is the Chino Basin Watermaster building. General Plan Zoning Site Mixed Use Mixed Use North Low (2.0-4.0 du/ac) Low (2.0-4.0 du/ac) South Mixed Use Community Commercial East Mixed Use Utility West Mixed Use Mixed Use Exhibit B PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 21-56 FINDINGS OF GENERAL PLAN CONFORMITY - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA September 22, 2021 Page 2 d. Government Code Section 65402(a) requires a city’s planning agency, i.e. Planning Commission, review and report upon whether the location, purpose, and extent of a proposed real property acquisition by the city for public purposes is consistent with the General Plan as described below: If a general plan or part thereof has been adopted, no real property shall be acquired by dedication or otherwise for street, square, park or other public purposes, and no real property shall be disposed of, no street shall be vacated or abandoned, and no public building or structure shall be constructed or authorized, if the adopted general plan or part thereof applies thereto, until the location, purpose and extent of such acquisition or disposition, such street vacation or abandonment, or such public building or structure have been submitted to and reported upon by the planning agency as to conformity with said adopted general plan or part thereof. The planning agency shall render its report as to conformity with said adopted general plan or part thereof within forty (40) days after the matter was submitted to it, or such longer period of time as may be designated by the legislative body. e. The City is in the process of the acquisition of the site for public purposes that include economic development and affordable housing; f. The location, purpose, and the extent of the acquisition conforms with the applicable policies set forth in the City’s General Plan, including: 1) Land use policy LU-2.4 which promotes complementary infill development, rehabilitaton, and re-use, that contributes positively to the surrounding residential neighborhood area. 2) Land use policy LU-3.7 which encourages “new development projects to build on vacant infill sites within a built-out area, and/or redevelop previously developed properties that are underutilized”, such as the subject Site, that have fallen into disuse. 3) Community mobility policy CM-2.2 which encourages “all feasible measures to reduce total vehicle miles traveled by automobiles, including enhanced transit access and land use approaches that provide compact and focused development along major transit corridors” such Foothill Boulevard, which is in proximity to the site and a route for Omnitrans (bus transit). 4) Housing Element Objective HE-2.1, which promotes the expansion of a range of housing opportunities available by location, price, and tenure to low- and moderate-income households 3. Based upon the findings set forth in paragraph 2 above, this Commission hereby determines that the Proposed Acquisition of the Site for potential economic development and affordable housing conforms with the City’s General Plan. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 21-56 FINDINGS OF GENERAL PLAN CONFORMITY - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA September 22, 2021 Page 3 4. This Commission hereby directs the Planning Director to forward a copy of this Resolution to the City Council. 5. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 22ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Francisco Oaxaca, Chairman ATTEST: Anne McIntosh, AICP, Secretary I, Anne McIntosh, AICP, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 22nd day of September, 2021, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: