Agenda packet — Colton City Council, June 20, 2023 (part 2 of 5)

1.2.e
Packet Pg. 505 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4091 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for City of Colton–Agua Mansa Logistics Center Project
Initial Study/Consistency Checklist Findings
FirstCarbon Solutions 129 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0237/02370034/Checklist/02370034 Agua Mansa Logistics Center Checklist_cs.docx including the Basin Plan, or groundwater management plan. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not introduce new or more severe impacts than what was previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR. Impacts would be less than significant. No additional analysis is required.

EIR Mitigation Measures
None.

The Proposed Project is consistent with the development density and zoning evaluated in the General Plan EIR and the General Plan. There is no new information identifying new significant effects, nor is there an increase in the severity of previously identified impacts related to hydrology and water quality as compared to what was already identified and disclosed, either individually or cumulatively. The conclusions from the General Plan EIR remain unchanged when considering the implementation of the Proposed Project. Further environmental analysis is not required.

1.2.e
Packet Pg. 506 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4091 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for City of Colton–Agua Mansa Logistics Center Project
Findings Initial Study/Consistency Checklist
130 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0237/02370034/Checklist/02370034 Agua Mansa Logistics Center Checklist_cs.docx Environmental Issues
CEQA Section 15183(b) Criteria
General Plan
EIR
Determination
Effect
Peculiar to
Project or
Site?
New
Significant
Effect?
New
Significant
Off-site,
Cumulative
Impact?
New
Information,
More Severe
Adverse
Impact?
J. Land Use and Planning
Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established
community? No Impact No No No No
b) 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?
Less than
Significant No No No No
a) Division of an Established Community
Would the project: Physically divide an established community? Summary of the General Plan EIR
According to the General Plan EIR, the General Plan would not physically divide an established community because it is a policy level project designed to direct long-term growth within the planning area. The City’s established residential neighborhoods are primarily located north of I-10 as well as the historic pocket just south of I-10 and east of I-215. The General Plan retains the City’s primarily residential character in these areas while providing for additional commercial development within and adjacent to these areas. In addition, the General Plan provides for more intense industrial development to primarily occur in the southern portion of the City and along existing rail lines where similar industrial development exists. The Circulation Element does not establish any new transportation routes or facilities that could physically divide an established community. No other types of major corridors are planned that would require clearing of existing land uses. The General Plan supports maintenance of established neighborhoods through specific policies from the Land Use Element. The General Plan EIR concluded that no impact will occur, as the General Plan will not result in a division of an established community.

Agua Mansa Logistics Center Analysis and Conclusions
The project site is currently vacant, graded, and does not contain existing public or residential roadways or structures. Much of the area surrounding the project site consists of industrial uses. The project site is generally bounded by Agua Mansa Road to the north; the Santa Ana River, the Santa Ana River Trail, the former Colton Sanitary Landfill, and La Loma Hills to the south; a wastewater treatment plant, a truck and trailer storage facility, and one legal, nonconforming single-family residence to the east; and a Walmart warehouse distribution center and associated parking lot to the west. The project site is not located in a residential area. The Proposed Project would not alter or remove roadways, nor would it introduce barriers that would divide any community. The Proposed

1.2.e
Packet Pg. 507 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4091 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for City of Colton–Agua Mansa Logistics Center Project
Initial Study/Consistency Checklist Findings
FirstCarbon Solutions 131 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0237/02370034/Checklist/02370034 Agua Mansa Logistics Center Checklist_cs.docx Project is consistent with what was envisioned by the General Plan for this area and evaluated in the General Plan EIR. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not result in any peculiar effects and would not result in new or more severe impacts related to the division of an established community beyond what was previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR. b) Conflict with Applicable Land Use Plans, Policies, or Regulations 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?
Summary of the General Plan EIR
According to the General Plan EIR, the potential for impacts related to a conflict with land use plan, policy, or regulation is discussed in other sections of the General Plan EIR; those sections determined that impacts would be less than significant.

The project involved updates of the General Plan’s Land Use Element, Circulation Element, and Housing Element. The General Plan EIR determined that General Plan implementation would not conflict with applicable land use plans, policies, or regulations. The General Plan EIR determined that impacts would be less than significant.

Agua Mansa Logistics Center Analysis and Conclusions
The Proposed Project would be consistent with General Plan policies applicable to the project site.

Therefore, the Proposed Project would not result in any peculiar effects and would not result in new or more severe impacts related to a land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect beyond what was previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR.

EIR Mitigation Measures
None.

Conclusion
No peculiar impacts that are not substantially mitigated have been identified as a result of the Proposed Project or its site. Incorporation of policies and mitigation from the General Plan EIR, and PDFs substantially mitigates potentially significant impacts consistent with the conclusions in the General Plan EIR
The Proposed Project is consistent with the development density and zoning evaluated in the General Plan EIR and the General Plan. There is no new information identifying new significant effects, nor is there an increase in the severity of previously identified impacts related to land use and planning as compared to what was already identified and disclosed, either individually or cumulatively.

The conclusions from the General Plan EIR remain unchanged when considering the implementation of the Proposed Project. No further environmental analysis is required.

1.2.e
Packet Pg. 508 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4091 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for City of Colton–Agua Mansa Logistics Center Project
Findings Initial Study/Consistency Checklist
132 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0237/02370034/Checklist/02370034 Agua Mansa Logistics Center Checklist_cs.docx Environmental Issues
CEQA Section 15183(b) Criteria
General Plan
EIR
Determination
Effect
Peculiar to
Project or
Site?
New
Significant
Effect?
New
Significant
Off-site,
Cumulative
Impact?
New
Information,
More Severe
Adverse
Impact?
K. Mineral Resources
Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of value to
the region and the residents of the State?
Less than
Significant No No No No
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally
important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general plan, specific
plan or other land use plan?
No Impact No No No No
a, b) Loss of Minerals Resources of Statewide or Local Importance Would the project: a). Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the State?
Summary of the General Plan EIR
According to the General Plan EIR, implementation of the General Plan will result in a less than significant loss of known mineral resources of value to the region and the State. The California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG) “Mineral Land Classification Project” publishes mineral resource maps. Areas subject to California mineral land classification studies are divided by the State Geologist into various Mineral Resource Zones (MRZ) categories that reflect varying degrees of mineral potential. The General Plan EIR concludes that the General Plan would not result in a direct loss of a known mineral resource. Additionally, the General Plan EIR specified that any vacant land located within an area classified as Mineral Resource Zone 2 (MRZ-2), areas with significant mineral resources, must be developed with a land use designation that would support current or future extraction of mineral resources to avoid significant impact. The surrounding area must also be conductive to mineral extraction operations.

Agua Mansa Logistics Center Analysis and Conclusions
The project site encompasses 59 acres within the western portion of the City. The site is located within an area classified as MRZ-2, which is described as an area where geologic data indicate that significant Portland Cement Concrete Grade (PCC-Grade) aggregate resources are present. As described in the General Plan EIR, the Proposed Project would result in a less than significant impact if the land designation of the Proposed Project would allow for current or future extraction of mineral resources. The project site has a General Plan land use designation of Heavy Industrial, which would not be amended as a part of the Proposed Project, which allows for future extraction of mineral resources. Further, the project site has been disturbed and extensively graded into rough pads by the previous owner, CalPortland. Additionally, the project site is located in an area with

1.2.e
Packet Pg. 509 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4091 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for City of Colton–Agua Mansa Logistics Center Project
Initial Study/Consistency Checklist Findings
FirstCarbon Solutions 133 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0237/02370034/Checklist/02370034 Agua Mansa Logistics Center Checklist_cs.docx existing industrial uses, vacant land, warehouses, and similar uses. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not introduce new impacts or create more severe impacts than those previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR. No additional analysis is required.

Would the project: b.) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
Summary of the General Plan EIR
According to the General Plan EIR, no impact to locally important mineral resources will occur as a result of the implementation of the General Plan. Presently, City planning documents do not identify any locally important mineral resources.

Agua Mansa Logistics Center Analysis and Conclusions
As discussed above, the General Plan does not identify any locally important mineral resources within; therefore, there would be no locally important mineral resources located at the project site.

Therefore, the Proposed Project would not introduce new impacts or create more severe impacts than those previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR. No additional analysis is required.

EIR Mitigation Measures
None.

The conclusions from the General Plan EIR remain unchanged when considering the implementation of the Proposed Project. Further environmental analysis is not required.

1.2.e
Packet Pg. 510 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4091 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for City of Colton–Agua Mansa Logistics Center Project
Findings Initial Study/Consistency Checklist
134 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0237/02370034/Checklist/02370034 Agua Mansa Logistics Center Checklist_cs.docx Environmental Issues
CEQA Section 15183(b) Criteria
General Plan
EIR
Determination
Effect
Peculiar to
Project or
Site?
New
Significant
Effect?
New
Significant
Off-site,
Cumulative
Impact?
New
Information,
More Severe
Adverse
Impact?
L. Noise
Would the project:
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or
permanent increase in ambient noise levels
in the vicinity of the project in excess of
standards established in the local general
plan or noise ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies?
Less than
Significant No No No No
b) Generation of excessive groundborne
vibration or groundborne noise levels?
Less than
Significant No No No No
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a
private airstrip or an airport land use plan
or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport, would the
project expose people residing or working
in the project area to excessive noise levels?
No Impact No No No No
a) Substantial Noise Increase
Would the project: 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? Summary of the General Plan EIR
According to the General Plan EIR, the Proposed Project would allow for additional development of residential and mixed-use development that may result in increased temporary or intermittent noise impacts. Projected long-term traffic volumes, the extension of new roadway segments, and land uses located near rail lines and other sensitive land uses would increase noise by less than significant levels with continued implementation of General Plan policies and compliance with the City’s Municipal Code.

Agua Mansa Logistics Center Analysis and Conclusions
Construction Noise Impacts
This analysis is based, in part, on the Noise Impact Analysis prepared by FCS and included in Appendix F. For the purposes of this analysis, a significant impact would occur if construction activities would result in a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Proposed Project in excess of standards established in the local general plan, noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies.

1.2.e
Packet Pg. 511 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4091 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for City of Colton–Agua Mansa Logistics Center Project
Initial Study/Consistency Checklist Findings
FirstCarbon Solutions 135 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0237/02370034/Checklist/02370034 Agua Mansa Logistics Center Checklist_cs.docx The City of Colton’s noise ordinance has not established noise performance standards for construction activities. Therefore, this noise study uses the construction noise performance standards found in the County of San Bernardino Development Code which restricts such noise producing construction activity to daytime hours.51 Specifically, the County of San Bernardino Development Code, Section 83.01.080, indicates that noise producing construction activities are restricted to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Mondays to Saturday, with no such activity permitted on Sundays or federal holidays.

Like the City of Colton, the County of San Bernardino does not establish a numeric maximum acceptable construction-source noise level for nearby potentially affected receivers, which would allow for a quantified determination of what CEQA constitutes a substantial temporary or periodic noise increase. Therefore, to evaluate whether the Proposed Project would generate a substantial periodic increase in short-term noise levels at off-site sensitive receptor locations, the following guidelines from the FTA are applied as reasonable criteria for assessing construction-related noise level impacts. A 1-hour (h) Leq of 90 A-weighted decibel (dBA) is identified as a noise level threshold for construction noise at nearby sensitive receptors in residential areas.

Therefore, for the purposes of this analysis, the applicable standards against which this impact is analyzed include the County’s restrictions on permitted hours of construction and the Federal Transit Authority (FTA) construction noise threshold of 90 equivalent sound level per hour (Leq(h)) dBA as measured at a sensitive receiving land use in the project vicinity.

Based on the air quality modeling assumptions, construction of the Proposed Project is expected to require the use of scrapers/crawler tractors, rubber-tired bulldozers/backhoes, cranes, forklifts, generators, welders, and air compressors. Based on construction equipment reference noise levels, the maximum noise level generated by each scraper is assumed to be 85 dBA maximum noise/sound level (Lmax) at 50 feet from this equipment. Each bulldozer/backhoe would also generate 85 dBA Lmax at 50 feet. The maximum noise level generated by cranes is approximately 85 dBA Lmax at 50 feet. A characteristic of sound is that each doubling of sound sources with equal strength increases a sound level by 3 dBA. Assuming that each piece of construction equipment operates at some distance from the other equipment, a reasonable worst-case combined noise level during this phase of construction would be 90 dBA Lmax at a distance of 50 feet from the acoustic center of a construction area. This would result in a reasonable worst-case hourly average of 86 dBA Leq(h), at a distance of 50 feet from the acoustic center of a construction area when multiple pieces of heavy equipment operate simultaneously in relatively the same location for an hour. The acoustic center reference is used because, due to their size and differentiated function, construction equipment must operate at some distance from one another on a project site, and the combined noise level as measured at a point equidistant from the sources (acoustic center) would be the worst-case maximum noise level. The effect on sensitive receptors is evaluated below.

The closest noise-sensitive receptor to the project site is the legal, nonconforming single-family residence located east of the project site on Agua Mansa Road. The façade of this closest home 51 County of San Bernardino. 2007. 2007 Development Code. March 13. Website:
http://www.sbcounty.gov/Uploads/lus/DevelopmentCode/DCWebsite.pdf. Accessed August 22, 2022.

1.2.e
Packet Pg. 512 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4091 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for City of Colton–Agua Mansa Logistics Center Project
Findings Initial Study/Consistency Checklist
136 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0237/02370034/Checklist/02370034 Agua Mansa Logistics Center Checklist_cs.docx would be located approximately 45 feet from the acoustic center of construction activity where multiple pieces of heavy construction equipment would operate simultaneously. At this distance, construction noise levels could range up to approximately 82 dBA Lmax, with a relative worst-case hourly average of 78 dBA Leq(h) at this receptor. These noise levels could occur temporarily under the reasonable worst-case scenario of multiple pieces of heavy construction equipment operating simultaneously in relatively the same locations at the nearest project boundary for an hour period.

These noise levels would drop off at a rate of 6 dBA per doubling of distance as the equipment moves over the site and operates at greater distances from off-site receptors.

Again, the significance threshold for construction noise impacts is whether noise producing construction activity would occur outside the City’s permitted hours or would exceed the FTA construction noise threshold of 90 Leq(h) dBA as measured at a sensitive receiving land use in the project vicinity. As shown in this analysis, the reasonable worst-case hourly average construction noise levels are below the FTA construction noise threshold of 90 dBA Leq(h) for nearby sensitive receptors in residential areas.

However, these construction activities could result in relatively high single-event noise exposure potential causing an intermittent noise nuisance or a temporary increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity that could result in annoyance or sleep disturbance of nearby sensitive receptors unless restricted to daytime hours. Therefore, in compliance with County of San Bernardino Development Code, Section 83.01.080 limiting hours of construction to daytime hours only, and implementing the best management noise reduction techniques and practices outlined in the below mandatory COA that shall be imposed would ensure that construction noise would not result in a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels that would result in annoyance or sleep disturbance of nearby sensitive receptors. Therefore, with implementation of the COA, temporary construction noise impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level.

Mobile Source Operational Noise Impacts
A significant impact would occur if project-generated traffic would result in a substantial increase in ambient noise levels compared with those that would exist without the Proposed Project. The City does not define “substantial increase,” therefore for purpose of this analysis, a substantial increase is based on the following criteria. A characteristic of noise is that audible increases in noise levels generally refer to a change of 3 dBA or more, as this level has been found to be barely perceptible to the human ear in outdoor environments. As noted in the General Plan EIR, a 5 dBA increase is considered readily noticeable to most people, while a 10 dBA increase is perceived by most people as a doubling of the existing noise level. Therefore, for purposes of this analysis, a significant impact would occur if the Proposed Project would cause the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) to increase by any of the following:
• 5 dBA or more even if the CNEL would remain below normally acceptable levels for a receiving land use.
• 3 dBA or more, thereby causing the CNEL in the project vicinity to exceed normally acceptable levels and result in noise levels that would be considered conditionally acceptable for a receiving land use.

1.2.e
Packet Pg. 513 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4091 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for City of Colton–Agua Mansa Logistics Center Project
Initial Study/Consistency Checklist Findings
FirstCarbon Solutions 137 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0237/02370034/Checklist/02370034 Agua Mansa Logistics Center Checklist_cs.docx • 1.5 dBA or more where the CNEL currently exceeds conditionally acceptable levels.

Table 14 shows a summary of the traffic noise levels for opening year no project (2024), Opening Year Plus Project, year 2040 No Project, and year 2040 Plus Project, as measured at 50 feet from the centerline of the outermost travel lane. These daily traffic volumes were obtained from the traffic analysis prepared for the Proposed Project by Urban Crossroads (Appendix G).52 Table 14: Traffic Noise Increase Summary
Roadway Segment
Opening
Year, No
Project
(dBA)
CNEL
Opening
Year Plus
Project
(dBA) CNEL
Increase
from
Baseline
Conditions
(dBA)
Year 2040
No Project
(dBA) CNEL
Year 2040
Plus Project
(dBA) CNEL
Increase
from
Baseline
Conditions
(dBA)
Agua Mansa Road–South Rancho
Avenue to Project Driveway 4

74.5 75.0 0.5 74.7 75.2 0.5
Agua Mansa Road–Project
Driveway 4 to Project Driveway 3

74.5 74.9 0.4 74.7 75.1 0.4
Agua Mansa Road–Project
Driveway 3 to Project Driveway 2

74.5 74.7 0.2 74.7 75.0 0.3
Agua Mansa Road–Project
Driveway 2 to Project Driveway 1

74.5 74.6 0.1 74.7 74.9 0.2
Agua Mansa Road–east of Project
Driveway 1

74.5 74.6 0.1 74.7 74.9 0.2
Notes:
dBA = A-weighted decibel
CNEL = Community Noise Equivalent Level
Source: FirstCarbon Solutions (FCS) 2021.

As shown in Table 14, the highest traffic noise level increase with implementation of the Proposed Project would occur along Agua Mansa Road between South Rancho Avenue and Proposed Project Driveway 4, under plus project conditions. Along this roadway segment, under Year 2040 plus project conditions, the Proposed Project would result in traffic noise levels ranging up to 75.2 dBA CNEL as measured at 50 feet from the centerline of the nearest travel lane, representing an increase of 0.5 dBA over without project conditions for this roadway segment. The resulting noise levels exceed the normally acceptable threshold for receiving residential land uses adjacent to this roadway segment. However, the project increases are all well below the 1.5 dBA increase that would be considered a substantial permanent increase in noise levels compared with noise levels that would exist without the Proposed Project. Therefore, project-related traffic noise levels would not result in a substantial permanent increase in traffic noise levels in excess of applicable standards and this would represent a less than significant impact.
52 Urban Crossroads, Inc. 2022. Agua Mansa Logistics Center Traffic Analysis. July 25.

1.2.e
Packet Pg. 514 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4091 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for City of Colton–Agua Mansa Logistics Center Project
Findings Initial Study/Consistency Checklist
138 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0237/02370034/Checklist/02370034 Agua Mansa Logistics Center Checklist_cs.docx Stationary Source Operational Noise Impacts
A significant impact would occur if operational noise levels generated by stationary noise sources at the project site would result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in excess of any of the noise performance thresholds established in the City’s Municipal Code. According to these noise performance standards, stationary noise sources are not permitted to exceed 65 dBA Leq when measured at the boundary line of the property on which the sound is generated. While the City does not indicate the noise metric for this performance threshold, for the purposes of this analysis it is assumed the applicable noise metric is an hourly average noise exposure level (65 dBA Leq(h)). This threshold applies to any 60-minute period, day or night.

As noted in the characteristics of noise discussion, audible increases in noise levels generally refer to a change of 3 dBA or more, as this level has been found to be barely perceptible to the human ear in outdoor environments. A change of 5 dBA is considered the minimum readily perceptible change to the human ear in outdoor environments. Therefore, for purposes of this analysis, an increase of more than 3 dBA above the applicable noise performance thresholds would be considered a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels.

The Proposed Project would include new stationary noise sources, including parking lot activities, truck loading and unloading activities, and mechanical ventilation equipment.

Parking Lot Activities
Typical parking lot activities include people conversing, doors shutting, and vehicles idling which generate noise levels ranging from approximately 60 dBA to 70 dBA Lmax at 50 feet. These activities are expected to occur sporadically throughout the day as cars and trucks arrive and leave the project site.

The nearest acoustic center for proposed parking lot activities would be located as close as 40 feet from the nearest project boundary. As a reasonable worst-case scenario, this analysis assumed a minimum of one parking movement for every parking stall nearest a single point along the project boundary within a single hour. The resulting hourly average noise levels associated with daily parking lot activities would be approximately 61 dBA Leq at any single point along any project boundary line.

These noise levels would not result in an increase of 3 dBA above the City’s daytime and nighttime hourly average noise performance threshold of 65 dBA Leq(h) for stationary noise sources as measured at the nearest project boundary. These noise levels would be even lower as measured at off-site receptors. In addition, these noise levels are well below the existing average daily noise levels as measured at the nearest off-site residential receptor land uses. Therefore, operational parking lot activity noise levels would not result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in excess of the City’s noise performance threshold, and this impact would be less than significant.

Truck Loading and Unloading Activities
Noise would be generated by loading and unloading activities at the loading zones along the north side of the proposed warehouse Building 1 and on the south side of Building 2. Typical noise levels from truck loading and unloading activity can range from 70 dBA to 80 dBA Lmax as measured at 50 feet. These maximum noise levels include noise from associated truck loading/unloading activity,

1.2.e
Packet Pg. 515 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4091 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for City of Colton–Agua Mansa Logistics Center Project
Initial Study/Consistency Checklist Findings
FirstCarbon Solutions 139 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0237/02370034/Checklist/02370034 Agua Mansa Logistics Center Checklist_cs.docx including trucks maneuvering, truck loading, truck unloading, backup alarms or beepers, and truck docking noise sources. Reasonable worst-case hourly average noise levels, assuming a truck loading/unloading activity at every loading dock in a single hour, would result in noise levels of approximately 75 dBA Leq as measured at 100 feet from the nearest loading dock. These activities are expected to occur sporadically throughout the day and night and would not be continuous.

Proposed truck loading docks are located as close as 145 feet from the nearest project boundary. As a reasonable worst-case scenario, this analysis assumed a truck loading event at each loading dock in a single hour for each loading dock on this building. The resulting hourly average noise levels associated with daily truck loading activities would be approximately 65 dBA Leq(h) at the nearest point along the boundary line of the project site.

These noise levels would not result in an increase of 3 dBA above the City’s daytime and nighttime hourly average noise performance threshold of 65 dBA Leq(h) for stationary noise sources as measured at the nearest project boundary. These noise levels would be even lower as measured at off-site receptors. In addition, these noise levels are well below the existing average daily noise levels as measured at the nearest off-site residential receptor land uses, as documented in the ambient noise monitoring effort conducted for the project (and summarized in the Noise Impact Analysis Report). Therefore, operational truck loading activity noise levels would not result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in excess of the City’s noise performance threshold, and this impact would be less than significant.

Mechanical Ventilation Equipment
Implementation of the Proposed Project could include operation of new rooftop mechanical ventilation equipment on the proposed warehouses, which would be a new stationary noise source in the project vicinity. At the time of preparation of this analysis, specific details of rooftop mechanical ventilation systems were not available; therefore, a reference noise level for typical rooftop mechanical ventilation systems was used. Noise levels from typical commercial-grade mechanical ventilation equipment systems range up to approximately 60 dBA Leq at a distance of 25 feet. The rooftop mechanical ventilation systems could be located as close as 100 feet from the nearest project boundary. At this distance, these mechanical ventilation system operational noise levels would attenuate to below 48 dBA Leq, as measured at the nearest boundary line of the project site. These noise levels would not result in an increase of 3 dBA above the City’s daytime and nighttime hourly average noise performance threshold of 65 dBA Leq(h) for stationary noise sources as measured at the nearest project boundary. These noise levels would be even lower as measured at off-site receptors. In addition, these noise levels are well below the existing average daily noise levels as measured at the nearest off-site residential receptor land uses. Therefore, mechanical ventilation equipment noise levels would not result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in excess of the City’s noise performance threshold, and this impact would be less than significant.

Stationary Source Operational Noise Impact Conclusion
As shown in the analysis above, none of the project stationary operational noise sources would result in an increase of 3 dBA or greater above the City’s daytime and nighttime hourly average noise performance threshold of 65 dBA Leq(h) for stationary noise sources as measured at the nearest

1.2.e
Packet Pg. 516 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4091 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for City of Colton–Agua Mansa Logistics Center Project
Findings Initial Study/Consistency Checklist
140 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0237/02370034/Checklist/02370034 Agua Mansa Logistics Center Checklist_cs.docx project boundary. Therefore, noise impacts from stationary operational noise sources would be less than significant. Table 15 provides a summary of the stationary source operation noise impacts.

Table 15: Stationary Operational Noise Impact Summary
Source
(Reference Noise Levels)
Approximate
Distance from
Source to Nearest
Project Boundary
(feet)
Operational Noise
Level as Measured
at the Project
Boundary
City’s Noise
Performance
Threshold
Exceed
Threshold by
3 dBA or
greater?
(Yes/No)
Parking Lot Activities
(60 dBA to 70 dBA Lmax at 50 feet) 40 61 dBA Leq 65 dBA Leq(h) No Truck Loading and Unloading Activities (70
dBA to 80 dBA Lmax as measured at 50 feet) 145 65 dBA Leq(h) 65 dBA Leq(h) No Mechanical Ventilation Equipment
(60 dBA Leq at a distance of 25 feet) 100 48 dBA Leq 65 dBA Leq(h) No Notes:
dBA = A-weighted decibel
Lmax = maximum noise/sound level
Leq = equivalent continuous sound level
Source: FirstCarbon Solutions (FCS) 2020.

These findings are consistent with the findings of the General Plan EIR, which identified that noise increase impacts from additional development would be reduced to less than significant with the continued implementation of the City’s Municipal Code. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not result in any peculiar effects and would not result in new or more severe impacts related to noise levels beyond what was previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR. b) Groundborne Vibration
Would the project result in: Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
Summary of the General Plan EIR
According to the General Plan EIR, the proposed General Plan Update does not authorize any construction or other land altering activity that could result in construction-related vibration.

Potential vibration due to future construction activities would be assessed in conjunction with the City’s routine review of site-specific geotechnical studies and the recommended grading and foundation design measures. This will occur in the project planning process, prior to project approval, for projects subject to review under CEQA, and this will provide an adequate mechanism to require special measures to mitigate potentially significant vibration impacts of the updated General Plan. Therefore, the General Plan EIR concluded that impacts resulting from constructiongenerated groundborne vibration and noise would be less than significant.

1.2.e
Packet Pg. 517 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4091 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for City of Colton–Agua Mansa Logistics Center Project
Initial Study/Consistency Checklist Findings
FirstCarbon Solutions 141 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0237/02370034/Checklist/02370034 Agua Mansa Logistics Center Checklist_cs.docx Agua Mansa Logistics Center Analysis and Conclusions
Construction Vibration Impacts
A significant impact would occur if construction activities would result in vibration that produces a particle velocity greater than or equal to 0.2 in/sec peak particle velocity (PPV) measured at the nearest structure.

Of the variety of equipment used during construction, the large vibratory rollers that could be used in the site preparation phase of construction would produce the greatest groundborne vibration levels. Large vibratory rollers produce groundborne vibration levels ranging up to 0.210 in/sec PPV at 25 feet from the operating equipment.

The closest off-site structure to the project boundaries is the legal, nonconforming single-family residence on Agua Mansa Road, located approximately 80 feet east of where heavy construction equipment would operate during construction. At this distance, groundborne vibration levels would range up to 0.035 in/sec PPV from operation of the types of equipment that would produce the highest vibration levels. This vibration level is well below the vibration threshold of 0.2 in/sec PPV as measured at the nearest structure. Therefore, the impact of short-term groundborne vibration associated with construction to off-site receptors would be less than significant.

Operational Vibration Impacts
A significant impact would occur if project operations would generate groundborne vibration which is perceptible without instruments by the average person at or beyond any lot line of the lot containing the activities.

Implementation of the Proposed Project would not include any permanent stationary sources that would expose persons in the project vicinity to groundborne vibration levels that could be perceptible without instruments at or beyond the lot line. The Proposed Project would result in tractor-trailer truck deliveries to the project site.

It should be noted that according to the FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual,53 it is unusual for vibration from sources such as trucks traveling on paved roadways to be perceptible, even for receptors located close to major roadways. However, the following quantitative calculation is provided for a conservative analysis.

A loaded truck operating off-road would produce a worst-case vibration level of 0.076 in/sec PPV at 25 feet, which is based on loaded trucks driving on rough roads or rough off-road conditions. The closest receptors along access roadways to the project site are located over 60 feet from the centerline of the nearest travel lane. Based on typical vibration propagation, this would result in a vibration level of 0.02 in/sec PPV at the nearest receptor. As noted previously, all nearby roads and on-site circulation areas are and would be paved, which would result in even lower vibration levels than this worst-case calculation. Therefore, worst-case vibration level from trucks traveling to and 53 Federal Transit Administration (FTA). 2018. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual. September. Website:
https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/research-innovation/118131/transit-noise-and-vibration-impactassessment-manual-fta-report-no-0123_0.pdf. Accessed February 4, 2022.

1.2.e
Packet Pg. 518 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4091 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for City of Colton–Agua Mansa Logistics Center Project
Findings Initial Study/Consistency Checklist
142 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0237/02370034/Checklist/02370034 Agua Mansa Logistics Center Checklist_cs.docx within the project site would not exceed the 0.04 in/sec PPV threshold of perception for transient sources as measured at the closest receptors in the project vicinity. Therefore, project operational groundborne vibration level impacts would be considered less than significant.

These findings are consistent with the findings of the General Plan EIR, which identified implementation of the General Plan would result in less than significant impacts for groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not result in any peculiar effects and would not result in new or more severe impacts related to groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels beyond what was previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR. c) Airport or Private Airstrip Noise
Would the project: 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?
Summary of the General Plan EIR
According to the General Plan EIR, the Proposed Project would not expose people residing or working within 2 miles of any public airport nor private airport to excessive noise levels associated with air traffic.

Agua Mansa Logistics Center Analysis and Conclusions
A significant impact would occur if the Proposed Project would expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels for a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport.

The project site is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. The nearest public airports to the project site are the Flabob Airport, located approximately 5.3 miles southwest of the project site, and the San Bernardino International Airport, located approximately 6.2 miles northeast of the project site. Because of the distance of the project site from the airport runways, the project site is located outside of the 65 dBA CNEL airport noise contours. While aircraft noise is occasionally audible on the project site from aircraft flyovers, aircraft noise associated with nearby airport activity would not expose people residing or working near the project site to excessive noise levels.

Therefore, implementation of the Proposed Project would not expose persons residing or working in the project vicinity to noise levels from airport activity that would be in excess of normally acceptable standards for the proposed land use development, and no impact would occur.

These findings are consistent with the findings of the General Plan EIR, which identified implementation of the General Plan would not expose people residing or working within 2 miles of any public airport nor private airport to excessive noise levels associated with air traffic. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not result in any peculiar effects and would not result in new or more severe impacts related to airports or private airstrips beyond what was previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR.

1.2.e
Packet Pg. 519 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4091 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for City of Colton–Agua Mansa Logistics Center Project
Initial Study/Consistency Checklist Findings
FirstCarbon Solutions 143 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0237/02370034/Checklist/02370034 Agua Mansa Logistics Center Checklist_cs.docx EIR Mitigation Measures
None.

Construction Noise Reduction Condition of Approval
Project construction activity noise impacts, which could result in a temporary increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity that could result in annoyance or sleep disturbance of nearby sensitive receptors, would be reduced to a less than significant level with implementation of the following multi-part condition of approval.

COA NOI-1 Implementation of the following multi-part condition of approval is required to reduce potential construction period noise impacts:
• The Construction Contractor shall ensure that all equipment driven by internal combustion engines shall be equipped with mufflers, which are in good condition and appropriate for the equipment.
• The Construction Contractor shall ensure that unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines (i.e., idling in excess of 5 minutes) is prohibited. • The Construction Contractor shall utilize “quiet” models of air compressors and other stationary noise sources where technology exists. • At all times during project grading and construction, the Construction Contractor shall ensure that stationary noise-generating equipment shall be located as far as practicable from sensitive receptors and placed so that emitted noise is directed away from adjacent residences.
• The Construction Contractor shall ensure that the construction staging areas shall be located to create the greatest feasible distance between the staging area and noise-sensitive receptors nearest the project site.
• The Construction Contractor shall ensure that all on-site construction activities, including the operation of any tools or equipment used in construction, drilling, repair, alteration, grading or demolition work, are limited to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday, Saturday; with no such activity permitted on Sundays or Federal holidays.

1.2.e
Packet Pg. 520 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4091 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for City of Colton–Agua Mansa Logistics Center Project
Findings Initial Study/Consistency Checklist
144 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0237/02370034/Checklist/02370034 Agua Mansa Logistics Center Checklist_cs.docx The conclusions from the General Plan EIR remain unchanged when considering the implementation of the Proposed Project. Further environmental analysis is not required.

1.2.e
Packet Pg. 521 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4091 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for City of Colton–Agua Mansa Logistics Center Project
Initial Study/Consistency Checklist Findings
FirstCarbon Solutions 145 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0237/02370034/Checklist/02370034 Agua Mansa Logistics Center Checklist_cs.docx Environmental Issues
CEQA Section 15183(b) Criteria
General Plan
EIR
Determination
Effect
Peculiar to
Project or
Site?
New
Significant
Effect?
New
Significant
Off-site,
Cumulative
Impact?
New
Information,
More Severe
Adverse
Impact?
M. Population and Housing
Would the project:
a) Induce substantial unplanned population
growth in an area, either directly (for
example, by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for example,
through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
Less than
Significant No No No No
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing
people or housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
No Impact No No No No
a) Growth Inducement
Would the project: Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
Summary of the General Plan EIR
According to the General Plan EIR, implementation of the General Plan would have a less than significant impact on inducing population and housing growth as the anticipated increase is consistent with SCAG’s 2012-2035 forecasts. The General Plan EIR determined that the General Plan’s buildout would yield a total residential population of approximately 67,182 people within the City and approximately 5,354 people in the SOI, for a total of 72,536 residents. With that noted, the General Plan EIR concluded the land use plan would accommodate new development and growth with policy changes in the Land Use Element with the General Plan. As a result, population and housing growth would be consistent with SCAG’s 2012-2035 forecasts and impacts would be less than significant.

Agua Mansa Logistics Center Analysis and Conclusions
The Proposed Project consists of the development of two industrial warehouse buildings and does not propose the construction of any housing; therefore, no direct population growth would occur as a result of the Proposed Project.

Unplanned indirect population growth could occur if the project created employment opportunities not previously considered in the General Plan. The Proposed Project includes uses that would create employment opportunities and is consistent with the development anticipated in the General Plan and zoning. The General Plan EIR determined that SCAG’s 2012-2035 Regional Transportation Plan

1.2.e
Packet Pg. 522 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4091 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for City of Colton–Agua Mansa Logistics Center Project
Findings Initial Study/Consistency Checklist
146 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0237/02370034/Checklist/02370034 Agua Mansa Logistics Center Checklist_cs.docx (RTP) forecasts the City’s population to increase to 71,700 by 2035. However, the majority of new employees would be expected to be existing residents or residents from the region, and therefore would not pose a significant increase in population growth than anticipated and analyzed under the City’s General Plan. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not introduce new or more severe significant environmental impacts than those analyzed in the General Plan EIR. No additional analysis is required.
b) Displacement of Persons or Housing
Would the project: Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
Summary of the General Plan EIR
According to the General Plan EIR, the General Plan does not propose policies that would result in displacement or demolition of permanent or temporary residential structures. There would be no impact.

Agua Mansa Logistics Center Analysis and Conclusions
The Proposed Project consists of the construction of two industrial warehouse buildings. The project site is vacant and does not contain any dwelling units. Therefore, implementation of the Proposed Project would not displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. As such, the Proposed Project would not introduce new or more severe significant environmental impacts than those analyzed in the General Plan EIR.

No additional analysis is required.

EIR Mitigation Measures
None.

Conclusion
The Proposed Project is consistent with the development density and zoning evaluated in the General Plan EIR and the General Plan. No peculiar impacts that are not substantially mitigated have been identified as a result of the Proposed Project or its site. There is no new information identifying new significant effects, nor is there an increase in the severity of previously identified impacts related to population and housing as compared to what was already identified and disclosed, either individually or cumulatively. The conclusions from the General Plan EIR remain unchanged when considering the implementation of the Proposed Project.

1.2.e
Packet Pg. 523 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4091 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for City of Colton–Agua Mansa Logistics Center Project
Initial Study/Consistency Checklist Findings
FirstCarbon Solutions 147 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0237/02370034/Checklist/02370034 Agua Mansa Logistics Center Checklist_cs.docx Environmental Issues
CEQA Section 15183(b) Criteria
General Plan
EIR
Determination
Effect
Peculiar to
Project or
Site?
New
Significant
Effect?
New
Significant
Off-site,
Cumulative
Impact?
New
Information,
More Severe
Adverse
Impact?
N. Public Services
Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
a) Fire protection? Less than
significant
impact
No No No No
b) Police protection? Less than
significant
impact
No No No No
c) Schools? Less than
significant
impact
No No No No
d) Parks? Less than
significant
impact
No No No No
e) Other public facilities? Less than
significant
impact
No No No No
a) Fire Protection
Would the project: Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection?
Summary of the General Plan EIR
According to the General Plan EIR, impacts related to the expansion of fire protection facilities to maintain applicable service standards will be less than significant with implementation of existing General Plan and Municipal Code policies and requirements. The General Plan EIR states that ensuring that fire protection and emergency services are adequate in serving the community as it grows over the long term can be achieved through the construction of new fire stations and purchase of new equipment with a corresponding increase in fire and emergency service personnel.

Another key component of fire protection is adequate fire flow at local hydrants. Local water mains

1.2.e
Packet Pg. 524 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4091 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for City of Colton–Agua Mansa Logistics Center Project
Findings Initial Study/Consistency Checklist
148 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0237/02370034/Checklist/02370034 Agua Mansa Logistics Center Checklist_cs.docx and hydrants may need to be upgraded and/or replaced over the long term to ensure adequate fire flow to existing and future development.

The General Plan Safety Element requires review of development proposals by the Fire Department to monitor the adequacy of fire service and ensure adequate water pressure and supply. Collection of DIF will incrementally fund expansion or construction of new facilities as growth is accommodated in the City guided by the proposed General Plan Update’s policies.

An analysis of the impacts associated with a possible fire facility expansion or construction was too speculative during the preparation of the General Plan EIR because the facility’s size, design, and location were not known. Section 15145 states that if a particular impact is too speculative, then its discussion should be terminated. If a fire facility is to be expanded or constructed, the fire facility will undergo a development review process and will be subject to environmental review pursuant to the CEQA. Mitigation will be identified, as necessary, to reduce impacts related to fire and emergency service facilities expansion or new construction, as mandated by CEQA and implemented by the City through its local environmental review procedures. Impacts related to the expansion and new construction of fire protection and emergency service facilities will be less than significant with implementation of General Plan policies and environmental review standards.

Agua Mansa Logistics Center Analysis and Conclusions
The project site would be served by the Colton Fire Department (CFD). Fire Station 213 is the nearest fire station which is located approximately 0.9 mile east of the project site. The Proposed Project would include two industrial warehouse buildings totaling approximately 914,188 square feet on a 59-acre project site designated for Heavy Industrial uses, consistent with what was envisioned by the General Plan EIR. Although the Proposed Project’s new uses would increase demand for fire protection services compared to existing conditions, the Proposed Project would not result in the need for new or expanded fire protection facilities. To minimize impacts to existing CFD facilities, new development projects are required to provide access, structures, and water supply that meet the California Fire Code and City building requirements. In addition, Chapter 12.32 of the Colton Municipal Code provides for the imposition of developer impact fees required for development projects, which would require the Proposed Project to make a fair-share contribution to reserve funds for public improvements, such as the expansion of fire protection and suppression services. 54 As such, the Proposed Project would not result in the need for new or expanded fire protection facilities to serve the project.

On March 29, 2021, FCS received a letter via email from CFD Fire Marshal Ray Bruno, outlining a few potential operational constraints of the CFD in relation to the Proposed Project. The Proposed Project would have a maximum height of approximately 130 feet. However, the CFD’s tallest ladder is 75 feet tall. After receipt of the March 29, 2021, CFD email, a budget was passed by City Council for the purchase of a new fire truck that would rectify the CFD’s concern regarding the building height.

As part of the Development Agreement, the project applicant would provide a monetary 54 City of Colton. Colton, California – Code of Ordinances. Chapter 12.32 Public Improvement Fees. Website:
https://library.municode.com/ca/colton/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TIT12STOTPUPL_CH12.32PUIMFE_12.32.080ADSTDEI MRE. Accessed February 11, 2022.

1.2.e
Packet Pg. 525 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4091 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for City of Colton–Agua Mansa Logistics Center Project
Initial Study/Consistency Checklist Findings
FirstCarbon Solutions 149 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0237/02370034/Checklist/02370034 Agua Mansa Logistics Center Checklist_cs.docx contribution towards new fire truck apparatus as a public benefit. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not result in any peculiar effects and would not result in new or more severe impacts related to fire protection services beyond what was previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR. b) Police Protection
Would the project: Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Police protection?
Summary of the General Plan EIR
According to the General Plan EIR, impacts related to the expansion of police protection facilities to maintain applicable service standards will be less than significant with implementation of existing General Plan and Municipal Code policies and requirements.

Agua Mansa Logistics Center Analysis and Conclusions
The project site would be served by the Colton Police Department (CPD). The CPD is located at 650 North La Cadena Drive, approximatley 1.3 miles northeast of the project site. The Proposed Project would employ appoximatley 60 people and would incorporate lighting and security features, such as fencing and gates, which would reduce any potential security issues or the related need for law enforcement. It is unlikely that development and operation of the Proposed Project would result in a significant need for police protection services given the nature of the proposed uses. In addition, Chapter 12.32 of the Colton Municipal Code provides for the imposition of developer impact fees required for development projects, which would require the Proposed Project to make a fair-share contribution to reserve funds for public improvements, such as the expansion of police services.55 This would help to ensure that the CPD is adequately funded to accommodate any increase in service demand needs resulting from the Proposed Project. As such, impacts associated with the development of the Proposed Project would be consistent with the analysis in the General Plan EIR and the Proposed Project would not result in a new or more severe adverse impact that was not previously identified in the General Plan EIR.
55 City of Colton. Colton, California – Code of Ordinances. Chapter 12.32 Public Improvement Fees. Website:
https://library.municode.com/ca/colton/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TIT12STOTPUPL_CH12.32PUIMFE_12.32.080ADSTDEI MRE. Accessed February 11, 2022.

1.2.e
Packet Pg. 526 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4091 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for City of Colton–Agua Mansa Logistics Center Project
Findings Initial Study/Consistency Checklist
150 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0237/02370034/Checklist/02370034 Agua Mansa Logistics Center Checklist_cs.docx c) Schools
Would the project: Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Schools? Summary of the General Plan EIR
According to the General Plan EIR, impacts related to the expansion of school facilities to maintain applicable service standards will be less than significant with implementation of existing State regulations.

Agua Mansa Logistics Center Analysis and Conclusions
The Proposed Project does not include the development of any residential units and would not result in an increase in population that could directly or indirectly generate demand for school services. As such, impacts associated with the development of the Proposed Project would be consistent with the analysis in the General Plan EIR and the Proposed Project would not result in a new or more severe adverse impact that was not previously identified in the General Plan EIR.

In August 1998, SB 50 was signed into law, which includes, in part, the Leroy F. Greene School Facilities Act of 1998 (SFP). This bill made significant changes in the State school building program as well as addressing the level of permissible school fees assessed on construction. SB 50 prohibited State or local agencies from imposing school impact mitigation fees, dedications, or other requirements in excess of those provided in the statute. The legislation also prohibited local agencies from using the inadequacy of school facilities as a basis for denying or conditioning approvals of any project. Development Impact Fees, as required by SB 50, will also be paid and would constitute full mitigation.
d, e) Parks and Other Public Services?
Would the project: Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Parks? Other public services?
Summary of the General Plan EIR
According to the General Plan EIR, impacts related to the expansion and construction of parks and libraries to maintain applicable service standards will be less than significant with implementation of existing General Plan and Municipal Code policies and requirements.

1.2.e
Packet Pg. 527 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4091 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for City of Colton–Agua Mansa Logistics Center Project
Initial Study/Consistency Checklist Findings
FirstCarbon Solutions 151 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0237/02370034/Checklist/02370034 Agua Mansa Logistics Center Checklist_cs.docx Agua Mansa Logistics Center Analysis and Conclusions
The Proposed Project does not include the development of any residential units and would not result in an increase in population that could directly or indirectly generate demand for parks and other recreational services. As such, impacts associated with the development of the Proposed Project would be consistent with the analysis in the General Plan EIR and the Proposed Project would not result in a new or more severe adverse impact that was not previously identified in the General Plan EIR.

EIR Mitigation Measures
None.

The conclusions from the General Plan EIR remain unchanged when considering the implementation of the Proposed Project. Further environmental analysis is not required.

1.2.e
Packet Pg. 528 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4091 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for City of Colton–Agua Mansa Logistics Center Project
Findings Initial Study/Consistency Checklist
152 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0237/02370034/Checklist/02370034 Agua Mansa Logistics Center Checklist_cs.docx Environmental Issues
CEQA Section 15183(b) Criteria
General Plan
EIR
Determination
Effect
Peculiar to
Project or
Site?
New
Significant
Effect?
New
Significant
Off-site,
Cumulative
Impact?
New
Information,
More Severe
Adverse
Impact?
O. Recreation
Would the project:
a) Would the project increase the use of
existing neighborhood and regional parks or
other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated?
Significant
and
unavoidable
impact
No No No No
b) Does the project include recreational
facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities, which
might have an adverse physical effect on
the environment?
Less than
significant
impact
No No No No
a, b) Existing Neighborhood and Regional Parks and Recreational Facilities Would the project: a) increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated; or
Summary of the General Plan EIR
The General Plan EIR determined that the General Plan has the potential to result in the deterioration of existing parks and recreation facilities, and adequate funding could not be identified to mitigate the impacts at the time the EIR was prepared. Therefore, the General Plan EIR concluded that the impact is potentially significant and unavoidable.

Agua Mansa Logistics Center Analysis and Conclusions
The Proposed Project does not include residential units or residential uses and therefore would not result in a direct population increase. The development of parks would therefore not be required.

Although the Proposed Project is anticipated to employ a total of 150 employees in Building 1 (60 employees per shift) and a total of 501 employees in Building 2, the employees are unlikely to use recreational park facilities during work hours. Furthermore, the jobs provided by the Proposed Project would not induce population growth because it is anticipated that the Proposed Project’s temporary and permanent employment requirements could be met by the region’s existing labor force without substantial numbers of people needing to relocate into the region. Furthermore, employment growth induced by the Proposed Project would be consistent with the planned growth as estimated in the General Plan. Therefore, implementation of the Proposed Project is not expected to result in an increase in the demand of park facilities in the surrounding area or in the City of Colton. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not result in any peculiar effects and would not result

1.2.e
Packet Pg. 529 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4091 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for City of Colton–Agua Mansa Logistics Center Project
Initial Study/Consistency Checklist Findings
FirstCarbon Solutions 153 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0237/02370034/Checklist/02370034 Agua Mansa Logistics Center Checklist_cs.docx in new or more severe impacts related to the deterioration of park facilities beyond what was previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR.

Does the project: b) include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
Summary of the General Plan EIR
The General Plan EIR determined that impacts related to the expansion and construction of recreational facilities will be less than significant since the General Plan does not specifically provide for new park facilities.

Agua Mansa Logistics Center Analysis and Conclusions
The Proposed Project would not include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities. As discussed previously, the Proposed Project would include the construction of two industrial warehouse buildings and associated improvements in an area with a land use designation of Heavy Industrial and zoned M-2. No park lands, recreational facilities, or community parks would be impacted by the Proposed Project, nor would the project directly induce unplanned population growth in the City, creating the need to expand existing parks or construct new parks or other recreational facilities. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not result in any peculiar effects and would not result in new or more severe impacts related to park facilities beyond what was previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR.

EIR Mitigation Measures
None.

Conclusion
No peculiar impacts have been identified as a result of the Proposed Project or its site. Incorporation of policies and mitigation from the General Plan EIR, and PDFs substantially mitigates potentially significant impacts consistent with the conclusions in the General Plan EIR.

The conclusions from the General Plan EIR remain unchanged when considering the implementation of the Proposed Project. Further environmental analysis is not required.

1.2.e
Packet Pg. 530 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4091 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for City of Colton–Agua Mansa Logistics Center Project
Findings Initial Study/Consistency Checklist
154 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0237/02370034/Checklist/02370034 Agua Mansa Logistics Center Checklist_cs.docx Environmental Issues
CEQA Section 15183(b) Criteria
General Plan
EIR
Determination
Effect
Peculiar to
Project or
Site?
New
Significant
Effect?
New
Significant
Off-site,
Cumulative
Impact?
New
Information,
More Severe
Adverse
Impact?
P. Transportation
Would the project:
a) Conflict with a program plan, ordinance or
policy of the circulation system, including
transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian
facilities?
Significant
and
unavoidable
impact
No No No No
b) Would the project conflict or be
inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section
15064.3, subdivision (b)?
No
significant
impact
identified
No No No No
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a
geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves
or dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
Less than
significant
impact
No No No No
d) Result in inadequate emergency access? Less than
significant
impact
No No No No
The following analysis is based, in part, on the Traffic Analysis (TA) prepared for the Proposed Project by Urban Crossroads on July 25, 2022, and is included in Appendix G. The TA evaluated the potential circulation system deficiencies that may result from the development of the Proposed Project, and where necessary recommend improvements to achieve acceptable operations consistent with General Plan level of service goals and policies. The TA was prepared in accordance with the San Bernardino County Congestion Management Program (CMP) Guidelines for CMP Traffic Impact Analysis Reports, the County of San Bernardino Transportation Impact Study Guidelines, and consultation with City staff during the TA scoping process. Presently, the project site is vacant and all driveways to the project site would be constructed as part of the Proposed Project. Therefore, the existing project site does not generate any trips. According to the TA, the Proposed Project is anticipated to generate 1,986 two-way trips per day, with 119 AM peak-hour trips and 137 PM peakhour trips (actual vehicles).

After the release of the 2013 General Plan EIR in 2012, SB 743 became effective in January 2014 and required the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to change the CEQA Guidelines regarding the analysis of transportation impacts. Under SB 743, the focus of transportation analysis shifted from driver delay (Level of Service [LOS]) to VMT, in order to reduce GHG emissions, create multimodal networks, and promote mixed-use developments. Thus, driver delay is no longer considered a significant impact under CEQA; therefore, the analysis and discussion of LOS and congestion is informational only.

1.2.e
Packet Pg. 531 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4091 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for City of Colton–Agua Mansa Logistics Center Project
Initial Study/Consistency Checklist Findings
FirstCarbon Solutions 155 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0237/02370034/Checklist/02370034 Agua Mansa Logistics Center Checklist_cs.docx In February 2020, the San Bernardino County Transportation Authority (SBCTA) released the SBCTA Recommended Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines for Vehicle Miles Traveled and Level of Service Assessment (SBCTA Guidelines) that address both traditional automobile delay-based LOS and VMT analysis requirements. Using the SBCTA Guidelines as a reference, the City adopted the City of Colton VMT Guidelines in June 2020 (City Guidelines). VMT is analyzed in Impact(b) below. a) Congestion Management Plan
Would the project: Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways?
Summary of the General Plan EIR
This checklist question was not evaluated in the General Plan EIR. However, the 2013 EIR determined that long-term implementation of land use policy, in combination with regional contributions to traffic on the local road network, will cause an increase in traffic that will result in several intersections and roadway segments to operate at LOS F. The General Plan EIR concluded that the impact would be significant and unavoidable.

Agua Mansa Logistics Center Analysis and Conclusions
Traffic operations of roadway facilities are described using LOS, which is a qualitative description of traffic flow based on several factors such as speed, travel time, delay, and freedom to maneuver. Six levels are typically defined ranging from LOS A, representing completely free-flow conditions, to LOS F, representing breakdown in flow resulting in stop-and-go conditions. LOS E represents operations at or near capacity, an unstable level where vehicles are operating with the minimum spacing for maintaining uniform flow. As discussed above, automobile delay is no longer considered a significant impact under CEQA; therefore, the analysis and discussion of LOS and congestion is informational only. To evaluate the potential deficiencies to traffic and circulation from development of the Proposed Project, the TA evaluated LOS under the following scenarios:
• Existing (2021), which represent the baseline traffic conditions. • Opening Year Cumulative (2024) Without Project, which determines the potential near-term cumulative circulation system deficiencies without implementation of the Proposed Project. • Opening Year Cumulative (2024) With Project, which determines the potential near-term cumulative circulation system deficiencies with implementation of the Proposed Project. • Horizon Year (2040) Without Project, which utilizes the San Bernardino County Transportation Analysis (SBTAM) to determine whether improvements funded through regional transportation fee programs, such as the City’s Development Impact Fee (DIF) program, or other approved funding mechanisms can accommodate the long-range cumulative traffic at the target LOS identified by the City without implementation of the Proposed Project. • Horizon Year (2040) With Project, which utilizes the SBTAM to determine whether improvements funded through regional transportation fee programs, such as the City’s DIF

1.2.e
Packet Pg. 532 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4091 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for City of Colton–Agua Mansa Logistics Center Project
Findings Initial Study/Consistency Checklist
156 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0237/02370034/Checklist/02370034 Agua Mansa Logistics Center Checklist_cs.docx program, or other approved funding mechanisms can accommodate the long-range cumulative traffic at the target LOS identified by the City with implementation of the Proposed Project.

Each scenario evaluated the same 23 intersections surrounding the project site, as shown in Appendix G.
56 The results of these analyses determined that, under existing conditions, two of the intersections evaluated are currently operating at unacceptable LOS during peak-hours. Evaluation of Opening Year Cumulative (2024) scenarios concluded that there are four additional intersections anticipated to operate at a deficient LOS during the peak-hours; however, no additional intersections are anticipated to operate at a deficient LOS with the addition of project traffic. The TA also concluded that there are three additional study area intersections anticipated to operate at a deficient LOS during one or both peak-hours for Horizon Year (2040) traffic conditions, however, no additional intersections are anticipated to operate at a deficient LOS with the addition of project traffic. California law does not require the applicant to remedy pre-existing deficiencies; rather, the applicant is required to make a fair-share contribution to the local government, reflecting the development’s generation of impacts on the public facility. Under every scenario evaluation, the TA concluded that there are no movements that are anticipated to experience queueing issues during the weekday AM or weekday PM peak 95th percentile traffic flows. Additionally, the development of the Proposed Project is not anticipated to require the construction of any off-site improvements; however, there are improvement needs identified at off-site intersections for future TA scenarios where the Proposed Project would contribute traffic.

As such, prior to the issuance of building permits, the project applicants would be required to contribute to the City’s DIF program by paying the requisite City DIF fees at the rates then in effect pursuant to the City’s ordinance. The contributions toward off-site intersection deficiencies within the City’s jurisdiction would be fulfilled through payment of fair-share or participation in the preexisting fee programs that would be assigned to construction of the identified recommended improvements. The Proposed Project’s fair-share amount for the intersections that either share a mutual border with or are wholly located within the jurisdiction of Caltrans that have recommended improvements are not covered by a pre-existing fee program. Therefore, the applicants would be required to pay a fair-share amount not covered by the pre-existing fee program to the City prior to issuance of building permits. The City would hold these fair-share contribution in trust and would apply them to any fee program adopted or agreed upon by the City and other agencies. b) Inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3
Would the project: Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
Summary of the General Plan EIR
This checklist question did not exist at the time the previous EIR was certified. Case law supports the position that the new VMT standard under SB 743 does not rise to the level of new information 56 Urban Crossroads. 2021. Agua Mansa Logistics Center Traffic Analysis, City of Colton, Exhibit 3-1: Existing Number of Through Lanes and Intersection Controls. August.

1.2.e
Packet Pg. 533 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4091 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for City of Colton–Agua Mansa Logistics Center Project
Initial Study/Consistency Checklist Findings
FirstCarbon Solutions 157 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0237/02370034/Checklist/02370034 Agua Mansa Logistics Center Checklist_cs.docx requiring additional environmental review where, as here, impacts associated with VMT were known at the time the EIR was certified. Further, the recent requirement to evaluate VMT constitutes a new legal standard for measuring the significance of project impacts and is not itself a new or substantially more severe project impact attributable to the Proposed Project. (See Citizens for Responsible Equitable Envtl. Dev. v. City of San Diego (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 515, 532 (“CREED”); Concerned Dublin Citizens v. City of Dublin (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 1301.) The previous EIR evaluated LOS, which reflects how an intersection operates from the driver’s perspective and is used to rank traffic operation on various types of facilities based on traffic volumes and roadway capacity using a series of letter designations ranging from LOS A to F.

Generally, LOS A represents free-flow conditions and LOS F represents forced-flow or breakdown conditions. The 2013 EIR found that the general plan would cause an increase in traffic that will result in several intersections and roadway segments to operate at LOS F. The General Plan EIR concluded that the impact would be significant and unavoidable.

Agua Mansa Logistics Center Analysis and Conclusions
As discussed previously in this section, as a result of the passage of SB 743, changes to CEQA Guidelines were implemented in December 2018, which requires all lead agencies to adopt VMT as a replacement for automobile delay-based LOS as the new measure for identifying transportation impacts for land use projects Nonetheless, although an analysis of VMT impacts is not required, based upon case law, the following analyzes the Proposed Project’s VMT impacts. The City Guidelines describe specific screening criteria that can be used to identify when a proposed land use project is anticipated to result in a less than significant impact without conducting a more detailed project-level VMT analysis. Screening criteria are described in the following four steps: (1) trip screening, (2) land use type screening, (3) High Quality Transit Area (HQTA) screening, and (4) low VMT area screening.

Trip Screening
According to the City Guidelines, projects that generate fewer than 110 daily vehicle trips may be presumed to have a less than significant impact on VMT. The Proposed Project would generate approximately 1,986 vehicle trip-ends per day, which exceeds 110 daily vehicle trips. Similarly, the General Plan Allowable Land Use would also generate daily vehicle trips in excess of 110 daily vehicle trips. Therefore, the Proposed Project does not satisfy this screening criteria.

Land Use Type Screening
According to the City Guidelines, local serving retail projects less than 50,000 square feet or other local serving uses (e.g., day care centers, student housing, public facilities, places of worship, etc.) may be presumed to have a less than significant impact absent substantial evidence to the contrary.

Neither the Proposed Project nor the General Plan Allowable Land Use would qualify as a local serving project. Therefore, the Proposed Project does not satisfy this screening criteria.

High Quality Transit Areas Screening
Consistent with guidance identified in the Technical Advisory and the City Guidelines, projects located within a Transit Priority Area (TPA) (i.e., within 0.5 mile of an existing “major transit stop” or

1.2.e
Packet Pg. 534 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4091 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for City of Colton–Agua Mansa Logistics Center Project
Findings Initial Study/Consistency Checklist
158 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0237/02370034/Checklist/02370034 Agua Mansa Logistics Center Checklist_cs.docx an existing stop along a “high quality transit corridor”) may be presumed to have a less than significant impact absent substantial evidence to the contrary. The project site is not located within

0.5 mile of an existing major transit stop or along a high quality transit corridor. Therefore, the Proposed Project does not satisfy this screening criteria.

Low VMT Area Screening
As noted in the City Guidelines, “Residential and office projects located within a low VMT-generating area may be presumed to have a less than significant impact absent substantial evidence to the contrary. In addition, other employment-related and mixed-use land use projects may qualify for the use of screening if the project can reasonably be expected to generate VMT per resident, per worker, or per service population that is similar to the existing land uses in the low VMT area.” The Screening Tool uses the sub-regional San Bernardino County Transportation Analysis Model (SBTAM) to measure VMT performance within San Bernardino County for individual traffic analysis zones (TAZs) within each city. The Proposed Project’s physical location based on APN is input into the Screening Tool to determine the VMT generated within the respective TAZ as compared to the jurisdictional average inclusive of a particular threshold (i.e., 15 percent below Citywide VMT per service population). Based on the Screening Tool results, the Proposed Project is not located within a low VMT-generating zone as compared to the City’s adopted threshold of 15 percent below baseline Citywide average VMT per service population (see Appendix G).

VMT Metric and Significance Threshold
Consistent with City Guidelines, calculation of VMT for distribution centers, warehouses, and logistic center projects are to utilize thresholds similar to retail projects where significance is based on the net increase in total VMT divided by the Proposed Project’s service population (i.e., employees). 57 Project Land Use Conversion
In order to evaluate project VMT, standard land use information must first be converted into a SBTAM compatible input data. The SBTAM model utilizes socioeconomic data (SED) (e.g., population, households, employment, etc.) instead of land use information for the purposes of vehicle trip estimation. Project land use information, such as building square footages, must first be converted to SED (i.e., employment) for input into SBTAM. Building 1 (Lineage Logistics) has supplied a tenant employee count of 150 employees. Because an end user for Building 2 does not exist today, employment density factors for the speculative Building 2 have been derived from SCAG Employment Density Study.58 The estimated number of project employees is 501. 59 Project Generated VMT Calculation
SBTAM was utilized to calculate the City of Colton’s Citywide average VMT for the Proposed Project’s warehousing land uses. Those values were then divided by the City’s service population inclusive of the Proposed Project’s specific service population (i.e., employees). The “With Project” baseline 57 City of Colton. 2012. TO#234 City of Colton VMT (Vehicle Miles Traveled) Guidelines for the City of Colton, CA. January. Website:
https://www.ci.colton.ca.us/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Item/2599?fileID=3138#:~:text=The%20threshold%20for%20consideration%2 0of,threshold%20for%20the%20dictating%20City. Accessed August 29, 2022. 58 Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). 2001. Employment Density Study Summary Report. October 31. 59 Building 1/Lineage Logistics tenant-supplied employee count of 150 and Building 2/Speculative Building assumes 1,195 square feet per employee consistent with SCAG Employment Density; Table II-B.

1.2.e
Packet Pg. 535 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4091 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for City of Colton–Agua Mansa Logistics Center Project
Initial Study/Consistency Checklist Findings
FirstCarbon Solutions 159 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0237/02370034/Checklist/02370034 Agua Mansa Logistics Center Checklist_cs.docx VMT per service population is 23.31 and the “With Project” cumulative VMT per service population is 23.77.

Comparison to City Impact Threshold
City Guidelines provides VMT impact thresholds for VMT per service population of 23.38 for baseline conditions and 23.83 for cumulative conditions.60 The Proposed Project would not result in an increase in Citywide VMT per service population. The Proposed Project would not exceed the City’s adopted impact thresholds for both 2016 base year and 2040 cumulative year conditions. The Proposed Project’s impact on VMT is less than significant. c) Roadway Safety Hazards
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)? Summary of the General Plan EIR
The General Plan EIR determined that impacts with respect to traffic hazards would be less than significant because the General Plan Update included traffic safety policies. According to the General Plan EIR, future street improvements that are programmed to implement the updated circulation network plan will be designed in accordance with all applicable standards relating to vehicle traffic, bicycles, and pedestrian safety.

Agua Mansa Logistics Center Analysis and Conclusions
The TA reviewed project vehicle access points, truck access points, and sight distance to determine whether the Proposed Project would substantially increase hazards due to geometric design features. Vehicular access to the Proposed Project would be provided by Agua Mansa Road, which intersects Main Street and South Rancho Avenue near the project site. The main access driveway for trucks entering and exiting the project site would be the existing 50-foot driveway on Agua Mansa Road. A new 49-foot driveway would provide passenger vehicle access to Building 1 in the western portion of the project site, and a new 45-foot driveway would provide passenger vehicle and truck access to Building 2. A large parking lot would be constructed in the center of the project site, between Building 1 and Building 2. The location and design of any access points would need to meet City standards and be approved by the City. According to the TA, site access to the Proposed Project would include the following PDFs which shall be implemented to ensure safe vehicle access to the project site.

Driveway 1 off Agua Mansa Road
At this access point, the Proposed Project would install a stop control for the northbound exiting project traffic and a shared left-right turn lane. The project applicants would also construct a westbound left turn lane with a minimum of 100 feet storage. 60 City of Colton. 2012. TO#234 City of Colton VMT (Vehicle Miles Traveled) Guidelines for the City of Colton, CA. January. Website:
https://www.ci.colton.ca.us/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Item/2599?fileID=3138#:~:text=The%20threshold%20for%20consideration%2 0of,threshold%20for%20the%20dictating%20City. Accessed August 29, 2022.

1.2.e
Packet Pg. 536 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4091 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for City of Colton–Agua Mansa Logistics Center Project
Findings Initial Study/Consistency Checklist
160 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0237/02370034/Checklist/02370034 Agua Mansa Logistics Center Checklist_cs.docx Driveway 2 off Agua Mansa Road
At this access point, the project applicants would install a stop control for the northbound exiting project traffic and a shared left-right turn lane. The Proposed Project would also construct a westbound left turn lane with a minimum of 100 feet of storage.

Driveway 3 off Agua Mansa Road
At this access point, the Proposed Project would install a traffic signal since the driveway is the primary project access serving trucks for both buildings and is desired by the project applicants. The Proposed Project would also construct a northbound shared left-right turn lane and a westbound left turn lane with a minimum of 100 feet of storage.

Driveway 4 off Agua Mansa Road
At this access point, the Proposed Project would install a stop control for the northbound exiting project traffic and a shared left-right turn lane and construct a westbound left turn lane with a minimum of 100 feet of storage.

With the inclusion of these project design elements, the vehicle access points to the project site would not substantially increase hazards due geometric design features or incompatible uses.

Because of the typical wide turning radius of large trucks, a truck access analysis has been evaluated in the TA for Driveways 1, 3 and 4 to the project site since these driveways are anticipated to be utilized by heavy trucks. Evaluation of truck access to the project site is based on review of the appropriate curb radii to verify that trucks would have sufficient space to execute turning maneuvers. According to the TA, site access to the project site would include the following PDFs to ensure safe truck access to the project site.

Driveway 1 off Agua Mansa Road
At this access point, Driveway 1 would provide a 45-foot curb radius on the southeast corner, a 35- foot curb radius on the southwest corner and shift the drive aisle by 14 feet to the east.

Driveway 3 off Agua Mansa Road
At this access point, Driveway 3 would provide a 45-foot curb radius on the southeast corner and a 35-foot curb radius on the southwest corner.

Driveway 4 off Agua Mansa Road
At this access point, Driveway 4 would provide a 45-foot curb radius on the southwest corner, a 35- foot curb radius on the southeast corner and shift the drive aisle by 5 feet to the west.

With the inclusion of these project design elements, the truck access points to the project site would not substantially increase hazards due geometric design features or incompatible uses.

Additionally, sight distance at each project access point would be reviewed with respect to standard Caltrans and City sight distance standards at the time of preparation of final grading, landscape, and street improvement plans. For the project, the evaluation of sight distance is based on the posted speed limit plus 5 miles per hour, and a 11.5 second criterion has been applied to the outside travel

1.2.e
Packet Pg. 537 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4091 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for City of Colton–Agua Mansa Logistics Center Project
Initial Study/Consistency Checklist Findings
FirstCarbon Solutions 161 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0237/02370034/Checklist/02370034 Agua Mansa Logistics Center Checklist_cs.docx lanes in either direction to provide the most conservative sight distance. It is anticipated that the minimum 855-foot sight distance for left turning vehicles and 785-foot sight distance for right turning vehicles would be accommodated for the project driveways on Agua Mansa Road based on a speed limit of 45 miles per hour. Additionally, obstructions within the limited use area would be limited to 36-inches in height in order to maintain adequate visibility/sight distance. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not introduce new impacts or create more severe impacts than those previously analyzed in the previous EIR. No additional analysis is required. d) Emergency Access
Would the project: Result in inadequate emergency access? Summary of the General Plan EIR
The General Plan EIR determined that impacts with respect to emergency access would be less than significant because future development will be subject to the provisions of the City’s Fire Code with regard to providing adequate emergency access, and because the General Plan Update did not change standards related to emergency access.

Agua Mansa Logistics Center Analysis and Conclusions
As previously concluded in Section H, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Impact(f), implementation of the Proposed Project would not result in any permanent lane closures or obstructions that could impede emergency response to or from the project site from the surrounding streets. No roads would be permanently closed as a result of the construction or operation of the Proposed Project. In addition, emergency access would be provided via a fire access road that would allow emergency vehicles to access the entire perimeter of the facility at any time. The buildings would also have fire access doors with fire signals located every 100 feet around the perimeter of the facility.

Construction activity has the potential to result in temporary road closures. Consistent with the City’s General Notes and City Standards regarding Street Improvement Plans, prior to the commencement of any work in public streets or within the public right-of-way, the project contractor is required to provide a traffic control plan to the City Engineer for review.61 Traffic control plans for minor right-of-way improvements are required to conform to the Work Area Traffic Control Handbook and large project traffic control plans are required to be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer. As a result, a traffic control plan would be prepared should any temporary road closures be required for construction. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not introduce new impacts or create more severe impacts than those previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR. No additional analysis is required.

EIR Mitigation Measures
None.
61 City of Colton. Street Improvement Plan Notes. Website: https://www.ci.colton.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/638. Accessed October 2, 2020.

1.2.e
Packet Pg. 538 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4091 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for City of Colton–Agua Mansa Logistics Center Project
Findings Initial Study/Consistency Checklist
162 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0237/02370034/Checklist/02370034 Agua Mansa Logistics Center Checklist_cs.docx Conclusion
No peculiar impacts that are not substantially mitigated have been identified as a result of the Proposed Project or its site. Incorporation of policies and mitigation from the General Plan EIR, and PDFs substantially mitigates potentially significant impacts consistent with the conclusions in the General Plan EIR.

The conclusions from the General Plan EIR remain unchanged when considering the implementation of the Proposed Project. Further environmental analysis is not required.

1.2.e
Packet Pg. 539 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4091 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for City of Colton–Agua Mansa Logistics Center Project
Initial Study/Consistency Checklist Findings
FirstCarbon Solutions 163 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0237/02370034/Checklist/02370034 Agua Mansa Logistics Center Checklist_cs.docx Environmental Issues
CEQA Section 15183(b) Criteria
General Plan
EIR
Determination
Effect
Peculiar to
Project or
Site?
New
Significant
Effect?
New
Significant
Off-site,
Cumulative
Impact?
New
Information,
More Severe
Adverse
Impact?
Q. Utilities and Service Systems
Would the project:
a) 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 or relocation of which could
cause significant environmental effects?
Less than
significant
impact
No No No No
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to
serve the project and reasonably
foreseeable future development during
normal, dry and multiple dry years?
Less than
significant
impact
No No No No
c) Result in a determination by the
wastewater treatment provider which
serves or may serve the project that it has
adequate capacity to serve the project’s
projected demand in addition to the
provider’s existing commitments?
Less than
significant
impact
No No No No
d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or
local standards, or in excess of the capacity
of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair
the attainment of solid waste reduction
goals?
Less than
significant
impact
No No No No
e) Comply with federal, State, and local
management and reduction statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
No
significant
impacts
identified
No No No No
a) Water, Wastewater, and Stormwater Facilities
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 or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
Summary of the General Plan EIR
The General Plan EIR determined that expansion of water and wastewater facilities will be contingent upon the rate of growth and deterioration of aging facilities. The General Plan EIR noted that the City plans to update water and wastewater master plans as needed, and construction of

1.2.e
Packet Pg. 540 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4091 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for City of Colton–Agua Mansa Logistics Center Project
Findings Initial Study/Consistency Checklist
164 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0237/02370034/Checklist/02370034 Agua Mansa Logistics Center Checklist_cs.docx new or expanded treatment facilities would undergo environmental review to ensure potential environmental impacts are mitigated. Therefore, the General Plan EIR concluded that impacts related to the exceedance of wastewater treatment requirements of the Colton Wastewater Reclamation Facility (CWRF) will be less than significant based on existing City plans and regulatory requirements.

The City’s Municipal Code requires incremental expansion of wastewater treatment facilities based on new development through the collection of Public Improvement Fees. This ensures that adequate funding is available to meet future facilities’ needs, should expansion be necessary. Wastewater treatment requirements are administered by the RWQCB. The CWRF will be required to comply with these discharge requirements to ensure that effluent discharges are within acceptable water quality parameters. Based on the anticipated demand for wastewater services and existing regulations, impacts associated with wastewater treatment requirements will be less than significant.

Agua Mansa Logistics Center Analysis and Conclusions
The Colton Water Department provides water service to the project site. The City would provide water and wastewater services to the project site.62 Proposed storm drain easements would be located along the southern perimeter of the project site and along the eastern border of the project site. A proposed sewer easement would be located on the northeast corner of the project site. The City does not import water to meet the demands of its service area. The City owns and operates the CWRF, a secondary wastewater treatment plant located at 1201 South Rancho Avenue. The facility treats an average daily flow of 5.6 million gallons per day (MGD). The CWRF is designed to treat a maximum of 10.4 MGD. Wastewater treatment requirements for the CWRF are established by the Santa Ana RWQCB pursuant to Order No. R8-2005-0075 (NPDES No. CA 0105236).

Wastewater generated on the project site would comply with all provisions of the Santa Ana RWQCB NPDES permit system and would not exceed applicable wastewater treatment requirements. The Proposed Project would increase wastewater generation compared to existing conditions. The Proposed Project would develop two warehouse buildings, with Building 1 used as an automated freezer facility. Wastewater from the Proposed Project would be generated from the proposed employees, restrooms, and routine cleaning and maintenance. The Proposed Project is expected to generate 15,000 gallons of wastewater per day (gpd). This would represent approximately 0.1 percent of the CWRF’s daily maximum treatment capacity, which is a nominal amount. Wastewater would be conveyed to a 21-inch City trunk main (gravity) at the intersection of Agua Mansa Road and Rancho Avenue northeast of the project site. This 21-inch main conveys flows south about 1,000 feet, before discharging at the City of Colton’s sewer waste treatment plant which abuts the east property line of the project site. This 21-inch gravity main has historically had peak flow capacity issues. As part of the Proposed Project, the applicants, in coordination with the City, would provide capacity in the 21-inch main to support the proposed project. The proposed project would include modifications to the plant operations, diverting flows from the 21-inch City main directly to the main plant sump and lift station, and allowing the flows in the 21-inch main to drawdown quicker, creating upstream capacity for the overall system. The improvements would accommodate the discharge 62 City of Colton. 2020. Utility Billing Services. Website: https://www.ci.colton.ca.us/166/Utility-Billing-Services. Accessed February 4, 2022.

1.2.e
Packet Pg. 541 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4091 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for City of Colton–Agua Mansa Logistics Center Project
Initial Study/Consistency Checklist Findings
FirstCarbon Solutions 165 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0237/02370034/Checklist/02370034 Agua Mansa Logistics Center Checklist_cs.docx from the Proposed Project. The Proposed Project would also be required to pay a fair-share fee, as well.
63 As a result, the Proposed Project is consistent with what was envisioned by the General Plan for this area and evaluated in the General Plan EIR. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not result in any peculiar effects and would not result in new or more severe impacts than what was previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR.

Other off-site improvements include capacity improvements to the sewer system that serves the project site. The improvements would accommodate the discharge from the Proposed Project until such time as planned upgrades are completed to the City’s sewer waste treatment plant.

Additionally, the Proposed Project applicants would dedicate portions of Agua Mansa Road to the City and would vacate portions of this roadway to realign Agua Mansa Road with the northern boundary of the project site. Easements for SCE, as well as for storm drains, reciprocal access, water, sewer, pipelines, telecommunications, and County flood control would be located primarily along the east and southeast boundaries of the project site and along the southern boundary. b) Water Supply
Would the project: Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? Summary of the General Plan EIR
The General Plan EIR determined that implementation of the proposed General Plan will not require new or expanded water supply entitlements to be secured. The General Plan EIR noted that the City Water Department anticipates pumping approximately 14,853 acre-feet in 2035, or more than enough needed to serve the projected population. Therefore, it was concluded based on existing water supplies and existing and proposed water conservation efforts, impacts would be less than significant regarding having sufficient water supplies.

Agua Mansa Logistics Center Analysis and Conclusions
The City would provide water and wastewater services to the project site. 64 The City does not import water to meet the demands of its service area. There is a total of 15 wells, five main booster pumping plants, nine water storage reservoirs, and over 120 miles of transmission and distribution pipelines. All water provided from the City is from the Rialto-Colton, Bunker Hill, and North Riverside groundwater basins. It is estimated that the projected water use for Commercial/Industrial uses is approximately 3,746 acre-feet per year (AFY) in 2025 and would increase to 4,148 AFY by 2035.65 According to the City’s Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), residential water demand is greater than commercial water demand. Further, because the Proposed Project is consistent with the development density for the project site under the General Plan and Municipal Code, the Proposed 63 City of Colton Public Works Department. 2021. Sewer discussion sent 5-12-21. 64 City of Colton. 2020. Utility Billing Services. Website: https://www.ci.colton.ca.us/166/Utility-Billing-Services. Accessed February 4, 2022. 65 City of Colton. 2020. Upper Santa Ana Watershed. Integrated Regional Urban Water Management Plan – Part 2: Local Agency UWMPs. Website: https://www.ci.colton.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/7301/2020-IRUWMP_Part-2-Local-Agency-UWMPs.

Accessed January 4, 2022.

1.2.e
Packet Pg. 542 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4091 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for City of Colton–Agua Mansa Logistics Center Project
Findings Initial Study/Consistency Checklist
166 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0237/02370034/Checklist/02370034 Agua Mansa Logistics Center Checklist_cs.docx Project’s impacts are not greater than those discussed in the General Plan EIR. Therefore, projected water demand for the Proposed Project would not exceed the water demand projected in the City’s UWMP and adequate water supply is available to the project area with the anticipated development and growth of the General Plan. Furthermore, the Proposed Project would be required to comply with General Plan Goal LU-14 supporting green building and sustainable building practices that would support water conservation efforts. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not result in any peculiar effects and would not result in new or more severe impacts than what was previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR.
c) Wastewater Treatment Capacity
Would the project: Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? Summary of the General Plan EIR
The General Plan EIR determined that future development accommodated under the General Plan could require expanded wastewater infrastructure in order to meet future needs when considered in light of existing demand. Therefore, the City prepared a Wastewater System Master Plan that identifies long-term programs designed to maintain and expand wastewater treatment facilities to accommodate existing and future growth. Incremental expansion of facilities in accordance with the Wastewater System Master Plan is achieved through collection of Public Improvement Fees. Facilities may be expanded by development project proponents as well to ensure that adequate facilities are available to serve new development needs. The General Plan does not include policies that would interfere with the implementation of the current or future Capital Improvement Program (CIP) or the collection of Public Improvement Fees. Therefore, it was concluded that impacts related to insufficient wastewater treatment capacity will be less than significant with implementation of existing standards and regulations.

Agua Mansa Logistics Center Analysis and Conclusions
Proposed storm drain easements would be located along the southern perimeter of the project site and along the eastern border of the project site. A proposed sewer easement would be located on the northeast corner of the project site. The Proposed Project would also be required to obtain all applicable permits related to stormwater generation during construction, which would include the completion of a stormwater control plan.

Under the existing conditions, there are no adjacent or area gravity sewer mains within the area that can feasibly serve the site with a gravity fed connection. However, the City does maintain an existing 8-inch force main in Agua Mansa Road that flows from a City lift station located southwest of this site along Riverside Avenue, north to Agua Mansa Road then east across the frontage of this site before discharging into a large 21-inch City trunk main (gravity) at the intersection of Agua Mansa Road and Rancho Avenue northeast of this site. As discussed previously under Impact(a), this 21-inch main conveys flows south about 1,000 feet, before discharging at the City of Colton’s sewer waste treatment plant which abuts the east property line of the project site. This 21-inch gravity main has

1.2.e
Packet Pg. 543 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4091 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for City of Colton–Agua Mansa Logistics Center Project
Initial Study/Consistency Checklist Findings
FirstCarbon Solutions 167 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0237/02370034/Checklist/02370034 Agua Mansa Logistics Center Checklist_cs.docx historically had peak flow capacity issues. In coordination with the City, the applicants, designed the Proposed Project to include improvements that would provide capacity in the 21-inch main until planned plant expansion and upgrades can be designed and completed.

The Proposed Project would include a private 6-inch on-site gravity sewer lateral from each building that would convey flows to a private on-site shared sump and pump that would discharge to the existing off-site 8-inch City force main with a new 4-inch force main lateral connection and check valve. The combined flows that would be pumped from the Proposed Project into the City’s 8-inch force main are estimated to be approximately 15,000 gpd. As discussed previously under Impact(a), to accommodate the proposed additional discharge from the Proposed Project, the Proposed Project would be designed to provide capacity in the 21-inch main until future plant upgrades are provided.

This project design feature involves modifications to the plant operations, diverting flows from the 21-inch main directly to the main plant sump and lift station, allowing the flows in the 21-inch main to drawdown quicker, creating upstream capacity for the overall system. This project design feature would provide adequate capacity for the Proposed Project. The Proposed Project would be required to pay a fair-share fee as well. Additionally, the Proposed Project would be required to pay certain DIF to the City, including a Wastewater Capacity Charge, which is based on the flows discharged from the site. This fee would contribute to any necessary plant expansion. Further, because the Proposed Project is consistent with the development density for the project site under the General Plan and Municipal Code, the Proposed Project’s impacts are not greater than those discussed in the General Plan EIR. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not result in any peculiar effects and would not introduce new or more severe impacts related to stormwater system capacity beyond what was previously evaluated in the General Plan EIR. No additional analysis is required. d) Solid Waste Reduction Goals Consistency
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?
Summary of the General Plan EIR
The General Plan EIR determined that the current waste generation rates of 5.2 pounds (lbs.) of trash per resident per day and 15.4 lbs. per employee per day would total approximately 518 tons of solid waste generated from the planning area. It was noted that the majority of the City’s waste will be disposed of at the Colton Landfill and over 55 percent of existing servicing landfill capacity remains and would likely be sufficient to support the disposal needs of the planning area over the long term. The General Plan EIR concluded the City would continue to implement a variety of solid waste reduction, recycling, and reuse measures to meet its obligation under Assembly Bill (AB) 939.

Therefore, the General Plan EIR concluded that impacts associated with adequacy of solid waste disposal sites will be less than significant pursuant to existing policies and regulations.

Agua Mansa Logistics Center Analysis and Conclusions
The freezer facility building would employ approximately 60 employees in two 12-hour shifts. The dock would have approximately 25 to 30 employees in this area at a time, and the automated dock

1.2.e
Packet Pg. 544 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4091 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for City of Colton–Agua Mansa Logistics Center Project
Findings Initial Study/Consistency Checklist
168 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0237/02370034/Checklist/02370034 Agua Mansa Logistics Center Checklist_cs.docx mezzanine would be staffed with five employees at a time. The mechanical area would be staffed by one maintenance person. The office area would consist of two levels. The first level would support the loading dock and employees, and the second level would be for office administration, with a staff of approximately 10 to 15 employees. Although there is no end user presently identified for Building 2, it is estimated that Building 2 would have approximately 51 employees. Using a standard industrial solid waste generation rate of 15.4 lb./employee/day, the Proposed Project would generate approximately 1,709.4 lbs. per day.
66 According to the City’s UWMP, in 2020 the City of Colton had a population size of 46,525 residents, making the waste generation that year approximately 241,930 lbs. per day.67 The City would also continue to implement various solid waste reduction, recycling, and reuse measures, in accordance with its obligation under AB 939 and in cooperation with waste management programs administered by the County of San Bernardino through its Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan.

Implementation of these policies and programs would further reduce the amount of waste produced by the City and the Proposed Project itself. Further, because the Proposed Project is consistent with the development density for the project site under the General Plan and Municipal Code, the Proposed Project’s impacts are not greater than those discussed in the General Plan EIR. As such, the Proposed Project would not introduce new or more severe environmental impact than those analyzed in the General Plan EIR. No additional analysis is required. e) Solid Waste Regulations Consistency
Would the project: Comply with federal, State, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
Summary of the General Plan EIR
The General Plan EIR determined that impacts associated with solid waste regulations will be less than significant pursuant to existing policies and regulations. As previously described, the General Plan EIR noted that majority of the City’s waste will be disposed of at the Colton Landfill and over 55 percent of existing servicing landfill capacity remains and would likely be sufficient to support the disposal needs of the planning area over the long term. The General Plan EIR concluded the City would continue to implement a variety of solid waste reduction, recycling, and reuse measures to meet its obligation under AB 939.

Agua Mansa Logistics Center Analysis and Conclusions
The Proposed Project would comply with all applicable federal, State, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not introduce new impacts or create more severe impacts related compliance with federal, State, and local statutes and regulations than those previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR. No additional analysis is required.
66 Calculation: 15.4 lbs. x (111 employees) = 1,709.4 lbs. 67 Calculation: 5.2 lbs. x 46,525 residents = 241,930 lbs.

1.2.e
Packet Pg. 545 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4091 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for City of Colton–Agua Mansa Logistics Center Project
Initial Study/Consistency Checklist Findings
FirstCarbon Solutions 169 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0237/02370034/Checklist/02370034 Agua Mansa Logistics Center Checklist_cs.docx EIR Mitigation Measures
None.

The Proposed Project is consistent with the development density and zoning evaluated in the General Plan EIR and the General Plan. There is no new information identifying new significant effects, nor is there an increase in the severity of previously identified impacts related to utilities and service systems as compared to what was already identified and disclosed, either individually or cumulatively.

The conclusions from the General Plan EIR remain unchanged when considering the implementation of the Proposed Project. Further environmental analysis is not required.

1.2.e
Packet Pg. 546 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4091 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for City of Colton–Agua Mansa Logistics Center Project
Findings Initial Study/Consistency Checklist
170 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0237/02370034/Checklist/02370034 Agua Mansa Logistics Center Checklist_cs.docx Environmental Issues
CEQA Section 15183(b) Criteria
General Plan
EIR
Determination
Effect
Peculiar to
Project or
Site?
New
Significant
Effect?
New
Significant
Off-site,
Cumulative
Impact?
New
Information,
More Severe
Adverse
Impact?
R. Wildfire
If located in or near State Responsibility Areas or lands classified as Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones, would the project:
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
No impact No No No No
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other
factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and
thereby expose project occupants to,
pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or
the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
No
significant
Impact
identified
No No No No
c) Require the installation or maintenance of
associated infrastructure (such as roads,
fuel breaks, emergency water sources,
power lines or other utilities) that may
exacerbate fire risk or that may result in
temporary or ongoing impacts to the
environment?
No
significant
Impact
identified
No No No No
d) Expose people or structures to significant
risks, including downslope or downstream
flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff,
post-fire slope instability, or drainage
changes?
Less than
significant
impact
No No No No
a) Emergency Response/Evacuation Plan Consistency
Would the project: If located in or near State Responsibility Areas or lands classified as Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones, substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Summary of the General Plan EIR
The General Plan EIR did not include a specific topical section for wildfire. However, the General Plan EIR Section 4.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Impact 4.8 G, discusses impacts related to emergency response plans or evacuation plans, including those associated with wildfire. New analysis related to wildfire does not rise to the level of new information requiring additional environmental review where, as here, impacts associated with wildfire were known at the time the EIR was certified. Further, the recent requirement to evaluate wildfire constitutes a new legal standard for measuring the significance of project impacts and is not itself a new or substantially more severe project impact attributable to the Proposed Project.

1.2.e
Packet Pg. 547 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4091 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for City of Colton–Agua Mansa Logistics Center Project
Initial Study/Consistency Checklist Findings
FirstCarbon Solutions 171 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0237/02370034/Checklist/02370034 Agua Mansa Logistics Center Checklist_cs.docx According to the General Plan EIR, impairment of emergency or evacuation procedures can result in increased property damage and/or personal injury by slowing emergency services response times or preventing the public from being able to escape emergency situations. The General Plan did not include any changes in the physical organization of the planning area that could interfere with the City’s emergency response or evacuation procedures pursuant to the National Incident Management System (NIMS), Standard Emergency Management System (SEMS), or the City’s emergency response plan. Disaster response procedures are designed to be flexible in nature in order to adapt to the volatile and unpredictable nature of disasters and hazards. This flexibility allows for emergency response services and City staff to respond to varying emergencies regardless of location, size, or number of persons affected. The General Plan EIR determined that implementation of the General Plan would not interfere with the City’s emergency response and evacuation procedures, and that no impact would occur.

Agua Mansa Logistics Center Analysis and Conclusions
As shown in Exhibit 4.8-2 of the General Plan EIR, wildfire hazards in the City of Colton are located primarily in the southern areas of the City and along the adjacent border with the City of Grand Terrace, and along a few areas south of the Santa Ana River. Agua Mansa Road, including the project site, is not within the mapped area of wildfire hazards. Furthermore, there is no recorded history of wildfires on or near the project site. The nearest recorded wildfire was the 1981 Colton Fire, located along the Riverside Freeway, more than 2 miles east of the project site.68 CAL FIRE does not designate the site as a VHFHSZ in a Local Responsibility Area (LRA) nor a fire hazard zone in a State Responsibility Area (SRA).69 The nearest VHFHSZ is La Loma Hills, located more than 0.5 mile south of the project site. The project site is located in an area with existing industrial uses, vacant land, warehouses, and a single residential property. The Proposed Project would not include permanent road closures that would impact an emergency response plan or evacuation plan.

The Proposed Project would consist of industrial warehouse uses, which is consistent with the General Plan land use designation of M-2. Furthermore, the Proposed Project would include off-site improvements to public infrastructure, including installation of a traffic signal at Driveway 3 of Agua Mansa Road; construction of Agua Mansa Road at half its width (96-foot right-of-way) from the project site’s western boundary to the eastern boundary; and construction of Driveway 1, 3, and 4 to provide a 45-foot curb radius.

The City of Colton has several policies regarding public safety related to emergencies, including those found in the General Plan Safety Element, the Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) and the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. The Proposed Project would comply with these policies. Construction of the Proposed Project would not conflict with the relevant policies of the General Plan Safety Element, EOP, or the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. In the unlikely event of an evacuation due to wildland fire, project occupants would have access to Agua Mansa Road north of the project site. As shown in Figure 3: Evacuation Routes in the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, Agua Mansa Road is designated as 68 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). 2023. California Wildfire History Map. Website:
https://projects.capradio.org/california-fire-history/#11.72/34.0599/-117.3548. Accessed January 26, 2023. 69 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). 2022. Fire Hazard Severity Zones Maps. Website:
https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/. Accessed January 20, 2022.

1.2.e
Packet Pg. 548 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4091 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for City of Colton–Agua Mansa Logistics Center Project
Findings Initial Study/Consistency Checklist
172 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0237/02370034/Checklist/02370034 Agua Mansa Logistics Center Checklist_cs.docx an evacuation route.70 Project occupants can easily access the evacuation route from the project site via the four proposed driveways connecting to Agua Mansa Road. Furthermore, emergency vehicles would have improved access to the project site due to the proposed 45-foot curb radius in Driveway 1, 3, and 4. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not result in any peculiar effects and would not result in new or more severe impacts related to an emergency response plan or evacuation plan beyond what was previously analyzed in the General Plan . b) Expose Project Occupants to Pollutant Concentrations from Wildfire Would the project: If located in or near State Responsibility Areas or lands classified as Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones, due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? Summary of the General Plan EIR
The General Plan EIR did not include a specific topical section for wildfire. However, wildfire hazards were discussed in Section 4.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of the General Plan EIR. As discussed above, new analysis related to wildfire does not rise to the level of new information requiring additional environmental review where, as here, impacts associated with wildfire were known at the time the EIR was certified. Further, the recent requirement to evaluate wildfire constitutes a new legal standard for measuring the significance of project impacts and is not itself a new or substantially more severe project impact attributable to the Proposed Project. As shown in Exhibit 4.8-2 of the General Plan EIR, wildfire hazards are located primarily along the southern areas of the City.

Agua Mansa Logistics Center Analysis and Conclusions
Consistent with the General Plan EIR, CAL FIRE does not designate the site as a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone in an LRA nor a fire hazard zone in an SRA.71 The nearest VHFHSZ is La Loma Hills, located more than 0.5 mile south of the project site. Furthermore, the Proposed Project is located on vacant land that has been graded and is in an area characterized by existing industrial uses, vacant land, and warehouses, and does not include development that would occur on slopes or hillsides.

The project area is not located immediately adjacent to mountains or in proximity to the wildlandurban interface, where wildfires are a greater risk. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire, and impacts would be less than significant. The Proposed Project would not result in any peculiar effects and would not result in new or more severe impacts beyond what was previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR.
70 City of Colton. 2018. Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Public Review Draft. September. 71 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). 2022. Fire Hazard Severity Zones Maps. Website:
https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/. Accessed January 20, 2022.

1.2.e
Packet Pg. 549 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4091 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for City of Colton–Agua Mansa Logistics Center Project
Initial Study/Consistency Checklist Findings
FirstCarbon Solutions 173 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0237/02370034/Checklist/02370034 Agua Mansa Logistics Center Checklist_cs.docx c) Infrastructure that Exacerbates Fire Risk
Would the project: If located in or near State Responsibility Areas or lands classified as Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones, require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
Summary of the General Plan EIR
The General Plan EIR did not include a specific topical section for wildfire. However, wildfire hazards were discussed in Section 4.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of the General Plan EIR. As discussed above, new analysis related to wildfire does not rise to the level of new information requiring additional environmental review where, as here, impacts associated with wildfire were known at the time the EIR was certified. Further, the recent requirement to evaluate wildfire constitutes a new legal standard for measuring the significance of project impacts and is not itself a new or substantially more severe project impact attributable to the Proposed Project. As shown in Exhibit 4.8-2 of the General Plan EIR, wildfire hazards are primarily located in the southern portions of the City, and the project site is not located within an SRA and is not located on lands classified as a VHFHSZ.

Agua Mansa Logistics Center Analysis and Conclusions
Consistent with the General Plan EIR, and as discussed previously, the project site is not located in or near SRAs or lands classified as VHFHSZ. The nearest VHFHSZ is La Loma Hills. La Loma Hills is located more than 0.5 mile south of the project site. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not exacerbate fire risk, and impacts would be less than significant. The Proposed Project would not result in any peculiar effects and would not result in new or more severe impacts beyond what was previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR.
d) Flooding and Landslide Hazards Due to Post-fire Slope Instability/Drainage Changes Would the project: If located in or near State Responsibility Areas or lands classified as Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones, expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?
Summary of the General Plan EIR
The General Plan EIR Section 4.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Impact 4.8 G, discusses impacts associated with the potential to expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires. As discussed above, new analysis related to wildfire does not rise to the level of new information requiring additional environmental review where, as here, impacts associated with wildfire were known at the time the EIR was certified. Further, the recent requirement to evaluate wildfire constitutes a new legal standard for measuring the significance of project impacts and is not itself a new or substantially more severe project impact attributable to the Proposed Project

1.2.e
Packet Pg. 550 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4091 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for City of Colton–Agua Mansa Logistics Center Project
Findings Initial Study/Consistency Checklist
174 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0237/02370034/Checklist/02370034 Agua Mansa Logistics Center Checklist_cs.docx According to the General Plan EIR, implementation of the General Plan would not directly expose people or property to the threat of wildland fires; however, development allowed for by the General Plan located within La Loma Hills and the Box Springs Mountains may expose persons and structures to wildland fires at the interface between the natural and built environments, constituting a potentially significant impact over the long term. New development could occur in a wildland fire hazard area through approval and implementation of projects in the Pellisier Ranch and Reche Canyon areas. Both areas are classified as VHFHSZ. Impacts associated with wildland fires include property damage and personal injury.

The City has adopted Section 701A of the California Building Code to minimize the potential for property destruction due to wildland fires by requiring materials and construction methods that are fire resistant. The General Plan EIR determined that the General Plan would not interfere with the implementation of these regulations, and that with the continued enforcement of existing regulations, impacts due to wildland fires would be less than significant.

Agua Mansa Logistics Center Analysis and Conclusions
The project site is not located on or near a VHFHSZ. The nearest VHFHSZ is La Loma Hills. La Loma Hills is located more than 0.5 mile south of the project site. As discussed in the General Plan EIR, development within La Loma Hills may expose persons and structures to wildfire risks. The project site is located north of La Loma Hills and is not within an area that is at risk of wildfires. Furthermore, the Proposed Project is located on vacant land that has been graded and is in an area characterized by existing industrial uses, vacant land, and warehouses, and does not include development that would occur on slopes or hillsides. The project area is not located immediately adjacent to mountains or in proximity to the wildland-urban interface, where wildfires are a greater risk.

Additionally, the Proposed Project would not include any residential development. The Proposed Project would comply with the required fire safety standards identified in Title 15 of the Colton Municipal Code, consistent with the General Plan Safety Element. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not result in any peculiar effects and would not result in new or more severe impacts related to an emergency response plan or evacuation plan beyond what was previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR.

EIR Mitigation Measures
None.

1.2.e
Packet Pg. 551 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4091 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for City of Colton–Agua Mansa Logistics Center Project
Initial Study/Consistency Checklist Findings
FirstCarbon Solutions 175 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0237/02370034/Checklist/02370034 Agua Mansa Logistics Center Checklist_cs.docx The conclusions from the General Plan EIR remain unchanged when considering the implementation of the Proposed Project. Further environmental analysis is not required.

1.2.e
Packet Pg. 552 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4091 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for City of Colton–Agua Mansa Logistics Center Project
Findings Initial Study/Consistency Checklist
176 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0237/02370034/Checklist/02370034 Agua Mansa Logistics Center Checklist_cs.docx Environmental Issues
CEQA Section 15183(b) Criteria
General Plan
EIR
Determination
Effect
Peculiar to
Project or
Site?
New
Significant
Effect?
New
Significant
Off-site,
Cumulative
Impact?
New
Information,
More Severe
Adverse
Impact?
S. Mandatory Findings of Significance
a) Does the project have the potential to
substantially degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a
fish or wildlife population to drop below
self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate
a plant or animal community, substantially
reduce the number or restrict the range of a
rare or endangered plant or animal, or
eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory?
Less than
significant
with
mitigation
incorporated
No No No No
b) Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable”
means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of past projects,
the effects of other current projects, and
the effects of probable future projects)?
Significant
and
unavoidable
impact
No No No No
c) Does the project have environmental effects,
which will cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
Significant
and
unavoidable
impact
No No No No
a) Potential Degradation to Environment and Examples of California History or Prehistory Does the project: Have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? As described in detail in this Checklist and the attached appendices, project-level analysis determined that no new or more severe impacts would occur as a result of the Proposed Project and no new mitigation would be required beyond uniformly applied development standards, those applicable measures already identified in the General Plan EIR and PDFs. These impacts were already accounted for in the General Plan EIR and are therefore not a peculiar or more severe impact. All project-specific biological resources impacts were found to be less than significant with mitigation.

The Proposed Project would comply with all applicable biological resources mitigation measures and

1.2.e
Packet Pg. 553 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4091 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for City of Colton–Agua Mansa Logistics Center Project
Initial Study/Consistency Checklist Findings
FirstCarbon Solutions 177 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0237/02370034/Checklist/02370034 Agua Mansa Logistics Center Checklist_cs.docx existing regulations, and would therefore not degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below selfsustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal community. The Proposed Project is within the development assumptions analyzed by the General Plan EIR, and therefore would not result in any new or more severe impacts. The conclusions of the General Plan EIR would remain unchanged.

Therefore, the Proposed Project would not result in any peculiar effects and would not result in a new or more severe adverse impact that was not previously identified in the General Plan EIR. b) Cumulatively Considerable Impacts
Does the project: Have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? As described in detail herein and the attached appendices, the General Plan EIR identified cumulatively significant impacts related to air quality, GHG emissions, population and housing, and transportation. These impacts were accounted for in the General Plan EIR and addressed by a Statement of Overriding Considerations adopted by the City. The Proposed Project would comply with all applicable mitigation measures to reduce impacts related to development within the site to the greatest extent feasible. All other cumulative impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels through PDFs, compliance with mitigation measures identified by the General Plan EIR, compliance with uniformly applicable standards, existing regulations and applicable General Plan Policies, as described more fully herein and the attached appendices. As such, impacts associated with the development of the Proposed Project would be consistent with the analysis in the General Plan EIR. The Proposed Project is consistent with the development density and zoning in the General Plan, and therefore would not result in any peculiar effects and would not result in a new or more severe adverse impact that was not previously identified in the General Plan EIR. c) Adverse Effects on Human Beings?
Does the project: Have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
As described in detail herein and the attached appendices, the Proposed Project would be consistent with the proposed development assumptions contained within the General Plan EIR. The preceding sections of this Checklist discuss the various impacts that could have adverse effects on human beings, such as air quality, GHG emissions, hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, and noise compared to the findings of the General Plan EIR. All impacts identified in this document have been determined consistent with or less severe than the impacts identified in the General Plan EIR through the implementation of applicable mitigation measures, compliance with applicable uniformly applied development standards, and incorporation of relevant PDFs. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not result in any peculiar effects and would not result in a new or more severe adverse impact that was not previously identified in the General Plan EIR.

1.2.e
Packet Pg. 554 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4091 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

1.2.e
Packet Pg. 555 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4091 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for City of Colton–Agua Mansa Logistics Center Project
Initial Study/Consistency Checklist List of Preparers
FirstCarbon Solutions 179 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0237/02370034/Checklist/02370034 Agua Mansa Logistics Center Checklist_cs.docx SECTION 5: LIST OF PREPARERS
FirstCarbon Solutions
967 Kendall Drive, #A-537
San Bernardino, CA 92407
Phone: 909.884.2255
Project Director .......................................................................................................................Mary Bean Project Manager........................................................................................................................ Cecilia So Assistant Project Manager........................................................................................... Rachel Krusenoski Assistant Project Manager..........................................................................................Stephanie Shepard Air Quality Scientist ................................................................................................................. Lance Park Biologist ............................................................................................................................Alec Villanueva Archaeologist .................................................................................................................... Stefanie Griffin Cultural Resources Analyst ............................................................................................... Natalie Adame Noise Analyst............................................................................................................ Phil Ault, LEEDTM AP Publications Manager............................................................................................................ Susie Harris Publications Coordinator.........................................................................................................Alec Harris Document Specialist....................................................................................................... Melissa Ramirez GIS/Graphics....................................................................................................................... Octavio Perez Urban Crossroads—Technical Subconsultant
1001 Dove Street, Suite 260
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Phone: 949.660.1994
Jericho Systems—Technical Subconsultant
47 1st Street
Redlands, CA 92373
909.915.5900

1.2.e
Packet Pg. 556 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4091 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

1.2.e
Packet Pg. 557 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4091 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for 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
RESOLUTION NO. R-59-23

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COLTON
DENYING AN APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S DECISION (FILE INDEX DAP 001-668) APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A BUILDING HEIGT OF 95 FEET INSTEAD OF 50 FEET MAXIMUM FOR PARCEL 1 BUILDING 1, (LOCATED AT 1500 AGUA MANSA ROAD) (FILE INDEX NO: DAP-001-815).

WHEREAS, an appeal application (File Index No. DAP 001-815) was filed with the City of Colton by Pamela Steele of MIG Inc, (hereinafter “Applicant”) appealing Conditional Use Permit to allow a warehouse building of 95 feet in height instead of 50 feet maximum located in the M-2 (Heavy Industrial) Zones within the Agua Mansa Historic District; and WHEREAS, on June 20, 2023, the City Council of the City of Colton held a duly noticed public hearing at which time all persons wishing to testify in connection with the application were heard and the application was fully examined; and
WHEREAS, on August 20, 2013 (Resolution No. R-60-13), the City of Colton, as the lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), certified a General Plan Environmental Impact Report (“General Plan EIR”) and approved the General Plan on August 20, 2013; and
WHEREAS, as part of its approval of the General Plan, City adopted Findings of Fact, Statement of Overriding Considerations and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the General Plan; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15183, projects which are consistent with the development density established by existing zoning, community plan, or general plan policies for which an EIR was certified shall not require additional environmental review, except as might be necessary to examine whether there are project-specific significant effects which are peculiar to the project or its site; and
WHEREAS, Lineage Logistics is seeking City approvals to allow for the construction and operation of a new warehouse/office building at 1500 Agua Mansa Road (“Project”); and WHEREAS, the City has conducted an analysis of the Project, consistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15183 (“Section 15183 Analysis”), and found that it is in conformance with the analysis and conclusions of the General Plan EIR, that there are no new significant off-site or cumulative impacts that were not analyzed in the General Plan EIR, that there are no adverse impacts that are more severe than those previously identified in the General Plan EIR.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF COLTON:

1.2.f
Packet Pg. 558 Attachment: Attachment 6_CC Reso No_R-59-23_DAP-001-815 (4091 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for Lineage Building) 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
Colton City Council Resolution No. R-59-23
June 20, 2023 – Page 2 of 6
- 2 -
SECTION 1. The City Council finds that the Section 15183 Analysis has been completed in compliance with CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines, and that the Section 15183 Analysis and supporting materials, taken together, reflect the Commission’s independent judgment.

SECTION 2. COMPLIANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. As a decision-making body for the Project, the City Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in the Section 15183 Analysis, comments received, and other documents contained in the administrative record for the Project. Based on the Commission’s independent review and analysis it finds that the Section 15183 Analysis and administrative record contain a complete and accurate reporting of the environmental impacts associated with the modified project, and that the Section 15183 Analysis has been completed in compliance with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines.

SECTION 3. FINDINGS ON ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS. Based on the whole record before it, including the Section 15183 Analysis, the administrative record, and all other written and oral evidence, the City Council finds that all environmental impacts of the Project (DAP-001-668) are either less than significant or can be mitigated to a level of less than significant under the mitigation measures outlined in the Section 15183 Analysis, alternatively, there is no substantial evidence in the administrative record supporting a fair argument that the modified project may result in any significant environmental impacts. The City Council finds that the Section 15183 Analysis contains a complete, objective, and accurate reporting of the environmental impacts associated with the Project and reflects the independent and analysis of the City Council.

SECTION 4. ADOPTION OF THE SECTION 15183 ANALYSIS. The City Council hereby approves and adopts the Section 15183 Analysis.

SECTION 5. ADOPTION OF THE MITIGATION MONITORING AND
REPORTING PROGRAM. In accordance with Public Resources Code section 21081.6, the City Council hereby adopts the MMRP previously adopted for the General Plan EIR as it pertains to the Project. In the event of any inconsistencies between the Mitigation Measures as set forth in the Section 15183 Analysis and the MMRP, the MMRP shall control.

SECTION 6. Based on the entire record before the City Council and all written and oral evidence presented, including the staff report, the City Council makes the following findings in accordance with the Colton Municipal Code for Conditional Use Permit to allow the warehouse building to exceed the established maximum 50-foot height limit for a total height of 95 feet:

1. That the proposed us is in accord with the General Plan, the objectives of Title 18 (Zoning) and the purposes of the zone in which the site is located.

The subject site, 1500 Agua Mansa Road, has a General Plan designation of Heavy Industrial.

The designation supports a variety of heavy industrial uses including heavy manufacturing, distribution, assembly, resource mining, storage, and similar activities not normally compatible near residential development due to environmental nuisances such as noise and air pollution. A goal of the General Plan for industrial districts is to “achieve and maintain a strong and highly competitive industrial base that provides attractive, high-quality developments and varied employment opportunities” (Goal LU-11). Policy LU-11.5 follows this goal and calls on the

1.2.f
Packet Pg. 559 Attachment: Attachment 6_CC Reso No_R-59-23_DAP-001-815 (4091 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for Lineage Building) 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
Colton City Council Resolution No. R-59-23
June 20, 2023 – Page 3 of 6
- 3 -
City to “work with developers to encourage heavy industrial uses and uses incompatible with residential or commercial development to locate along the Agua Mansa Road Corridor (defined as that area along the Santa Ana River south to South Riverside Avenue, with West Agua Mansa Road on the west).”
According to Policy LU-1.6, new development projects must be compatible with permitted, well-maintained uses and buildings in the surrounding neighborhood or district. The 95 foot height of Building 1 allows additional storage capacity than otherwise possible in a 50 foot tall building. Transportation impacts of the proposed project including the implications of the 95 foot tall building, have been fully analyzed and addressed. The findings of the Transportation Impact Analysis does not demonstrate greater impacts resulting from a 95 foot tall building compared to a 50 foot tall building. Furthermore, view obstruction of the San Bernardino and San Gabriel Mountains will be minimal because of the project’s location (surrounded by existing industrial development). In addition, the project site is not considered a scenic vista or a public viewshed for a scenic vista and there are no scenic resources located on the project site.

Although the 95 foot tall building would be located adjacent to the Santa Ana River, it is surrounded by existing industrial development and the project site does not provide a public viewshed of the Santa Ana River. Immediately, to the south across the Santa Ana River is the former Colton Sanitary Landfill, which occupies 113 acres of land. The Colton Sanitary Landfill stopped accepting waste on December 31, 2014. The height of the landfill is approximately over 200 feet in height. To the east is the City’s 36 acre Wastewater Treatment Facilities. Similarly, noise impacts from a 95 foot tall freezer storage building are not different than a 50 foot tall freezer building. Noise impacts have also been analyzed and found that the project will not contribute to noise impacts irrespective of the height of the building.

Furthermore, the building is adjacent to industrial zoned parcels and not adjacent to residentially zoned areas, schools or residential neighborhoods. The 95 foot tall building and the use it will facilitate, is not inconsistent with the purpose of the General Plan and Zoning.

In summary, the 95 foot tall Building is a use that conforms to the objectives of Title 18. The project site is zoned M-2 Heavy Industrial Zone, which is intended for heavy manufacturing, distribution, assembly, resource mining, storge and similar activities not normally compatible near residential development due to environmental nuisances such as noise and air pollution.

2. 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.

The maximum height of a warehouse building is allowed to be up to 50 feet in height by right.

Warehouse buildings can exceed the maximum 50 foot height limit subject to the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit. This request involves the development of a 95 foot tall 2-story 474,021 square-foot automated freezer facility. The majority of the building, the portion which is 95 feet tall contains the freezer unit and it utilizes an automated storage and retrieval system (ASRS). The system does not involve employees. The 95 foot high building can accommodate 62,176 pallet positions that utilize 28 crane aisles to store and retrieve products and bring products to the dock area to be loaded on trucks. The 95 foot high building does not generate any more noise, traffic or other impacts than a 50 foot tall conventional warehouse building.

The height is simply accommodating the unique operational system that involves the use of

1.2.f
Packet Pg. 560 Attachment: Attachment 6_CC Reso No_R-59-23_DAP-001-815 (4091 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for Lineage Building) 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
Colton City Council Resolution No. R-59-23
June 20, 2023 – Page 4 of 6
- 4 -
pallets and stacking system unlike conventional warehouse buildings. The increased height does not create conditions that will be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity because the operational system (rack supported system), does not create noise, traffic or air quality impacts that are greater than a conventional warehouse operation in a 50 foot tall building.

3. That the proposed use complies with each of the applicable provisions of this title.

As stated in findings 1 and 2 above, the use, even within a 95 foot tall building, complies with the applicable provisions of Title 18 including noise, setbacks, landscaping and all other development standards. A Noise Impact Analysis was prepared for the project to identify, evaluate, and disclose the off-site and on-site noise impacts associated with the proposed project. Implementation of the proposed project would result in potential short-term construction and long-term operational noise and groundborne vibration impacts including traffic noise from truck traffic. But the anticipated noise impacts are not any greater just because the building is proposed to be 95 feet tall instead of 50 feet. The construction method for the 95 foot tall building uses a “rack supported system”. This system uses racks to store products on pallets which also support the building walls, roof, refrigeration, and automation system. This construction method is used for single-story, fully automated buildings from 85 feet to 160 feet tall that are not occupied by personnel. This method eliminates the need for structural steel columns, structural roof joist and column foundations. Therefore noise and other related construction and operational impacts are not greater than conventional construction involved in concrete title-up 50 foot tall warehouse buildings.

SECTION 9. Based upon the findings set forth in Sections 1 through 6 of this Resolution, the City Council hereby denies the appeal and upholds the Planning Commission’s decision to approve Conditional Use Permit to allow said warehouse/office building to exceed the 50 foot height limit for a total height of 95 feet, on property measuring approximately 35 acres in an area located at 1500 Agua Mansa Road in the M-2 (Heavy Industrial) Zone, subject to the attached conditions of approval (Exhibit “A”)..

SECTION 10. Based on the entire record before the City Council, all written and oral evidence presented, and the findings set forth in Sections 1 through 6 made in this Resolution, the City Council hereby denies the Appeal and upholds the decision of the Planning Commission approving the application (DAP-001-668) for a Conditional Use Permit.

SECTION 11. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.

1.2.f
Packet Pg. 561 Attachment: Attachment 6_CC Reso No_R-59-23_DAP-001-815 (4091 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for Lineage Building) 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
Colton City Council Resolution No. R-59-23
June 20, 2023 – Page 5 of 6
- 5 -
SECTION 12. This Resolution shall become effective immediately upon its adoption.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this __day of ___, 2023.
_
_____________________________
FRANK NAVARRO, Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________
STEPHANIE M. VARGAS
Deputy City Clerk

1.2.f
Packet Pg. 562 Attachment: Attachment 6_CC Reso No_R-59-23_DAP-001-815 (4091 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for Lineage Building) 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
Colton City Council Resolution No. R-59-23
June 20, 2023 – Page 6 of 6
- 6 -
EXHIBIT A”

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

THE APPLICANT SHALL COMPLY WITH ALL CONDITIONS AS SET FORTH IN THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR DAP-001-815:

HOLD HARMLESS

1. The Applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Colton and its officers, employees, and agents from and against any claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Colton, its officers, employees, or agents to attacks, set aside, void, or annul any approval or condition of approval of the City of Colton concerning this project, including but not limited to any approval or condition of approval of the city council, planning commission, or development services director. The City shall promptly notify the Applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding concerning the project and the City shall cooperate fully in the defense of the matter. The City reserves the right, at its own option, to choose its own attorney to represent the City, its officers, employees, and agents in the defense of the matter.

PLANNING DIVISION (909)370-5079

1. The Applicant shall meet and comply with all requirements of all reviewing agencies and shall comply with all applicable local, state, and federal rules, laws, and regulations.

2. The Applicant shall comply with all conditions of approval within Planning Commission Resolution No. R-03-23 (File Index No. DAP-001-668).

1.2.f
Packet Pg. 563 Attachment: Attachment 6_CC Reso No_R-59-23_DAP-001-815 (4091 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for Lineage Building) RGA
Office of Architectural Design
15231 Alton Parkway, Suite 100
Irvine, CA 92618
T 949-341-0920
FX 949-341-0922
1500 AGUA MANSA, COLTON SHEET TITLE
MARK DATE DESCRIPTION A1-01-A
COPYRIGHT: RGA, OFFICE OF ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN
CHK'D BY:

DRAWN BY:

CAD FILE NAME:

RGA PROJECT NO:

MG
JH
18107-00-A1-01-A
18107.00
OVERALL SITE PLAN 7/21/20 CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN
SCALE: 1" = 100'-0"
12/16/20 PLANNING SUBMITTAL
03/02/22 PLANNING SUBMITTAL
X X X
X
X
C/L 23' CLF GATE
C/L 29' MTL GATE

ACCESS POINT

OVERHEAD WIRES OVERHEAD WIRES OVERHEAD WIRES

OVERHEAD WIRES

OVERHEAD WIRES
EX. FIBER OPTIC LINE

EXISTING BUILDING
UTILI
TY
'A'
UTILI
TY
'B'
UTILI
TY
'C'
6'-0" TOTAL
HEIGHT
6'-0" TOTAL
HEIGHT
6'-0" TOTAL
HEIGHT
2,000 KW
GENSET
(90,000 LBS)
16'-0" MAX.

HEIGHT
1,108'
50'
40'
63'
240'
86'
53'
30'
26'
20' 40'
MIN.
30'
11' 70'
64'
45'
50'
60'
49 5
35 75
81 88
83 30
10 10
2 10
8 4
8 10
7 5 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 7 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 8 6
5 21
12 10
3 A G U A M A N S A R O A D
0' 20' 50' 100' 200'

A G U A M A N S A R O A D
GATE
410'
183'
1500 W. AGUA MANSA LOGISTICS CENTER
GATE
220'
104'
41'

VICINITY MAP

PROJECT SITE
215
10 AGUA MANSA DRIVE

RIVERSIDE AVENUE

SANTA ANA RIVER

LA CANEDA DRIVE

RANCHO AVENUE

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

A DISTRIBUTION WAREHOUSE FACILITY CONSISTING OF A WAREHOUSE AND OFFICE FACILITY TOTALING 456,445 SF ON 24 ACRES.

A REFRIDGERATED DISTRIBUTION WAREHOUSE FACILITY CONSISTING OF A WAREHOUSE AND OFFICE FACILITY TOTALING 457,743 SF ON 35 ACRES.

OWNER / DEVELOPER:

IDI LOGISTICS
840 APOLLO STREET, SUITE 100
EL SEGUNDO, CA 90245
PHONE: 714-769-9155
FAX: 714-685-1500
E-MAIL: [email protected]
CONTACT: STEVE HOLLIS
ARCHITECT:

RGA, OFFICE OF ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN
15231 ALTON PARKWAY, SUITE 200
IRVINE, CA 92618
PHONE: 949-341-0920
FAX: 949-341-0922
E-MAIL: [email protected]
CONTACT: JACOB HUBER
CIVIL ENGINEER:

THIENES ENGINEERS, INC.
14349 FIRESTONE BLVD.

LA MIRADA, CA 90638
PHONE: 714-521-4811
FAX:

E-MAIL: [email protected]
CONTACT: CESAR RAYMUNDO
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT:

HUNTER LANDSCAPE
711 S. FEE ANA STREET
PLACENTIA, CA 92870
PHONE: 714-986-2400
FAX:

E-MAIL: [email protected]
CONTACT: TOM HAYES

1. PAINTED CONCRETE TILT-UP WAREHOUSE / OFFICE / MANUFACTURING FACILITY.

BUILDING TO BE DESIGNED FOR MIN. 90 MPH WINDS WITH 104 MPH GUSTS.

2. SHADED AREA: PROPOSED IRRIGATED LANDSCAPING PER GUIDELINES WITH MIN 6" CONCRETE CURBS AT ALL INTERIOR PERIMETERS.

3. TYPICAL STANDARD PARKING STALL MIN. 9' X 20' (OR 18' + 2' OVERHANG) - STRIPE PER STANDARDS.

4. ACCESSIBLE BUILDING ENTRY WITH ADJACENT BICYCLE RACKS.

5. PAVED TRUCK YARD.

6. DOCK HIGH TRUCK DOOR. SEE ELEVATIONS FOR ADDITIONAL INFO.

7. GRADE LEVEL RAMP DOOR. SEE ELEVATIONS FOR ADDITIONAL INFO.

8. 3' X 7' METAL EXIT DOOR.

9. ON SITE ACCESSIBLE SIDEWALK AND CURB RAMPS.

10. NEW CURB CUT INSTALLED PER CITY STANDARDS.

11. NOT USED

12. NEW 14'-0" HIGH PAINTED CONCRETE TILT-UP SCREEN WALL.

13. ROLLING / SWINGING TUBULAR STEEL SECURITY GATE WITH KNOX BOX FOR FIRE DEPARTMENT ACCESS..

14. 8'-0" BLACK HIGH TUBULAR STEEL FENCE WHERE NOTED.

15. APPROX. SITE LIGHT STANDARD LOCATION. APPROX. 25 FT. HIGH POLE ON 4' HIGH CONCRETE BASE. POLES AND FIXTURES ARE WHITE. LED LIGHT SOURCE.

16. LOCATION OF COMPACTOR AT DOCK DOOR.

17. LOCATION OF COVERED TRASH ENCLOSURE PER COLTON CITY STANDARDS.

18. LOCATION OF EXTERIOR FIRE PUMP BUILDING

19. LOCATION OF FIRE WATER STORAGE TANK
PROJECT DATA - BUILDING 2 KEYNOTES X
SITE AREA:

GROSS
BUILDING AREA:

GROUND FLOOR

MEZZANINE

FIRE PUMP HOUSE
TOTAL
COVERAGE:

PARKING REQUIRED:
10,000 SF OFFICE (1/250)
0-10K SF WAREHOUSE (1/1000)
10K SF + WAREHOUSE (1/2000)

TOTAL REQUIRED
PARKING PROVIDED:

PROVIDED STALLS
LANDSCAPE REQUIRED:

LANDSCAPE PROVIDED:

DOCK HIGH DOOR POSITIONS:

TRAILER PARKING POSITIONS:
1,045,355 SF / 24.00 AC
456,000 SF
0 SF
445 SF
456,445 SF

43.66 %
40 STALLS
10 STALLS
219 STALLS
269 STALLS
270 STALLS
156,803 SF / 15.00%
181,725 SF / 17.38%
79 141
PROJECT DATA - BUILDING 1
SITE AREA:

GROSS
BUILDING AREA:

GROUND FLOOR

MEZZANINE

FIRE PUMP HOUSE
TOTAL
COVERAGE:

PARKING REQUIRED:
20,506 SF OFFICE (1/250)
0-10K SF WAREHOUSE (1/1000)
10K SF + WAREHOUSE (1/2000)

TOTAL REQUIRED
PARKING PROVIDED:

PROVIDED STALLS
LANDSCAPE REQUIRED:

LANDSCAPE PROVIDED:

DOCK HIGH DOOR POSITIONS:

TRAILER PARKING POSITIONS:
1,524,685 SF / 35.00 AC
396,457 SF
77,564 SF
0 SF
474,021 SF

31.09 %
82 STALLS
10 STALLS
222 STALLS
314 STALLS
114 STALLS
228,703 SF / 15.00%
237,372 SF / 15.57 %
49 378
6' 40' 5' 18' 26' 18'
5'
18' 26' 18'
18' 26' 18'
20'-6"
8' 37' 45' 8'
45' 45'
90'
110'-6"

EASEMENT
25'
50'

EASEMENT
21'-5"

EASEMENT

S A N T A A N A R I V E R
20' 26' 20' 10'
916'-5"
440'
51'
20'
45'
45'
90'
37'
8'
26'
17'-6"

EASEMENT
1 1
3 3
3 2
4 4
4 5
5 6
6 7
7 7
8 8
9 10
10 10
10 12
12 13
14 14
14 14
12 13
30'

EASEMENT
30'

EASEMENT
GATE
42'
75'
40'
OFFICE
AREA
OFFICE
AREA
OFFICE
AREA
21'-5"
133'
20'-0"
0260-072-08, 12 & 12
0275-041-07, 08, 09, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31

ASSESSORS PARCEL NUMBERS
BUILDING 1
BUILDING 2

ZONE AE
ZONE X

ZONE AE
16 17
17 GATE

ELECTRICAL
ROOM

ELECTRICAL
ROOM
18 19

1.2.g
Packet Pg. 564 Attachment: Attachment 7_ Plans for 95 foot high building (4091 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for Lineage Building) RGA
Office of Architectural Design
15231 Alton Parkway, Suite 100
Irvine, CA 92618
T 949-341-0920
FX 949-341-0922

SHEET TITLE
MARK DATE DESCRIPTION A1-02-A
COPYRIGHT: RGA, OFFICE OF ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN
CHK'D BY:

DRAWN BY:

CAD FILE NAME:

RGA PROJECT NO:

MG
JH
18107-00-A1-02-A
18107.00
FENCE PLAN 7/21/20 CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN
SCALE: 1" = 100'-0"
1500 AGUA MANSA, COLTON
1500 W. AGUA MANSA INDUSTRIAL WAREHOUSE PROJECT
X X X
X
X
C/L 23' CLF GATE
C/L 29' MTL GATE

ACCESS POINT

OVERHEAD WIRES OVERHEAD WIRES OVERHEAD WIRES

OVERHEAD WIRES

OVERHEAD WIRES
EX. FIBER OPTIC LINE

EXISTING BUILDING
UTILI
TY
'A'
UTILI
TY
'B'
UTILI
TY
'C'
6'-0" TOTAL
HEIGHT
6'-0" TOTAL
HEIGHT
6'-0" TOTAL
HEIGHT
2,000 KW
GENSET
(90,000 LBS)
16'-0" MAX.

HEIGHT
12/16/20 PLANNING SUBMITTAL
1,108'
50'
40'
63'
240'
86'
53'
30'
26'
20' 40'
MIN.
30'
11' 70'
64'
45'
50'
60'
49 5
35 75
81 88
83 30
10 10
2 10
8 4
8 10
7 5 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 7 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 8 6
5 21
12 10
3 A G U A M A N S A R O A D
0' 20' 50' 100' 200'

A G U A M A N S A R O A D
GATE
GATE
GATE

S A N T A A N A R I V E R
GATE

FENCE AND WALL LEGEND
8'-0" BLACK PAINTED TUBULAR STEEL
PICKET FENCE.
12'-0" PAINTED CONCRETE SCREEN WALL

PAINT AND REVEALS
NOTES:

1. SEE SITE PLAN FOR LOCATION.

2. GRIND ALL WELDS SMOOTH.

3. ALL STEEL WORK TO BE A-434 & SHOP PRIMED. PAINT FLAT BLACK TWO COATS.

4. CONTRACTOR TO SUBMIT DETAILED SHOP DWGS. FOR APPROVAL PRIOR TO FABRICATION.

5. PROVIDE CONT. 6" X 6" CONC. MOW STRIP UNDER FENCE ONLY WHEN FENCE IS ADJACENT TO TURF AREAS.

6. USE 4" SQ. 11 GA. STEEL POST W/ PRESSED STEEL CAP AT ALL END AND CORNER CONDITIONS OF THE FENCE PATH.
2-1/2" SQ. 11 GA. STEEL POST AT 8'-0"
O.C. W/ PRESSED STEEL CAP - SEE NOTES

BELOW FOR ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS
INTERMEDIATE 1" SQ. 16 GA STEEL
VERTICALS AT 6" O.C. W/ PLASTIC CAPS
2" SQ. 14 GA HORIZONTAL TUBE SUPPORTS

LANDSCAPE

CONCRETE FOOTING - TOP OF FOOTING
SHALL BE 3" ABOVE GRADE W/ 1/2"

TOOLED EDGES
3'-0" 8'-0" OR 5'-0"
6"
18"
2'-6" 13" 8"
8"
SITE STREET5"CLR

STEEL PICKET FENCE
SCALE: 1/2" = 1'-0"
8'-0" OR 5'-0" (SEE SITE PLAN)
13" 6'-3" 8"

TYPICAL TUBE STEEL FENCE ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"

TUBE STEL FENCE PER DETAIL, BLACK IN COLOR
BUILDING 1
BUILDING 2

1.2.g
Packet Pg. 565 Attachment: Attachment 7_ Plans for 95 foot high building (4091 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for Lineage Building) RGA
Office of Architectural Design
15231 Alton Parkway, Suite 100
Irvine, CA 92618
T 949-341-0920
FX 949-341-0922
1500 AGUA MANSA, COLTON SHEET TITLE
MARK DATE DESCRIPTION A1-03-A
COPYRIGHT: RGA, OFFICE OF ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN
CHK'D BY:

DRAWN BY:

CAD FILE NAME:

RGA PROJECT NO:

MG
JH
18107-00-A1-03-A
18107.00
ALTERNATE PARKING SITE PLAN 7/21/20 CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN SCALE: 1" = 100'-0"
X X X
X
X
C/L 23' CLF GATE
C/L 29' MTL GATE

ACCESS POINT

OVERHEAD WIRES OVERHEAD WIRES OVERHEAD WIRES

OVERHEAD WIRES

OVERHEAD WIRES
EX. FIBER OPTIC LINE

EXISTING BUILDING
UTILI
TY
'A'
UTILI
TY
'B'
UTILI
TY
'C'
6'-0" TOTAL
HEIGHT
6'-0" TOTAL
HEIGHT
6'-0" TOTAL
HEIGHT
2,000 KW
GENSET
(90,000 LBS)
16'-0" MAX.

HEIGHT
12/16/20 PLANNING SUBMITTAL
1,108'
50'
40'
63'
240'
86'
53'
30'
26'
20' 40'
MIN.
30'
11' 70'
64'
45'
50'
60' 47 50
43 49 5
35 37
81 88
83 30
10 10
2 10
8 4
8 10
7 5 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 7 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 8 6
5 21
12 10
3 50

A G U A M A N S A R O A D
0' 20' 50' 100' 200'

A G U A M A N S A R O A D
GATE
1500 W. AGUA MANSA LOGISTICS CENTER
GATE
GATE

VICINITY MAP

PROJECT SITE
215
10 AGUA MANSA DRIVE

RIVERSIDE AVENUE

SANTA ANA RIVER

LA CANEDA DRIVE

RANCHO AVENUE

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

A DISTRIBUTION WAREHOUSE FACILITY CONSISTING OF A WAREHOUSE AND OFFICE FACILITY TOTALING 456,445 SF ON 24 ACRES.

A REFRIDGERATED DISTRIBUTION WAREHOUSE FACILITY CONSISTING OF A WAREHOUSE AND OFFICE FACILITY TOTALING 457,743 SF ON 35 ACRES.

OWNER / DEVELOPER:

IDI LOGISTICS
840 APOLLO STREET, SUITE 100
EL SEGUNDO, CA 90245
PHONE: 714-769-9155
FAX: 714-685-1500
E-MAIL: [email protected]
CONTACT: STEVE HOLLIS
ARCHITECT:

RGA, OFFICE OF ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN
15231 ALTON PARKWAY, SUITE 200
IRVINE, CA 92618
PHONE: 949-341-0920
FAX: 949-341-0922
E-MAIL: [email protected]
CONTACT: JACOB HUBER
CIVIL ENGINEER:

THIENES ENGINEERS, INC.
14349 FIRESTONE BLVD.

LA MIRADA, CA 90638
PHONE: 714-521-4811
FAX:

E-MAIL: [email protected]
CONTACT: CESAR RAYMUNDO
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT:

HUNTER LANDSCAPE
711 S. FEE ANA STREET
PLACENTIA, CA 92870
PHONE: 714-986-2400
FAX:

E-MAIL: [email protected]
CONTACT: TOM HAYES
PROJECT DATA - BUILDING 2
SITE AREA:

GROSS
BUILDING AREA:

GROUND FLOOR

MEZZANINE

FIRE PUMP HOUSE
TOTAL
COVERAGE:

PARKING REQUIRED:
10,000 SF OFFICE (1/250)
0-10K SF WAREHOUSE (1/1000)
10K SF + WAREHOUSE (1/2000)

TOTAL REQUIRED
PARKING PROVIDED:

PROVIDED STALLS
LANDSCAPE REQUIRED:

LANDSCAPE PROVIDED (INCLUDES BASINS):

DOCK HIGH DOOR POSITIONS:

TRAILER PARKING POSITIONS:
1,045,355 SF / 24.00 AC
456,000 SF
0 SF
445 SF
456,445 SF

43.66 %
40 STALLS
10 STALLS
219 STALLS
269 STALLS
271 STALLS
156,803 SF / 15.00%
181,725 SF / 17.38%
79 123
PROJECT DATA - BUILDING 1
SITE AREA:

GROSS
BUILDING AREA:

GROUND FLOOR

MEZZANINE

FIRE PUMP HOUSE
TOTAL
COVERAGE:

PARKING REQUIRED:
20,000 SF OFFICE (1/250)
0-10K SF WAREHOUSE (1/1000)
10K SF + WAREHOUSE (1/2000)

TOTAL REQUIRED
PARKING PROVIDED:

PROVIDED STALLS
LANDSCAPE REQUIRED:

LANDSCAPE PROVIDED (INCLUDES BASINS):

DOCK HIGH DOOR POSITIONS:

TRAILER PARKING POSITIONS:
1,524,685 SF / 35.00 AC
388,303 SF
69,440 SF
0 SF
457,743 SF

30.02 %
80 STALLS
10 STALLS
214 STALLS
304 STALLS
304 STALLS
228,703 SF / 15.00%
235,656 SF / 15.46 %
49 340

S A N T A A N A R I V E R
30'

EASEMENT
GATE
OFFICE
AREA
OFFICE
AREA
OFFICE
AREA
0260-072-08, 12 & 12
0275-041-07, 08, 09, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31

ASSESSORS PARCEL NUMBERS
BUILDING 1
BUILDING 2

1.2.g
Packet Pg. 566 Attachment: Attachment 7_ Plans for 95 foot high building (4091 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for Lineage Building) RGA
Office of Architectural Design
15231 Alton Parkway, Suite 100
Irvine, CA 92618
T 949-341-0920
FX 949-341-0922
1500 AGUA MANSA, COLTON SHEET TITLE
MARK DATE DESCRIPTION A1-04-A
COPYRIGHT: RGA, OFFICE OF ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN
CHK'D BY:

DRAWN BY:

CAD FILE NAME:

RGA PROJECT NO:

MG
JH
18107-00-A1-04-A
18107.00
FIRE ACCESS PLAN 7/21/20 CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN
SCALE: 1" = 100'-0"
X X X
X
X
C/L 23' CLF GATE
C/L 29' MTL GATE

ACCESS POINT

OVERHEAD WIRES OVERHEAD WIRES OVERHEAD WIRES

OVERHEAD WIRES

OVERHEAD WIRES
EX. FIBER OPTIC LINE

EXISTING BUILDING
UTILI
TY
'A'
UTILI
TY
'B'
UTILI
TY
'C'
6'-0" TOTAL
HEIGHT
6'-0" TOTAL
HEIGHT
6'-0" TOTAL
HEIGHT
2,000 KW
GENSET
(90,000 LBS)
16'-0" MAX.

HEIGHT
1,108'
50'
40'
63'
240'
86'
30'
26'
MIN.
30' 20'
64'
45'
50'
60'
49 5
35 75
81 88
83 30
10 10
2 10
8 4
8 10
7 5 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 7 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 8 6
5 21
12 10
3 26'
26' 26'
26'
26'
26'
26'
26'
26'
12/16/20 PLANNING SUBMITTAL

A G U A M A N S A R O A D
0' 20' 50' 100' 200'

A G U A M A N S A R O A D
GATE
1500 W. AGUA MANSA LOGISTICS CENTER
GATE
GATE

S A N T A A N A R I V E R
GATE
OFFICE
AREA
OFFICE
AREA
OFFICE
AREA
0260-072-08, 12 & 12
0275-041-07, 08, 09, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31

ASSESSORS PARCEL NUMBERS
BUILDING 1
BUILDING 2
FH
FH
FH
FH
FH
FH
FH
FH
FH
FH
FH
FH
FH
FH
FH
FH
FH
FH
FH
FH
FH
FH
COLTON FIRE DEPARTMENT ACCESS & WATER PLAN NOTES:

INSPECTION REQUIREMENTS

1. COLTON SITE INSPECTIONS ARE REQUIRED FOR THIS PROJECT. PLEASE SCHEDULE ALL FIELD INSPECTIONS AT LEAST 72 HOURS IN ADVANCE. INSPECTIONS CANCELED AFTER 1 P.M. ON THE DAY BEFORE THE SCHEDULED DATE WILL BE SUBJECT TO A RE-INSPECTION FEE. CALL (909) 370-5553 TO SCHEDULE AN INSPECTION.

2. A LUMBER DROP INSPECTION SHALL BE PERFORMED PRIOR TO BRINGING COMBUSTIBLE MATERIALS (OR COMBUSTIBLE FIXTURES AND FINISHES FOR STRUCTURES OF NON-COMBUSTIBLE CONSTRUCTION).

ALL-WEATHER ACCESS ROADS CAPABLE OF SUPPORTING 75,000 LBS., TOPPED WITH ASPHALT, CONCRETE, OR EQUIVALENT SHALL BE IN PLACE AND HYDRANTS OPERATIONAL AT TIME OF LUMBER DROP INSPECTION.

A. FOR BUILDINGS OF TYPE IV AND TYPE V CONSTRUCTION (AND NON-COMBUSTIBLE STRUCTURES

THAT MAY HAVE A PORTION OF THE EXTERIOR WALLS, FACADE OR OTHER BUILDING ELEMENTS

COMPRISED OF WOOD OR OTHER COMBUSTIBLE MATERIAL), A LUMBER DROP INSPECTION SHALL OCCUR PRIOR TO BRINGING COMBUSTIBLE BUILDING MATERIALS ON-SITE.

B. FOR OTHER CONSTRUCTION TYPES (TYPE I,II, III) WITH EXTERIOR WALLS BUILT OF

NON-COMBUSITBLE MATERIALS, AN INSPECTION SHALL OCCUR PRIOR TO COMMENCING INTERIOR CONSTRUCTION INVOLVING COMBUSTIBLE MATERIALS (E.G. WOODEN MEZZANINES OR PARTITION WALLS, CARPET, CABINETRY OR OTHER WOODWORK, FURNITURE, ETC.). IN CONCRETE

TILT-UP AND MASONRY BUILDINGS, WOODEN PANELIZED ROOFING SYSTEMS ARE EXEMPT FROM THIS REQUIREMENT.

3. FOR PROJECTS WITH FUEL MODIFICATION, A VEGETATION CLEARANCE INSPECTION IS REQUIRED PRIOR TO A LUMBER DROP INSPECTION. USE THE FUEL MODIFICATION PLAN SERVICE REQUEST NUMBER TO SCHEDULE THE VEGETATION CLEARANCE INSPECTION.

4. PHASED INSTALLATION OF FIRE ACCESS ROADS REQUIRES ADDITIONAL INSPECTIONS NOT COVERED BY THE FEES PAID AT PLAN SUBMTITAL. CONTACT (909) 370-5553 TO ARRANGE FOR ADDITIONAL INSPECTIONS THAT MAY BE NEEDED AND ANY FEES THAT MAY BE DUE.

5. AN ORIGINAL APPROVED, SIGNED, WET-STAMPED COLTON FIRE ACCESS & WATER PLAN SHALL BE AVAILABLE ON-SITE AT TIME OF INSPECTION.

6. ACCESS ROADS AND HYDRANTS SHALL BE MAINTAINED AND REMAIN CLEAR OF OBSTRUCTIONS AT ALL TIMES DURING AND AFTER CONSTRUCTION. AREAS WHERE PARKING IS NOT PERMITTED SHALL BE CLEARLY IDENTIFIED AT ALL TIMES. OBSTRUCTION OF FIRE LANES AND HYDRANTS MAY RESULT IN CANCELLATION OR SUSPENSION OF INSPECTIONS.

7. TEMPORARY FUEL TANKS OF 60 OR MORE GALLONS SHALL BE REVIEWED, INSPECTED, AND PERMITTED BY THE CITY OF COLTON PRIOR TO USE.

8. THE PROJECT ADDRESS SHALL BE CLEARLY POSTED AND VISIBLE FROM THE PUBLIC ROAD DURING CONSTRUCTION.

9. ALL GATES IN CONSTRUCTION FENCING SHALL BE EQUIPPED WITH EITHER A KNOX OR BREAKAWAY PADLOCK.

10. BUILDINGS OF FOUR OR MORE STORIES SHALL BE PROVIDED WITH STAIRS AND A STANDPIPE BEFORE REACHING 40 FEET IN HEIGHT.

GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

11. FIRE LANE WIDTHS SHALL BE MEASURED FROM TOP FACE OF THE CURB TO TOP FACE OF THE CURB FOR

FIRE LANES WITH STANDARD CURBS AND GUTTERS AND FROM FLOW-LINE TO FLOW-LINE FOR FIRE LANES WITH MODIFIED CURB DESIGNS (E.G. ROLLED, RAMPED, ETC.). THE DEVELOPER IS RESPONSIBLE TO VERIFY

THAT ALL APPROVED PUBLIC WORKS OR GRADING DEPARTMENT STREET IMPROVEMENT PLANS OR PRECISE

GRADING PLANS CONFORM TO THE MINIMUM STREET WIDTH MEASUREMENTS PER THE APPROVED COLTON FIRE DEPARTMENT ACCESS & WATER GUIDELINE FOR ALL PORTIONS OF THE FIRE ACCESS ROADS.

12. PERMANENT, TEMPORARY, AND PHASED EMERGENCY ACCESS ROADS SHALL BE DESIGNED AND MAINTAINED TO SUPPORT AN IMPOSED LOAD OF 75,000 LBS. AND SURFACED TO PROVIDE ALL-WEATHER DRIVING CAPABILITES.

13. FIRE LANE SIGNS AND RED CURBS SHALL MEET THE SPECIFICATIONS SHOWN IN THE COLTON FIRE DEPARTMENT ACCESS & WATER GUIDELINE AND SHALL BE INSTALLED AS DECRIBED THEREIN. ADDITIONAL FIRE LANE MARKINGS MAY BE REQUIRED AT THE TIME OF INSPECTION DEPENDING ON FIELD CONDITIONS.

14. ALL FIRE HYDRANTS SHALL HAVE A "BLUE REFLECTIVE PAVEMENT MARKER" INDICATING THEIR LOCATION PER THE COLTON STANDARD. ON PRIVATE PROPERTY MARKERS ARE TO BE MAINTAINED IN GOOD CONDITION BY THE OWNER.

15. ADDRESS NUMBERS SHALL BE LOCATED AND BE OF A COLOR AND SIZE SO AS TO BE PLAINLY VISIBLE

AND LEGIBLE FROM THE ROADWAY FROM WHICH THE BUILDING IS ADDRESSED IN ACCORDANCE WITH COLTON FIRE DEPARTMENT ACCESS & WATER GUIDELINE.

16. ACCESS GATES SHALL BE APPROVED PRIOR TO INSTALLATION AND SHALL BE IN COMPLIANCE WIHT CHAPTER 5 OF THE CFC AND COLTON FIRE ACCESS & WATER GUIDELINE.

17. APPROVED ACCESS WALKWAYS SHALL BE PROVIDED TO ALL REQUIRED OPENINGS AND ALL RESCUE WINDOWS.

18. VEGETATION SHALL BE SELECTED AND MAINTAINED IN SUCH A MANNER AS TO ALLOW IMMEDIATE

ACCESS TO ALL HYDRANTS, VALVES, FIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECTIONS, PULL STATIONS, EXTINGUISHERS,

SPRINKLER RISERS, ALARM CONTROL PANELS, RESCUE WINDOWS AND OTHER DEVICES OR AREAS USED FOR FIREFIGHTING PURPOSES. VEGETATION OR BUILDING FEATURES SHALL NOT OBSTRUCT ADDRESS NUMBERS OR INHIBIT THE FUNCTIONING OF ALARM BELLS, HORNS OR STROBES.

19. DUMPSTERS AND TRASH CONTAINERS LARGER THAN 1.5 CUBIC YARDS SHALL NOT BE STORED IN BUILDINGS OR PLACED WITHIN 5 FEET OF COMBUSTIBLE WALLS, OPENINGS OR COMBUSTIBLE ROOF EAVE LINES UNLESS PROTECTED BY AN APPROVED SPRINKLER SYSTEM.

20. ANY FUTURE MODIFICATION TO THE APPROVED FIRE DEPARTMENT ACCESS & WATER PLAN OR APPROVED

SITE PLAN, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ROAD WIDTH, GRADE, SPEED HUMPS, TURNING RADII, GATES OR OTHER OBSTRUCTIONS, SHALL REQUIRE REVIEW, INSPECTION, AND APPROVAL BY THE CITY OF COLTON.

21. APPROVAL OF THIS PLAN SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUED AS APPROVAL OF ANY INFORMATION OR PORJECT

CONDITIONS OTHER THAN THOSE ITEMS AND REQUIREMENTS IDENTIFIED IN COLTON FIRE DEPARTMENT ACCESS & WATER GUIDELINE AND RELATED PORTIONS OF THE CFC AND CBC. THIS PROJECT MAY BE

SUBJECT TO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS NOT STATED HEREIN UPON EXAMINATION OF ACTUAL SITE AND PROJECT CONDITIONS OR DISCLOSURE OF ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. 53'
40'
11' 70'
PROJECT DATA - BUILDING 2
SITE AREA:

GROSS
BUILDING AREA:

GROUND FLOOR

MEZZANINE

FIRE PUMP HOUSE
TOTAL
COVERAGE:

PARKING REQUIRED:
10,000 SF OFFICE (1/250)
0-10K SF WAREHOUSE (1/1000)
10K SF + WAREHOUSE (1/2000)

TOTAL REQUIRED
PARKING PROVIDED:

PROVIDED STALLS
LANDSCAPE REQUIRED:

LANDSCAPE PROVIDED:

DOCK HIGH DOOR POSITIONS:

TRAILER PARKING POSITIONS:
1,045,355 SF / 24.00 AC
456,000 SF
0 SF
445 SF
456,445 SF

43.66 %
40 STALLS
10 STALLS
219 STALLS
269 STALLS
270 STALLS
156,803 SF / 15.00%
181,725 SF / 17.38%
79 141
PROJECT DATA - BUILDING 1
SITE AREA:

GROSS
BUILDING AREA:

GROUND FLOOR

MEZZANINE

FIRE PUMP HOUSE
TOTAL
COVERAGE:

PARKING REQUIRED:
20,506 SF OFFICE (1/250)
0-10K SF WAREHOUSE (1/1000)
10K SF + WAREHOUSE (1/2000)

TOTAL REQUIRED
PARKING PROVIDED:

PROVIDED STALLS
LANDSCAPE REQUIRED:

LANDSCAPE PROVIDED:

DOCK HIGH DOOR POSITIONS:

TRAILER PARKING POSITIONS:
1,524,685 SF / 35.00 AC
396,457 SF
77,564 SF
0 SF
474,021 SF

31.09 %
82 STALLS
10 STALLS
222 STALLS
314 STALLS
114 STALLS
228,703 SF / 15.00%
237,372 SF / 15.57 %
49 378

1.2.g
Packet Pg. 567 Attachment: Attachment 7_ Plans for 95 foot high building (4091 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for Lineage Building)

1.2.g
Packet Pg. 568
Attachment: Attachment 7_ Plans for 95 foot high building (4091 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for Lineage Building)

1.2.g
Packet Pg. 569
Attachment: Attachment 7_ Plans for 95 foot high building (4091 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for Lineage Building)

1.2.g
Packet Pg. 570
Attachment: Attachment 7_ Plans for 95 foot high building (4091 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for Lineage Building)

1.2.g
Packet Pg. 571
Attachment: Attachment 7_ Plans for 95 foot high building (4091 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for Lineage Building)

1.2.g
Packet Pg. 572
Attachment: Attachment 7_ Plans for 95 foot high building (4091 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for Lineage Building) All rights reserved. The artwork depicted herein are copyright and are the exclusive property of North American Signs and as such cannot be reproduced in whole or in part without written permission by North American Signs.

Brandbook is the property of Lineage Logistics.

Brand
Style
Location
Color
Name
Brand
Style
Location
Color
Name Name
PTE - Exterior Paint
Version: 2.3
12-14-2020 18
Roof Accent Stripe, Small
Squares, Metal Fascia, Concrete
Column
All Light Poles, Foundation
Wall Below Floor Line
PTE1 PTE2 PTE3
Sherwin-Williams Sherwin-Williams
Location
Concrete Wall Panels,
Exterior Doors & Frames at
Loading Dock
Style
Exterior Smooth
Brand
Sherwin-Williams
Exterior Flat Exterior Flat
Custom Match Custom Match Custom Match
7006 Extra White 3015 Lineage Blue Pantone Cool Grey 8
All Shown
Color

1.2.g
Packet Pg. 573 Attachment: Attachment 7_ Plans for 95 foot high building (4091 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for Lineage Building) RGA
Office of Architectural Design
15231 Alton Parkway, Suite 100
Irvine, CA 92618
T 949-341-0920
FX 949-341-0922
1500 AGUA MANSA, COLTON SHEET TITLE
MARK DATE DESCRIPTION A1-01-A
COPYRIGHT: RGA, OFFICE OF ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN
CHK'D BY:

DRAWN BY:

CAD FILE NAME:

RGA PROJECT NO:

MG
JH
18107-00-A1-01-A
18107.00
OVERALL SITE PLAN 7/21/20 CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN
SCALE: 1" = 100'-0"
12/16/20 PLANNING SUBMITTAL
03/02/22 PLANNING SUBMITTAL
X X X
X
X
C/L 23' CLF GATE
C/L 29' MTL GATE

ACCESS POINT

OVERHEAD WIRES OVERHEAD WIRES OVERHEAD WIRES

OVERHEAD WIRES

OVERHEAD WIRES
EX. FIBER OPTIC LINE

EXISTING BUILDING
UTILI
TY
'A'
UTILI
TY
'B'
UTILI
TY
'C'
6'-0" TOTAL
HEIGHT
6'-0" TOTAL
HEIGHT
6'-0" TOTAL
HEIGHT
2,000 KW
GENSET
(90,000 LBS)
16'-0" MAX.

A G U A M A N S A R O A D
GATE
410'
183'
1500 W. AGUA MANSA LOGISTICS CENTER
GATE
220'
104'
41'

VICINITY MAP

PROJECT SITE
215
10 AGUA MANSA DRIVE

RIVERSIDE AVENUE

SANTA ANA RIVER

LA CANEDA DRIVE

RANCHO AVENUE

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

A DISTRIBUTION WAREHOUSE FACILITY CONSISTING OF A WAREHOUSE AND OFFICE FACILITY TOTALING 456,445 SF ON 24 ACRES.

A REFRIDGERATED DISTRIBUTION WAREHOUSE FACILITY CONSISTING OF A WAREHOUSE AND OFFICE FACILITY TOTALING 457,743 SF ON 35 ACRES.

OWNER / DEVELOPER:

IDI LOGISTICS
840 APOLLO STREET, SUITE 100
EL SEGUNDO, CA 90245
PHONE: 714-769-9155
FAX: 714-685-1500
E-MAIL: [email protected]
CONTACT: STEVE HOLLIS
ARCHITECT:

RGA, OFFICE OF ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN
15231 ALTON PARKWAY, SUITE 200
IRVINE, CA 92618
PHONE: 949-341-0920
FAX: 949-341-0922
E-MAIL: [email protected]
CONTACT: JACOB HUBER
CIVIL ENGINEER:

THIENES ENGINEERS, INC.
14349 FIRESTONE BLVD.

LA MIRADA, CA 90638
PHONE: 714-521-4811
FAX:

E-MAIL: [email protected]
CONTACT: CESAR RAYMUNDO
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT:

HUNTER LANDSCAPE
711 S. FEE ANA STREET
PLACENTIA, CA 92870
PHONE: 714-986-2400
FAX:

E-MAIL: [email protected]
CONTACT: TOM HAYES

1. PAINTED CONCRETE TILT-UP WAREHOUSE / OFFICE / MANUFACTURING FACILITY.

BUILDING TO BE DESIGNED FOR MIN. 90 MPH WINDS WITH 104 MPH GUSTS.

2. SHADED AREA: PROPOSED IRRIGATED LANDSCAPING PER GUIDELINES WITH MIN 6" CONCRETE CURBS AT ALL INTERIOR PERIMETERS.

3. TYPICAL STANDARD PARKING STALL MIN. 9' X 20' (OR 18' + 2' OVERHANG) - STRIPE PER STANDARDS.

4. ACCESSIBLE BUILDING ENTRY WITH ADJACENT BICYCLE RACKS.

5. PAVED TRUCK YARD.

6. DOCK HIGH TRUCK DOOR. SEE ELEVATIONS FOR ADDITIONAL INFO.

7. GRADE LEVEL RAMP DOOR. SEE ELEVATIONS FOR ADDITIONAL INFO.

8. 3' X 7' METAL EXIT DOOR.

9. ON SITE ACCESSIBLE SIDEWALK AND CURB RAMPS.

10. NEW CURB CUT INSTALLED PER CITY STANDARDS.

11. NOT USED

12. NEW 14'-0" HIGH PAINTED CONCRETE TILT-UP SCREEN WALL.

13. ROLLING / SWINGING TUBULAR STEEL SECURITY GATE WITH KNOX BOX FOR FIRE DEPARTMENT ACCESS..

14. 8'-0" BLACK HIGH TUBULAR STEEL FENCE WHERE NOTED.

15. APPROX. SITE LIGHT STANDARD LOCATION. APPROX. 25 FT. HIGH POLE ON 4' HIGH CONCRETE BASE. POLES AND FIXTURES ARE WHITE. LED LIGHT SOURCE.

16. LOCATION OF COMPACTOR AT DOCK DOOR.

17. LOCATION OF COVERED TRASH ENCLOSURE PER COLTON CITY STANDARDS.

18. LOCATION OF EXTERIOR FIRE PUMP BUILDING

19. LOCATION OF FIRE WATER STORAGE TANK
PROJECT DATA - BUILDING 2 KEYNOTES X
SITE AREA:

GROSS
BUILDING AREA:

GROUND FLOOR

MEZZANINE

FIRE PUMP HOUSE
TOTAL
COVERAGE:

PARKING REQUIRED:
10,000 SF OFFICE (1/250)
0-10K SF WAREHOUSE (1/1000)
10K SF + WAREHOUSE (1/2000)

TOTAL REQUIRED
PARKING PROVIDED:

PROVIDED STALLS
LANDSCAPE REQUIRED:

LANDSCAPE PROVIDED:

DOCK HIGH DOOR POSITIONS:

TRAILER PARKING POSITIONS:
1,045,355 SF / 24.00 AC
456,000 SF
0 SF
445 SF
456,445 SF

43.66 %
40 STALLS
10 STALLS
219 STALLS
269 STALLS
270 STALLS
156,803 SF / 15.00%
181,725 SF / 17.38%
79 141
PROJECT DATA - BUILDING 1
SITE AREA:

GROSS
BUILDING AREA:

GROUND FLOOR

MEZZANINE

FIRE PUMP HOUSE
TOTAL
COVERAGE:

PARKING REQUIRED:
20,506 SF OFFICE (1/250)
0-10K SF WAREHOUSE (1/1000)
10K SF + WAREHOUSE (1/2000)

TOTAL REQUIRED
PARKING PROVIDED:

PROVIDED STALLS
LANDSCAPE REQUIRED:

LANDSCAPE PROVIDED:

DOCK HIGH DOOR POSITIONS:

TRAILER PARKING POSITIONS:
1,524,685 SF / 35.00 AC
396,457 SF
77,564 SF
0 SF
474,021 SF

31.09 %
82 STALLS
10 STALLS
222 STALLS
314 STALLS
114 STALLS
228,703 SF / 15.00%
237,372 SF / 15.57 %
49 378
6' 40' 5' 18' 26' 18'
5'
18' 26' 18'
18' 26' 18'
20'-6"
8' 37' 45' 8'
45' 45'
90'
110'-6"

EASEMENT
25'
50'

EASEMENT
21'-5"

EASEMENT

S A N T A A N A R I V E R
20' 26' 20' 10'
916'-5"
440'
51'
20'
45'
45'
90'
37'
8'
26'
17'-6"

EASEMENT
1 1
3 3
3 2
4 4
4 5
5 6
6 7
7 7
8 8
9 10
10 10
10 12
12 13
14 14
14 14
12 13
30'

EASEMENT
30'

EASEMENT
GATE
42'
75'
40'
OFFICE
AREA
OFFICE
AREA
OFFICE
AREA
21'-5"
133'
20'-0"
0260-072-08, 12 & 12
0275-041-07, 08, 09, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31

ASSESSORS PARCEL NUMBERS
BUILDING 1
BUILDING 2

ZONE AE
ZONE X

ZONE AE
16 17
17 GATE

ELECTRICAL
ROOM

ELECTRICAL
ROOM
18 19

1.2.h
Packet Pg. 574 Attachment: Attachment 8_Plans for 130 foot high building (4091 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for Lineage Building) RGA
Office of Architectural Design
15231 Alton Parkway, Suite 100
Irvine, CA 92618
T 949-341-0920
FX 949-341-0922

SHEET TITLE
MARK DATE DESCRIPTION A1-02-A
COPYRIGHT: RGA, OFFICE OF ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN
CHK'D BY:

DRAWN BY:

CAD FILE NAME:

RGA PROJECT NO:

ACCESS POINT

OVERHEAD WIRES OVERHEAD WIRES OVERHEAD WIRES

OVERHEAD WIRES

OVERHEAD WIRES
EX. FIBER OPTIC LINE

EXISTING BUILDING
UTILI
TY
'A'
UTILI
TY
'B'
UTILI
TY
'C'
6'-0" TOTAL
HEIGHT
6'-0" TOTAL
HEIGHT
6'-0" TOTAL
HEIGHT
2,000 KW
GENSET
(90,000 LBS)
16'-0" MAX.

A G U A M A N S A R O A D
GATE
GATE
GATE

S A N T A A N A R I V E R
GATE

FENCE AND WALL LEGEND
8'-0" BLACK PAINTED TUBULAR STEEL
PICKET FENCE.
12'-0" PAINTED CONCRETE SCREEN WALL

PAINT AND REVEALS
NOTES:

1. SEE SITE PLAN FOR LOCATION.

2. GRIND ALL WELDS SMOOTH.

3. ALL STEEL WORK TO BE A-434 & SHOP PRIMED. PAINT FLAT BLACK TWO COATS.

4. CONTRACTOR TO SUBMIT DETAILED SHOP DWGS. FOR APPROVAL PRIOR TO FABRICATION.

5. PROVIDE CONT. 6" X 6" CONC. MOW STRIP UNDER FENCE ONLY WHEN FENCE IS ADJACENT TO TURF AREAS.

6. USE 4" SQ. 11 GA. STEEL POST W/ PRESSED STEEL CAP AT ALL END AND CORNER CONDITIONS OF THE FENCE PATH.
2-1/2" SQ. 11 GA. STEEL POST AT 8'-0"
O.C. W/ PRESSED STEEL CAP - SEE NOTES

BELOW FOR ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS
INTERMEDIATE 1" SQ. 16 GA STEEL
VERTICALS AT 6" O.C. W/ PLASTIC CAPS
2" SQ. 14 GA HORIZONTAL TUBE SUPPORTS

LANDSCAPE

CONCRETE FOOTING - TOP OF FOOTING
SHALL BE 3" ABOVE GRADE W/ 1/2"

TOOLED EDGES
3'-0" 8'-0" OR 5'-0"
6"
18"
2'-6" 13" 8"
8"
SITE STREET5"CLR

STEEL PICKET FENCE
SCALE: 1/2" = 1'-0"
8'-0" OR 5'-0" (SEE SITE PLAN)
13" 6'-3" 8"

TYPICAL TUBE STEEL FENCE ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"

TUBE STEL FENCE PER DETAIL, BLACK IN COLOR
BUILDING 1
BUILDING 2

1.2.h
Packet Pg. 575 Attachment: Attachment 8_Plans for 130 foot high building (4091 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for Lineage Building) RGA
Office of Architectural Design
15231 Alton Parkway, Suite 100
Irvine, CA 92618
T 949-341-0920
FX 949-341-0922
1500 AGUA MANSA, COLTON SHEET TITLE
MARK DATE DESCRIPTION A1-03-A
COPYRIGHT: RGA, OFFICE OF ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN
CHK'D BY:

DRAWN BY:

CAD FILE NAME:

RGA PROJECT NO:

MG
JH
18107-00-A1-03-A
18107.00
ALTERNATE PARKING SITE PLAN 7/21/20 CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN SCALE: 1" = 100'-0"
X X X
X
X
C/L 23' CLF GATE
C/L 29' MTL GATE

ACCESS POINT

OVERHEAD WIRES OVERHEAD WIRES OVERHEAD WIRES

OVERHEAD WIRES

OVERHEAD WIRES
EX. FIBER OPTIC LINE

EXISTING BUILDING
UTILI
TY
'A'
UTILI
TY
'B'
UTILI
TY
'C'
6'-0" TOTAL
HEIGHT
6'-0" TOTAL
HEIGHT
6'-0" TOTAL
HEIGHT
2,000 KW
GENSET
(90,000 LBS)
16'-0" MAX.

A G U A M A N S A R O A D
0' 20' 50' 100' 200'

A G U A M A N S A R O A D
GATE
1500 W. AGUA MANSA LOGISTICS CENTER
GATE
GATE

VICINITY MAP

PROJECT SITE
215
10 AGUA MANSA DRIVE

RIVERSIDE AVENUE

SANTA ANA RIVER

LA CANEDA DRIVE

RANCHO AVENUE

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

A DISTRIBUTION WAREHOUSE FACILITY CONSISTING OF A WAREHOUSE AND OFFICE FACILITY TOTALING 456,445 SF ON 24 ACRES.

A REFRIDGERATED DISTRIBUTION WAREHOUSE FACILITY CONSISTING OF A WAREHOUSE AND OFFICE FACILITY TOTALING 457,743 SF ON 35 ACRES.

OWNER / DEVELOPER:

IDI LOGISTICS
840 APOLLO STREET, SUITE 100
EL SEGUNDO, CA 90245
PHONE: 714-769-9155
FAX: 714-685-1500
E-MAIL: [email protected]
CONTACT: STEVE HOLLIS
ARCHITECT:

RGA, OFFICE OF ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN
15231 ALTON PARKWAY, SUITE 200
IRVINE, CA 92618
PHONE: 949-341-0920
FAX: 949-341-0922
E-MAIL: [email protected]
CONTACT: JACOB HUBER
CIVIL ENGINEER:

THIENES ENGINEERS, INC.
14349 FIRESTONE BLVD.

LA MIRADA, CA 90638
PHONE: 714-521-4811
FAX:

E-MAIL: [email protected]
CONTACT: CESAR RAYMUNDO
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT:

HUNTER LANDSCAPE
711 S. FEE ANA STREET
PLACENTIA, CA 92870
PHONE: 714-986-2400
FAX:

E-MAIL: [email protected]
CONTACT: TOM HAYES
PROJECT DATA - BUILDING 2
SITE AREA:

GROSS
BUILDING AREA:

GROUND FLOOR

MEZZANINE

FIRE PUMP HOUSE
TOTAL
COVERAGE:

PARKING REQUIRED:
10,000 SF OFFICE (1/250)
0-10K SF WAREHOUSE (1/1000)
10K SF + WAREHOUSE (1/2000)

TOTAL REQUIRED
PARKING PROVIDED:

PROVIDED STALLS
LANDSCAPE REQUIRED:

LANDSCAPE PROVIDED (INCLUDES BASINS):

DOCK HIGH DOOR POSITIONS:

TRAILER PARKING POSITIONS:
1,045,355 SF / 24.00 AC
456,000 SF
0 SF
445 SF
456,445 SF

43.66 %
40 STALLS
10 STALLS
219 STALLS
269 STALLS
271 STALLS
156,803 SF / 15.00%
181,725 SF / 17.38%
79 123
PROJECT DATA - BUILDING 1
SITE AREA:

GROSS
BUILDING AREA:

GROUND FLOOR

MEZZANINE

FIRE PUMP HOUSE
TOTAL
COVERAGE:

PARKING REQUIRED:
20,000 SF OFFICE (1/250)
0-10K SF WAREHOUSE (1/1000)
10K SF + WAREHOUSE (1/2000)

TOTAL REQUIRED
PARKING PROVIDED:

PROVIDED STALLS
LANDSCAPE REQUIRED:

LANDSCAPE PROVIDED (INCLUDES BASINS):

DOCK HIGH DOOR POSITIONS:

TRAILER PARKING POSITIONS:
1,524,685 SF / 35.00 AC
388,303 SF
69,440 SF
0 SF
457,743 SF

30.02 %
80 STALLS
10 STALLS
214 STALLS
304 STALLS
304 STALLS
228,703 SF / 15.00%
235,656 SF / 15.46 %
49 340

S A N T A A N A R I V E R
30'

EASEMENT
GATE
OFFICE
AREA
OFFICE
AREA
OFFICE
AREA
0260-072-08, 12 & 12
0275-041-07, 08, 09, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31

ASSESSORS PARCEL NUMBERS
BUILDING 1
BUILDING 2

1.2.h
Packet Pg. 576 Attachment: Attachment 8_Plans for 130 foot high building (4091 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for Lineage Building) RGA
Office of Architectural Design
15231 Alton Parkway, Suite 100
Irvine, CA 92618
T 949-341-0920
FX 949-341-0922
1500 AGUA MANSA, COLTON SHEET TITLE
MARK DATE DESCRIPTION A1-04-A
COPYRIGHT: RGA, OFFICE OF ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN
CHK'D BY: