Agenda packet — Colton City Council, July 18, 2023 (part 1 of 4)

1 CITY OF COLTON
City Hall, Council Chambers
650 N. La Cadena Drive
Colton, CA 92324
Website: www.coltonca.gov

Mayor Frank J. Navarro
Council Members:

David J. Toro – District 1
Kelly J. Chastain – District 2
Dr. Luis S. Gonzalez – District 3
John R. Echevarria – District 4
City Treasurer Aurelio De La Torre
City Manager William R. Smith
City Attorney Carlos Campos
AGENDA

CITY COUNCIL,

COLTON UTILITY AUTHORITY, COLTON PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY,

COLTON HOUSING AUTHORITY

REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, JULY 18, 2023 – 6:00 P.M.

CITY HALL, COUNCIL CHAMBERS
CLOSED SESSION - 5:00 p.m.

CLOSED SESSION CALLED TO ORDER

ROLL CALL
PUBLIC COMMENT - Closed Session
This is the portion of the meeting specifically set aside to invite your comments regarding Closed Session items and other general comments about matters not on the agenda; however, any matter that requires action will be referred to staff for investigation and report at a subsequent Council meeting. The Council is prohibited by law from discussing or taking immediate action on items during this public comment period.

Persons desiring to submit paperwork to the City Council Members shall provide copy of any paperwork to the City Clerk for the Official Record.

Speakers will be limited to 3 minutes; provided, however, that the presiding officer shall have certain discretion to extend or limit time as provided for in the City Council Manual of Procedure.

Please state your name and your City of Residence before providing your comment. 2 A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – WORKERS’ COMPENSATION CLAIM Pursuant to California Government Code, Section 54956.95.

Case Name(s): Alice Ibarra v. City of Colton
B. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Initiation of Litigation, Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(4) One (1) Potential Case

CITY ATTORNEY ORAL REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION ACTIONS

RULES OF DECORUM
To help conduct the business of the City Council in an orderly fashion, the City Council has adopted rules pertaining to decorum and order, as provided for in the City Council Manual of Procedure. The City Council will strictly enforce these rules in order to allow full expression of ideas and opinions by councilmembers, staff and the public. Generally, the City's rules of decorum prohibit comments or actions which willfully disrupt the meeting. All remarks and questions shall be addressed to the Council as a whole and not to any particular member. No individual Councilmember or member of the City staff shall be questioned without first obtaining permission from the Presiding Officer. The City Council asks that all persons - including councilmembers, staff and the public - act and speak respectfully.

OPEN SESSION
6:00 P.M.

OPEN SESSION CALLED TO ORDER
INVOCATION Pastor Dane Aaker - Centerpoint Church

FLAG SALUTE

ROLL CALL

CEREMONIAL MATTERS
Presentations, Awards, Proclamations
 Recognition - The Paw Mission, Aristrong, and Tree People  Proclamation - Police Chief Henry Dominguez

MAYOR AND COUNCIL ITEMS

GIFT DISCLOSURES
Prior to rendering a decision in any proceeding involving a license, permit, contract or other entitlement pending before the City Council, any Council Member who has received been promised a gift or gifts aggregating $50.00 or more in value within the preceding twelve months from a party or participant in the proceeding shall disclose that fact either orally or in writing during open session. This disclosure shall be made part of the official public record of the proceeding, either as part of the minutes of the meeting or as a separate writing filed with the city. (CMC Section 2.04.030) 3 AB 1234 ORAL REPORTS
Members of the City Council shall provide brief reports on meetings attended at the expense of the city. (GC Section 53232.3(d))

APPOINTMENTS
 Appointment - Planning Commission - D2 - Adrianna Escarcega  Appointment - Utilities Commission - D2 - Henry Michael Razo

MAYOR AND COUNCIL DISCUSSION ITEMS

PUBLIC HEARINGS
To speak on public hearing items, it is requested that you obtain a card from the City Clerk and complete it by noting the agenda item number, as well as whether you are in favor, opposition or neither, and give it to the City Clerk. The applicant will be allowed 5 minutes to address the Council and all other persons will be allowed 3 minutes; provided, however, that the presiding officer shall have certain discretion to extend or limit time as provided for in the City Council Manual of Procedure. (1) Appeal of Conditional Use Permit for Lineage Building - TIME AND PLACE FIXED TO CONSIDER A PUBLIC

HEARING TO APPROVE AND ADOPT A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COLTON DENYING AN APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S DECISION OR GRANTING THE

APPEAL AND MODIFYING THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (FILE INDEX NO.: DAP-001-668) TO ALLOW A 130-FOOT HIGH BUILDING HEIGHT INSTEAD OF 50 FEET HIGH ON PROPERTY MEASURING APPROXIMATELY 35.95 ACRES AND ZONED M-2 (HEAVY INDUSTRIAL) (FILE INDEX DAP-001-815), RESOLUTION NO. R-59-23 & R-73-23.
[Staff Person: Mark Tomich]
(Public Hearing Continued from June 20, 2023)
Mayor announces the Public Hearing Open.

City Clerk submits the Affidavit of Publication and reports on protests or objections thereto.

Staff Presentation.

Public Comment.

After hearing public comment, on motion by Councilmember __________, seconded by Councilmember _________, the Public Hearing is terminated.

MOTION __________ SECOND __________

4 (2) Development Agreement - Lineage Logistics, LLC - TIME AND PLACE FIXED TO WAIVE FULL READING, READ BY TITLE ONLY AND PASS FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE NO O-05-23, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY

COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COLTON, CALIFORNIA TO APPROVE A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE

CITY OF COLTON AND LINEAGE LOGISTICS, LLC FOR THE AGUA MANSA LOGISTICS CENTER PROJECT, ORDINANCE NO. O-05-23.
[Staff Person: Mark Tomich]
(Public Hearing Continued from June 20, 2023)
Mayor announces the Public Hearing Open.

City Clerk submits the Affidavit of Publication and reports on protests or objections thereto.

Staff Presentation.

Public Comment.

After hearing public comment, on motion by Councilmember __________, seconded by Councilmember _________, the Public Hearing is terminated.

MOTION __________ SECOND __________

(3) Development Agreement - IDI Agua Mansa, LLC - TIME AND PLACE FIXED TO WAIVE FULL READING, READ BY TITLE ONLY AND PASS FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE NO O-06-23, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY

COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COLTON, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE

CITY OF COLTON AND IDI AGUA MANSA, LLC FOR THE AGUA MANSA LOGISTICS CENTER PROJECT, ORDINANCE NO. O-06-23.
[Staff Person: Mark Tomich]
(Public Hearing Continued from June 20, 2023)
Mayor announces the Public Hearing Open.

City Clerk submits the Affidavit of Publication and reports on protests or objections thereto.

Staff Presentation.

Public Comment.

After hearing public comment, on motion by Councilmember __________, seconded by Councilmember _________, the Public Hearing is terminated.

MOTION __________ SECOND __________

BUSINESS ITEMS
There are no Business Items.
5 PUBLIC COMMENT Limit 3 Minutes
This is the portion of the meeting specifically set aside to invite your comments regarding Consent Calendar items and other general comments about matters not on the agenda; however, any matter that requires action will be referred to staff for investigation and report at a subsequent Council meeting. The Council is prohibited by law from discussing or taking immediate action on items during this public comment period.

Persons desiring to submit paperwork to the City Council Members shall provide copy of any paperwork to the City Clerk for the Official Record.

Speakers will be limited to 3 minutes; provided, however, that the presiding officer shall have certain discretion to extend or limit time as provided for in the City Council Manual of Procedure.

Please state your name and your City of Residence before providing your comment.

CONSENT CALENDAR
All matters listed under the Consent Calendar are considered by the City Council to be routine and will all be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items prior to the time the City Council votes on the motion, unless councilmembers, staff or the public request that specific items be discussed and/or removed for separate discussions or action.

(4) Minutes - Approval of Minutes for the City Council Regular Meetings Held on June 6, 2023 and June 20, 2023, and the City Council Special Meeting Held on June 28, 2023. [Staff Person: Stephanie M. Vargas]
(5) Warrants - Approve US Bank voucher dated 05/25/2023 and totaling $56,037.31; voucher numbers 206049 to 206133 dated 05/30/2023 and totaling $78,820.60; voucher numbers 206134 to 206212 dated 06/01/2023 and totaling $4,357,119.06; voucher numbers 206213 to 206327 dated 06/08/2023 and totaling $1,484,747.19; voucher numbers 206328 to 206413 dated 06/15/2023 and totaling $1,600,718.78 and a payroll disbursement listing dated 05/13/2023 to 05/26/2023 and totaling $960,127.55. [Staff Person: Stacey Dabbs]
(6) Accept Real Property - EVMWD - Accept Real Property from Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District (EVMWD), RESOLUTION NO. R-65-23.
[Staff Person: Brian Dickinson]
(7) Agreement - Green Acres Advertising - Approve a Letter Agreement for Green Acres Advertising to Perform a Brand Identity Audit and New Brand Identity Development for the Water/Wastewater Division. [Staff Person: Brian Dickinson]
(8) Agreement - G&G Environmental Compliance, Inc. - Approve Professional Services Agreement with G&G Environmental Compliance, Inc. to Provide Water, Wastewater, and Storm Water Regulatory Compliance Program Services for Five (5) Years in an Amount Not-to-Exceed $1,870,610. [Staff Person: Brian Dickinson]
(9) Contract Award - Matich Corporation - Approve Contract Award to Matich Corporation for FY 22-23 Asphalt Paving Project in the amount of $2,503,137, RESOLUTION NO. R-68-23. [Staff Person: Brian Dickinson]
(10) Contract Amendment - Ninyo and Moore - Approve Contract Amendment with Ninyo and Moore to Complete Phase II Environmental Work for a Future Zero Net Energy (ZNE) Public Works & Utilities Building. [Staff Person: Brian Dickinson]
6 (11) Contract Amendment - Sagecrest Planning + Environmental - Approve Contract Amendment with Sagecrest Planning + Environmental for Reimbursable Planning Entitlement Services. [Staff Person: Mark Tomich]
(12) Contract Award - Danny C. Hubbs Construction, Inc. - Approve the Award of Contract To Danny C. Hubbs Construction, Inc. for HSIP Funded Guardrail Repair Project HSIPSL- 5065(032) in the Amount of $144,985.00, RESOLUTION NO. R-62-23.
[Staff Person: Brian Dickinson]
(13) Contract Award - MCC Equipment Rentals - Approve Award of Contract to MCC Equipment Rentals Inc. for the La Cadena Waterline Relocation Project.
[Staff Person: Brian Dickinson]
(14) Contract Award - D.M. Contracting, Inc. - Approve the Award of Contract to DM Contracting, Inc. For CDBG COLT-21-1-03K/0242 Alley Paving and Sidewalk Improvement for Various Locations Project for $416,534.80, RESOLUTION NO. R-64-23.
[Staff Person: Brian Dickinson]
(15) 2023/2024 City Insurance Cost Increase - Approve Resolution to Amend the FY2023-24 Budget for City Insurance Premium Increases due to Market Conditions and 2023 Property Appraisals, RESOLUTION NO. R74-23. [Staff Person: Tom Cody]
(16) Notice of Completion - Drilling of Wells 32 & 33 - Approve a Notice of Completion for the Drilling of Wells 32 and 33 Project.
[Staff Person: Brian Dickinson]
(17) Notice of Completion - Corporate Yard Roof Replacement Project - Approve Notice of Completion (NOC) for the City Corporate Yard Roof Replacement Project with All Seasons Insulation. [Staff Person: Brian Dickinson]
(18) Notice of Completion - Washington Bridge Waterline Relocation - Approve a Notice of Completion for the Washington Bridge Water Line Relocation Project.
[Staff Person: Brian Dickinson]
(19) Obsolete Records Destruction - Approve and Adopt a Resolution Authorizing the Destruction of Certain Obsolete Records, RESOLUTION NO. R-63-23.
[Staff Person: Stephanie M. Vargas]
(20) Purchase Order Amendment - HERC Rentals - Approve a Change Order for HERC Rentals for Water & Wastewater Rental Needs.
[Staff Person: Brian Dickinson]
(21) Contract Award - Legend Pump and Wells, Inc. - Approve a Contract Agreement with Legend Pump and Wells, Inc. for the Well 22 Rehabilitation Project.
[Staff Person: Brian Dickinson]
(22) Set Public Hearing - Stormwater User Fee - Set the Public Hearing Date of August 01, 2023 for the Basic Fee for Storm Water Services and Storm Water Management User Fee. [Staff Person: Brian Dickinson]
(23) Second Reading of Ordinance No. O-07-23 - Waive Full Reading, Read By Title Only, Approve Second Reading of an Ordinance Of The City Council of The City of Colton, California, Amending Colton Municipal Code Sections 2.12.010, 2.12.020, 2.12.030, And 2.12.050 Increasing City Clerk and City Treasurer Salary And City Council And Mayor Salary and Automobile Allowance, ORDINANCE NO. O-07-23. [Staff Person: Stephanie M. Vargas]

7 MAYOR AND COUNCIL ORAL REPORTS AND COMMENTS
Comments from Mayor and Council on various issues and activities throughout the community. Comments shall be limited to 5 Minutes per speaker.

CITY MANAGER'S REPORTS

ADJOURNMENT
8 I, Stephanie Vargas, the Deputy City Clerk, hereby certify that a true and correct, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted , at least seventy-two (72) hours prior to the meeting per Government Code 54954.2, at the following locations:

City of Colton City Hall 650 N. La Cadena Drive
City of Colton Website, www.coltonca.gov <http://www.coltonca.gov>

PROCEDURES FOR ADDRESSING CITY COUNCIL
For the Official Record, it is requested that you obtain a card from the Deputy City Clerk and complete it by noting a specific item number on the Agenda, if applicable, or you can identify the subject that you wish to address under the Public Comment portion of the Agenda. The City Council encourages public input on all City issues within the Rules of Decorum. Speakers will be limited to the time periods provided on the Agenda; provided, however, that the presiding officer shall have certain discretion to extend or limit time as provided for in the City Council Manual of Procedure.

NOTICE TO PUBLIC
Staff reports or other written documentation relating to each item referred to, on the Agenda, are available for public inspection at the following locations: Office of the City Clerk, 650 N. La Cadena Drive, Colton, CA; City of Colton Public Library, 656 9th St., Colton, CA; or the City of Colton Internet Website, www.coltonca.gov. Any person having questions concerning any item on the Agenda may call the City Clerk at 370-5191 to make inquiry concerning the nature of the item described on the Agenda. The City Clerk shall direct inquiries to the appropriate office.

All matters listed under the Consent Calendar are considered by the City Council to be routine and will all be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items prior to the time the City Council votes on the motion, unless councilmembers, staff or the public request that specific items be discussed and/or removed for separate discussions or action. 9 In compliance with the American with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in a City Meeting, please contact the City Clerk’s Office at 909-370-5001. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting.

LEGAL CHALLENGES

If you challenge in court any discussion or action taken concerning an item on this Agenda, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised during the meeting or in written correspondence delivered to the City at or prior to the City's consideration of the item at the meeting.

MANUAL OF PROCEDURE

The City Council adopted its Manual of Procedure pursuant to Resolution No. R-41-18. Copies are available in the Office of the City Clerk.

ITEM NO. 1

STAFF REPORT
DATE: JULY 18, 2023
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: BILL SMITH, CITY MANAGER
PREPARED BY: MARK TOMICH, DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: TIME AND PLACE FIXED TO CONSIDER A PUBLIC HEARING TO

APPROVE AND ADOPT A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL

OF THE CITY OF COLTON DENYING AN APPEAL AND
UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S DECISION OR

GRANTING THE APPEAL AND MODIFYING THE PLANNING

COMMISSION DECISION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT (FILE INDEX NO.: DAP-001-668) TO ALLOW A 130-FOOT HIGH BUILDING HEIGHT INSTEAD OF 50 FEET HIGH ON
PROPERTY MEASURING APPROXIMATELY 35.95 ACRES AND
ZONED M-2 (HEAVY INDUSTRIAL) (FILE INDEX DAP-001-815),
RESOLUTION NO. R-59-23 & R-73-23.

RECOMMENDED ACTION
Staff recommends that the City Council take the following action:

Adopt Resolution Nos. R-59-23 (Appeal of Conditional Use Permit) to deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s approval of the application, or Adopt Resolution No. R-73-23 (Appeal of Conditional Use Permit) granting appeal and modifying the Planning Commission decision approving a Conditional Use Permit to allow a building height of 130 feet instead of 50 feet.

BACKGROUND
On February 28, April 11, April 25 and May 9, 2023, the Planning Commission considered a development application (Agua Mansa Logistics Center) proposing to develop two industrial warehouse buildings totaling 928,466 square feet (474,021 square feet for Building 1 at 1500

1.1 Packet Pg. 10
Staff Report to the Mayor and City Council
Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for Lineage Building
July 18, 2023

Page 2 ends

Agua Mansa Road (DAP-001-668) and 456,445 square feet for Building 2 at 1400 Agua Mansa Road (DAP-001-716) and associated driveways, parking lots, landscaping and other associated on-site and off-site improvements on a 59-acre vacant site. The development request involves two separate development applications one for each building and site involving specific components as listed below:

1. DAP-001-668; (Building 1, 1500 Agua Mansa Road; Developer: Lineage Logistics). a. Architectural and Site Plan Review to allow the construction of new warehouse/office building, totaling 474,021 square feet of floor area on a 35.95-acre parcel and associated site improvements;
b. Variance to allow 114 parking stalls for Building 1 when 314 parking stalls are required;
c. Conditional Use Permit to allow building height of 130 feet for Building 1 where 50 feet is the maximum height limit;
d. Historic Major Certificate of Appropriateness to determine if the project is consistent with requirements of the Historic Preservation Ordinance; e. Tentative Parcel Map No. 20358 to consolidate lots from 11 to 2 lots - one for each building site.
f. Determination that the project is consistent under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15183 and is found to be in conformance with the analysis and conclusions of the General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and that no further CEQA documentation is required.

2. DAP-001-716; (Building 2, 1400 Agua Mansa Road; Developer: IDI Logistics):
a. Architectural and Site Plan Review to allow the construction of new warehouse/office building, totaling 456,445 square feet of floor area on a 35.95-acre parcel and associated site improvements;
b. Historic Major Certificate of Appropriateness to determine if the project is consistent with requirements of the Historic Preservation Ordinance. c. Tentative Parcel Map No. 20358 to consolidate lots from 11 to 2 lots - one for each building site.
d. Determination that the project is consistent under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15183 and is found to be in conformance with the analysis and conclusions of the General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and that no further CEQA documentation is required.

1.1 Packet Pg. 11
Staff Report to the Mayor and City Council
Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for Lineage Building
July 18, 2023

Page 3 ends

At the February 28, 2023, meeting, the Commission raised a number of questions and comments and continued the item which was rescheduled for the April 11, 2023 meeting. Staff presented responses to their questions at the April 11, 2023, Commission meeting (Attachment 8). These questions related to truck traffic concerns, the increase in height of Building 1 from the original 95 foot proposal to 130 feet, firefighting concerns and questions regarding the Development Agreements. Since the consultant’s team was unavailable to participate at the April 11, 2023 meeting, the item was continued to the April 25, 2023 meeting.

At the April 25, 2023 meeting, the Planning Commission received additional testimony from staff, the applicant, and the public. Commission members expressed land use compatibility concerns related to the proposed 130-foot height of Building 1, at which time, a representative from the applicant’s team offered that the applicant is willing to reduce the height back to the original 95-foot proposal. Instead of considering a motion with a condition of approval requiring the height be changed to 95-feet from 130-feet, the Commission requested that staff return with a modified draft resolution that identified the height of Building 1 as 95-feet along with development plans that reflected the 95-foot tall building (Building 1). The item was continued again to the May 9, 2023 meeting date, at which time the Commission voted 4-1 (Commissioner Baden voting No) approving all the entitlements, including the Conditional Use Permit to allow Building 1 to be 95 feet tall. Attachment 1 includes Planning Commission Resolution R-03-23 with findings and conditions of approval. At the April 25th and May 9th meetings, the applicant’s representatives expressed concurrence with the revised building height.

On May 17, 2023, the applicant submitted an appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision related only to the Conditional Use Permit allowing a 95-foot high building. The letter of appeal claims that during the April 25, 2023 Planning Commission meeting, “because of the pressure of the situation,” the applicant agreed to lower the height of Building 1 to 95 feet which was the original proposal until it was modified in March 2022. And since the time of the Commission’s action, the applicant has determined that the 95-foot height will not “sufficiently address the ability to serve the needs of the community.” The request is for the City Council to allow a 130- foot high cold storage building with no changes to the building footprint instead of the 95-foot high building approved by the Planning Commission. (Attachment 2) All the Planning Commission staff reports are attached and identified by dates corresponding to the meeting dates. The original staff report dated February 28, 2023 (Attachment 3) contains the detailed project description and analysis.

ISSUES/ANALYSIS
The appeal is a request for the building height to be heard again by the City Council. As indicated in their appeal letter, after the applicant took a second look at the Planning Commission request to change their proposal from 130 foot to 95-foot high building, the applicant’s determined that the “additional height was needed to serve the needs of the community.”

1.1 Packet Pg. 12
Staff Report to the Mayor and City Council
Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for Lineage Building
July 18, 2023

Page 4 ends

It’s not clear what the applicant means by “serving the needs of the community.” However, the applicant’s narrative provided for the February 28, 2023, Planning Commission summarizes the request for the need of the 130-foot high building as follows (Attachment 4):
“In summary, the current, requested change from 95’ to 130’ does not represent more trucks on a daily basis. And the change between the original and intermediate plan represents a net decrease in velocity as the number of cranes went from 28 to 20. What the added storage positions do provide is additional storage space to help cover the expense of the building. To summarize, the maximum potential truck traffic at 130‘ will be less than the original plan. And, the 9 existing locations in the IE and 17 ore in the LSA Area, Lineage is well equipped to control the type of inventory (i.e. low velocity) in the building.” The basis for the change from 130 feet to 95 feet came out of a Planning Commission discussion related to concerns of the building height land use compatibility with the area buildings and overall scale being out of place along the Agua Mansa heavy industrial zone area. The proposed new building would dwarf the size of the recently constructed warehouse at 1600 Agua Mansa Road, built within zoning height limit requirements (40 feet). The Commissioners commented that a 95-foot high building would be the maximum compromise as a compatible and unique approval for a proposed industrial building in Colton.

The City Council may also consider granting the applicant’s request to change the decision of the Planning Commission approving the Conditional Use Permit (File Index No. DAP-001-668) to allow a building height of 130 feet instead of 50 feet maximum for Parcel 1 Building 1 located at 1500 Agua Mansa Road.

Attached is a City Council Resolutions upholding the Planning Commission’s decision.

Attachments 6. 8 and 9 contain the industrial building elevations of 95-foot building height and 130-foot building height for the City Council to consider; or adopt alternative City Council Resolution No. R-73-23, granting the appellants request to allow a 130-foot high industrial building as originally requested, subject to conditions of approval within Planning Commission Resolution No. R-03-23. The findings for approval are supported by the Initial Study and findings provided in Resolution No. R-73-23.(Attachment 7) The Planning Commission also considered the information within the environmental analysis but opted for a lower building height in their final decision. The environmental analysis for the project must also consider if the height is consistent with the general plan. One of the main conclusions of the environmental analysis related to the building height noted that “Views of the San Bernardino and San Gabriel Mountains could be obstructed with permissible increased building heights; however, due to the location of the Proposed Project, view obstruction would be minimal because 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. The project site is located over 9 miles south of the San Bernardino and San Gabriel Mountains, and although it is located adjacent to the Santa Ana River, it is surrounded by existing industrial development that does not provide a public viewshed of the Santa Ana River. Furthermore, with City approval of

1.1 Packet Pg. 13
Staff Report to the Mayor and City Council
Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for Lineage Building
July 18, 2023

Page 5 ends

the CUP, the Proposed Project would comply with the relevant goals and policies of the City of Colton General Plan.” (page 50, Project Initial Study) The initial study is available in Attachment 5 for the Commission’s consideration. All the appendixes may be viewed on the City’s Environmental Website at the following link:
https://www.ci.colton.ca.us/779/Environmental-Documents Because an appeal in the City of Colton also provides an applicant the opportunity for the issue to be heard again, the City Council may request more information from the applicant or make a decision based on the information in the staff report, attachments, environmental document provided herein, staff presentation, public comment and public hearing held on this item.

FISCAL IMPACTS
None.

ALTERNATIVES
 Grant Appeal which modifies the Planning Commission Decision to allow 130-foot industrial building height, or
 Deny Appeal and uphold Planning Commission decision; or  Provide alternative direction to staff.

ATTACHMENT

1. Attachment 1_R-03-23_DAP-001-668_1500 Agua Mansa Road

2. Attachment 2_Applicant's Letter of Appeal Dated May 18, 2023

3. Attachment 3_February 28, 2023, Planning Commission Staff Report no attachments

4. Attachment 4_Applicant's narrative on the need for 130 -foot tall building

5. Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist

6. Attachment 6_CC Reso No_R-59-23_DAP-001-815

7. Attachment 7_CC Reso No R-73-23_Alternative Reso

8. Attachment 8_ Plans for 95 foot high building

9. Attachment 9_Plans for 130 foot high building

10. Attachment 10_Building Comparison Sheet of Building Heights 95 feet and 130 feet

1.1 Packet Pg. 14

1.1.a
Packet Pg. 15
Attachment: Attachment 1_R-03-23_DAP-001-668_1500 Agua Mansa Road (4157 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for Lineage Building)

1.1.a
Packet Pg. 16
Attachment: Attachment 1_R-03-23_DAP-001-668_1500 Agua Mansa Road (4157 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for Lineage Building)

1.1.a
Packet Pg. 17
Attachment: Attachment 1_R-03-23_DAP-001-668_1500 Agua Mansa Road (4157 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for Lineage Building)

1.1.a
Packet Pg. 18
Attachment: Attachment 1_R-03-23_DAP-001-668_1500 Agua Mansa Road (4157 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for Lineage Building)

1.1.a
Packet Pg. 19
Attachment: Attachment 1_R-03-23_DAP-001-668_1500 Agua Mansa Road (4157 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for Lineage Building)

1.1.a
Packet Pg. 20
Attachment: Attachment 1_R-03-23_DAP-001-668_1500 Agua Mansa Road (4157 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for Lineage Building)

1.1.a
Packet Pg. 21
Attachment: Attachment 1_R-03-23_DAP-001-668_1500 Agua Mansa Road (4157 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for Lineage Building)

1.1.a
Packet Pg. 22
Attachment: Attachment 1_R-03-23_DAP-001-668_1500 Agua Mansa Road (4157 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for Lineage Building)

1.1.a
Packet Pg. 23
Attachment: Attachment 1_R-03-23_DAP-001-668_1500 Agua Mansa Road (4157 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for Lineage Building)

1.1.a
Packet Pg. 24
Attachment: Attachment 1_R-03-23_DAP-001-668_1500 Agua Mansa Road (4157 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for Lineage Building)

1.1.a
Packet Pg. 25
Attachment: Attachment 1_R-03-23_DAP-001-668_1500 Agua Mansa Road (4157 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for Lineage Building)

1.1.a
Packet Pg. 26
Attachment: Attachment 1_R-03-23_DAP-001-668_1500 Agua Mansa Road (4157 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for Lineage Building)

1.1.a
Packet Pg. 27
Attachment: Attachment 1_R-03-23_DAP-001-668_1500 Agua Mansa Road (4157 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for Lineage Building)

1.1.a
Packet Pg. 28
Attachment: Attachment 1_R-03-23_DAP-001-668_1500 Agua Mansa Road (4157 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for Lineage Building)

1.1.a
Packet Pg. 29
Attachment: Attachment 1_R-03-23_DAP-001-668_1500 Agua Mansa Road (4157 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for Lineage Building)

1.1.a
Packet Pg. 30
Attachment: Attachment 1_R-03-23_DAP-001-668_1500 Agua Mansa Road (4157 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for Lineage Building)

1.1.a
Packet Pg. 31
Attachment: Attachment 1_R-03-23_DAP-001-668_1500 Agua Mansa Road (4157 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for Lineage Building)

1.1.a
Packet Pg. 32
Attachment: Attachment 1_R-03-23_DAP-001-668_1500 Agua Mansa Road (4157 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for Lineage Building)

1.1.a
Packet Pg. 33
Attachment: Attachment 1_R-03-23_DAP-001-668_1500 Agua Mansa Road (4157 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for Lineage Building)

1.1.a
Packet Pg. 34
Attachment: Attachment 1_R-03-23_DAP-001-668_1500 Agua Mansa Road (4157 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for Lineage Building)

1.1.a
Packet Pg. 35
Attachment: Attachment 1_R-03-23_DAP-001-668_1500 Agua Mansa Road (4157 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for Lineage Building)

1.1.a
Packet Pg. 36
Attachment: Attachment 1_R-03-23_DAP-001-668_1500 Agua Mansa Road (4157 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for Lineage Building)

1.1.a
Packet Pg. 37
Attachment: Attachment 1_R-03-23_DAP-001-668_1500 Agua Mansa Road (4157 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for Lineage Building)

1.1.a
Packet Pg. 38
Attachment: Attachment 1_R-03-23_DAP-001-668_1500 Agua Mansa Road (4157 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for Lineage Building)

1.1.a
Packet Pg. 39
Attachment: Attachment 1_R-03-23_DAP-001-668_1500 Agua Mansa Road (4157 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for Lineage Building)

1.1.a
Packet Pg. 40
Attachment: Attachment 1_R-03-23_DAP-001-668_1500 Agua Mansa Road (4157 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for Lineage Building)

1.1.a
Packet Pg. 41
Attachment: Attachment 1_R-03-23_DAP-001-668_1500 Agua Mansa Road (4157 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for Lineage Building)

1.1.a
Packet Pg. 42
Attachment: Attachment 1_R-03-23_DAP-001-668_1500 Agua Mansa Road (4157 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for Lineage Building)

1.1.a
Packet Pg. 43
Attachment: Attachment 1_R-03-23_DAP-001-668_1500 Agua Mansa Road (4157 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for Lineage Building)

1.1.a
Packet Pg. 44
Attachment: Attachment 1_R-03-23_DAP-001-668_1500 Agua Mansa Road (4157 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for Lineage Building)

1.1.b
Packet Pg. 45
Attachment: Attachment 2_Applicant's Letter of Appeal Dated May 18, 2023 (4157 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for Lineage Building)

1.1.c
Packet Pg. 46
Attachment: Attachment 3_February 28, 2023, Planning Commission Staff Report no attachments (4157 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for

1.1.c
Packet Pg. 47
Attachment: Attachment 3_February 28, 2023, Planning Commission Staff Report no attachments (4157 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for

1.1.c
Packet Pg. 48
Attachment: Attachment 3_February 28, 2023, Planning Commission Staff Report no attachments (4157 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for

1.1.c
Packet Pg. 49
Attachment: Attachment 3_February 28, 2023, Planning Commission Staff Report no attachments (4157 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for

1.1.c
Packet Pg. 50
Attachment: Attachment 3_February 28, 2023, Planning Commission Staff Report no attachments (4157 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for

1.1.c
Packet Pg. 51
Attachment: Attachment 3_February 28, 2023, Planning Commission Staff Report no attachments (4157 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for

1.1.c
Packet Pg. 52
Attachment: Attachment 3_February 28, 2023, Planning Commission Staff Report no attachments (4157 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for

1.1.c
Packet Pg. 53
Attachment: Attachment 3_February 28, 2023, Planning Commission Staff Report no attachments (4157 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for

1.1.c
Packet Pg. 54
Attachment: Attachment 3_February 28, 2023, Planning Commission Staff Report no attachments (4157 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for

1.1.c
Packet Pg. 55
Attachment: Attachment 3_February 28, 2023, Planning Commission Staff Report no attachments (4157 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for

1.1.c
Packet Pg. 56
Attachment: Attachment 3_February 28, 2023, Planning Commission Staff Report no attachments (4157 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for

1.1.c
Packet Pg. 57
Attachment: Attachment 3_February 28, 2023, Planning Commission Staff Report no attachments (4157 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for

1.1.c
Packet Pg. 58
Attachment: Attachment 3_February 28, 2023, Planning Commission Staff Report no attachments (4157 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for

1.1.c
Packet Pg. 59
Attachment: Attachment 3_February 28, 2023, Planning Commission Staff Report no attachments (4157 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for

1.1.c
Packet Pg. 60
Attachment: Attachment 3_February 28, 2023, Planning Commission Staff Report no attachments (4157 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for

1.1.c
Packet Pg. 61
Attachment: Attachment 3_February 28, 2023, Planning Commission Staff Report no attachments (4157 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for

1.1.c
Packet Pg. 62
Attachment: Attachment 3_February 28, 2023, Planning Commission Staff Report no attachments (4157 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for

1.1.c
Packet Pg. 63
Attachment: Attachment 3_February 28, 2023, Planning Commission Staff Report no attachments (4157 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for

1.1.c
Packet Pg. 64
Attachment: Attachment 3_February 28, 2023, Planning Commission Staff Report no attachments (4157 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for

1.1.c
Packet Pg. 65
Attachment: Attachment 3_February 28, 2023, Planning Commission Staff Report no attachments (4157 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for

1.1.c
Packet Pg. 66
Attachment: Attachment 3_February 28, 2023, Planning Commission Staff Report no attachments (4157 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for

1.1.c
Packet Pg. 67
Attachment: Attachment 3_February 28, 2023, Planning Commission Staff Report no attachments (4157 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for

1.1.c
Packet Pg. 68
Attachment: Attachment 3_February 28, 2023, Planning Commission Staff Report no attachments (4157 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for

1.1.c
Packet Pg. 69
Attachment: Attachment 3_February 28, 2023, Planning Commission Staff Report no attachments (4157 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for

1.1.d
Packet Pg. 70
Attachment: Attachment 4_Applicant's narrative on the need for 130 -foot tall building (4157 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for Lineage

1.1.d
Packet Pg. 71
Attachment: Attachment 4_Applicant's narrative on the need for 130 -foot tall building (4157 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for Lineage NORTH AMERICA | EUROPE | AFRICA | AUSTRALIA | ASIA
WWW.FIRSTCARBONSOLUTIONS.COM
FINAL
Initial Study/Consistency Checklist
Agua Mansa Logistics Center Project
City of Colton, San Bernardino County, California
Prepared for:

City of Colton
Development Services Department
659 North La Cadena Drive
Colton, CA 92324
909.370.5523
Contact: Mario Suarez, AICP, Planning Manager
Prepared by:

FirstCarbon Solutions
967 Kendall Drive, #A-537
San Bernardino, CA 92407
909.884.2255
Contact: Mary Bean, Project Director
Cecilia So, Senior Project Manager
Date: February 21, 2023

1.1.e
Packet Pg. 72
Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4157 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

1.1.e
Packet Pg. 73
Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4157 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for City of Colton–Agua Mansa Logistics Center Project
Initial Study/Consistency Checklist Table of Contents
FirstCarbon Solutions iii Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0237/02370034/Checklist/02370034 Agua Mansa Logistics Center Checklist_cs.docx Table of Contents
Section 1: Introduction .................................................................................................................. 1

1.1 - CEQA Assessment.............................................................................................................. 1

1.2 - Summary of Results........................................................................................................... 1 Section 2: Project Description ........................................................................................................ 3

2.1 - Project Location and Setting.............................................................................................. 3

2.2 - Project Background and Previous Environmental Review................................................. 7

2.3 - Project Description............................................................................................................ 8

2.4 - Discretionary Approvals .................................................................................................. 14 Section 3: CEQA Guidelines Section 15183: Projects Consistent With a Community Plan or Zoning45 Section 4: Environmental Checklist .............................................................................................. 47 A. Aesthetics, Light, and Glare .......................................................................................... 49 B. Agriculture and Forest Resources................................................................................. 54 C. Air Quality ..................................................................................................................... 59 D. Biological Resources...................................................................................................... 76 E. Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources.......................................................................... 82 F. Geology, Soils and Seismicity ........................................................................................ 92 G. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy ...................................................................... 102 H. Hazards and Hazardous Materials............................................................................... 114 I. Hydrology and Water Quality...................................................................................... 122 J. Land Use and Planning................................................................................................ 130 K. Mineral Resources....................................................................................................... 132 L. Noise ........................................................................................................................... 134 M. Population and Housing.............................................................................................. 145 N. Public Services............................................................................................................. 147 O. Recreation ................................................................................................................... 152 P. Transportation............................................................................................................. 154 Q. Utilities and Service Systems ...................................................................................... 163 R. Wildfire........................................................................................................................ 170 S. Mandatory Findings of Significance............................................................................ 176 Section 5: List of Preparers......................................................................................................... 179 Air Quality Supporting Information
Biological Resources Assessment
Cultural Resources Supporting Information
Geotechnical Investigation
Hydrology and Water Quality Supporting Information
Noise Impact Analysis
Traffic Analysis

1.1.e
Packet Pg. 74
Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4157 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for City of Colton–Agua Mansa Logistics Center Project
Table of Contents Initial Study/Consistency Checklist
iv 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 List of Exhibits
Exhibit 1: Regional Location Map..........................................................................................................15 Exhibit 2: Local Vicinity Map .................................................................................................................17 Exhibit 3: Existing General Plan Land Use Map.....................................................................................19 Exhibit 4: Existing Zoning Map ..............................................................................................................21 Exhibit 5: Overall Site Plan ....................................................................................................................23 Exhibit 6a: Building 1 Easements and Dedications ...............................................................................25 Exhibit 6b: Building 2 Easements and Dedications...............................................................................27 Exhibit 7: Conceptual Landscape Plan ..................................................................................................29 Exhibit 8: Fencing Plan ..........................................................................................................................31 Exhibit 9: Elevation Plans......................................................................................................................33 Exhibit 10a: Preliminary Site Plan .........................................................................................................35 Exhibit 10b: Site Adjacent Roadway and Site Access Recommendations.............................................37 Exhibit 10c: Truck Access ......................................................................................................................39 Exhibit 10d: Truck Access......................................................................................................................41 Exhibit 10e: Truck Access......................................................................................................................43

1.1.e
Packet Pg. 75
Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4157 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for City of Colton–Agua Mansa Logistics Center Project
Initial Study/Consistency Checklist Acronyms and Abbreviations FirstCarbon Solutions v Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0237/02370034/Checklist/02370034 Agua Mansa Logistics Center Checklist_cs.docx

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
°C degrees Celsius (Centigrade)
°F degrees Fahrenheit
µg/m3 micrograms per cubic meter
1992 CO Plan 1992 Federal Attainment Plan for Carbon Monoxide AB Assembly Bill
AFY acre-feet per year
AM/SP-H IND Agua Mansa Specific Plan/Heavy Industrial
APN Assessor’s Parcel Number
AQMP Air Quality Management Plan
ARB California Air Resources Board
ASTM American Society of Testing and Materials
BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District
BERD California Built Environment Resource Directory
BMP Best Management Practice
BRA Biological Resources Assessment
CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards
CAL FIRE California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Cal/EPA California Environmental Protection Agency
CalEEMod California Emissions Estimator Model
CALGreen California Green Building Standard Codes
CalSTA California State Transportation Agency
Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CAP Climate Action Plan
CBC California Building Standards Code
CCNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level
CDF California Department of Finance
CDFA California Department of Food and Agriculture
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CDMG California Division of Mines and Geology
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CFD Colton Fire Department
CHL California Historic Landmarks
CMP Congestion Management Plan
CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level
CNRA California Natural Resources Agency

1.1.e
Packet Pg. 76
Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4157 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for City of Colton–Agua Mansa Logistics Center Project
Acronyms and Abbreviations Initial Study/Consistency Checklist vi 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 CO carbon monoxide
CO2e carbon dioxide equivalent
COA Conditions of Approval
CPD Colton Police Department
CPHI California Points of Historical Interest
CPUC California Public Utilities Commission
CRHR California Register of Historical Resources
CTC California Transportation Commission
CUP Conditional Use Permit
CWRF Colton Wastewater Reclamation Facility
dBA A-weighted decibel
DIF Development Impact Fee
EI Expansion index
EIR Environmental Impact Report
EOP Emergency Operations Plan
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
EV electric vehicle
FAR floor area ratio
FCS FirstCarbon Solutions
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Map
FMMP Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program
FTA Federal Transit Authority
GAMAQI Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts GHG greenhouse gas
GI General Industrial
GO-Biz Governor’s Office of Business and Economic Development gpd gallons per day
HCP Habitat Conservation Plan
HHDT Heavy Heavy-Duty Trucks
hp horsepower
HQTA High Quality Transit Area
HRI California Historical Resources Inventory
IBank California Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank IRP Integrated Resource Planning
lbs pounds
LCA life cycle analysis
Leq equivalent sound level

1.1.e
Packet Pg. 77
Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4157 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for City of Colton–Agua Mansa Logistics Center Project
Initial Study/Consistency Checklist Acronyms and Abbreviations FirstCarbon Solutions vii Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0237/02370034/Checklist/02370034 Agua Mansa Logistics Center Checklist_cs.docx LHDT Light Heavy-Duty Trucks
LID Low Impact Development
Lmax maximum noise/sound level
LOMR Letter of Map Revision
LOS Level of Service
LRA Local Responsibility Area
LST localized significance threshold
M-2 Heavy Industrial
MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act
MGD million gallons per day
MHDT Medium Heavy-Duty Trucks
MMRP Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
mph miles per hour
MRZ Mineral Resource Zone
MS4 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System
MT metric tons
N2O nitrous oxide
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NAHC Native American Heritage Commission
NCCP Natural Community Conservation Plan
NIMS National Emergency Management System
NOX oxides of nitrogen
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NRHP National Register of Historic Places
NRHP National Register of Historic Places
OES California Office of Emergency Services
OPR Governor’s Office of Planning and Research
OS Open Space
OS-R Open Space Resources
PCC-Grade Portland Cement Concrete Grade
PDF Project Design Feature
P-I Public/Institution
PM10 particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter PM2.5 particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter ppm parts per million
PPV peak particle velocity
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RTP Regional Transportation Plan

1.1.e
Packet Pg. 78
Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4157 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for City of Colton–Agua Mansa Logistics Center Project
Acronyms and Abbreviations Initial Study/Consistency Checklist viii 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 RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
SB Senate Bill
SBCTA San Bernardino County Transportation Authority
SBTAM San Bernardino County Transportation Analysis
SCAG Southern California Association of Governments
SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District
SCCIC South Central Coastal Information Center
SCE Southern California Edison
SCH State Clearinghouse
SCS Sustainable Communities Strategy
SEMS Standard Emergency Management System
SGC Strategic Growth Council
SIP State Implementation Plan
SLCP Short-Lived Climate Pollutant
SMBMI San Manuel Band of Mission Indians
SoCAB South Coast Air Basin
SoCalGas Southern California Gas Company
SOI Sphere of Influence
SOX sulfur oxide
SR State Route
SRA State Responsibility Area
State Water Board California State Water Resources Control Board SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
TA Traffic Analysis
TCR Tribal Cultural Resources
TPA Transit Priority Area
TRU Transport Refrigeration Unit
USGS United States Geological Survey
USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service
UWMP Urban Water Management Plan
VHFHSZ Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone
VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled
VOC volatile organic compounds

1.1.e
Packet Pg. 79
Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4157 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for City of Colton–Agua Mansa Logistics Center Project
Initial Study/Consistency Checklist Introduction
FirstCarbon Solutions 1 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0237/02370034/Checklist/02370034 Agua Mansa Logistics Center Checklist_cs.docx SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION
This Initial Study, Consistency Checklist, and attached supporting documents have been prepared to determine whether and to what extent the certified 2013 General Plan Update Program Environmental Impact Report (General Plan EIR) (State Clearinghouse No. 2012031037) prepared for the City of Colton remains sufficient to address the potential impacts of the proposed Agua Mansa Logistics Center Project (Proposed Project), or whether additional documentation is required under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub. Resources Code, Section 21000, et seq.).

1.1 - CEQA Assessment
The following Environmental Checklist has been prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 (Projects Consistent with a Community Plan or Zoning) to determine whether the Proposed Project requires additional environmental review.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 mandates that projects which are consistent with the development density established by existing zoning, community plan or general plan policies for which an EIR was certified (in this case, the General Plan EIR) 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.

1.2 - Summary of Results
In approving a project which is consistent with the requirements contained in CEQA Section 15183, as discussed in Section 1.1, CEQA Assessment, the lead agency limits its examination of environmental effects to those which the lead agency has determined meets the following criteria:

1. Effects that are peculiar to the project or the parcel on which the project would be located;

2. Effects that were not analyzed as significant impacts in the prior EIR on the zoning action, general plan, community plan with which the project is consistent;

3. Effects that would result in potentially significant off-site impacts or cumulative impacts which were not discussed in the prior EIR prepared for the general plan, community plan, or zoning action; or

4. Effects that were previously identified as significant impacts which, as a result of substantial new information which was not known at the time of the prior EIR’s certification, are determined to have a more severe or adverse impacts than discussed in the prior EIR.

Thus, if an impact of the Proposed Project is not peculiar to the parcel or the project, has been addressed as a significant impact in the General Plan EIR, or can be substantially mitigated by the implementation of uniformity applied development policies or standards, then an additional EIR does not need to be prepared for the Proposed Project solely on the basis of that impact.

1.1.e
Packet Pg. 80
Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4157 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for City of Colton–Agua Mansa Logistics Center Project
Introduction Initial Study/Consistency Checklist
2 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 As demonstrated in the following Environmental Checklist in Section 5, the Proposed Project is consistent under Section 15183 and is found to be in conformance with the analysis and conclusions of the General Plan EIR. The checklist analysis found that there are no new significant effects that are peculiar to the Proposed Project or its site and that there are no new significant effects that were not previously evaluated in the General Plan EIR. Additionally, the checklist analysis found that there are no new significant off-site or cumulative impacts that were not analyzed in the General Plan EIR, and that there are no adverse impacts that are more severe than those previously identified in the General Plan EIR. This evaluation supports the conclusion that the Proposed Project is within the scope of the General Plan EIR and the approval of the discretionary review and permits required for the Proposed Project. Therefore, no further CEQA documentation is required. The General Plan EIR is available at:

City of Colton
659 North La Cadena Drive
Colton, CA 92324

1.1.e
Packet Pg. 81
Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4157 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for City of Colton–Agua Mansa Logistics Center Project
Initial Study/Consistency Checklist Project Description FirstCarbon Solutions 3 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0237/02370034/Checklist/02370034 Agua Mansa Logistics Center Checklist_cs.docx SECTION 2: PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.1 - Project Location and Setting

2.1.1 - Project Location
Regional Location
The City of Colton (City) is located in southwestern San Bernardino County, California, approximately 57 miles east of Los Angeles, in the Inland Empire region of Southern California. The City is bordered to the east by the City of San Bernardino and the City of Loma Linda; to the south by the City of Grand Terrace, the City of Riverside, and unincorporated Riverside County; to the west by the City of Rialto; and to the north by the City of San Bernardino (Exhibit 1). The planning area of the City, which includes the City boundary and Sphere of Influence (SOI), encompasses approximately 18 square miles.1 Major highway networks provide regional access, including Interstate 10 (I-10) to the north of the site and Interstate 215 (I-215) to the east.

Local Setting
The project site encompasses approximately 59 acres within the western portion of the City. Much of the area surrounding the project site consists of industrial uses. Industrial land uses serve as the foundation of the City and prioritizing the development of a strong and highly competitive industrial base, especially along the Agua Mansa Road Corridor, is a goal of the City’s 2013 General Plan Update (General Plan) Land Use Element.2 As shown in Exhibit 2, the project site is located north of the Santa Ana River, south of Agua Mansa Road, east of South Rancho Avenue, and west of South Riverside Avenue. The project site is located on the San Bernardino South, United States Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute Topographic Quadrangle Map/Jurupa (Stearns) Land Grant and within Township 1S South, Range 5W in the southeast quarter of Section 25 as well as Township 1S, Range 4W, and in the southwest quarter of Section 30.

The project site is addressed at 1400-1500 West Agua Mansa Road and consists of 11 Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs):

APN 0260-072-08
APNs 0260-072-12 and -13
APNs 0275-041-07, -08, and -09
APNs 0275-041-27, -28, -29, -30, and -31

2.1.2 - Existing Development and Land Use Activities
The project site is currently vacant and is located within an industrial area of the City. The site is relatively flat and was previously graded into rough pads under the ownership of CalPortland.3 Scattered vegetation occurs along the perimeter of the site. There are no existing structures present. 1 City of Colton General Plan. 2013. Land Use Element. Website: http://www.ci.colton.ca.us/documentcenter/view/1345. Accessed June 22, 2021. 2 Ibid. 3 City of Colton. CEQA Initial Study, Agua Mansa Grading Project–CalPortland. November 2017.

1.1.e
Packet Pg. 82
Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4157 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for City of Colton–Agua Mansa Logistics Center Project
Project Description Initial Study/Consistency Checklist 4 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 A 30-foot easement for North Riverside and Jurupa Canal runs through the center of the site in a northwest-to-southeast direction.

Two dirt driveways enter the project site from Agua Mansa Road and several dirt paths extend across the project site. Two concrete foundations associated with former buildings were once located on the northeastern portion of the project site; based on aerial imagery, these foundations no longer exist at the time of this writing.

Several retention basins are located on the project site. The basins previously received stormwater/wastewater runoff from CalPortland Cement Company, located to the north of Agua Mansa Road. The approval of the previous Agua Mansa Grading Project, which occurred on the project site while under the ownership of CalPortland, resulted in the diversion of stormwater to be retained on-site and that the new drainage system be designed to meet a 50-year storm event. The City requires that residential, commercial, and industrial projects retain all stormwater on-site, and that the new drainage system be designed to meet a 50-year storm event. In accordance with this requirement, the currently proposed drainage system design was reviewed by the City Public Works Department to ensure adequate capacity for the proposed use, in compliance with City standards.4 Concrete and dirt piles, tires, and debris are scattered throughout the project site. Electrical transmission lines are located on the southern and western boundaries and cross the southeast corner of the project site. The project site is bordered to the south by a levee and the Santa Ana River. Access to the subject property is via an entrance gate along Agua Mansa Road.5 The subject property has been owned by the CalPortland Company for approximately 30 years and was used as a buffer property between the Santa Ana River and the cement facility located north of Agua Mansa Road. By 1975, construction of a levee had been completed along the site’s southern boundary. The CalPortland Company leased the site for agricultural use, 6 and the site was previously
developed with at least three residences and several associated agricultural buildings, which are all currently vacant, along the northeastern boundary of the site, from 1931 until 1989.

2.1.3 - Project Site Land Uses, General Plan, and Zoning Designations The project site is located in an area with existing industrial uses, vacant land, warehouses, and similar uses. A residential property is located approximately 2,700 feet east of the project site; however, no areas in the general vicinity are designated for residential use.7 The project site is located within the Agua Mansa Historic District but is not designated as a historic site.8 The project site has a General Plan land use designation of Heavy Industrial and is zoned Heavy Industrial (M-2) 4 City of Colton. CEQA Initial Study, Agua Mansa Grading Project–CalPortland. November 2017. 5 Partner Engineering and Science, Inc. 2019. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Cal Portland Parcel Agua Mansa. February 5. 6 Ibid. 7 City of Colton General Plan. 2013. Land Use Element, Figure LU-6: Land Use Plan. Website:
https://www.ci.colton.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/1345. Accessed January 22, 2021. 8 City of Colton. 2017. City of Colton Historic Districts and Landmarks. January 26. Website:
https://www.ci.colton.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/778. Accessed February 2, 2021.

1.1.e
Packet Pg. 83
Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4157 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for City of Colton–Agua Mansa Logistics Center Project
Initial Study/Consistency Checklist Project Description FirstCarbon Solutions 5 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0237/02370034/Checklist/02370034 Agua Mansa Logistics Center Checklist_cs.docx (Exhibit 3 and Exhibit 4, respectively). According to the City of Colton Zoning Map, the western portion of the project site also has an MCS-Marijuana Candidate Sites Overlay.9 The Heavy Industrial designation allows land uses including heavy manufacturing, distribution, assembly, resource mining, storage, and similar activities. These types of uses are not normally compatible with residential development and are therefore typically located at some distance from residential development. According to the General Plan, Heavy Industrial development within established areas should be buffered from residential neighborhoods by Light Industrial or Business Park development wherever possible.10 According to General Plan Policy LU-11.5, the City encourages heavy industrial uses and uses that are incompatible with residential or commercial development to be located along the Agua Mansa Road Corridor, defined as the area along the Santa Ana River south to South Riverside Avenue, with West Agua Mansa Road on the west.11 The M-2 zone permits warehousing uses. According to the City’s Code of Ordinances (Code of Ordinances), the M-2 zone is consistent with the Heavy Industrial General Plan designation proposed as part of this application. The Code of Ordinances also specifies additional landscaping, parking, and setback requirements for the M-2 zone.12
The M-2 zone includes a maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.5 and a maximum building height of three stories or 50 feet. As part of the project application, the project applicant is requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to allow one of the Proposed Project’s two buildings to exceed the 50-foot height limit. The proposed building would have a maximum height of approximately 130 feet.

2.1.4 - Surrounding Land Uses, General Plan, and Zoning Designations North
The project site is bound by Agua Mansa Road to the north. The Colton Aggregate Plant and quarry site of CalPortland, a manufacturer of cement, ready mixed concrete, aggregates, asphalt, and building and construction supplies is located north across Agua Mansa Road, in unincorporated San Bernardino County. Aggregates mined north of the project site include sand, gravel, and crushed stone.13 The areas north of the project site are designated General Industrial (GI) in the San Bernardino County General Plan and are zoned Agua Mansa Specific Plan/Heavy Industrial (AM/SP-H IND).14 9 City of Colton. 2020. City of Colton Marijuana Candidate Sites Overlay Zone. January 15. Website:
https://www.ci.colton.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/6639/Marijuana-Candidate-Sites-Overlay-Zone-Citywide. Accessed February 2, 2021. 10 City of Colton General Plan. 2013. Land Use Element. Website: https://www.ci.colton.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/1345. Accessed January 22, 2021. 11 Ibid. 12 City of Colton. 2013. Code of Ordinances, Chapter 18.28–M-2 Heavy Industrial Zone. Website:
https://library.municode.com/ca/colton/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TIT18ZO_CH18.28HEINZO_18.28.010INPU. Accessed January 22, 2021. 13 CalPortland. 2021. Products. Website:
https://www.calportland.com/products/?gclid=Cj0KCQiAjKqABhDLARIsABbJrGl3x4qFU5Q6Djcx8M_sfhSMdMKIp1ZcorGei5ZdX_- kxc26-rGX-zUaApXNEALw_wcB. Accessed: July 29, 2021. 14 Williams-Kuebelbeck & Associates. 1986. Agua Mansa Industrial Corridor Specific Plan. July. Website:
http://www.sbcounty.gov/Uploads/lus/SpecificPlans/AMSP.pdf. Accessed February 2, 2021.

1.1.e
Packet Pg. 84
Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4157 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for City of Colton–Agua Mansa Logistics Center Project
Project Description Initial Study/Consistency Checklist 6 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 Areas zoned for Heavy Industrial in the Agua Mansa Industrial Corridor Specific Plan are utilized for manufacturing, resource extraction, compounding of material, packaging, treatment, processing, or assembly of goods. Heavy industrial uses generally are more land intensive than lighter Industrial uses and usually employ processes which produce more measurable externalities. Activities in the heavy industrial areas are likely to have frequent rail and/or truck traffic and involve the transportation of heavy, large-scale products.

South
The Santa Ana River, the Santa Ana River Trail, the former Colton Sanitary Landfill, and La Loma Hills are located south of the project site. As shown on Exhibit 3 and Exhibit 4, the Santa Ana River corridor has a General Plan land use designation of Open Space-Resource and is zoned Open Space Resources (OS-RS) and Public/Institution (P-I) for the areas immediately to the south of the Santa Ana River. Similarly, these areas are designated and zoned OS-RS and P-I, respectively.

The OS-RS designation applies to open space areas necessary for the protection and preservation of unique areas for such purposes as groundwater recharge, flood control, wildlife habitat conservation, and hillside protection. Designated areas include the Santa Ana River and its floodplain, storm drain channels, conservation areas designated for the protection of the Delhi Sands flower-loving fly, and steep hillsides and rock outcroppings within the La Loma Hills and Reche Canyon areas. Complementary uses within the OS-RS designation include cemeteries and recreation and equestrian uses.15
The Public/Institutional designation generally includes all major public, quasi-public, and institutional land uses, including the Civic Center, fire stations, hospitals, libraries, community centers, water treatment facilities, waste disposal facilities, and public schools.

East
To the east, the project site is bound by a wastewater treatment plant, truck and trailer storage facility, and a legal, nonconforming single-family residence. Further east are South Rancho Avenue, manufacturing facilities, warehouse facilities, automobile parts and repair shops, a concrete supplier, and a recycling center. The General Plan land use designations for these areas include Heavy Industrial, Public/Institution, and Light Industrial. The areas east of the project site are zoned Light Industrial (M-1), M-2, and P-I.

The Light Industrial designation supports a variety of fabrication, manufacturing, assembly, distribution, and warehouse uses and, to a lesser degree, supporting commercial and office uses.

The designation is intended for uses that are compatible with those in nearby commercial and residential districts, and do not produce substantial environmental nuisances (noise, odor, dust/smoke, glare, etc.). Uses may include low-intensity packing, assembly, storage, and similar uses that do not adversely affect surrounding residential, office, educational or commercial land uses. 15 City of Colton General Plan. 2013. Land Use Element. Website: https://www.ci.colton.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/1345. Accessed January 22, 2021.

1.1.e
Packet Pg. 85
Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4157 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for City of Colton–Agua Mansa Logistics Center Project
Initial Study/Consistency Checklist Project Description FirstCarbon Solutions 7 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0237/02370034/Checklist/02370034 Agua Mansa Logistics Center Checklist_cs.docx West
Immediately west of the project site is a Walmart warehouse distribution center and associated parking lot. Beyond the Walmart distribution center is a culvert and vacant lands. This area is designated by the General Plan as Heavy Industrial and Public/Institution and is zoned M-2 with an MCS-Marijuana Candidate Sites Overlay. The city limit of the City of Rialto is located approximately

0.43 mile west of the project site with land designated in the City of Rialto’s General Plan and Zoning Map as GI16 and zoned in the Agua Mansa Industrial Corridor Specific Plan.17

2.2 - Project Background and Previous Environmental Review

2.2.1 - General Plan
The General Plan is a long-range planning program to guide the orderly growth and development of the Colton planning area over the long term. It is intended to establish the applicable development density and zoning classifications within the City. The General Plan communicates the City’s vision of its future and to establish a policy framework to govern decision-making concerning the physical development of the community, including assurances that the community at large will be supported by an adequate range of public services and infrastructure systems.18

2.2.2 - General Plan Environmental Impact Report
The City prepared an EIR for the General Plan, which was certified by the City of Colton in 2013. The General Plan EIR is a Program EIR that addresses the environmental impacts associated with implementation of the General Plan, as well as ways the impacts could be reduced to less than significant through implementation of General Plan policies and mitigation measures. A Program EIR is described in Section 15168 of the CEQA Guidelines as an analytical framework to assess the cumulative environmental effects of the full plan, in a first-tier level of analysis, to identify broad concerns and sets of impacts, and to define/develop regulatory standards and programmatic procedures that reduce impacts and help achieve environmental goals and objectives.19 Later activities proposed pursuant to the goals and policies of the General Plan will be reviewed in light of the General Plan EIR and may focus on those site-specific and localized environmental issues that could not be examined in sufficient detail as part of the General Plan EIR.20 The majority of impacts associated with development consistent with the General Plan were either less than significant (with no need for mitigation) or reduced to less than significant levels by the mitigation measures proposed. The General Plan EIR identified significant and unavoidable environmental impacts related to air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, recreation, and transportation. The General Plan EIR’s conclusions regarding each topical area are listed in Section 5:
16 City of Rialto. 2010. MANAGING OUR LAND SUPPLY: LAND USE, COMMUNITY DESIGN, OPEN SPACE AND CONSERVATION. Exhibit 2.2 – Land Use Policy Plan. Website: https://www.yourrialto.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Land-Use-Map.pdf. Accessed February 28, 2021. 17 City of Rialto. 2013. Official City Zoning Map. July 8. Website: https://www.yourrialto.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/ZoningMap-July-2013.pdf. Accessed February 28, 2021. 18 City of Colton. 2013. City of Colton General Plan Update. Website: https://www.ci.colton.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/1947.

Accessed December 16, 2021. 19 Association of Environmental Professionals (AEP). 2021. 2021 CEQA Guidelines Statutes and Guidelines, Section 15168. 20 City of Colton. 2013. City of Colton General Plan Update. Website: https://www.ci.colton.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/1947.

Accessed December 16, 2021.

1.1.e
Packet Pg. 86
Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4157 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for City of Colton–Agua Mansa Logistics Center Project
Project Description Initial Study/Consistency Checklist 8 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 Checklist, of this document. These impacts and the relevant mitigation measures proposed in the General Plan EIR are discussed under each section in this Consistency Checklist. The City adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the General Plan EIR for any remaining impacts that were determined to be significant and unavoidable.

The Section 15183 exemption applies only to the extent that all feasible mitigation measures for a significant effect specified in the General Plan EIR are or will be undertaken by the public agency having jurisdiction to implement such mitigation measures. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15183(e)(1),(2).).

To the extent that mitigation measures in the General Plan EIR have not already been implemented and remain applicable to the Proposed Project to ensure identified impacts remain mitigated as analyzed, applicable mitigation measures that apply to the Proposed Project are listed under each section. Accordingly, only the mitigation measures that are applicable to the Proposed Project are listed. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) prepared for the General Plan EIR remains in effect. To facilitate implementation of applicable mitigation measures, a project-specific MMRP has been prepared, identifying the relevant General Plan EIR mitigation measures.

2.3 - Project Description

2.3.1 - Development Summary
The project applicants, Lineage Logistics and IDI Logistics, propose to develop two industrial warehouse buildings totaling approximately 930,466 square feet and associated driveways, parking lots, sidewalks, curbs, fencing, gates, lighting, and landscaping on the approximately 59-acre project site (Exhibit 5). As shown on Exhibit 6a and Exhibit 6b, the Proposed Project would dedicate portions of Agua Mansa Road to the City and would vacate portions of this roadway in order to realign Agua Mansa Road with the northern boundary of the project site. Easements for Southern California Edison (SCE), as well as for storm drains, reciprocal access, water, sewer, pipelines, telecommunications, and County flood control would be located primarily on the east and southeast sides of the project site and along the southern boundary. The Proposed Project would require City approval of the project applicants’ request for an Architectural/Site Plan Review, Tentative Parcel Map to consolidate lots (including any easements, dedications, etc.), parking variance to allow for approximately 114 parking stalls to be provided for Building 1 when 314 parking stalls would otherwise be required, CUP to allow for the construction of a building that would be approximately 130 feet in height, Major Historic Certificate of Appropriateness, a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Letter of Map Revision (LOMR), and Development Agreement.

Building 1 would be a 2-story, approximately 474,021-square-foot automated freezer facility with approximately 77,564 square feet of mezzanine space located on approximately 35 acres in the western portion of the project site. Lineage Logistics has applied for a CUP to allow the maximum height of Building 1 to be approximately 130 feet. The freezer facility would be operated by Lineage Logistics. The majority of Building 1 would be a freezer capable of maintaining lows of -20°F (degrees Fahrenheit) but typically operating at -5°F, with dock temperatures ranging from 38°F to 45°F. The freezer facility would operate 24 hours per day, 7 days per week, and would employ approximately 60 employees in two 12-hour shifts. No employees would work in the freezer unit, except during

1.1.e
Packet Pg. 87
Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4157 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for City of Colton–Agua Mansa Logistics Center Project
Initial Study/Consistency Checklist Project Description FirstCarbon Solutions 9 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0237/02370034/Checklist/02370034 Agua Mansa Logistics Center Checklist_cs.docx routine maintenance, as the freezer unit would be fully automated. The dock would have approximately 25 to 30 employees in this area at a time, and the automated dock 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. Because 90 percent of this facility would either be automated or mechanical, the total occupant load would be greatly reduced (compared to typical warehouse operations) with a total of approximately 60 people per shift, which in turn reduces the need for onsite parking and thus Lineage Logistics is seeking approval of a parking variance for the Proposed Project.

Building 2 would be an approximately 456,445-square-foot speculative concrete tilt-up structure constructed on approximately 24 acres in the eastern portion of the project site. Building 2 would consist of 114,000 square feet of High-Cube Cold Storage Warehouse use (25 percent of total building square footage) and 342,000 square feet of High-Cube Fulfillment Center Warehouse use (75 percent of total building square footage). Building 2 would be a rear-loaded building, with all the dock loading doors facing away from the street, which would allow for additional on-site queueing for both in-bound and out-bound trucks and reduce the visual impact of the trucks from the public street. Building 2 would have a maximum height of approximately 50 feet which is consistent with the maximum allowable height limits of the M-2 zone.

The specifications for Buildings 1 and 2 are summarized in Table 1, below.

Table 1: Building Uses
Use Building 11 Building 21
Office 20,506 square feet 10,000 square feet
Cold loading dock 96,293 square feet –
Automated cold mezzanine 62,718 square feet –
Freezer 278,505 square feet 114,000 square feet
Support Area 4,593 square feet –
Ref Area Mezzanine 4,593 square feet –
Warehouse Included in freezer/refrigerator
square footage
332,000 square feet
Fire Pump House – 445 square feet
Total 474,021 square feet 456,445 square feet
Parking required 314 stalls 269 stalls
Parking provided 114 stalls 270 stalls
Dock high door positions 49 79
Trailer parking positions 378 141
Gross site area 1,524,685 square feet (35 acres) 1,045,355 square feet (24 acres)

1.1.e
Packet Pg. 88
Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4157 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for City of Colton–Agua Mansa Logistics Center Project
Project Description Initial Study/Consistency Checklist 10 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 Use Building 11 Building 21
Notes:
1 All area measurements are approximate.

2.3.2 - Parking and Circulation
Local access to the project site is provided by Agua Mansa Road, which intersects Main Street and South Rancho Avenue near the project site. The primary truck access points to the local freeway system would be from I-215 at the La Cadena Drive interchange and from State Route (SR) 60 at the Main Street exit.

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 approximately 26-foot driveway would provide passenger vehicle access to Building 1 in the western portion of the project site, and a new approximately 40- 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 Code of Ordinances outlines parking requirements for each zoning classification to ensure an adequate number of parking stalls are provided. Within the M-2 zone, the first 10,000 square feet of warehouse space requires one parking stall for every 1,000 square feet. After the first 10,000 square feet, one parking stall is required per every 2,000 square feet. The Code of Ordinances also requires one parking space for every 250 square feet of office space. The total required parking spaces would be 314 stalls for Building 1 and 269 stalls for Building 2. The Proposed Project would provide a total of approximately 114 automobile parking spaces for Building 1, and approximately 270 automobile parking spaces for Building 2, for a total of approximately 384 automobile parking spaces. As such, implementation of the Proposed Project would require approval of a parking variance for Building 1.

The Proposed Project would provide approximately 519 trailer stalls: 378 stalls for Building 1, and 141 stalls for Building 2. Bicycle racks would also be provided. Additionally, 2022 California Green Building Standard Codes (CALGreen) would be applicable to the Proposed Project, including 130 or more designated parking spaces for clean air vehicles (any combination of low-emitting, fuelefficient, and carpool/vanpool vehicles), and installation of electric vehicle (EV) supply equipment to support future charging stations.

2.3.3 - Emergency System and Access
The high freezer portion of Building 1 would have a 100 percent fully automatic dry double-lock preaction fire suppression system. The building would have a standard sprinkler system, a smoke aspiration detection system with detection points on the roof and inside the racking, and standard smoke detection systems. 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 building would have fire access doors with fire signals located every 100 feet around the perimeter of the facility.

1.1.e
Packet Pg. 89
Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4157 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for City of Colton–Agua Mansa Logistics Center Project
Initial Study/Consistency Checklist Project Description FirstCarbon Solutions 11 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0237/02370034/Checklist/02370034 Agua Mansa Logistics Center Checklist_cs.docx The refrigeration system of Building 1 would be a completely closed ammonia system with a central machine room located in the mechanical wing of the facility. This room would be on a mezzanine level located and surrounded by concrete panel walls, concrete floor, and standard roof framing system. In the event of an emergency, the system will automatically shut down, the ammonia would be purged from inside the building directly to the high-pressure receiver located on the exterior of the facility, and the emergency prevention/safety protocol plan would be put in place.

2.3.4 - Landscaping and Fencing
The City requires that a minimum of 15 percent of the project site be utilized for landscaping purposes, which equates to approximately 385,506 square feet of landscaping for both proposed buildings. The Proposed Project includes approximately 419,097 square feet of landscaping, well in excess of the minimum requirements. Project landscaping would be located along setbacks, in parking lots, and along the frontage of buildings. Trees, shrubs, and groundcover would include native plants and vegetation to reduce water use, such as blue palo verde (Parkinsonia florida), desert willow (Chilopsis linearis), California pepper tree (Schinus mole), Mexican sage (Salvia leucantha), and rosemary (Rosmarinus officinalis) (Exhibit 7). The landscape area for Building 1 would be approximately 237,372 square feet, or 15.57 percent of the project site, and the landscape area for Building 2 would be approximately 181,725 square feet, or 17.38 percent of the project site.

The landscape for both buildings would be coordinated by a single landscape architect to ensure a continuous aesthetic. Landscaping along the street frontage would be approximately 20 feet from sidewalk to the auto parking area, with a mix of plantings including 36-inch and 24-inch box trees at 20 feet on center and groundcover and shrubbery to soften the streetscape.

Fencing on the project site would include an approximately 8-foot-tall black tubular steel picket fence that would be installed around the western and southern perimeters of the project site, as well as an approximately 14-foot-tall painted concrete screen wall that would be installed just outside the required 20-foot front yard minimum setback along the northern perimeter of the project site, extending around the parking lot in the center of the site (Exhibit 8).

2.3.5 - Building Design and Appearance
A complex construction method called a “rack supported system” would be required for the proposed Building 1. Under the rack supported system, racking that is used to store product on pallets would also support the building walls, roof, refrigeration, and automation systems. This construction method is used for single-story, fully automated buildings from 85 feet to 160 feet tall, and not occupied by personnel. This method eliminates the need for structural steel columns, structural roof joist, and column foundations and is appropriate for seismic areas.

The proposed warehouse buildings would be painted with gray and metal exteriors (Exhibit 9). The two buildings would use complementary colors and materials to the extent possible due to the unique operational qualities of Building 1. Colors and materials for Building 2 would be light gray concrete walls with blue glass and clear anodized accent canopies at the main building entries.

Building 2 would also have vertical and horizontal articulation in order to create visual interest and break up the mass of the building facing the street. Both of the proposed buildings would be energy

1.1.e
Packet Pg. 90
Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4157 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for City of Colton–Agua Mansa Logistics Center Project
Project Description Initial Study/Consistency Checklist 12 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 efficient and would utilize modern technology. Building 1 would also utilize highly advanced automation and cold freezer technology.

The approximately 130-foot height limit for Building 1 is required to accommodate the rack supported automated freezer and loading dock, automated internal cranes, and internal refrigeration equipment that enables long-term storage of frozen products on pallets. The approximately 56-foot height portion of the building would consist of an automated cold dock, mechanical area, and an office. The exterior architectural wall system for Building 1 would be constructed from a lightweight freezer panel, which would allow the panels to be hung from the rack supported frame instead of being mounted to the exterior.

The ground and mezzanine levels of Building 1 would be framed using decorative/structural concrete exterior wall panels, standard structural columns, and standard structural roof framing. The shipping and receiving areas and advanced automation sorting and distribution hubs would be located on the ground and mezzanine level, inside the dock. Products would be loaded and unloaded manually from the freezer trucks and transferred to the automation hub, where it would either be distributed into the freezer for storage or discharged to a trailer to be manually loaded. The mezzanine level would also contain an additional automation system that would receive pallets directly from the freezer which would then be sorted and returned to the freezer for storage or to the ground level for discharge. A mechanical support area connected to the loading dock would house the electrical, fire protection, refrigeration, and maintenance support for the entire facility. An office consisting of a ground floor and mezzanine would be connected to the dock.

2.3.6 - Utilities
The City provides electric, water, and wastewater services to the project site.21 The City contracts with the CR&R, Inc. Inland Regional Material Recovery Facility, located at 2059 East Steel Road in Colton, for solid waste, green waste, organic, and recycling disposal.22 Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas) provides natural gas services to properties within the city limits within the Southern System—West of Moreno service zone.23
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.

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. As part of the Proposed Project, this design feature would improveplant operations to divert flows from the 21-inch City main directly to the main plant sump 21 City of Colton. 2020. Utility Billing Services. Website: https://www.ci.colton.ca.us/166/Utility-Billing-Services. Accessed February 10, 2020. 22 City of Colton. 2020. Refuse and Recycling. Website: https://www.ci.colton.ca.us/465/Refuse-Recycling. Accessed February 10, 2020. 23 Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas). 2016. Map Showing Local Service Zones of Southern California Gas Company.

Website: https://www2.socalgas.com/regulatory/tariffs/tm2/pdf/Local_Svc_Zones.pdfl. Accessed February 10, 2020.

1.1.e
Packet Pg. 91
Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4157 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for City of Colton–Agua Mansa Logistics Center Project
Initial Study/Consistency Checklist Project Description FirstCarbon Solutions 13 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0237/02370034/Checklist/02370034 Agua Mansa Logistics Center Checklist_cs.docx and lift station, and allowing the flows in the 21-inch main to drawdown quicker, creating upstream capacity for the overall system.

2.3.7 - Off-site Improvements
The City is in the process of upgrading the sewer waste treatment plant; however, the precise design and timing for implementation of the improvements is unknown and too speculative to analyze in this evaluation. Accordingly, the Proposed Project would also include off-site improvements to public infrastructure, to accommodate the anticipated increase in traffic induced by the Proposed Project.

Proposed off-site improvements include the following and are shown on Exhibit 10:
• Installation of a traffic signal at Driveway 3 of Agua Mansa Road. • Construction of Agua Mansa Road at its ultimate half-width (96-foot right-of-way) from the project site’s western boundary to the eastern boundary. • Modification to Driveway 1, 3, and 4 to provide a 45-foot curb radius. The Driveway 1 drive aisle would be shifted by 14 feet and the Driveway 4 drive aisle would be shifted by 5 feet.

Other off-site improvements include capacity improvements to the sewer system that serves the project site. These 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. These improvements 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.

Additionally, the 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.

2.3.8 - Phasing and Construction
An approximate construction schedule is shown below in Table 2 for Buildings 1 and 2.

Table 2: Construction Schedule
Phase Date Duration
Building 1
Site preparation Q2 2023 3 months
Grading Q3 2023 2 months
Building Construction Q4 2023 14 months
Paving Q4 2024 2 months
Architectural Coating Q4 2024 2 weeks

1.1.e
Packet Pg. 92
Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4157 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for City of Colton–Agua Mansa Logistics Center Project
Project Description Initial Study/Consistency Checklist 14 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 Phase Date Duration
Building 1
Building 2
Site preparation Q4 2023 1 month
Grading Q4 2023 2 months
Building Construction Q1 2024 8 months
Paving Q4 2024 2 months
Architectural Coating Q4 2024 6 weeks

2.4 - Discretionary Approvals
The following discretionary approvals and permits are required by the City for implementation of the Proposed Project:
• Architectural/Site Plan Review for the development of two warehouse facilities. • Tentative Parcel Map No. 20358 to consolidate lots (including any easements, dedications, etc.).
• A Variance to allow 114 parking spaces for Building 1 when 314 would be required. • CUP to allow a building height of 130 feet for Building 1. • Major Historic Certificate of Appropriateness.
• Development Agreements DAP-001-668 and DAP-001-716.
• FEMA LOMR.
• 15183 Consistency Checklist.

Subsequent ministerial actions would be required for the implementation of the Proposed Project including issuance of grading and building permits.

2.4.1 - Responsible and Trustee Agencies
A number of other agencies in addition to the City will serve as Responsible and Trustee Agencies, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15381 and 15386. This Consistency Checklist will provide environmental information to these agencies and other public agencies, which may be required to grant approvals or coordinate with other agencies, as part of project implementation. These agencies may include, but are not limited to, the following:
• Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region • California State Water Resources Control Board
• South Coast Air Quality Management District
• California Department of Fish and Wildlife
• San Bernardino County Flood Control District

1.1.e
Packet Pg. 93
Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4157 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for !
·|}þ91
·|}þ60
·|}þ60
Riverside County
San Bernardino County
·|}þ74
·|}þ79
%&'(10
San Bernardino
%&'(15
%&'(15
·|}þ210
·|}þ173
%&'(215
%&'(215
·|}þ91
%&'(15
Grand Terrace
Lake Mathews
Perris
Reservoir
Mystic Lake
Prado Flood
Control Basin
Silverwood
Lake
Lake
Arrowhead San Bernardino
National Forest
Cleveland
National
Forest
Rancho
Cucamonga
Rialto
Fontana
Colton Redlands Ontario
Yucaipa
Riverside
N Moreno Valley orco
Perris
Hemet
Nuevo
Woodcrest
Calimesa
Corona
Highland
Loma Linda
Exh ibit1
Region alLocation Map
5 2.5 0 5
Miles
!
Text
Project Site
Source:Cen sus2000Data,Th eCaliforn iaSp atialIn formation Library (CaSIL).

CITYOFCOLTON

AGUAMANSALOGISTICSCENTER

INITIALSTUDY/CONSISTENCYCHECKLIST
02370034•10/2022|1_ region al.mxd
Project Site

1.1.e
Packet Pg. 94
Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4157 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

1.1.e
Packet Pg. 95
Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4157 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for 0 2370034•10/2022|2_local_vicinity.mxd
Exhibit2
LocalVicinityMap
Source:BingAerialImagery.

CITYOFCOLTON

AGUAMANSALOGISTICSCENTER

INITIALSTUDY/CONSISTENCYCHECKLIST
I
1,90095001,900Fe
et
Legend
ProjectSite

CITYOFCOLTON

CITYOFGRANDTERRACE
%&'(10

CITYOFRIALTO
Santa Ana River

1.1.e
Packet Pg. 96
Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4157 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

1.1.e
Packet Pg. 97
Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4157 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for I
02370034 • 10/2022 | 3_existing_GPLU.cdr
Exhibit 3
Existing General Plan Land Use Map

CITY OF COLTON

AGUA MANSA LOGISTICS CENTER

INITIAL STUDY/CONSISTENCY CHECKLIST
Source: City of Colton, July 9, 2019.

Project Site

1.1.e
Packet Pg. 98
Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4157 :

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

1.1.e
Packet Pg. 99
Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4157 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for I
02370027 • 10/2022 | 4_existing_zoning.cdr
Exhibit 4
Existing Zoning Map

CITY OF COLTON

AGUA MANSA LOGISTICS CENTER

INITIAL STUDY/CONSISTENCY CHECKLIST
Source: City of Colton, July 9, 2019.

Project Site

1.1.e
Packet Pg. 100 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4157 :

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

1.1.e
Packet Pg. 101 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4157 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for 02370034 • 10/2022 | 5_overall_site_plan.cdr
Exhibit 5
Overall Site Plan

CITY OF COLTON

AGUA MANSA LOGISTICS CENTER

INITIAL STUDY/CONSISTENCY CHECKLIST
Source: RGA Office of Architectural Design, 3/02/2022.

1.1.e
Packet Pg. 102 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4157 :

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

1.1.e
Packet Pg. 103 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4157 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for 02370034 • 10/2022 | 6a_building_1_easements_dedic
ations.cdr
Exhibit 6a
Building 1 Easements and Dedications

CITY OF COLTON

AGUA MANSA LOGISTICS CENTER

INITIAL STUDY/CONSISTENCY CHECKLIST
Source: Thienes Engineering, Inc., 09/25/2022. I

1.1.e
Packet Pg. 104 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4157 :

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

1.1.e
Packet Pg. 105 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4157 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for 02370034 • 10/2022 | 6b_building_2_easements_dedic
ations.cdr
Exhibit 6b
Building 2 Easements and Dedications

CITY OF COLTON

AGUA MANSA LOGISTICS CENTER

INITIAL STUDY/CONSISTENCY CHECKLIST
Source: Thienes Engineering, Inc., 09/25/2022. I

1.1.e
Packet Pg. 106 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4157 :

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

1.1.e
Packet Pg. 107 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4157 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for 02370034 • 10/2022 | 7_conceptual_landscape_plan.cdr
Exhibit 7
Conceptual Landscape Plan

CITY OF COLTON

AGUA MANSA LOGISTICS CENTER

INITIAL STUDY/CONSISTENCY CHECKLIST
Source: Hunter Landscape, 09/13/2022.

1.1.e
Packet Pg. 108 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4157 :

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

1.1.e
Packet Pg. 109 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4157 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for 02370034 • 10/2022 | 8_fencing_plan.cdr
Exhibit 8
Fencing Plan

CITY OF COLTON

AGUA MANSA LOGISTICS CENTER

INITIAL STUDY/CONSISTENCY CHECKLIST
Source: RGA Office of Architectural Design, December 16, 2020.

1.1.e
Packet Pg. 110 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4157 :

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

1.1.e
Packet Pg. 111 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4157 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for 02370034 • 10/2022 | 9_elev
ation_plans.cdr CITY OF COLTON

AGUA MANSA LOGISTICS CENTER

INITIAL STUDY/CONSISTENCY CHECKLIST
Exhibit 9
Elevation Plans
Source: RKB Architects Inc., February 16, 2022.

1.1.e
Packet Pg. 112 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4157 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

1.1.e
Packet Pg. 113 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4157 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for I
02370034 • 10/2022 | 10a_preliminary_site_plan.cdr
Exhibit 10a
Preliminary Site Plan

CITY OF COLTON

AGUA MANSA LOGISTICS CENTER

INITIAL STUDY/CONSISTENCY CHECKLIST
Source: Urban Crossroads.

1.1.e
Packet Pg. 114 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4157 :

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

1.1.e
Packet Pg. 115 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4157 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for I
02370034 • 10/2022 | 10b_site_adjacent_roadway_site_access_recommendations.cdr Exhibit 10b
Site Adjacent Roadway and Site Access Recommendation

CITY OF COLTON

AGUA MANSA LOGISTICS CENTER

INITIAL STUDY/CONSISTENCY CHECKLIST
Source: Urban Crossroads.

1.1.e
Packet Pg. 116 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4157 :

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

1.1.e
Packet Pg. 117 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4157 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for 02370034 • 10/2022 | 10c_truck_access.cdr CITY OF COLTON

AGUA MANSA LOGISTICS CENTER

INITIAL STUDY/CONSISTENCY CHECKLIST
Exhibit 10c
Truck Access (1 of 3)
Source: Urban Crossroads.

1.1.e
Packet Pg. 118 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4157 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

1.1.e
Packet Pg. 119 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4157 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for 02370034 • 10/2022 | 10d_truck_access.cdr CITY OF COLTON

AGUA MANSA LOGISTICS CENTER

INITIAL STUDY/CONSISTENCY CHECKLIST
Exhibit 10d
Truck Access (2 of 3)
Source: Urban Crossroads.

1.1.e
Packet Pg. 120 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4157 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

1.1.e
Packet Pg. 121 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4157 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for 02370034 • 10/2022 | 10e_truck_access.cdr CITY OF COLTON

AGUA MANSA LOGISTICS CENTER

INITIAL STUDY/CONSISTENCY CHECKLIST
Exhibit 10e
Truck Access (3 of 3)
Source: Urban Crossroads.

1.1.e
Packet Pg. 122 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4157 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

1.1.e
Packet Pg. 123 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4157 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for City of Colton–Agua Mansa Logistics Center Project CEQA Guidelines Section 15183: Projects Consistent Initial Study/Consistency Checklist with a Community Plan or Zoning FirstCarbon Solutions 45 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0237/02370034/Checklist/02370034 Agua Mansa Logistics Center Checklist_cs.docx SECTION 3: CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15183: PROJECTS CONSISTENT

WITH A COMMUNITY PLAN OR ZONING
CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 mandates that 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. This streamlines the review of such projects and reduces the need to prepare repetitive environmental studies.

Proposed Project is Consistent with Zoning and Exempt from Further Environmental Review
Although CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 provides that generally no additional environmental analysis is required if a project is consistent with the development density established by the underlying general plan and zoning policies, this Consistency Checklist provides a full disclosure of the Proposed Project’s impacts, under the framework established in CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 applies to the project since it meets all of the following conditions.

Public Resources Code 21083.3 and Guidelines Section 15183(d)(1)(B)–The project is consistent with the development density established as part of a general plan.

The Proposed Project must be consistent with the development density for the project site.

Consistency means that the Proposed Project’s intensity is the same or less than the General Plan for the site, and the Proposed Project complies with the intensity related standards. Public Resources Code Section 21083.3, Guidelines Section 15183(a) and (d). Here, the Proposed Project is consistent with the established development density with the Heavy Industrial General Plan land use designation. . The Heavy Industrial General Plan land use designation was evaluated in the certified General Plan EIR and was established as part of the approval of the General Plan. The project site is included in the planning area of the adopted General Plan and the potential development of the site in accordance with the established development density was considered as part of the certified EIR.

The M-2 Zoning Code classification is included as part of Title 18 of the City’s Code of Ordinances, which was most recently revised in February 2022.

The City has the ultimate discretion to make a consistency determination. Further, the Proposed Project would comply with Policy 6 and Policy 7 from the Conservation and Open Space Element of the General Plan, which restrict development in canyons and hillsides and protects scenic vistas, respectively. The second building would have a maximum height of 50 feet which is consistent with the maximum allowable height limit of the M-2 zone. Thus, the scenic vistas would be minimally obstructed, with less than significant impacts.

Therefore, the Proposed Project would be consistent with the General Plan’s policies and restrictions.

1.1.e
Packet Pg. 124 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4157 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for CEQA Guidelines Section 15183: Projects Consistent City of Colton–Agua Mansa Logistics Center Project with a Community Plan or Zoning Initial Study/Consistency Checklist 46 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 Guidelines Section 15183 (d)(1)–The project is consistent with the City of Colton General Plan.

As discussed below in the Checklist, the Proposed Project is consistent with the City’s General Plan.

The City Council has the ultimate discretion to find the Proposed Project consistent with the General Plan Policy LU-11.5, which encourages heavy industrial uses and uses that are incompatible with residential or commercial development to be located along the Agua Mansa Road Corridor, defined as the area along the Santa Ana River south to South Riverside Avenue, with West Agua Mansa Road on the west. Therefore, the Proposed Project is consistent.

Guidelines Section 15183 (d)(2)–An EIR was certified by the lead agency for the zoning action, the community plan, or the general plan.

The M-2 zoning designation and Heavy Industrial General Plan designations were contemplated in the Program General Plan Update EIR (State Clearinghouse [SCH] No. 2012031037), which was certified by the City in 2013 in conjunction with the City’s 2013 amendments to the General Plan Land Use, Housing and Mobility Elements.

1.1.e
Packet Pg. 125 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4157 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for City of Colton–Agua Mansa Logistics Center Project
Initial Study/Consistency Checklist Environmental Checklist FirstCarbon Solutions 47 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0237/02370034/Checklist/02370034 Agua Mansa Logistics Center Checklist_cs.docx SECTION 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
This Environmental Checklist examines the Proposed Project’s potential environmental effects within the parameters outlined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15183. So long as no such new significant impacts or an increase in the severity of previously identified impacts are identified utilizing the above-referenced criteria, and the Proposed Project is consistent with the zoning and development density reflected in the General Plan EIR, no additional environmental review would be required for the Proposed Project beyond that provided in the General Plan EIR and this project-specific Consistency Checklist in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21083.3 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(b) states that:
(b) In approving a project meeting the requirements of this section, a public agency shall limit its examination of environmental effects to those which the agency determines, in an initial study or other analysis:
(1) Are peculiar to the project or the parcel on which the project would be located; (2) Were not analyzed as significant effects in a prior EIR on the zoning action, general plan, or community plan, with which the project is consistent; (3) Are potentially significant off-site impacts and cumulative impacts which were not discussed in the prior EIR prepared for the general plan, community plan or zoning action; or
(4) Are previously identified significant effects which, as a result of substantial new information which was not known at the time the EIR was certified, are determined to have a more severe adverse impact than discussed in the prior EIR.

Additionally, CEQA provides that an impact is not peculiar to the project or parcel if uniformly applied development policies or standards are imposed with a finding that they will substantially mitigate the applicable environmental impact. CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(c)(f). The remainder of this document contains an Environmental Checklist that examines the Proposed Project’s potential environmental effects within the parameters outlined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(b). The prior EIR used for comparison is the 2013 General Plan Update Program EIR (General Plan EIR) certified by the City of Colton in May 2013, including all impact determinations and significance thresholds utilized therein.

Explanation of Consistency Checklist Evaluation
(1) General Plan EIR
This column summarizes the conclusion of the General Plan EIR.

1.1.e
Packet Pg. 126 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4157 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for City of Colton–Agua Mansa Logistics Center Project
Environmental Checklist Initial Study/Consistency Checklist 48 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 (2) Effects Peculiar to the Project?
Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, this column indicates whether there are any effects peculiar to the Proposed Project or the site on which the Proposed Project is located that were not addressed in the General Plan EIR.
(3) New Significant Effect?
Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, this column indicates whether there are project-related environmental effects that were not analyzed as significant effects in the General Plan EIR or where there has been an increase in a previously identified effect as compared to the General Plan EIR.
(4) Does the project include potentially significant off-site impacts and cumulative impacts which were not discussed in the General Plan EIR? This column indicates whether the Proposed Project includes potentially significant off-site impacts or cumulative impacts that were not previously discussed. (5) New Information Shows (i) New or More Severe Significant Effects, or (ii) Feasible or Different Mitigation Measures or Alternatives Could Reduce Effects, But Are Declined?
This column indicates whether previously identified significant effects, which as a result of substantial new information that was not known at the time the General Plan EIR was certified. The determination of what constitutes substantial new information is based on the factors identified in Public Resources Code Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, which direct the lead agency to identify a more severe adverse impact than discussed in the General Plan EIR if any of the following would occur:
(A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR ; (B) Significant effects previously examined would be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR;
(C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or (D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.

If the analysis completed as part of this Consistency Checklist finds that the conclusions of the General Plan EIR remain the same and no new significant impacts are identified, or identified impacts are not found to be substantially more severe, or additional mitigation is not necessary, then the question would be answered “no” and no additional environmental documentation is required.

1.1.e
Packet Pg. 127 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4157 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for City of Colton–Agua Mansa Logistics Center Project
Initial Study/Consistency Checklist Findings
FirstCarbon Solutions 49 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
General Plan
EIR
Determination
CEQA Section 15183(b) Criteria
Effect
Peculiar to
Project or
Site?
New
Significant
Effect?
New
Significant
Off-site,
Cumulative
Impact?
New
Information,
More Severe
Adverse
Impact?
A. Aesthetics, Light, and Glare
Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a
scenic vista?
Less than
significant
impact
No No No No
b) Substantially damage scenic resources,
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic building within
a State Scenic Highway?
Less than
significant
impact
No No No No
c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially
degrade the existing visual character or
quality of public views of the site and its
surroundings? (Public views are those
that are experienced from publicly
accessible vantage point). If the project is
in an urbanized area, would the project
conflict with applicable zoning and other
regulations governing scenic quality?
Less than
significant
impact
No No No No
a) Scenic Vista
Would the project: Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Summary of the General Plan EIR
The General Plan EIR concluded that impacts to scenic vistas would be less than significant with implementation of existing General Plan policies. The General Plan EIR stated views of scenic vistas, specifically, views of the San Bernardino and San Gabriel Mountains could be obstructed with new development and pose as a potentially significant impact. However, implementation of Policies 6 and 7 from the Conservation and Open Space Element24 of the General Plan would reduce potential impacts on scenic vistas. Policy 6 restricts development in canyons and hillsides and controls the plan of development to prevent construction of natural runoff or water courses and to prevent unwarranted scarring of hillsides. Policy 7 preserves and protects outstanding scenic vistas and visual features through the use of view easements, height limitations, and a design review board.

Therefore, impacts were determined to be less than significant. 24 City of Colton. 2013. City of Colton General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report. May.

1.1.e
Packet Pg. 128 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4157 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for City of Colton–Agua Mansa Logistics Center Project
Findings Initial Study/Consistency Checklist
50 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 Agua Mansa Logistics Center Analysis and Conclusions
The Proposed Project would be consistent with what was analyzed in the General Plan EIR. The City of Colton identifies the San Bernardino and San Gabriel Mountains as scenic vistas, and the Santa Ana River and its surrounding natural areas are considered a scenic resource. However, it was noted that the General Plan would not authorize land altering activities or any particular development project that would have direct impacts on these scenic vistas.

The M-2 zone includes a maximum FAR of 0.5 and a maximum building height of three stories or 50 feet. As part of the project application, the Lineage Logistics is requesting approval of a CUP to allow the construction of Building 1 to be approximately 130 feet in height. Views of the San Bernardino and San Gabriel Mountains could be obstructed with permissible increased building heights; however, due to the location of the Proposed Project, view obstruction would be minimal because 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. The project site is located over 9 miles south of the San Bernardino and San Gabriel Mountains, and although it is located adjacent to the Santa Ana River, it is surrounded by existing industrial development that does not provide a public viewshed of the Santa Ana River. Furthermore, with City approval of the CUP, the Proposed Project would comply with the relevant goals and policies of the City of Colton General Plan.

Building 2 would have a maximum height of 50 feet, which is consistent with the maximum allowable height limit of the M-2 zone. Thus, any potential obstruction of publicly accessible views of the distant San Bernadino Mountains and San Gabriel Mountains to the north would comply with Policy 6 and 7 from the Conservation and Open Space Element of the General Plan and therefore, impacts would be less than significant. No peculiar impacts that are not substantially mitigated have been identified as a result of the Proposed Project or its site. Application of uniformly applied General Plan policies and standards along with relevant City regulations and incorporation of identified Project Design Features (PDFs) substantially mitigates impacts to a less than significant level.

As such, the Proposed Project would not introduce new or more severe impacts than what was previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR. No additional analysis is required. b) State Scenic Highways
Would the project: Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic building within a State Scenic Highway? Summary of the General Plan EIR
The General Plan EIR concluded that impacts to scenic resources will be less than significant with implementation of Policy 6 and 7 from the Conservation and Open Space Element25 of the General Plan. The General Plan EIR stated that the General Plan does not propose to establish any scenic corridors or highways, and none exist in the planning area currently. 25 City of Colton. 2013. City of Colton General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report. May.

1.1.e
Packet Pg. 129 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4157 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for City of Colton–Agua Mansa Logistics Center Project
Initial Study/Consistency Checklist Findings
FirstCarbon Solutions 51 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
There are no California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Designated Scenic Highways within the City of Colton that are delineated by the General Plan. This condition precludes the potential for substantial damage to scenic resources within view of a State Scenic Highway. As a result, the Proposed Project would not introduce new or more severe impacts than what was previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR. No additional analysis is required. c) Visual Character
Would the project: In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
Summary of the General Plan EIR
The General Plan EIR concluded that impacts to the visual character and quality of the planning area will be less than significant with implementation of General Plan policies from the Land Use Element including Policies LU-1.6 and LU-1.9. General Plan Policy LU-1.6 states to develop and implement cohesive urban design and streetscape plans and Policy LU-1.9 requires the review of proposed development plans for consistency with the Development Code, General Plan, and other Specific Plans or planning areas as applicable.26
Agua Mansa Logistics Center Analysis and Conclusions
The project site is located in an urbanized area and has a General Plan land use designation of Heavy Industrial and is zoned M-2. The Heavy Industrial designation allows land uses including heavy manufacturing, distribution, assembly, resource mining, storage, and similar activities. According to General Plan Policy LU-11.5, the City encourages heavy industrial uses and uses that are incompatible with residential or commercial development to be located along the Agua Mansa Road Corridor, defined as the area along the Santa Ana River south to South Riverside Avenue, with West Agua Mansa Road on the west.27 Therefore, the Proposed Project is consistent with its General Plan land use designation.

As previously described, as part of the project application, Lineage Logistics is requesting approval of a CUP to allow the construction of one building to be 130 feet in height. The second building would have a maximum height of 50 feet which is consistent with the maximum allowable height limit of the M-2 zone. The increased height of Building 1 would potentially alter the existing visual character in the surrounding area. However, consistent with the General Plan, the proposed change and the approval of the CUP would not be considered significant because the quality of the viewscape would not be substantially diminished, as the project applicant would also comply with the Code of 26 City of Colton. 2013. City of Colton General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report. May. 27 Ibid.

1.1.e
Packet Pg. 130 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4157 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for City of Colton–Agua Mansa Logistics Center Project
Findings Initial Study/Consistency Checklist
52 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 Ordinances which specifies additional landscaping and setback requirements for the M-2 zone.28 The Proposed Project would comply with the development standards and design guidelines of the General Plan, ensuring that the development would be visually compatible with surrounding land uses. As a result, the Proposed Project would not introduce new or more severe impacts than what was previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR. No additional analysis is required. d) Light or Glare
Would the project: Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Summary of the General Plan EIR
The General Plan EIR concluded that impacts due to light and glare will be less than significant with implementation of existing zoning standards. The City’s Zoning Code regulates glare and outdoor lighting in the Performance Standards section (Chapter 18.42.090 and 18.42.100). 29 Direct or
reflected glare from light sources originating on a property is prohibited from being visible from the property line.30
Agua Mansa Logistics Center Analysis and Conclusions
The Proposed Project would include new sources of daytime and nighttime lighting such as streetlights, exterior and interior lighting as part of the proposed two buildings, and new mobile sources of lighting from incoming and outgoing vehicles. Although the Proposed Project would result in new sources of light and glare, the site is located in an urbanized area that already contains existing sources of light and glare from street lighting, traffic lights, and nearby businesses including the Walmart located approximately 0.2-mile west of the project site on a site that is zoned for development contemplated by the Proposed Project. The Proposed Project would comply with the City’s Zoning Code, Chapter 18.42, which regulates glare and outdoor lighting in the Performance Standards chapter. The City would review project plans to ensure all lighting includes the required lighting specifications that would reduce lighting and glare impacts to the maximum extent practicable. Therefore, the City’s routine plan check procedures would ensure that new light sources associated with the Proposed Project is appropriately designed and maintained to minimize impacts associated with light and glare. As such, the Proposed Project would not introduce new or more severe impacts than what was previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR. No additional analysis is required.

EIR Mitigation Measures
None.
28 City of Colton. 2013. Code of Ordinances, Chapter 18.28–M-2 Heavy Industrial Zone. Website:
https://library.municode.com/ca/colton/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TIT18ZO_CH18.28HEINZO_18.28.010INPU. Accessed January 22, 2021. 29 City of Colton. 1992. City of Colton Code of Ordinances – Chapter 18.42 Performance Standards. Website:
https://library.municode.com/ca/colton/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TIT18ZO_CH18.42PEST_18.42.090LI. Accessed on January 27, 2022. 30 City of Colton. 2013. City of Colton General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report. May.

1.1.e
Packet Pg. 131 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4157 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for City of Colton–Agua Mansa Logistics Center Project
Initial Study/Consistency Checklist Findings
FirstCarbon Solutions 53 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.

1.1.e
Packet Pg. 132 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4157 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for City of Colton–Agua Mansa Logistics Center Project
Findings Initial Study/Consistency Checklist
54 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
General Plan
EIR
Determination
CEQA Section 15183(b) Criteria
Effect
Peculiar to
Project or
Site?
New
Significant
Effect?
New
Significant
Off-site,
Cumulative
Impact?
New
Information,
More Severe
Adverse
Impact?
B. Agriculture and Forest Resources
In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the State’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board.

Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland,
or Farmland of Statewide Importance
(Farmland), as shown on the maps
prepared pursuant to the Farmland
Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to
nonagricultural use?
No impact No No No No
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural
use, or a Williamson Act Contract?
No impact No No No No
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause
rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public
Resources Code Section 12220(g)),
timberland (as defined by Public Resources
Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned
Timberland Production (as defined by
Government Code Section 51104(g))?
No impact No No No No
d) Result in the loss of forest land or
conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
No impact No No No No
a) Conversion of Important Farmland
Would the project: Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to nonagricultural use?
Summary of the General Plan EIR
The General Plan EIR concluded that implementation of the General Plan will not result in impacts to parcels designated Prime Farmland and Farmland of Statewide Importance within the City because existing agricultural operations, including plant cultivation and animal keeping, are allowed by the General Plan. Furthermore, areas designated as Farmland of Statewide Importance and Prime

1.1.e
Packet Pg. 133 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4157 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for City of Colton–Agua Mansa Logistics Center Project
Initial Study/Consistency Checklist Findings
FirstCarbon Solutions 55 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0237/02370034/Checklist/02370034 Agua Mansa Logistics Center Checklist_cs.docx Farmland are limited to areas within the Reche Canyon Specific Plan. The General Plan EIR determined that there would be no impacts.

Agua Mansa Logistics Center Analysis and Conclusions
According to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP), the project site is listed as Other Land.31 The California Department of Conservation defines Other Land as land that is not included in any other mapping category, including land that is not suitable for grazing, vacant land, and nonagricultural land.32 This condition precludes the potential for new impacts associated with the conversion of farmland to nonagricultural use. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not result in any peculiar effects and would not result in new or more severe impacts related to conversion of farmland to a nonagricultural use beyond what was previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR. b) Agricultural Zoning and Williamson Act Contracts
Would the project: Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act Contract? Summary of the General Plan EIR
The General Plan EIR determined that implementation of the General Plan would not result in any conflicts with agriculture zoning or Williamson Act contracts because there are no agriculturally zoned parcels or Williamson Act contracts in the City. The General Plan EIR concluded that there would be no impact.

Agua Mansa Logistics Center Analysis and Conclusions
The project site is not currently zoned for agricultural uses and is not subject to a Williamson Act Contract. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not result in any peculiar effects and would not result in new or more severe impacts related to conflicts with existing agricultural zoning or Williamson Act contracts beyond what was previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR. c) Forest Zoning
Would the project: Conflict with existing zoning for forest land or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))? Summary of the General Plan EIR
The General Plan EIR concluded that no impact would occur to existing zoning for forest land or timberland as a result of implementing the General Plan. During preparation of the General Plan EIR, there were less than 19 acres in the City that were designated as forest land. These forest land areas are as follows:
1) Areas for which the proposed General Plan designation matches the previous existing, on the ground land use. These areas all had a land use designation of either Recreation-Open 31 California Department of Conservation. 2016. California Important Farmland Finder. Website:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/ciff/. Accessed December 3, 2021. 32 California Department of Conservation. 2019. Important Farmland Categories. Website:
https://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp/Pages/Important-Farmland-Categories.aspx. Accessed December 3, 2021.

1.1.e
Packet Pg. 134 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4157 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for City of Colton–Agua Mansa Logistics Center Project
Findings Initial Study/Consistency Checklist
56 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 Space or Resource-Open Space. The General Plan designations matched the existing uses.

The implementation of the General Plan did not change the General Plan designations nor the previous existing use; therefore, implementation of the General Plan was determined to have a less than significant impact upon these areas.
2) Areas that fall within a proposed or existing specific plan area. The General Plan did not change the permitted land uses for the Reche Canyon Specific Plan area. Rather, it simply changed the designation to be “Reche Canyon Specific Plan,” which indicates that the Specific Plan governs uses for this area. Since the functional land use designation did not change with the implementation of the General Plan, impacts were determined to be less than significant.
3) An area for which the General Plan designation does not match the existing, on the ground land use. This 0.8-acre area is a small sliver of land at the north end of a property supporting a Portland Cement manufacturing operation, located between I-10 and the Union Pacific Railroad tracks. Though the property is actively used as heavy industrial, this particular section is vacant. Because of its location between two transportation corridors and given its adjacency to a Portland Cement operation, the parcel is a remnant of an industrial use rather than forest land or timber land. Given its size, existing use, and location, it is unlikely that the parcel could be effectively used as forest land or timberland.

Thus, the impact of the General Plan designation as Heavy Industrial was determined to be less than significant.

Therefore, the General Plan EIR determined that No impact would occur to existing zoning for forest land or timberland as a result of the General Plan.

Agua Mansa Logistics Center Analysis and Conclusions
The project site has been previously graded and is currently vacant. The project site does not contain forest land or timberland. These conditions preclude the potential for new impacts associated with rezoning of forest land or timberland. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not result in any peculiar effects and would not result in new or more severe impacts related to rezoning of forest land beyond what was previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR. d) Conversion of Forest Land
Would the project: Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? Summary of the General Plan EIR
The General Plan EIR concluded that no impact would occur to existing forest land either because the General Plan designations would not be changed or because the forest land has negligible value as harvestable forest land. The General Plan EIR concluded that no impact would occur to forest land or timberland as a result of the General Plan.

1.1.e
Packet Pg. 135 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4157 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for City of Colton–Agua Mansa Logistics Center Project
Initial Study/Consistency Checklist Findings
FirstCarbon Solutions 57 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 project site does not contain forest land and has previously been graded. These conditions preclude the potential for new impacts associated with conversion of forest land to non-forest use.

Therefore, the Proposed Project would not result in any peculiar effects and would not result in new or more severe impacts related to the conversion of forest land beyond what was previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR.
e) Pressures to Convert Farmland or Forest Land
Would the project: Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to nonagricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
Summary of the General Plan EIR
According to the General Plan EIR, the City of Colton does not have any land zoned as agricultural.

However, areas within the City that have been designated as Farmland of Statewide Importance and Prime Farmland by the FMMP are only located within the Reche Canyon Specific Plan. The General Plan designation does not prohibit the continued use of existing operations. Therefore, implementation of the General Plan would not create conflicts involving agricultural zoning and would not result in other changes to the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to nonagricultural use or forest land to non-forest uses. The General Plan EIR concluded that implementation of the General Plan would not create conflicts involving agricultural zoning and would not result in other changes to the existing environment that could result in the conversion of Farmland or forest land.

Agua Mansa Logistics Center Analysis and Conclusions
The project site is designated Other Land by the FMMP and does not contain forest land. The project site has a General Plan land use designation of Heavy Industrial and zoned M-2 (Exhibit 3 and Exhibit 4). According to the City of Colton Zoning Map, the western portion of the project site also has an MCS-Marijuana Candidate Sites Overlay.33 These land use designations and zoning are nonagricultural and non-forest uses and are intended for urban development. This condition precludes the potential for new impacts associated with the conversion of Farmland to nonagricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not result in any peculiar effects and would not result in new or more severe impacts related to conversion of agricultural or forest land to nonagricultural or non-forest land uses beyond what was previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR.

EIR Mitigation Measures
None.
33 City of Colton. 2020. City of Colton Marijuana Candidate Sites Overlay Zone. January 15. Website:
https://www.ci.colton.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/6639/Marijuana-Candidate-Sites-Overlay-Zone-Citywide. Accessed December 3, 2021.

1.1.e
Packet Pg. 136 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4157 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for City of Colton–Agua Mansa Logistics Center Project
Findings Initial Study/Consistency Checklist
58 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 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 agricultural and forestry land 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.

1.1.e
Packet Pg. 137 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4157 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for City of Colton–Agua Mansa Logistics Center Project
Initial Study/Consistency Checklist Findings
FirstCarbon Solutions 59 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
General Plan
EIR
Determination
CEQA § 15183(b) Criteria
Effect
Peculiar to
Project or
Site?
New
Significant
Effect?
New
Significant
Off-site,
Cumulative
Impact?
New
Information,
More Severe
Adverse
Impact?
C. Air Quality
Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.

Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation
of the applicable air quality plan?
Significant
and
unavoidable
impact
No No No No
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant for
which the project region is
nonattainment under an applicable
federal or State Ambient Air Quality
Standard?
Significant
and
unavoidable
impact
No No No No
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations?
Less than
significant
impact
No No No No
d) Result in other emissions (such as those
leading to odors or) adversely affecting a
substantial number of people?
Less than
significant
impact
No No No No
a) Air Quality Plan Conflict
Would the project: Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable Air Quality Plan? Summary of the General Plan EIR
The General Plan EIR determined that the General Plan has the potential to conflict with the 2007 and 2012 Air Quality Management Plans (AQMPs) because land use policy does not support the same level of population growth projected. The General Plan EIR determined that impacts at the program level are significant and unavoidable.

Agua Mansa Logistics Center Analysis and Conclusions
A potentially significant impact to air quality would occur if the Proposed Project would conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. The Proposed Project is located within the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). The SCAQMD is responsible for preparing air quality attainment plans to be transmitted to the Air Resources Board (ARB) and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for incorporation into the State Implementation Plan (SIP).

1.1.e
Packet Pg. 138 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4157 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for City of Colton–Agua Mansa Logistics Center Project
Findings Initial Study/Consistency Checklist
60 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 To evaluate whether a project conflicts with or obstructs implementation of the applicable AQMP, the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook states that there are two key indicators. These indicators are identified by the criteria discussed below.

1. Indicator: Whether the project will not result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or cause or contribute to new violations or delay timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emission reductions specified in the AQMP.

2. Indicator: According to Chapter 12 of the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, the purpose of the General Plan consistency findings is to determine whether a project is inconsistent with the growth assumptions incorporated into the air quality plan, and thus, whether it would interfere with the region’s ability to comply with federal and California air quality standards.

Considering the recommended criteria in the SCAQMD’s 1993 Handbook, this analysis uses the following criteria to address this potential impact:
• Criterion 1: Project’s contribution to air quality violations (SCAQMD’s first indictor); • Criterion 2: Assumptions in AQMP (SCAQMD’s second indictor); and • Criterion 3: Compliance with applicable emission control measures in the AQMP.

Criterion 1: Project’s Contribution to Air Quality Violations According to the SCAQMD, the project is consistent with the AQMP if the project would not result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or cause or contribute to new violations or delay timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emission reductions specified in the AQMP.34
If a project’s emissions do not exceed the SCAQMD regional thresholds for volatile organic compound (VOC), oxides of nitrogen (NOX), carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur oxide (SOX), particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter (PM10), or particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5), it follows that the project’s emissions would not exceed the allowable limit for each project for the region to attain and maintain ambient air quality standards, which is the primary goal of air quality plans. As evaluated in Impact(b), the Proposed Project’s regional and localized construction-source emissions would not exceed applicable regional significance threshold and localized significance thresholds (LSTs). As such, a less than significant impact is expected.

As discussed under Impact(c), the Proposed Project’s localized operational-source emissions would not exceed applicable LSTs. However, the Proposed Project has the potential to result in a significant impact with respect to this criterion because its regional operational-source emissions are anticipated to exceed the regional thresholds of significance for NOX. Notwithstanding, the Proposed Project is anticipated to generate fewer emissions per day for pollutants of VOC, NOX, CO, SOX, PM10, and PM2.5 as compared to what is assumed in the General Plan EIR, which identified a significant and unavoidable impact with respect to the AQMP consistency. As such, the Proposed Project would not 34 South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 1993. CEQA Handbook. Available at SCAQMD, 21865 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765. Accessed September 21, 2021.

1.1.e
Packet Pg. 139 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4157 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for City of Colton–Agua Mansa Logistics Center Project
Initial Study/Consistency Checklist Findings
FirstCarbon Solutions 61 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0237/02370034/Checklist/02370034 Agua Mansa Logistics Center Checklist_cs.docx result in any new or more severe impacts with respect to this threshold. On the basis of the preceding discussion, the Proposed Project is determined to be inconsistent with the AQMP's first criterion in regard to NOX emissions, but the inconsistency was already studied and disclosed in the General Plan EIR, and the impact is not more severe than was disclosed in the General Plan EIR.

Criterion 2: Assumptions in AQMP
The development of emission burdens used in AQMPs to demonstrate compliance with ambient air quality standards is based, in part, on land use patterns contained within local general plans.

Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that if a project is consistent with the applicable General Plan land use designation, and the general plan was adopted prior to the applicable AQMP, then the growth of Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) and/or population generated by said project would be consistent with growth in VMT and population assumed within the AQMP. The existing land use designation for the project site is Heavy Industrial which may include heavy manufacturing, distribution, assembly, resource mining, storage, and similar land uses not normally compatible near residential development due to environmental nuisances such as noise and air pollution. Within established areas, Heavy Industrial uses should be buffered from residential neighborhoods by Light Industrial or Business Park development wherever possible.35 As described in the Project Description, the Proposed Project would develop two industrial warehouse buildings totaling approximately 930,466 square feet and associated driveways, parking lots, sidewalks, curbs, fencing, gates, lighting, and landscaping on the approximately 59-acre project site. Building 1 would be a 2- story, approximately 474,021-square-foot automated freezer facility including approximately 77,564 square feet of mezzanine space located on approximately 35 acres in the western portion of the project site while Building 2 would consist of 114,000 square feet of High-Cube Automated Freezer/Cold Storage Warehouse use (25 percent of total building square footage) and 342,000 square feet of High-Cube Fulfillment Center Warehouse use (75 percent of total building square footage)constructed on approximately 24 acres in the eastern portion of the project site.The Proposed Project would be consistent with General Plan land uses because it would develop a distribution and storage facility, which is specifically described in the General Plan Land Use Element as an allowable use. As a result, the Proposed Project would be consistent with the land uses allowed under the General Plan and thus is consistent with the AQMP's growth assumptions.

Operational-source emissions were calculated for the project site based on the approved land use designation identified in the General Plan EIR. The Proposed Project emissions are less than the emissions anticipated by the General Plan EIR for the project site.

Criterion 3: Control Measures
The AQMP contains several control measures which are enforceable requirements through the adoption of rules and regulations. The Proposed Project would comply with all applicable SCAQMD rules and regulations. For example, the Proposed Project, which would include earthmoving activity during grading and construction, would be required to comply with SCAQMD Rule 403 which governs emissions of fugitive dust during construction and operation activities. The rule requires that fugitive dust be controlled with best available control measures so that the presence of such dust does not remain visible in the atmosphere beyond the property line of the emission source. In 35 City of Colton General Plan. 2013. Land Use Element. Website: https://www.ci.colton.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/1345. Accessed January 22, 2021.

1.1.e
Packet Pg. 140 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4157 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for City of Colton–Agua Mansa Logistics Center Project
Findings Initial Study/Consistency Checklist
62 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 addition, SCAQMD Rule 403 requires implementation of dust suppression techniques to prevent fugitive dust from creating a nuisance off-site. Compliance with this rule is achieved through application of standard Best Management Practices (BMPs). These BMPs include application of water or chemical stabilizers to disturbed soils; covering haul vehicles; restricting vehicle speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour (mph); sweeping loose dirt from paved site access roadways; cessation of construction activity when winds exceed 25 mph; and establishing a permanent ground cover on finished sites. The Proposed Project’s compliance with all applicable SCAQMD rules and regulations would result in consistency with the applicable AQMP control measures. Additionally, the Proposed Project would be required to comply with all minimum requirements to reduce man-made fugitive dust as described in Chapter 15.84 of the City’s Municipal Code.

Summary
The Proposed Project has the potential to result in or cause National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) or California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) violations, as the Proposed Project’s operational NOX emissions exceed the applicable threshold of significance which results in a potentially significant impact under Consistency Criterion 1 of the AQMP discussed above (but not Consistency Criterion 2). As such, as with the findings of the General Plan EIR, the Proposed Project is therefore considered to be inconsistent with the AQMP.

However, even though the Proposed Project’s regional operational-source emissions are anticipated to exceed the regional thresholds of significance for NOX, the Proposed Project is anticipated to generate fewer emissions per day for pollutants of VOC, NOX, CO, SOX, PM10, and PM2.5 as compared to what is assumed in the General Plan EIR. Additionally, the General Plan EIR identified a significant and unavoidable impact with respect to AQMP consistency. As such, the Proposed Project would not result in any new or more severe impact with respect to this threshold that was not previously disclosed by the General Plan EIR. Nonetheless, the Proposed Project will implement the following PDFs to further alleviate the already less than significant potential impacts and the overall impact would remain significant and unavoidable.

Project Design Features
The following features shall be implemented and applied to all development activity:

PDF AQ-1
For construction equipment greater than 150 horsepower (hp), the Construction Contractor shall ensure that off-road diesel construction equipment complies with the EPA and ARB Tier 3 emissions standards and shall ensure that all construction equipment is tuned and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications.

PDF AQ-2
All actively graded (disturbed) areas within the project site during fine grading/site preparation activities shall be watered at 2.1-hour watering intervals (e.g., four times per day) or a movable sprinkler system shall be in place to ensure minimum soil moisture of 12 percent in maintained for actively graded areas. Moisture content can be verified with use of a moisture probe by the grading contractor.

1.1.e
Packet Pg. 141 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4157 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for City of Colton–Agua Mansa Logistics Center Project
Initial Study/Consistency Checklist Findings
FirstCarbon Solutions 63 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0237/02370034/Checklist/02370034 Agua Mansa Logistics Center Checklist_cs.docx b) Air Quality Standard, Criteria Pollutants
Would the project: Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or State Ambient Air Quality Standard?
Summary of the General Plan EIR
The General Plan EIR determined that projected cumulative daily pollutant emissions program-wide have the potential to exceed SCAQMD thresholds for criteria pollutant and ozone precursor emissions, such as ROG, NOX, and CO. Although the General Plan EIR would include policies and programs aimed at reducing criteria pollutant emissions, the General Plan EIR concluded that there would be no guarantee these policies and programs would be implemented effectively and impacts at the program level would remain significant and unavoidable.

Agua Mansa Logistics Center Analysis and Conclusions
This impact is related to the cumulative effect of a project’s regional criteria pollutant emissions. As described above, the region is currently nonattainment for ozone, PM10, and PM2.5. By its nature, air pollution is largely a cumulative impact resulting from emissions generated over a large geographic region. The nonattainment status of regional pollutants is a result of past and present development within the South Coast Air Basin (SoCAB), and this regional impact is a cumulative impact. In other words, new development projects (such as the Proposed Project) within the SoCAB would contribute to this impact only on a cumulative basis. No single project would be sufficient in size, by itself, to result in nonattainment of regional air quality standards. Instead, a project’s emissions may be individually limited, but cumulatively considerable when taken in combination with past, present, and future development projects. All new development that would result in an increase in air pollutant emissions above those assumed in regional air quality plans would contribute to cumulative air quality impacts.

The cumulative analysis focuses on whether a specific project would result in cumulatively considerable emissions. According to Section 15064(h)(4) of the CEQA Guidelines, the existence of significant cumulative impacts caused by other projects alone does not constitute substantial evidence that the project’s incremental effects would be cumulatively considerable.

Rather, the determination of cumulative air quality impacts for construction and operational emissions is based on whether the project would result in regional emissions that exceed the SCAQMD regional thresholds of significance for construction and operations on a project level.

Projects that generate emissions below the SCAQMD significance thresholds would be considered consistent with regional air quality planning efforts would not generate cumulatively considerable emissions.

The Proposed Project’s regional construction and operational emissions, which include both on- and off-site emissions, are evaluated separately below. Construction and operational emissions from the Proposed Project were estimated using California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) Version

1.1.e
Packet Pg. 142 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4157 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for City of Colton–Agua Mansa Logistics Center Project
Findings Initial Study/Consistency Checklist
64 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 2020.4.0. A detailed description of the assumptions used to estimate emissions and the complete CalEEMod output files are contained in Appendix A.

Cumulative Construction Emissions
Construction emissions are described as “short-term” or temporary in duration; however, they have the potential to represent a significant impact with respect to air quality. Construction of the Proposed Project would result in the temporary generation of VOC, NOX, CO, SOX, PM10, and PM2.5 emissions from construction activities such as site preparation, grading, building construction, architectural coating, and asphalt paving. Fugitive dust emissions are primarily associated with earth disturbance and grading activities, and vary as a function of soil silt content, soil moisture, wind speed, acreage of disturbance area, and miles traveled by construction vehicles on-site and off-site.

Construction-related NOX emissions are primarily generated by exhaust emissions from heavy-duty construction equipment, material and haul trucks, and construction worker vehicles. VOC emissions are mainly generated by exhaust emissions from construction vehicles, off-gas emissions associated with architectural coatings, and asphalt paving.

For purposes of analysis, project construction is assumed to be completed in one phase, beginning in November 2022, and concluding in March 2024. The Proposed Project is expected to be operational in the year 2024. The anticipated construction schedule reflects the construction start date and the construction phase durations estimated by the project applicants. The construction schedule used in the analysis represents a reasonable worst-case analysis scenario since a delay in construction dates into the future would result in using emission factors for construction equipment that decrease as the analysis year increases, due to improvements in technology and the need to meet more stringent regulatory requirements. Therefore, construction emissions would decrease if the construction schedule moved to later years. The duration of construction activity and associated equipment represent a reasonable approximation of the expected construction fleet as required by CEQA Guidelines. For a more detailed description of the construction emissions modeling parameters and assumptions, please refer to Appendix A.

Table 3 presents the Proposed Project’s maximum daily construction emissions during the entire construction duration using the worst-case summer or winter daily construction-related criteria pollutant emissions for each phase of construction. Complete CalEEMod output files are included as part of Appendix A. As shown in Table 3, the Proposed Project’s construction emissions would not exceed the applicable significance threshold for any criteria pollutant. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not have a potentially significant cumulative impact related to air quality during project construction. The emissions shown in Table 3 include PDFs, which are incorporated into the Proposed Project as part of the project design. PDF AIR-1 would require the project applicants to use Tier III off-road construction equipment with an hp rating over 150 hp to reduce impacts related to NOX to a less than significant level. Additionally, PDF AIR-2 would require the project applicants to water all graded areas during fine grading/site preparation activities.

Table 3 presents the Proposed Project’s maximum daily construction emissions with the incorporation of PDF AIR-1 and AIR-2.

1.1.e
Packet Pg. 143 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4157 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for City of Colton–Agua Mansa Logistics Center Project
Initial Study/Consistency Checklist Findings
FirstCarbon Solutions 65 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0237/02370034/Checklist/02370034 Agua Mansa Logistics Center Checklist_cs.docx Table 3: Construction with Project Design Features–Maximum Daily Emissions by Construction Year
Year
Emissions (lbs./day)
VOC NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Summer
2022 2.23 41.88 45.43 0.10 19.92 7.77
2023 68.49 64.87 103.70 0.30 19.95 7.09
2024 68.12 64.65 103.70 0.30 19.95 7.09
Winter
2022 2.22 42.04 45.28 0.10 19.92 7.77
2023 68.27 66.00 98.78 0.30 19.95 7.09
2024 67.92 65.77 95.92 029 19.95 7.09
Maximum Daily Emissions 68.49 66.00 107.21 0.31 19.95 7.77 SCAQMD Regional Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No
Notes:

CO = carbon monoxide
lbs. = pounds
NOX = oxides of nitrogen
PM10 = particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter PM2.5 = particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter SCAQMD = South Coast Air Quality Management District
SOX = sulfur oxide
VOC = volatile organic compound
As shown in Table 3, the Proposed Project’s regional daily construction emissions would not exceed any of the SCAQMD thresholds of significance. Furthermore, all construction activities would comply with applicable SCAQMD rules and regulations. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of construction emissions. The cumulative impact from construction of the Proposed Project would be less than significant.

Cumulative Operational Emissions
Following project construction, long-term operational emissions would be generated, resulting from daily operations. Operational emissions for land use development projects are typically distinguished as mobile, area, and energy source emissions. Mobile source emissions are those associated with automobiles that would travel to and from the project site. Assumptions used to estimate mobile source emissions that would be generated by the project were consistent with those presented in the project-specific traffic study. Area source emissions are those associated with natural gas combustion for space and water heating, landscape maintenance activities, and periodic architectural coatings. Energy source emissions are those associated with on-site combustion of

1.1.e
Packet Pg. 144 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4157 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for City of Colton–Agua Mansa Logistics Center Project
Findings Initial Study/Consistency Checklist
66 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 energy resources, such as natural gas for space and water heating. Table 4 presents the Proposed Project’s maximum daily operational emissions.

Table 4: Summary of Peak Operational Pollutants
Source
Emissions (lbs./day)
VOC NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Summer
Area Source 21.56 <0.01 0.36 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
Energy Source 0.92 8.36 7.02 0.05 0.64 0.64
Mobile Source 7.56 95.89 86.16 0.62 33.99 10.02
TRUs 3.56 29.71 45.83 <0.01 0.30 0.27
On-site Equipment
Source 0.44 3.89 3.01 0.01 0.16 0.13
Total Maximum Daily
Emissions 34.03 137.86 141.39 0.69 35.08 11.06
SCAQMD Regional
Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55
Threshold Exceeded? No Yes No No No No
Winter
Area Source 21.56 <0.01 0.36 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
Energy Source 0.92 8.36 7.02 0.05 0.64 0.64
Mobile Source 6.87 100.77 78.37 0.61 33.99 10.03
TRUs 3.56 29.71 45.83 <0.01 0.30 0.27
On-site Equipment
Source 0.44 3.89 3.01 0.02 0.16 0.13
Total Maximum Daily
Emissions 33.34 142.74 134.59 0.69 35.08 11.07
SCAQMD Regional
Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55
Threshold Exceeded? No Yes No No No No
Notes:

CO = carbon monoxide
lbs = pounds
NOX = oxides of nitrogen
PM10 = particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter PM2.5 = particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter SCAQMD = South Coast Air Quality Management District
SOX = sulfur oxides
TRU = Transport Refrigeration Unit
VOC = volatile organic compound

1.1.e
Packet Pg. 145 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4157 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for City of Colton–Agua Mansa Logistics Center Project
Initial Study/Consistency Checklist Findings
FirstCarbon Solutions 67 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0237/02370034/Checklist/02370034 Agua Mansa Logistics Center Checklist_cs.docx As shown in- Table 4, the Proposed Project’s regional daily operational emissions would exceed the SCAQMD thresholds of significance for NOX. Considering that the Proposed Project’s long term operational emissions would exceed significance thresholds for NOX, the Proposed Project could result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of operational emissions.

Proposed Project operational-source NOX emissions would exceed applicable SCAQMD regional thresholds. Per SCAQMD significance guidance, these impacts at the project level are also considered cumulatively significant and would persist over the life of the Proposed Project. NOX emissions are ozone precursors and would therefore contribute considerably to existing ozone nonattainment conditions within the SoCAB. The General Plan EIR reported a NOX emissions exceedance over the applicable SCAQMD regional threshold. Consistent with the findings of the General Plan EIR, the Proposed Project would result in a cumulatively considerable significant impact persisting over the life of the Proposed Project. Although the Proposed Project’s operational emissions of NOX would exceed the SCAQMD regional threshold and thus would be cumulatively considerable, the Proposed Project would result in fewer NOX emissions as compared to the range of land uses for the site as evaluated by the General Plan EIR. Thus, although the Proposed Project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts due to operational related NOX emissions, the level of emissions that would be generated by the Proposed Project would be less than was assumed for the site by the General Plan EIR. As such, the Proposed Project’s NOX emissions were previously identified in the General Plan EIR, are within the scope of analysis of the General Plan EIR and do not result in any project-specific impacts that would exceed the General Plan EIR conclusion that impacts would be significant and unavoidable remain the same.

Project Design Features
The following features shall be applied to all projects during construction of the project:

PDF AQ-1
For construction equipment greater than 150 hp, the Construction Contractor shall ensure that offroad diesel construction equipment complies with the EPA and ARB Tier 3 emissions standards and shall ensure that all construction equipment is tuned and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications.

1.1.e
Packet Pg. 146 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4157 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for City of Colton–Agua Mansa Logistics Center Project
Findings Initial Study/Consistency Checklist
68 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) Sensitive Receptors
Would the project: Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Summary of the General Plan EIR
The General Plan EIR determined that the General Plan has the potential to result in the exposure of sensitive receptors to criteria pollutants, Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs), and carbon monoxide pollution associated with industrial uses. However, the General Plan EIR established that the implementation of General Plan Policy LU-5.6 would require project-specific air quality analysis to evaluate the potential effects of development to sensitive receptors. In addition, the implementation of General Plan Policies LU-6.2, -6.7, -6.8, Policy 4.3, and Program 4.3.1 would discourage incompatible uses near sensitive receptors as well as support regional efforts to develop standards that regulate the location of new sources of air pollutants. The General Plan EIR concluded that impacts will be less than significant with implementation of General Plan policies and application of standard development practices.

Agua Mansa Logistics Center Analysis and Conclusions
This impact evaluates the potential for the Proposed Project’s construction and operational emissions to expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentration. Sensitive receptors are defined as those individuals who are sensitive to air pollution including children, the elderly, and persons with pre-existing respiratory or cardiovascular illness. For purposes of CEQA, the SCAQMD considers a sensitive receptor to be a location where a sensitive individual could remain for 24 hours, such as residences, hospitals, or convalescent facilities.36 Commercial and industrial facilities are not included in the definition because employees do not typically remain on-site for 24 hours. However, when assessing the impact of pollutants with 1-hour or 8-hour standards (such as NO2 and CO), commercial and/or industrial facilities would be considered sensitive receptors. For the Proposed Project, the closest off-site sensitive receptor is a single-family legal, nonconforming residence located at 516 Agua Mansa Road (Appendix A–Health Risk Assessment).

To result in a less than significant impact, the following criteria must be satisfied:
• Criterion 1: LST assessment: emissions and air quality impacts during project construction or operation must be below the applicable LSTs to screen out of needing to provide a more detailed air quality analysis. If the Proposed Project exceeds any applicable LST when the mass rate lookup tables are used as a screening analysis, then project-specific air quality modeling may be performed to determine significance.
• Criterion 2: A CO hotspot assessment must demonstrate that the project would not result in the development of a CO hotspot that would result in an exceedance of the CO ambient air quality standards.
36 South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 2008. Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology. Revised July 2008. Website: http://www.aqmd.gov/home/rules-compliance/ceqa/air-quality-analysis-handbook/localized-significancethresholds. Accessed April 24, 2021.

1.1.e
Packet Pg. 147 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4157 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for City of Colton–Agua Mansa Logistics Center Project
Initial Study/Consistency Checklist Findings
FirstCarbon Solutions 69 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0237/02370034/Checklist/02370034 Agua Mansa Logistics Center Checklist_cs.docx Criterion 1: Localized Significance Threshold Analysis—Criteria Pollutants The localized construction and operational analyses use thresholds (i.e., LSTs) that represent maximum emissions for a project that would not cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent applicable federal or State Ambient Air Quality Standard.37 If the Proposed Project’s construction or operational emissions are under those thresholds, it follows that the Proposed Project would not cause or contribute to an exceedance of the standard and would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.

Localized Construction Analysis
The LST Methodology only applies to on-site emissions and states that “off-site mobile emissions from the project should not be included in the emissions compared to LSTs.” Therefore, for purposes of the construction LST analysis, only on-site emissions were compared with the applicable LSTs.

Table 5 presents the Proposed Project’s maximum daily on-site emissions compared with the applicable LSTs. The LSTs have been obtained from the LST Methodology for 5-acre project sites located in the SCAQMD Central San Bernardino Valley 2 (SRA 34). As described previously, the closest sensitive receptor is 56 feet away from the Proposed Project, which is 17 meters. As noted in Table 5, emission estimates account for implementation of SCAQMD Rule 403.

Table 5: Localized Construction-Source Emissions
On-site Emissions
Emissions (lbs./day)
NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
Fine Grading/Site Preparation
Maximum Daily Emissions 38.55 43.20 13.24 7.52
SCAQMD Localized Threshold 270 1,746 14 8
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No
Building Construction/Concrete Pours
Maximum Daily Emissions 42.41 49.30 2.04 2.04
SCAQMD Localized Threshold 270 1,746 14 8
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No
Architectural Coating
Maximum Daily Emissions 1.81 2.44 0.13 0.13
SCAQMD Localized Threshold 270 1,746 14 8
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No
Notes:

CO = carbon monoxide
lbs. = pounds
NOX = oxides of nitrogen
37 South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 2009. Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology, Appendix C.

Revised October 21, 2009. Website: http://www.aqmd.gov/home /regulations/ceqa/air-quality-analysis-handbook/localizedsignificance-thresholds. Accessed February 19, 2021.

1.1.e
Packet Pg. 148 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4157 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for City of Colton–Agua Mansa Logistics Center Project
Findings Initial Study/Consistency Checklist
70 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 On-site Emissions
Emissions (lbs./day)
NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
PM10 = particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter PM2.5 = particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter SCAQMD = South Coast Air Quality Management District
As shown in Table 5, the Proposed Project’s maximum daily on-site emissions would not exceed the applicable SCAQMD LSTs for NOX, CO, PM10 and PM2.5; therefore, localized construction impacts related to these air pollutants would be less than significant. The Proposed Project would implement PDF AQ-1 and PDF AQ-2, which would further ensure that project generated emissions of PM10 and PM2.5 would be controlled during the construction period. Accordingly, with adherence to COA, the Proposed Project’s on-site construction-related criteria air pollutant and ozone precursor concentrations would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. This impact would be less than significant.

Localized Operational Analysis
Like the construction LST analysis above, the applicable operational LSTs were obtained for a project located in SRA 34 with the nearest sensitive receptor being 17 meters away. Long term operations would occur for the Proposed Project on the approximately 58-acre project site. Because LSTs are provided for 1-acre, 2-acre, and 5-acre sites, LSTs were obtained for a 5-acre site.

As described above, the LST Methodology recommends that only on-site emissions are evaluated using LSTs. However, it should be noted that the CalEEMod outputs do not separate on-site and offsite emissions from mobile sources. In an effort to establish a maximum potential impact scenario for analytic purposes, the emissions shown on Table 6 represent all on-site project-related sources. It should be noted that the longest on-site distance is roughly 0.7 mile for passenger cars and trucks.

As such, the travel distances utilized in the LST emissions modeling were 0.7 mile for both passenger vehicles and trucks.

Table 6: Localized Significance Summary of Operations–Without MM/PDF On-Site Emissions
Emissions (lbs./day)
NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
Maximum Daily Emissions 22.66 27.95 1.87 1.08
SCAQMD Localized Threshold 270 1,746 4 2
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No
Notes:

1.1.e
Packet Pg. 149 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4157 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for City of Colton–Agua Mansa Logistics Center Project
Initial Study/Consistency Checklist Findings
FirstCarbon Solutions 71 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0237/02370034/Checklist/02370034 Agua Mansa Logistics Center Checklist_cs.docx As shown in Table 6, the Proposed Project’s maximum daily on-site operational emissions would not exceed any applicable SCAQMD LSTs. Therefore, the Proposed Project’s operational activities would not cause or contribute substantially to an existing or future ambient air quality standard violation.

Accordingly, the Proposed Project’s operational criteria air pollutant and ozone precursor concentrations would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. The impact would be less than significant.

Criterion 2: Carbon Monoxide Hotspot Analysis
As discussed below, the Proposed Project would not result in potentially adverse CO concentrations or “hot spots.” Further, detailed modeling of project-specific CO hotspots is not needed to reach this conclusion. An adverse CO concentration, known as a hotspot, would occur if an exceedance of the State 1-hour standard of 20 parts per million (ppm) or the 8-hour standard of 9 ppm were to occur. It has long been recognized that CO hotspots are caused by vehicular emissions, primarily when idling at congested intersections. In response, vehicle emissions standards have become increasingly stringent in the last twenty years. Currently, the allowable CO emissions standard in California is a maximum of 3.4 grams/mile for passenger cars (there are requirements for certain vehicles that are more stringent). With the turnover of older vehicles, introduction of cleaner fuels, and implementation of increasingly sophisticated and efficient emissions control technologies, CO concentration in the SoCAB is now designated as attainment. To establish a more accurate record of baseline CO concentrations affecting the SoCAB, a CO hotspot analysis was conducted in 2003 for four busy intersections in Los Angeles at the peak morning and afternoon time periods. This hotspot analysis did not predict any violation of CO standards, as shown on Table 7.

Table 7: CO Model Results
Intersection Location
CO Concentrations (ppm)
Morning 1-hour Afternoon 1-hour 8-hours
Wilshire Boulevard/Veteran Avenue 4.6 3.5 3.7
Sunset Boulevard/Highland Avenue 4 4.5 3.5
La Cienega Boulevard/Century Boulevard 3.7 3.1 5.2
Long Beach Boulevard/Imperial Highway 3 3.1 8.4
Notes:

CO = carbon monoxide
ppm = parts per million
* Federal 1-hour standard is 35 ppm and the deferral 8-hour standard is 9.0 ppm.

Based on the SCAQMD's 2003 AQMP and the 1992 Federal Attainment Plan for Carbon Monoxide (1992 CO Plan), peak CO concentrations in the SoCAB were a result of unusual meteorological and topographical conditions and not a result of traffic volumes and congestion at a particular intersection. As evidence of this, for example, 8.4 ppm 8-hr CO concentration measured at the Long Beach Boulevard and Imperial Highway intersection (highest CO generating intersection within the hotspot analysis), only 0.7 ppm was attributable to the traffic volumes and congestion at this intersection; the remaining 7.7 ppm were due to the ambient air measurements at the time the

1.1.e
Packet Pg. 150 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4157 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for City of Colton–Agua Mansa Logistics Center Project
Findings Initial Study/Consistency Checklist
72 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 2003 AQMP was prepared. In contrast, an adverse CO concentration, known as a hotspot, would occur if an exceedance of the State 1-hour standard of 20 ppm or the 8-hour standard of 9 ppm were to occur.

The ambient 1-hour and 8-hour CO concentration within the Proposed Project study area is estimated to be 1.5 ppm and 1.2 ppm, respectively (data from Metropolitan Riverside County station for 2019). Therefore, even if the traffic volumes for the Proposed Project were double or even triple of the traffic volumes generated at the Long Beach Boulevard and Imperial Highway intersection, coupled with the ongoing improvements in ambient air quality, the Proposed Project would not be capable of resulting in a CO hotspot at any study area intersections.

Similar considerations are also employed by other Air Districts when evaluating potential CO concentration impacts. More specifically, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) concludes that under existing and future vehicle emission rates, a given project would have to increase traffic volumes at a single intersection by more than 44,000 vehicles per hour (vph)—or 24,000 vph where vertical and/or horizontal air does not mix—in order to generate a significant CO impact. Traffic volumes generating the CO concentrations for the hotspot analysis is shown on Table

8. The busiest intersection evaluated was that at Wilshire Boulevard and Veteran Avenue, which has a daily traffic volume of approximately 100,000 vph and AM/PM traffic volumes of 8,062 vph and 7,719 vph, respectively. The 2003 AQMP estimated that the 1-hour concentration for this intersection was 4.6 ppm; this indicates that, should the daily traffic volume increase four times to 400,000 vehicles per day, CO concentrations (4.6 ppm x 4 = 18.4 ppm) would still not likely exceed the most stringent 1-hour CO standard (20.0 ppm).

Table 8: Traffic Volumes
Intersection Location
Peak Traffic Volumes (VPH)
Eastbound
(AM/PM)
Westbound
(AM/PM)
Southbound
(AM/PM)
Northbound
(AM/PM)
Total
(AM/PM)
Wilshire Boulevard/Veteran Avenue 4,954/2,069 1,830/3,317 721/1,400 560/933 8,062/7,719 Sunset Boulevard/Highland Avenue 1,417/1,764 1,342/1,540 2,304/1,832 1,551/2,238 6,614/5,374 La Cienega Boulevard/Century
Boulevard 2,540/2,243 1,890/2,728 1,384/2,029 821/1,674 6,634/8,674 Long Beach Boulevard/Imperial
Highway 1,217/2,020 1,760/1,400 479/944 756/1,150 4,212/5,514 Notes:

VPH = vehicles per hour
As shown on Table 9, the highest trips on a segment of road for the Proposed Project during AM and PM traffic is 3,086 vph and 3,535 vph, respectively, on La Cadena Drive and Barton Road. As such, project-related traffic volumes are less than the traffic volumes identified in the 2003 AQMP. The Proposed Project considered herein would not produce the volume of traffic required to generate a CO hotspot either in the context of the 2003 Los Angeles hot spot study or based on representative BAAQMD CO threshold considerations. Therefore, CO hotspots are not an environmental impact of

1.1.e
Packet Pg. 151 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4157 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for City of Colton–Agua Mansa Logistics Center Project
Initial Study/Consistency Checklist Findings
FirstCarbon Solutions 73 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0237/02370034/Checklist/02370034 Agua Mansa Logistics Center Checklist_cs.docx concern for the Proposed Project. Localized air quality impacts related to mobile source emissions would therefore be less than significant.

Table 9: Opening Year Traffic Volumes
Intersection Location
Peak Traffic Volumes (VPH)
Eastbound
(AM/PM)
Westbound
(AM/PM)
Southbound
(AM/PM)
Northbound
(AM/PM)
Total
(AM/PM)
La Cadena Drive/Barton Road 0/0 554/843 1,634/1,622 986/1,166 3,174/3,631 Iowa Avenue/La Cadena Drive 554/799 0/0 1,563/1,638 820/1,068 2,938/3,505 I-215 Northbound Ramps/Barton
Road
1,033/1,262 1,634/1,342 0/0 540/710 3,207/3,323
Riverside Avenue/Agua Mansa
Road 463/1,070 438/456 1,182/1,088 1,076/1,023 3,158/3,636 Notes:

VPH = vehicles per hour
d) Odors
Would the project: Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors or) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Summary of the General Plan EIR
The General Plan EIR determined that development consistent with the General Plan has the potential to result in the exposure of sensitive receptors to odors from industrial uses. However, potential impacts can be addressed at the project level. The General Plan EIR concluded that impacts will be less than significant with implementation of General Plan policies and application of standard development practices.

Agua Mansa Logistics Center Analysis and Conclusions
Odor impacts on residential areas and other sensitive receptors, such as hospitals, daycare centers, schools, etc. warrant the closest scrutiny, but consideration should also be given to other land uses where people may congregate, such as recreational facilities, worksites, and commercial areas.

Two situations create a potential for odor impact. The first occurs when a new odor source is located near an existing sensitive receptor. The second occurs when a new sensitive receptor locates near an existing source of odor.

Odors can cause a variety of responses. The impact of an odor is dependent on interacting factors such as frequency (how often), intensity (strength), duration (in time), offensiveness (unpleasantness), location, and sensory perception. While offensive odors rarely cause any physical harm, they still can be very unpleasant, leading to considerable distress and often generating citizen complaints to local governments and regulatory agencies.

1.1.e
Packet Pg. 152 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4157 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for City of Colton–Agua Mansa Logistics Center Project
Findings Initial Study/Consistency Checklist
74 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 SCAQMD does not provide a suggested screening distance for a variety of odor-generating land uses and operations. However, the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (Valley Air District) does have a screening distance for odor sources. Those distances are used as a guide to assess whether nearby facilities could be sources of significant odors. Projects that would site a new sensitive receptor farther than the applicable screening distances from an existing odor source would not have a significant impact. The SCAQMD considers residences, schools, daycare centers, playgrounds, and medical facilities as sensitive receptor land uses.

These screening distances by type of odor generator are listed in Table 10.

Table 10: Screening Levels for Potential Odor Sources
Odor Generator Screening Distance
Wastewater Treatment Facilities 2 miles
Sanitary Landfill 1 mile
Transfer Station 1 mile
Composting Facility 1 mile
Petroleum Refinery 2 miles
Asphalt Batch Plant 1 mile
Chemical Manufacturing 1 mile
Fiberglass Manufacturing 1 mile
Painting/Coating Operations (e.g., auto body shop) 1 mile Food Processing Facility 1 mile
Feed Lot/Dairy 1 mile
Rendering Plant 1 mile
Source: Source: San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. 2015. Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts (GAMAQI). February 19. Website:
https://www.valleyair.org/transportation/GAMAQI-2015/FINAL-DRAFT-GAMAQI.PDF. Accessed December 29, 2021.

Construction-Related Odors
Potential sources that may emit odors during construction activities include exhaust from diesel construction equipment. However, because of the temporary nature of these emissions, the intermittent nature of construction activities, and the highly diffusive properties of diesel PM exhaust, nearby receptors would not be affected by diesel exhaust odors associated with project construction. Odors from these sources would be localized and generally confined to the immediate area surrounding the project site. Project generated refuse would be stored in covered containers and removed at regular intervals in compliance with the solid waste regulations. The Proposed Project would also be required to comply with SCAQMD Rule 402 to prevent occurrences of public nuisances. Therefore, the Proposed Project would utilize typical standard construction techniques, and the odors would be typical of most construction sites and temporary in nature.

1.1.e
Packet Pg. 153 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4157 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for City of Colton–Agua Mansa Logistics Center Project
Initial Study/Consistency Checklist Findings
FirstCarbon Solutions 75 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0237/02370034/Checklist/02370034 Agua Mansa Logistics Center Checklist_cs.docx Operational Related Odors
The Proposed Project includes the construction and development of warehouse buildings, parking spaces, and associated landscaping. Land uses that are typically identified as sources of objectionable odors include landfills, transfer stations, sewage treatment plants, wastewater pump stations (the Proposed Project would include a small on-site private sewer lift station), composting facilities, feedlots, coffee roasters, asphalt batch plants, and rendering plants. The Proposed Project would not produce any offensive odor emitting end uses such as coffee roasting, composting, feed lots, refining, sewage treatment, or solid waste management and would not be considered an odor generator as identified in Table 10. Additionally, since the Proposed Project would not include new sensitive receptors, such as residences, the Proposed Project would not locate new sensitive receptors near an odor source. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not be a generator of objectionable odors during operations. Minor sources of odors, such as exhaust from mobile sources, are not typically associated with numerous odor complaints, but are known to have temporary and less concentrated odors. In summary, the Proposed Project’s long-term operational activities would not have any substantial odor sources that would expose nearby receptors. Considering the low intensity of potential odor emissions, the Proposed Project’s operational activities would not expose receptors to objectionable odor emissions.

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. Application of uniformly applied policies and standards as well as regulations from the City Municipal Code, incorporation of policies from the General Plan EIR, COAs to be imposed by the City and PDFs substantially mitigate potentially significant impacts although certain impacts remain significant and unavoidable 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.

1.1.e
Packet Pg. 154 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4157 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for City of Colton–Agua Mansa Logistics Center Project
Findings Initial Study/Consistency Checklist
76 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
General Plan
EIR
Determination
CEQA Section 15183(b) Criteria
Effect
Peculiar to
Project or
Site?
New
Significant
Effect?
New
Significant
Off-site,
Cumulative
Impact?
New
Information,
More Severe
Adverse
Impact?
D. Biological Resources
Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either
directly or through habitat modifications,
on any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special-status species in
local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by the California
Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service?
Less than
significant
impact with
mitigation
incorporated
No No No No
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional
plans, policies, and regulations or by the
California Department of Fish and
Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
No impact No No No No
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on
State or federally protected wetlands
(including, but not limited to, marsh,
vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
No impact No No No No
d) Interfere substantially with the
movement of any native resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory
wildlife corridors, or impede the use of
wildlife nursery sites?
No impact No No No No
e) Conflict with any local policies or
ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree preservation
policy or ordinance?
No impact No No No No
a) Special-status Species
Would the project: Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or specialstatus species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Summary of the General Plan EIR
According to the General Plan EIR, the General Plan planning area is highly urbanized with little opportunity to support native wildlife or special-status species. However, future development has the potential to impact a variety of special-status species and their associated habitat. Therefore,

1.1.e
Packet Pg. 155 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4157 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for City of Colton–Agua Mansa Logistics Center Project
Initial Study/Consistency Checklist Findings
FirstCarbon Solutions 77 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0237/02370034/Checklist/02370034 Agua Mansa Logistics Center Checklist_cs.docx MM 4.4.A-1 and MM 4.4.A-2 require preparation of biological assessments for individual development projects to determine occurrences of special-status species or habitat. Measures 4.4.A1 and 4.4.A-2 establish performance measures that minimize impacts to such species through project-level mitigation. Examples of project-level mitigation include relocation, on-site conservation, off-site banking, and avoidance. The General Plan EIR determined that impacts to special-status species and their habitat resulting from implementation of the General Plan will be less than significant with incorporation of MM 4.4.A-1 and MM 4.4.A-2.

Agua Mansa Logistics Center Analysis and Conclusions
Consistent with General Plan EIR MM 4.4.A-1A, a Biological Resource Assessment (BRA) was prepared for the Proposed Project in February 2017 by Jericho Systems Inc (Appendix B). The Jericho BRA concluded that the development of the project site would not impact any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), aside from nesting birds. The project site is highly disturbed, and the BRA concluded the site lacks suitable habitat to support any special-status species known to occur in the local vicinity. FirstCarbon Solutions (FCS) conducted site visits in February 2021 and January 2023 to verify whether site conditions documented in the 2017 Jericho BRA were still valid. The project is located within property designated as federal critical habitat for southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus). However, the quality of the habitat on-site is severely degraded and not suitable to support this species; the property was previously graded into rough pads under the ownership of CalPortland, which was approved through an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) prepared for the grading project in November 2017.
38 The habitat found within the adjacent Santa
Ana River channel and floodplain is also not suitable for occupancy or nesting for southwestern willow flycatcher due to the lack of dense thickets of riparian vegetation, which southwestern willow flycatcher requires for nesting.

The development of the project site may still impact other nesting bird species protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and California Fish and Game Code Sections 3503 and 3503.5. The site is undeveloped and supports ruderal vegetation consisting of herbaceous and shrubby plants with scattered small trees. The project site provides nesting habitat for bird species that nest on bare ground, in grassland/herbaceous vegetation, or in shrubs or trees. Suitable nesting habitat can also be found adjacent to the project site, particularly along the banks of the Santa Ana River. Any raptors, other native bird species, or migratory species that nest on or immediately adjacent to the project site would be protected under the MBTA and Fish and Game Code. Therefore, nesting bird surveys would be required prior to any construction activities during the nesting season to avoid potentially taking any birds or active nests. Generally, raptor nesting season is January 1 through September 15; and passerine bird nesting season is February 1 through September 1. This is consistent with the uniformly applied and generally applicable requirements of the MBTA and California Fish and Wildlife Code Sections 3503 and 3503.5. Accordingly, the project applicants would be required to comply with the MBTA and California Fish and Wildlife Code Sections 3503 and 3503.5 in order to reduce potential impacts to nesting birds to the project to less than significant levels. 38 City of Colton. CEQA Initial Study, Agua Mansa Grading Project–CalPortland. November 2017.

1.1.e
Packet Pg. 156 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4157 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for City of Colton–Agua Mansa Logistics Center Project
Findings Initial Study/Consistency Checklist
78 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 Moreover, compliance with these uniformly applied existing regulations would be consistent with General Plan EIR MM 4.4.A-1A.
b) Riparian Habitat and Sensitive Natural Communities
Would the project: Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Summary of the General Plan EIR
The General Plan EIR determined that no impact to riparian habitat or sensitive natural communities will occur as a result of implementation of the General Plan.

Agua Mansa Logistics Center Analysis and Conclusions
The Jericho BRA concluded that the development of the project site would not impact any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the CDFW or USFWS. FCS confirmed that no sensitive habitats or natural communities are present on-site. The project site lies adjacent to the Santa Ana River, which supports riparian habitat. However, the site is separated from the Santa Ana River by a levee and therefore the construction and operation of the Proposed Project will not impact the riparian habitat found along the river.
c) Federally Protected Wetlands
Would the project: Have a substantial adverse effect on State or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? Summary of the General Plan EIR
According to the General Plan EIR, there are no wetlands located within the planning area.

Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update could not impact any wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The General Plan EIR determined that no impact to Section 404 wetlands will occur as a result of implementation of the General Plan.

Agua Mansa Logistics Center Analysis and Conclusions
The Jericho BRA concluded that the development of the project site would not have a substantial adverse effect on State or federally protected wetlands. FCS confirmed that no potential State or federally protected wetlands are present on-site. As mentioned, the project site lies adjacent to the Santa Ana River. However, the site is separated from the Santa Ana River by a levee and therefore the construction of the project will not have any direct or indirect impacts to the Santa Ana River. d) Fish or Wildlife Movement

1.1.e
Packet Pg. 157 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4157 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for City of Colton–Agua Mansa Logistics Center Project
Initial Study/Consistency Checklist Findings
FirstCarbon Solutions 79 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0237/02370034/Checklist/02370034 Agua Mansa Logistics Center Checklist_cs.docx Would the project: Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites? Summary of the General Plan EIR
According to the General Plan EIR, the General Plan Update did not include any land use policies nor circulation changes that could affect habitat in the Santa Ana River or Lytle Creek or impede wildlife from using these riparian features as movement corridors for local or regional movements. There are no wildlife nurseries in the General Plan planning area. The General Plan EIR determined that no impact to the Lytle Creek and Santa Ana River wildlife corridors or any wildlife nurseries will occur as a result of implementation of the General Plan.

Agua Mansa Logistics Center Analysis and Conclusions
The Jericho BRA concluded that the development of the project site would not interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors. The Santa Ana River, which is a known movement corridor for terrestrial and aquatic wildlife. However, the site is separated from the Santa Ana River by a levee and therefore the construction of the project will not have any direct or indirect impacts to the Santa Ana or its associated riparian habitat.
e) Conflict with Local Policies or Ordinances
Would the project: Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
Summary of the General Plan EIR
According to the General Plan EIR, there are no existing County or City policies, regulations, or standards designed to protect biological resources applicable to the General Plan planning area; therefore, the General Plan Update could not conflict with any policies, regulations, or standards.

The General Plan EIR determined that no impact related to conflicts with the General Plan and other existing policies, regulations, or standards would occur.

Agua Mansa Logistics Center Analysis and Conclusions
There are no local policies or ordinances, such as a tree protection plan, that apply to the General Plan area. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. Therefore, development of the Proposed Project would have no impact.

1.1.e
Packet Pg. 158 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4157 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for City of Colton–Agua Mansa Logistics Center Project
Findings Initial Study/Consistency Checklist
80 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 f) Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan Would the project: Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State Habitat Conservation Plan?
Summary of the General Plan EIR
The General Plan EIR determined that no impact related to conflicts between the proposed General Plan and any existing Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP) or Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) will occur. Portions of the City of Colton are located within Recovery Units of the adopted Delhi Sands Flower-Loving Fly Recovery Plan. The City is not located within any other adopted Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) or Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP) that the General Plan would conflict with. As concluded in the Biological Resources section of the General Plan EIR, the proposed General Plan’s Land Use Plan designates Recovery Units of the Delhi Sands FlowerLoving Fly Recovery Plan as open space, which supports the objectives of the plan, and would have no effect upon the plan. The General Plan EIR determined that impacts would be less than significant.

Agua Mansa Logistics Center Analysis and Conclusions
The Proposed Project is located nearby but outside of the Recovery Units of the adopted Delhi Sands Flower-Loving Fly Recovery Plan, and is therefore not subject to this plan. Further, the project site does not lie within the boundaries of any adopted HCP, NCCP, or other approved local, regional, or State conservation plan. Therefore, development of the Proposed Project would have no impact.

EIR Mitigation Measures
MM 4.4.A-1 A biological resources assessment shall be prepared for any land use plan or development proposal located on any undeveloped land within a Critical Habitat designation or identified in the General Plan Environmental Impact Report as dry herbaceous, hardwood forest-woodland, shrub, or giant reed-pampas grass vegetation communities or mapped Delhi sands habitat. This assessment shall identify the habitat types and quality, identify species occurrence and distribution, determine the specific impacts to biological resources and characterize the biological significance of those impacts, and define measures to avoid, reduce or compensate for any significant impacts attributable to a Proposed Project. The reduction in impacts may include a redesign of the project. The compensation may include creating and/or preserving in perpetuity equivalent or better quality habitat at a minimum 1:1 ratio, as shall be determined through project-specific analysis. The biological resources assessment shall be prepared by a qualified biologist and submitted to the Development Services Director for review/approval in consultation with the biologist in consultation with the Biologist and other as appropriate to the project. The biological resources assessment shall be included in the CEQA compliance documentation for all such proposals.

1.1.e
Packet Pg. 159 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4157 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for City of Colton–Agua Mansa Logistics Center Project
Initial Study/Consistency Checklist Findings
FirstCarbon Solutions 81 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0237/02370034/Checklist/02370034 Agua Mansa Logistics Center Checklist_cs.docx Additional Mitigation Measures
None.

Conclusion
The 2017 BRA prepared by Jericho Systems Inc. determined the construction of the Proposed Project would not significantly impact any biological resources. The property was previously rough graded pursuant to the approval of the 2017 IS/MND. No peculiar impacts that are not substantially mitigated have been identified as a result of the Proposed Project or its site. Application of General Plan mitigation, PDFs, uniformly applied General Plan policies and standards as well as regulations in the MBTA and California Fish and Wildlife Code Sections 3503 and 3503.5 substantially mitigates impacts to protected nesting bird species. These uniformly applied existing regulations would be consistent with General Plan EIR MM 4.4.A-1A. Through the preparation of the Jericho Systems BRA and FCS’s biological updates, EIR MM 4.4.A-1 has been satisfied. Therefore, the construction of the Proposed Project would not result in more significant impacts than those analyzed in the General Plan EIR.

1.1.e
Packet Pg. 160 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4157 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for City of Colton–Agua Mansa Logistics Center Project
Findings Initial Study/Consistency Checklist
82 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
General Plan
EIR
Determination
CEQA Section 15183(b) Criteria
Effect
Peculiar to
Project or
Site?
New
Significant
Effect?
New
Significant
Off-site,
Cumulative
Impact?
New
Information,
More Severe
Adverse
Impact?
E. Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of a historical resource
as pursuant to Section 15064.5?
Less than
Significant No No No No
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of an archaeological
resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
Less than
Significant No No No No
c) Disturb any human remains, including
those interred outside of formal
cemeteries?
Less than
Significant No No No No
Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
e) Listed or eligible for listing in the
California Register of Historical
Resources, or in a local register of
historical resources as defined in Public
Resources Code Section 5020.1(k), or
No Significant
Impact
Identified
No No No No
f) A resource determined by the lead
agency, in its discretion and supported
by substantial evidence, to be significant
pursuant to criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code
Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria
set forth in subdivision (c) of Public
Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead
agency shall consider the significance of
the resource to a California Native
American tribe.

No Significant
Impact
Identified
No No No No
The analysis in this section is based on information provided by the California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC), and a pedestrian survey of the project site. The Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment is included in Appendix C.

Native American Heritage Commission Sacred Lands File Record Search and Tribal Outreach
On February 5, 2021, FCS sent an informational request to the NAHC to determine whether any sacred sites are listed on its Sacred Lands File for the project site. A response was received on

1.1.e
Packet Pg. 161 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4157 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for City of Colton–Agua Mansa Logistics Center Project
Initial Study/Consistency Checklist Findings
FirstCarbon Solutions 83 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0237/02370034/Checklist/02370034 Agua Mansa Logistics Center Checklist_cs.docx February 19, 2021, indicating that the Sacred Lands File was positive for the presence of Native American cultural resources in the immediate Proposed Project area. The NAHC included a list of 14 tribal representatives available to provide additional information pertaining to Tribal Cultural Resources (TCRs).

To ensure that all Native American knowledge and concerns over potential TCRs that may be affected by the Proposed Project are addressed, a letter containing project information and requesting any additional information was sent to each tribal representative on February 19, 2021.

Three responses were received. On February 22, 2021, the Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma Reservation provided no comment at this time. On February 23 and 25, 2021, the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians stated that the project area is located near the Serrano Village site Jurupet and associated with approximately 20 archaeological sites and inquired about additional details regarding the project site, such as the project boundaries. On March 3, 2021, the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians indicated that the project site is not within their Tribe’s traditional use area and deferred to other tribes in the area. Correspondence with the NAHC and the tribal representatives can be found in Appendix C.

South Central Coastal Information Center
In order to determine the presence or absence of cultural resources within the project site, a records search and literature review were conducted for the project site and a standard 0.5-mile radius on March 2, 2021, at the SCCIC, located at California State University, Fullerton. The purpose of this review was to access existing cultural resource survey reports, archaeological site records and historic maps, and evaluate whether any previously documented prehistoric or historic archaeological sites, architectural resources, cultural landscapes, or other resources exist within or near the project site. The search also included properties listed on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), California Historic Landmarks (CHL) list, California Points of Historical Interest (CPHI) list, California Historical Resources Inventory (HRI), and the California Built Environment Resource Directory (BERD) for San Bernardino County.

The results of the records search indicate that 17 cultural resources (four prehistoric resources and 13 historic resources) have been recorded within 0.5-mile of the project site. Of the 17 recorded resources, two historic-era resources are located within the project boundary. In addition, 20 areaspecific survey reports are on file with the SCCIC for the project site and its 0.50-mile search radius.

Five survey reports are partially and/or entirely within the project boundaries, indicating that the immediate area has previously been surveyed for cultural resources. The SCCIC records search results can be found in Appendix C.

Pedestrian Survey
As previously discussed, the project site was approved for mass-grading into rough pads under the ownership of CalPortland in November 2017.39 As part of the IS/MND prepared for the grading project, a cultural resource investigation was prepared by McKenna et al. and dated May 28, 2017.

The cultural investigation determined that although there have been previous cultural investigations 39 City of Colton. CEQA Initial Study, Agua Mansa Grading Project–CalPortland. November 2017.

1.1.e
Packet Pg. 162 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4157 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for City of Colton–Agua Mansa Logistics Center Project
Findings Initial Study/Consistency Checklist
84 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 conducted near the project site, only a fraction of the project area has been investigated. A minimum of 37 resources were identified in previous studies, two near the project area: a historic irrigation canal running along the northern side of Agua Mansa Road and a sewage treatment plant.

The field investigations took place over the course of two field phases from March 9, 10, and 13 and again on May 11, 2017. The field study confirmed the presence of numerous examples of historic artifacts scattered throughout the property along with the remanences of structural foundation remains. Approximately 20 identifiable artifacts were found on the project site. The extent of the artifact scatter is considered sparse. The evidence of the site suggests there may be buried archaeological elements within the property. The previous grading project did not include any excavation.

On March 18, 2021, FCS Staff Archaeologist, Natalie Adame, conducted a pedestrian survey for unrecorded cultural resources within the project site. The survey began in the northeast corner of the project site, using east–west transects spaced at 15-meter intervals and moving south. The project site was situated on a natural curvature that deviates southwest from the northeastern corner, before heading west. Several areas of the site were inaccessible due to human intervention or natural depressions in the terrain, in addition to the heavily muddy sections due to the heavy rain that occurred earlier that week. There was a drainage trench, intersecting the midsection of the site, measuring approximately 15 feet in depth, approximately 25 feet in width, running in a northwestsouthwest direction on the northern end, and east–west on the southern end. In addition, there were two excavated trenches on-site. The first is located at the southeastern section of the site (11S, 468333mN, 3767879mE) and measuring approximately 15 feet in depth, approximately 30 feet in width (at surface) and 15 feet in width (at base) and approximately 328 feet in length. The second excavated trench was located on the southwestern end of the site (11S, 467715mN, 3767734mE), measuring approximately 30 feet in width (at surface) and 15 feet in width (at base) and approximately 590 feet in length. Certain sections of the site have been graded, thus compromising the likelihood of identifying cultural resources.

Visibility of native soils varied with higher visibility (<90 percent) in the southern section of the site to poor visibility (>10 percent) toward the middle, particularly in the sections that had been graded.

Observed soils largely consisted of coarse to fine sand composed of quartz, mica, and feldspar (primarily on the southern half), to fine light brown silty sand in the northern section of the site.

Some of the observed flora consisted of Common Storks-Bill (Erodium cicutarium), amsinckia menziesii, sisymbrium altissimum, field mustard (Brassica rapa), California sagebrush (Artemisia californica), keckiella antirrhinoides, and telegraph weed (Heterotheca grandiflora).

Survey conditions were documented using digital photographs and field notes. During the survey, Ms. Adame examined all areas of the exposed ground surface for prehistoric artifacts (e.g., fireaffected rock, milling tools, flaked stone tools, toolmaking debris, ceramics), soil discoloration and depressions that might indicate the presence of a cultural midden, faunal and human osteological remains, and features indicative of the former presence of structures or buildings (e.g., postholes, standing exterior walls, foundations) or historic debris (e.g., glass, metal, ceramics). To the extent possible, all areas of the project site were inspected for culturally modified soils or other indicators of potential historic or prehistoric resources. No historic or prehistoric cultural resources or raw

1.1.e
Packet Pg. 163 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4157 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for City of Colton–Agua Mansa Logistics Center Project
Initial Study/Consistency Checklist Findings
FirstCarbon Solutions 85 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0237/02370034/Checklist/02370034 Agua Mansa Logistics Center Checklist_cs.docx materials commonly used in the manufacture of tools (e.g., obsidian, Franciscan chert, etc.) were found within the project site. Pedestrian survey photos can be found in Appendix C. a) Historical Resources
Would the project: Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as pursuant to Section 15064.5?
Summary of the General Plan EIR
The General Plan EIR determined that impacts to historic resources would be less than significant with implementation of existing policies and regulations. The existing General Plan Cultural Resources Preservation Element includes goals, policies, and implementation measures designed to protect and maintain the City’s historic resources. The General Plan Update does not include any amendments to the Cultural Resources Preservation Element. Future development and infrastructure improvements guided by the Land Use, Mobility, and Housing Element Updates will be subject to policies in the Cultural Resources Preservation Element (including provisions that address identifying, designating, and preserving historically significant resources and educating the public about those resources (Goals 2 and 3)), Historic Preservation Ordinance, and protections offered by local Historic Landmark and Historic District designations.

Agua Mansa Logistics Center Analysis and Conclusions
The technical results of the project-specific Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment (Phase I CRA) are consistent with the analysis in the General Plan EIR. As mentioned above, results from the SCCIC indicate that there are two recorded historic resources located within the project boundaries, one historic resource transects the project site, and the second historic resource (Manuel Soares property) encompasses the entirety of the project site. As discussed in the Phase I CRA, the Manuel Soares property is designated as a farm/ranch containing rural open space dating from 1848 to 1965 as part of the Juan Bandini Donation. The condition of the property when it was recorded was poor displaying structural demolitions, disking, grading, and additional earth moving activities. No structures remain within the project boundaries; however, the remains of historic artifacts and earthen basins were discovered. The historic artifacts were recorded and consisted of glass, ceramics, concrete fragments, bricks, single metal can, tile fragments, a well, rubber, and other concrete pipes and slab/structure. The artifact scatter is considered sparse and negligible. However, the historic resource has been evaluated and determined to be ineligible for listing in the NRHP and the CRHR and has since been demolished. The pedestrian survey, conducted on March 18, 2021, did not identify any historical resources associated with the Manuel Soares property, nor any previously unidentified historic resources. While there were no historical resources identified within the project site, there is always a possibility of resources being identified during construction activities.

Applicable policies and regulations from the Cultural Resources Preservation Element are as follows:

Policy 2a Preserve historic resources in number and type to retain the distinctive character of all stages of Colton’s history by establishing historic districts within the City.

1.1.e
Packet Pg. 164 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4157 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for City of Colton–Agua Mansa Logistics Center Project
Findings Initial Study/Consistency Checklist
86 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 Policy 2f Ensure future development is compatible with existing structures and district characteristics.

Implementation Measure 2.3 Develop design and land use guidelines sensitive to existing or desired character of identified historic resources.

COA CUL-1 through COA CUL-5 are included to ensure compliance with Implementation Measure 1.4 from the Cultural Resources Preservation Element. Implementation of Policies 2a and 2f, Implementation Measure 1.4 from the Cultural Resources Preservation Element, and COA CUL-1 through COA CUL-5 would ensure all impacts associated with any previously unknown historic resources remain less than significant.

Consistent with the findings in the General Plan EIR, impacts would be less than significant.

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) Archaeological Resources
Would the project: Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
Summary of the General Plan EIR
Implementation of the General Plan will not result in a direct adverse environmental impact to archaeological resources because it does not authorize any earthmoving activities or other development. Future development subject to the goals and policies of the Land Use, Mobility, and Housing Elements could impact archaeological resources where excavation and other earthmoving activities are required. The General Plan EIR determined that impacts to archaeological resources will be less than significant with implementation of existing policies and regulations.

Agua Mansa Logistics Center Analysis and Conclusions
The technical results of the project-specific Phase I CRA are consistent with the General Plan EIR. As mentioned above, results from the SCCIC indicate that there are no archaeological resources recorded within the project site, in addition, no archaeological resources were identified during the pedestrian survey; however, there are recorded prehistoric resources within the 0.5-mile search radius. While there are no known archaeological resources within the project site, the presence of the recorded prehistoric resources within the 0.5-mile radius of the project site would require implementation of the following Policies and Implementation Measures from the General Plan Cultural Resources Preservation Element:

Policy 1a Conserve in their entirety the largest and most unique archaeological sites.

Policy 1b Develop public policy to protect archaeological resources from the encroachment of development.

Implementation Measure 1.3 Retain the services of an archaeological specialist for review of development proposals for properties identified as archaeological

1.1.e
Packet Pg. 165 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4157 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for City of Colton–Agua Mansa Logistics Center Project
Initial Study/Consistency Checklist Findings
FirstCarbon Solutions 87 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0237/02370034/Checklist/02370034 Agua Mansa Logistics Center Checklist_cs.docx resources. Concurrent with a discretionary permit application filed with the City, an archaeological study shall be submitted by the applicant. This report submittal is necessary for all properties identified as an archaeological resource in the Citywide inventory or as requested by staff during the application review process.

Implementation Measure 1.4 Require adequate mitigation of impacts to archaeological resources.

Consistent with the findings in the General Plan EIR, impacts associated with the Proposed Project would be less than significant with respect to archaeological resources and implementation of the condition in the project-specific Phase I CRA. The project applicants would be required to implement these conditions consistent with Implementation Measure 1.4 of the Cultural Resources Preservation Element. COA CUL-1 through COA CUL-5 are included to ensure compliance with Implementation Measure 1.4. 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.
c) Human Remains
Would the project: Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
Summary of the General Plan EIR
The General Plan EIR determined that impacts to human remains will be less than significant with implementation of existing regulations. Implementation of the General Plan will not directly impact human remains because it does not authorize construction of any development or support land uses that could result in the conversion of a cemetery to a different use. However, the potential exists that undiscovered human remains may be encountered during future development activities within the planning area. In the event human remains are encountered, the discovery is required to comply with State of California Public Resources Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5-7055. Specifically, Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 describes the requirements if any human remains are discovered during excavation of a site. As required by State law, the requirements and procedures set forth in Section 5097.98 of the California Public Resources Code would be implemented, including notification of the County Coroner, notification of the NAHC, and consultation with the individual identified by the NAHC to be the “most likely descendant.” If human remains are found during excavation, excavation must stop in the vicinity of the find and any area that is reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains until the County Coroner has been contacted, the remains investigated, and appropriate recommendations made for the treatment and disposition of the remains. Given required compliance with State regulations that detail the appropriate actions necessary in the event human remains are encountered, impacts associated with development supported by the proposed Land Use, Mobility, and Housing Elements will be less than significant.

1.1.e
Packet Pg. 166 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4157 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for City of Colton–Agua Mansa Logistics Center Project
Findings Initial Study/Consistency Checklist
88 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 Agua Mansa Logistics Center Analysis and Conclusions
The technical results of the project-specific Phase I CRA are consistent with the analysis in the General Plan EIR. Neither the Proposed Project nor the General Plan EIR would authorize construction of any development or support land uses that could result in the conversion of a cemetery to a different use. Additionally, the results from the SCCIC and pedestrian survey do not locate or identify any human remains and/or cemeteries. The Sacred Land Files search from the NAHC was positive for the presence of Native American cultural resources in the immediate project area. Accordingly, a letter containing project information and requesting any additional information was sent to each of the 14 tribal representatives recommended by the NAHC. The San Manuel Band of Mission Indians and Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation expressed interested in the Proposed Project.

Nevertheless, there is always the possibility that ground-disturbing activities during construction may uncover previously unknown, buried human remains. Should this occur, Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code and Public Resources Code Sections 5097.94 and 5097.98 must be implemented. This would include the immediate ceasing of ground disturbance activities, notification of the County Coroner. If the coroner determines the remains are Native American, the coroner shall contact the NAHC within 24 hours, and the NAHC shall identify the person or persons it believes to be the “most likely descendant” of the deceased Native American.

While there are no known human remains within the project site adherence to existing regulations would ensure all impacts associated with any previously unknown human remains remain less than significant.

Consistent with the findings in the General Plan EIR, impacts would be less than significant with respect to inadvertent discoveries of human remains. 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.
e) Listed or Eligible Tribal Cultural Resources
Would the project: Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k)? Summary of the General Plan EIR
The General Plan EIR did not separately address TCRs.

1.1.e
Packet Pg. 167 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4157 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for City of Colton–Agua Mansa Logistics Center Project
Initial Study/Consistency Checklist Findings
FirstCarbon Solutions 89 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
Results from the NAHC Sacred Land Files Search were positive for the presence of Native American cultural resources in the immediate project area. As mentioned above and detailed in the PI-CRA, the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians and Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation expressed interest in the Proposed Project. Should any undiscovered TCRs be encountered during project construction, implementation of relevant Policies 1a and 1b and Implementation Measures

1.3 and 1.4 from the Cultural Resources Preservation Element would be required to ensure potential impacts are less than significant. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not result in any peculiar effects and would not result in a more severe adverse impact to TCRs, as such, impacts would be less than significant.
f) Lead Agency Determined Tribal Cultural Resources
Would the project: Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is a resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1?
Summary of the General Plan EIR
The General Plan EIR did not separately address TCRs.

Agua Mansa Logistics Center Analysis and Conclusions
A review of the CRHR, local registers of historic resources, a records search conducted at the SCCIC failed to identify any listed TCRs that may be adversely affected by the Proposed Project. Results from the NAHC Sacred Land Files Search were positive for the presence of Native American cultural resources in the immediate project area. As mentioned above and detailed in the Phase I CRA, the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians and Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation expressed interest in the Proposed Project. Should any undiscovered TCRs be encountered during project construction, implementation of relevant mitigation measures would be required to ensure potential impacts are less than significant. Furthermore, consistent with San Manuel Band of Mission Indians requests the below recommendations are included as COAs for the Proposed Project. These COAs are included to ensure compliance with General Plan EIR Implementation Measure 1.4, “Require adequate mitigation of impacts to archaeological resources.” It should be noted that the project site was graded into rough pads under the ownership of CalPortland. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not result in any peculiar effects and would not result in a more severe adverse impact to TCRs, as such, impacts would be less than significant
EIR Mitigation Measures
None.

1.1.e
Packet Pg. 168 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4157 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for City of Colton–Agua Mansa Logistics Center Project
Findings Initial Study/Consistency Checklist
90 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 Conditions of Approval
Consistent with San Manuel Band of Mission Indians Recommendations COA CUL-1 In the event that cultural resources are discovered during project activities, all work in the immediate vicinity of the find (within a 60-foot buffer) shall cease and a qualified Archaeologist meeting Secretary of Interior standards shall be hired to assess the find. Work on the other portions of the project outside of the buffered area may continue during this assessment period. Additionally, the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians (SMBMI) Cultural Resources Department shall be contacted, as detailed within TCR-1, regarding any pre-contact and/or historic-era finds and be provided information after the Archaeologist makes his/her initial assessment of the nature of the find, so as to provide Tribal input with regards to significance and treatment.

COA CUL-2 If significant pre-contact and/or historic-era cultural resources, as defined by CEQA (as amended, 2015), are discovered and avoidance cannot be ensured, the Archaeologist shall develop a Monitoring and Treatment Plan, the drafts of which shall be provided to SMBMI for review and comment, as detailed within TCR-1. The Archaeologist shall monitor the remainder of the project and implement the Plan accordingly.

COA CUL-3 If human remains or funerary objects are encountered during any activities associated with the project, work in the immediate vicinity (within a 100-foot buffer of the find) shall cease and the County Coroner shall be contacted pursuant to State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and that code enforced for the duration of the project.

COA CUL-4 The San Manuel Band of Mission Indians Cultural Resources Department (SMBMI) shall be contacted, as detailed in CR-1, of any pre-contact and/or historic-era cultural resources discovered during project implementation and be provided information regarding the nature of the find, so as to provide Tribal input with regards to significance and treatment. Should the find be deemed significant, as defined by CEQA (as amended, 2015), a cultural resource Monitoring and Treatment Plan shall be created by the Archaeologist, in coordination with SMBMI, and all subsequent finds shall be subject to this Plan. This Plan shall allow for a monitor to be present that represents SMBMI for the remainder of the project, should SMBMI elect to place a monitor on-site.

COA CUL-5 Any and all archaeological/cultural documents created as a part of the project (isolate records, site records, survey reports, testing reports, etc.) shall be supplied to the applicants and Lead Agency for dissemination to SMBMI. The Lead Agency and/or applicants shall, in good faith, consult with SMBMI throughout the life of the project.

1.1.e
Packet Pg. 169 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4157 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for City of Colton–Agua Mansa Logistics Center Project
Initial Study/Consistency Checklist Findings
FirstCarbon Solutions 91 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. Application of the above implementation measures, uniformly applied policies and standards, compliance with existing regulations, incorporation of mitigation measures from the General Plan EIR, and PDFs substantially mitigates potentially significant impacts.

The Proposed Project is consistent with the development density and zoning evaluated in the General Plan EIR and the General Plan. The Proposed Project is consistent with the investigations evaluated in the General Plan EIR and would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of any previously identified impacts 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.

1.1.e
Packet Pg. 170 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4157 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for City of Colton–Agua Mansa Logistics Center Project
Findings Initial Study/Consistency Checklist
92 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
General Plan
EIR
Determination
CEQA Section 15183(b) Criteria
Effect
Peculiar to
Project or
Site?
New
Significant
Effect?
New
Significant
Off-site,
Cumulative
Impact?
New
Information,
More Severe
Adverse
Impact?
F. Geology, Soils and Seismicity
Would the project:
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault,
as delineated on the most recent
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zoning Map issued by the State
Geologist for the area or based on
other substantial evidence of a
known fault? Refer to Division of
Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42?
Less than
significant
impact
No No No No
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? Less than
significant
impact
No No No No
iii) Seismic-related ground failure,
including liquefaction?
Less than
significant
impact
No No No No
iv) Landslides? Less than
significant
impact
No No No No
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the
loss of topsoil?
Less than
significant
impact
No No No No
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that
is unstable, or that would become
unstable as a result of the project, and
potentially result in on- or off-site
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction or collapse?
Less than
significant
impact
No No No No
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined
in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building
Code (1994), creating substantial direct
or indirect risks to life or property?
Less than
significant
impact
No No No No
e) Have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative wastewater disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the
disposal of wastewater?
No impact No No No No

1.1.e
Packet Pg. 171 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4157 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for City of Colton–Agua Mansa Logistics Center Project
Initial Study/Consistency Checklist Findings
FirstCarbon Solutions 93 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
General Plan
EIR
Determination
CEQA Section 15183(b) Criteria
Effect
Peculiar to
Project or
Site?
New
Significant
Effect?
New
Significant
Off-site,
Cumulative
Impact?
New
Information,
More Severe
Adverse
Impact?
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature?
Less than
significant
impact with
mitigation
incorporated
No No No No
a) Earthquake Hazards
Would the project: Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving: (i)Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault; (ii) Strong Seismic Ground Shaking; (iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction; or (iv) Landslides.
i) Fault Rupture
Summary of the General Plan EIR
The General Plan EIR determined that hazardous impacts to people and structures resulting from the potential rupture of the San Jacinto Fault System would be less than significant with implementation of existing standards adopted in the current General Plan Safety Element (Standard 1). Standard 1 requires the preparation of geologic studies in support of the objective of avoiding or preventing damage from geologic hazards by assessing the nature, location, and appropriate control measures to mitigate for the hazard. This standard is implemented as part of the City’s routine development project review process and would avoid placement of buildings within areas potentially exposed to fault rupture hazards. The General Plan’s Standard 1 constitutes a uniformly applied development standard consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.

Agua Mansa Logistics Center Analysis and Conclusions
Consistent with Standard 1, a Geotechnical Investigation for the Proposed Project (Geotechnical Investigation) was prepared by Southern California Geotechnical, Inc. in March 2019 (Appendix D)..

The Geotechnical Investigation found that the project site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault zone; therefore, the possibility of significant fault rupture on the project site is considered to be low. Therefore, the risk of fault offset at the site from a known active fault is very low. In a seismically active area, the remote possibility exists for future faulting in areas where no faults previously existed; however, the risk of surface faulting and consequent secondary ground failure from previously unknown faults is also very low. Further, the Proposed Project would be required to be consistent with the current California Building Standards Code (CBC), which provides

1.1.e
Packet Pg. 172 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4157 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for City of Colton–Agua Mansa Logistics Center Project
Findings Initial Study/Consistency Checklist
94 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 procedures for earthquake resistant structural design that include considerations for on-site soil conditions, occupancy, and the configuration of the structure including the structural system and height. Additionally, consistent with Standard 1 discussed above, the Proposed Project would implement the recommendations included in the Geotechnical Investigation, which addresses site preparation, building foundations, building floor slabs, pavement and includes design considerations for the Proposed Project. Thus, implementation of the recommendations contained within the Geotechnical Investigation is considered required compliance with the uniformly applied development standards contained within Standard 1, and impacts would be less than significant. As such, 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. ii) Ground Shaking
Summary of the General Plan EIR
The General Plan EIR determined that impacts to life and property resulting from earthquakes will be less than significant with implementation of the City’s existing standards and regulations, including the CBC and General Plan Safety Element. The General Plan EIR identifies that the City is located in an area that is subject to potential earthquakes due to its proximity to the San Jacinto, San Andreas, Rialto-Colton, Mill Creek, Crafton Hills, and Cucamonga faults, which have the potential to generate earthquakes of magnitudes ranging from 6.5 to 7.5 on the Richter scale.

As discussed above, all development within the City would be required to comply with the appropriate ground shaking design parameters as detailed in the CBC. These parameters are based on the seismic setting and potential intensity levels of the earthquake faults most likely to generate significant ground shaking in the planning area. Standard 2 of the current General Plan Safety Element (Standard 2) requires that structural design of new development be consistent with identified geologic hazards. Similar to Standard 1, Standard 2 is a uniformly applied development standard consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.

Agua Mansa Logistics Center Analysis and Conclusions
The Proposed Project would be located in an area subject to potential earthquakes due to its proximity to the San Jacinto, San Andreas, Rialto-Colton, Mill Creek, Crafton Hills, and Cucamonga faults. As such, the Proposed Project would be required to be designed with the current CBC Seismic Design Parameters in order to resist strong ground shaking as required in the General Plan Safety Element. The CBC provides procedures for earthquake resistant structural design that include considerations for on-site soil conditions, occupancy, and the configuration of the structure including the structural system and height. Further, the Geotechnical Investigation provides specific seismic design parameters based on the soil profile and the proximity of known faults with respect to the project site. Additionally, consistent with the requirements of Standard 1, the Proposed Project must implement the recommendations included in the Geotechnical Investigation, which addresses site preparation, building foundations, building floor slabs, pavement and includes design considerations for the Proposed Project. Thus, application of the PDFs, and implementation of General Plan Standard 1 substantially mitigates potentially significant impacts to below a level of significance.

1.1.e
Packet Pg. 173 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4157 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for City of Colton–Agua Mansa Logistics Center Project
Initial Study/Consistency Checklist Findings
FirstCarbon Solutions 95 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0237/02370034/Checklist/02370034 Agua Mansa Logistics Center Checklist_cs.docx 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. iii) Ground Failure
Summary of the General Plan EIR
The General Plan EIR determined that impacts to life and property resulting from seismically induced liquefaction or settlement will be less than significant with implementation of the City’s existing standards and regulations. Liquefaction may occur in areas where relatively loose, sandy soils mix with high groundwater levels (less than 50 feet) during long duration, high seismic ground shaking.

Earthquakes can cause water pressure to increase in loose sediments, leading to the sediments losing strength and behaving like a liquid. A variety of ground deformation can occur as a result of liquefaction, leading to structural and infrastructure damage. The General Plan EIR concluded that, overall, the City is located in an area with low liquefication potential; however, some areas within the City have a higher liquefication potential due to proximity to the Santa Ana River and Reche Canyon Area, where groundwater levels are anticipated to be within 50 feet of the surface. The majority of the City is also subject to settlement soil due to the widespread presence of young, unconsolidated alluvial soils.

As discussed above, the General Plan Safety Element includes Standard 1, which requires developers to prepare geotechnical studies to identify any liquefaction and other ground failure potential and require appropriate design parameters on a project-by-project basis. The General Plan’s Standard 1 constitutes a uniformly applied development standard consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 (f)..

Agua Mansa Logistics Center Analysis and Conclusions
Liquefaction, also known as ground failure, is the loss of strength in generally cohesionless, saturated soils when the pore-water pressure induced in the soil by a seismic event becomes equal to or exceeds the overburden pressure. The primary factors which influence the potential for liquefaction include groundwater table elevation, soil type and plasticity characteristics, relative density of the soil, initial confining pressure, and intensity and duration of ground shaking. The depth within which the occurrence of liquefaction may impact surface improvements is generally identified as the upper 50 feet below the existing ground surface. Liquefaction potential is greater in saturated, loose, poorly graded fine sands.

The Geotechnical Investigation performed a liquefaction analysis for the project site and reviewed the San Bernardino County General Plan, which indicated that the subject site is not located within a zone of high liquefaction susceptibility. However, the project is located in close proximity to the Santa Ana River and has historically high groundwater levels at elevations of approximately 16 feet below the ground surface. The results of the liquefaction analysis have identified potentially liquefiable soils at the project site at depths of approximately 16- and 27 feet. Settlement analyses were performed for each of the potentially liquefiable strata.

1.1.e
Packet Pg. 174 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4157 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for City of Colton–Agua Mansa Logistics Center Project
Findings Initial Study/Consistency Checklist
96 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 Based on the settlement analysis, total dynamic (liquefaction induced) settlements of approximately

0.5 to 2.6 inches could be expected at the boring sites that identified liquefiable soil. However, these settlements are considered to be within the structural tolerances of a typical building supported on a shallow foundation system. The Geotechnical Investigation ultimately concluded that it would be feasible to support the proposed structures on shallow foundations, which can be designed to resist the effects of the anticipated differential settlements, to the extent that the structures would not catastrophically fail. The use of a shallow foundation system is typical for buildings of this type, where they are underlain by the extent of liquefiable soils encountered at this site.

Consistent with the uniformly applied development standards contained in Standard 1 discussed above, the Proposed Project would implement the recommendations included in the Geotechnical Investigation regarding the potential for liquefaction. In compliance with these recommendations a qualified structural engineer would verify that the structures would not catastrophically fail due to the predicted dynamic differential settlements. Implementation of uniformly applied General Plan Safety Element Standard 1 and incorporation of PDFs substantially mitigates potentially significant impacts to a less than significant level. Utility connections to the Proposed Project would be designed to withstand the estimated differential settlements. Additionally, any post-liquefaction damage that could occur within the buildings proposed for this site would be typical of similar buildings in the vicinity of this project. 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.
iv) Landslides
Summary of the General Plan EIR
The General Plan EIR determined that impacts to life and property within the La Loma Hills, Box Springs Mountains, and other portions of the planning area related to seismically induced landslides will be less than significant with implementation of existing building standards and the uniformly applied General Plan Safety Element Standard 1 and Standard 2.

Agua Mansa Logistics Center Analysis and Conclusions
The Geotechnical Investigation did not make any specific conclusions regarding landslides and slope failures. Landslides can be initiated in slopes already on the verge of movement by changes in ground water as well as in combination with a number of other geologic factors. Because the project site is relatively flat, the potential for ground surface settlement resulting from landslides and slope failures is low. Additionally, the Proposed Project would comply with all existing standards and regulations and would be located within the planning area that the General Plan EIR concluded would have less than significant impacts related to landslides.

Additionally, consistent with the uniformly applied development standards contained in Standard 1 discussed above, the Proposed Project would implement the recommendations included in the Geotechnical Investigation regarding the potential for landslides. Thus, implementation uniformly applied General Plan Safety Element Standard 1 and incorporation of PDFs substantially mitigates potentially significant impacts to a less than significant level. Therefore, the Proposed Project would

1.1.e
Packet Pg. 175 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4157 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for City of Colton–Agua Mansa Logistics Center Project
Initial Study/Consistency Checklist Findings
FirstCarbon Solutions 97 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0237/02370034/Checklist/02370034 Agua Mansa Logistics Center Checklist_cs.docx not introduce new impacts or create more severe impacts than those previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR. No additional analysis is required.
b) Erosion
Would the project: Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Summary of the General Plan EIR
The General Plan EIR determined that impacts related to windblown soil erosion and loss of topsoil will be less than significant. Wind-driven erosion can occur where flat, barren surfaces are exposed to high-velocity winds. Existing vacant parcels are not likely to contribute to windblown erosion because native vegetation stabilizes soil, preventing it from leaving a site. Developed sites curtail wind-driven erosion by preventing wind from contacting soil, due to the presence of buildings, parking lots, other impervious surfaces, and landscaping. Ultimately, the General Plan EIR concluded because the General Plan allows for but does not authorize construction and land altering activities that could expose loose soil, impacts related to erosion would be less than significant.

Agua Mansa Logistics Center Analysis and Conclusions
The Proposed Project would include storm drains and County flood control located primarily along the eastern, southern, and southeastern boundaries of the project site. Construction activities required by the Proposed Project would require grading and excavation, which could result in the potential for surface water to carry sediment from on-site erosion into the stormwater system and local waterways. Soil erosion may also occur during construction in areas where temporary soil storage is required. As discussed in the General Plan EIR, the Proposed Project would be required to comply with the existing City policies and regulations pertaining to grading and excavation. The Proposed Project would be required to comply with the City’s Stormwater Municipal Regional Permit, which requires Low Impact Development (LID) techniques to minimize and treat stormwater runoff, and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements during construction, which would minimize erosion or siltation impacts. The Proposed Project would include a bioretention area and landscaping that would further minimize erosion and/or siltation impacts. 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. c) Unstable Soils or Geologic Units
Would the project: Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landsliding, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? Summary of the General Plan EIR
The General Plan EIR determined that the General Plan would not directly subject people or structures to ground failure related hazards because it allows for but does not authorize any construction project, development plan, or other land altering activity. However, the General Plan EIR identifies that the majority of the City is made up of young, unconsolidated alluvial soils that is

1.1.e
Packet Pg. 176 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4157 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for City of Colton–Agua Mansa Logistics Center Project
Findings Initial Study/Consistency Checklist
98 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 subject to widespread settlement and compressible soil. However, the General Plan includes Standard 1, which requires the preparation of geologic studies in support of the objective of avoiding or preventing damage from geologic hazards by assessing the nature, location, and appropriate control measures to mitigate for the hazard. This standard is implemented as part of the City’s routine development project review process and would avoid placement of buildings within areas with potentially unstable soils. It also includes Standard 2, which requires that structural design of new development be consistent with identified geologic hazards, including unstable soils. Therefore, the General Plan EIR determined that impacts related to ground failure will be less than significant with implementation of existing building standards and the uniformly applied General Plan Safety Element Standard 1 and Standard 2.

Agua Mansa Logistics Center Analysis and Conclusions
As discussed previously in Impact(a)(iii), the Geotechnical Investigation concluded that the project site is relatively flat, and the potentially liquefiable soil encountered during the investigation would result in less than significant impacts with the use of shallow foundations in constructing the project.

Additionally, as discussed in Impact(a)(iv), the potential for landslides would be very low. Further, the Proposed Project would comply with existing City policies and regulations as discussed in the General Plan EIR. Additionally, consistent with the uniformly applied development standards contained in Standard 1, the Proposed Project would implement the recommendations included in the Geotechnical Investigation, which addresses site preparation, building foundations, building floor slabs, pavement and includes design considerations for the Proposed Project. Thus, implementation of the recommendations contained within the Geotechnical Investigation would be considered required compliance with the uniformly applied development standards contained within Standard 1, and impacts would be less than significant. The Proposed Project would not introduce new impacts or create more severe impacts related to landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse than those analyzed in the General Plan EIR. No additional analysis is required.
d) Expansive Soils
Would the project: Be located on expansive soil, creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property?
Summary of the General Plan EIR
The General Plan EIR concluded that the General Plan would not directly subject people or structures to hazards associated with expansive soils because it does not authorize any construction project, any development plan, or any other land alteration activities. The majority of the City is underlain by granular soils that contain little clay and therefore have a low potential for expansion.

Regardless, the General Plan includes Standard 1, which requires the preparation of geologic studies in support of the objective of avoiding or preventing damage from geologic hazards by assessing the nature, location, and appropriate control measures to mitigate for the hazard. This standard is implemented as part of the City’s routine development project review process and would ensure development would not be susceptible to expansive soil. It also includes Standard 2, which requires that structural design of new development be consistent with identified geologic hazards, including

1.1.e
Packet Pg. 177 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4157 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for City of Colton–Agua Mansa Logistics Center Project
Initial Study/Consistency Checklist Findings
FirstCarbon Solutions 99 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0237/02370034/Checklist/02370034 Agua Mansa Logistics Center Checklist_cs.docx expansive soils. The General Plan EIR determined that impacts related to expansive soils will be less than significant with implementation of existing building standards and the uniformly applied developments contained within Standard 1 and Standard 2.

Agua Mansa Logistics Center Analysis and Conclusions
During the Geotechnical Investigation, soil samples were recovered from subsurface exploration of the project site. The soil samples were then tested for physical and engineering properties.

Laboratory testing performed on representative samples of the near surface soil indicates that these materials have very low potential for expansion. Therefore, the Geotechnical Investigation determined that no design considerations related to expansive soils are necessary for the project site. Additionally, the project site would be covered with imported fill materials consisting of crushed rock and soil that would also possess a very low Expansion Index (EI). Additionally, consistent with Standard 1 of the existing General Plan Safety Element, the Proposed Project would implement the recommendations included in the Geotechnical Investigation, which addresses site preparation, building foundations, building floor slabs, pavement and includes design considerations for the Proposed Project. 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.
e) Septic Tanks
Would the project: Have soils incapable of supporting the use of septic tanks or other alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available? Summary of the General Plan EIR
The General Plan EIR stated that the City is supported by a fully functioning sewer system and septic systems are used at limited sites within the City. Therefore, the General Plan EIR determined that no impacts related to soils and septic systems will occur.

Agua Mansa Logistics Center Analysis and Conclusions
The City would provide electric, water, and wastewater services to the project site. The Proposed Project would not include the use of septic systems. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not introduce septic tank or alternative wastewater system impacts or create more severe septic tank or alternative wastewater system impacts than those analyzed in the General Plan EIR. No additional analysis is required.
f) Destruction of Paleontological Resource or Unique Geologic Feature Would the project: Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Summary of the General Plan EIR
According to the analysis provided in Impact 4.5.C from the General Plan EIR, impacts to paleontological resources will be less than significant with incorporation of MM 4.5-1, which

1.1.e
Packet Pg. 178 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4157 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for City of Colton–Agua Mansa Logistics Center Project
Findings Initial Study/Consistency Checklist
100 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 requires all future development proposals to undergo CEQA review and prepare a paleontological assessment and provide paleontological monitoring at the project site. MM 4.5-1 also specifies that if previously undiscovered paleontological resources are discovered during construction, a qualified paleontologist would recover, identify, and curate the resource as well as document the findings in an appendix. Thus, this mitigation would ensure protection paleontological resources and reduce impacts to a less than significant level.

Agua Mansa Logistics Center Analysis and Conclusions
Similar to the conclusions of the General Plan EIR, the project site is currently vacant and is located within an industrial area of the City. The site is relatively flat and was previously graded into rough pads under the ownership of CalPortland, although the subsurface excavation required for the Proposed Project would excavate beyond previously disturbed soil and could impact undiscovered paleontological resources. Therefore, the Proposed Project would be required to implement MM

4.5-1, which requires a paleontological assessment and paleontological monitoring prior to initiation of deep excavation procedures and provides direction if paleontological resources are discovered.

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

EIR Mitigation Measures
MM 4.5-1 Future development proposals subject to environmental review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) are subject to the following provisions at the expense of the project proponent, as directed by the Development Services Director.
• Paleontological Assessment. In areas containing middle to late Pleistocene era sediments (Qof) where it is unknown if paleontological resources exist, prior to grading an assessment shall be made by a qualified paleontological professional to establish the need for paleontological monitoring. Should paleontological monitoring be required after recommendation by the professional paleontologist and approval by the Development Services Director, paleontological monitoring shall be implemented.
• Paleontological Monitoring. A project that requires grading plans and is located in an area of known fossil occurrence or that has been demonstrated to have fossils present in a paleontological field survey or other appropriate assessment shall have all grading monitored by trained paleontological crews working under the direction of a qualified professional, so that fossils exposed during grading can be recovered and preserved. Paleontological monitors shall be equipped to salvage fossils as they are unearthed, to avoid construction delays, and to remove samples of sediments that are likely to contain the remains of small fossil invertebrates and vertebrates. Monitors shall be empowered to temporarily halt or divert equipment to allow removal of abundant or large specimens. Monitoring is not necessary if the potentially fossiliferous units described for the property in question are not present or if present are determined upon exposure and examination by qualified paleontological personnel to have low potential to

1.1.e
Packet Pg. 179 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4157 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for City of Colton–Agua Mansa Logistics Center Project
Initial Study/Consistency Checklist Findings
FirstCarbon Solutions 101 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0237/02370034/Checklist/02370034 Agua Mansa Logistics Center Checklist_cs.docx contain fossil resources. Should significant paleontological resources be discovered, paleontological recovery, identification, and curation shall be implemented.
• Paleontological Recovery, Identification, and Curation. Qualified paleontological personnel shall prepare recovered specimens to a point of identification and permanent preservation, including washing of sediments to recover small invertebrates and vertebrates. Qualified paleontological personnel shall identify and curate specimens into the collections of the Division of Geological Sciences, San Bernardino County Museum, or a similar established, accredited museum repository with permanent retrievable paleontological storage. The Paleontologist must have a written repository agreement in hand prior to the initiation of mitigation activities. This measure is not considered complete until curation into an established museum repository has been fully completed and documented. • Paleontological Findings. Qualified paleontological personnel shall prepare a report of findings with an appendix itemized of specimens subsequent to implementation of paleontological recovery, identification, and curation. A preliminary report shall be submitted to and approved by the Development Services Director before granting of building permits, and a final report shall be submitted to and approved by the Development Services Director before granting of occupancy permits.

Conclusion
No peculiar impacts that are not substantially mitigated have been identified as a result of the Proposed Project or its site. Compliance with existing regulations, incorporation of mitigation measures from the General Plan EIR, and PDFs substantially mitigates potentially significant impacts.

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

1.1.e
Packet Pg. 180 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4157 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for City of Colton–Agua Mansa Logistics Center Project
Findings Initial Study/Consistency Checklist
102 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?
G. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy
Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions,
either directly or indirectly, that may have
a significant impact on the environment?
Significant
and
unavoidable
impact
No No No No
b) Conflict with any applicable plan, policy or
regulation of an agency adopted for the
purpose of reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gases?
Significant
and
unavoidable
impact
No No No No
c) Result in potentially significant
environmental impact due to wasteful,
inefficient, or unnecessary consumption
of energy resources, during project
construction or operation?
No significant
impact
identified
No No No No
d) Conflict with or obstruct a State or local
plan for renewable energy or energy
efficiency?
No significant
impact
identified
No No No No
a) Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Would the project: Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Summary of the General Plan EIR
According to the General Plan EIR, short-term construction emissions of greenhouse gases associated with buildout pursuant to land use policy will be less than significant. The General Plan EIR determined future development would emit greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from operations due to building operation, mobile emissions, power demand, and disposal of solid waste. However, over the long term, GHG emissions may exceed regional thresholds established by regional plans, because the General Plan buildout population would not be consistent with what was analyzed in the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) 2012 RTP/SCS and the ARB Scoping Plan.

The General Plan EIR concluded that impacts at the program level are significant and unavoidable.

Agua Mansa Logistics Center Analysis and Conclusions
For informational purposes only this impact analysis quantifies the Proposed Project’s estimated GHG emissions consistent with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.4(a). In the absence of any applicable adopted numeric threshold, the significance of the Proposed Project’s GHG emissions is evaluated consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.4(b) by considering whether the Proposed

1.1.e
Packet Pg. 181 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4157 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for City of Colton–Agua Mansa Logistics Center Project
Initial Study/Consistency Checklist Findings
FirstCarbon Solutions 103 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 applicable regulations or requirements adopted to implement a Statewide, regional, or local plan for the reduction or mitigation of GHG emission. For the Proposed Project, as a land use development project, the most directly applicable adopted regulatory plan to reduce GHG emissions is the City of Colton Climate Action Plan (CAP), which is designed to achieve regional GHG reductions from the land use and transportation sectors as required by the State’s climate goals. 41 The CAP was adopted in 2015 and all development in the City would be required to comply with applicable policies and measures contained in the CAP, including after 2020. The CAP builds on and expands the goals and policies developed in the General Plan aimed at reducing project GHG emissions.

This impact analysis did not consider a full lifecycle analysis (LCA) of the Proposed Project construction and operational activity due to a lack of guidance from the SCAQMD and feasibility of such a study. An LCA determines a project’s economy-wide GHG emissions from the processes in manufacturing and transporting all raw materials used in the project development, infrastructure, and ongoing operations.

Construction
The Proposed Project would generate GHG emissions during construction activities, resulting from emission sources such as construction equipment, haul trucks, and construction worker vehicles.

Although these emissions would be temporary and short-term in nature, they could represent a substantial contribution of GHG emissions. Construction emissions were modeled using CalEEMod Version 2020.4.0. Table 11, below, shows the annual construction GHG emissions. Construction emissions generated by the Proposed Project were amortized over the expected 30-year lifetime of the development, which is the time expected before a land use development would normally need substantial renovations or redevelopment. Amortized construction GHG emissions were added to the annual operational GHG emissions generated by the Proposed Project, as illustrated in Table 12.

Table 11: Proposed Project Construction GHG Emissions
Year
Emissions (MT/year)
CO2 CH4 N2O Total CO2e1
2022 147.94 0.04 0.00 149.99
2023 3,192.80 0.33 0.19 33,257.63
2024 622.99 0.06 0.04 635.34
Total GHG Emissions 3,963.73 0.43 0.23 4,042.96
Amortized Construction Emissions (MT CO2e) 132.12 0.01 0.01 134.77 Notes:

CH4 = methane
CO2 = carbon dioxide
CO2e = carbon dioxide equivalent
GHG = greenhouse gas
MT = metric tons
N2O = nitrous oxide
41 Urban Crossroads. September 16, 2021. Agua Mansa Commerce Center GHG Analysis, page 50.

1.1.e
Packet Pg. 182 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4157 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for City of Colton–Agua Mansa Logistics Center Project
Findings Initial Study/Consistency Checklist
104 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 Year
Emissions (MT/year)
CO2 CH4 N2O Total CO2e1
1 CalEEMod reports the most common GHGs emitted which include CO2, CH4, and N2O. These GHGs are then converted into the CO2e by multiplying the individual GHG by the GWP.

As shown above, the Proposed Project would generate approximately 4,043 metric tons (MT) carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) during construction.

Operation
Operational or long-term emissions occur over the life of the project. Proposed Project operations were modeled for the 2024 operational year, immediately following the completion of construction.

Operational activities associated with the Proposed Project would result in emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O) from the following primary sources:
• Area Source Emissions
• Energy Source Emissions
• Mobile Source Emissions
• On-Site Cargo Handling Equipment Emissions
• Transport Refrigeration Unit (TRU) Emissions
• Water Supply, Treatment, and Distribution
• Solid Waste
Table 12 presents the estimated annual GHG emissions from the Proposed Project’s operational activities. As shown in Table 12, the Proposed Project would generate approximately 16,557.68 MT CO2e per year after the inclusion of 135 MT CO2e per year from project construction.

Table 12: Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Emission Source
Emissions (MT/year)
CO2 CH4 N2O Total CO2e
Annual construction-related emissions
amortized over 30 years
132.12 0.01 0.01 134.77
Area Source 0.09 <0.01 0.00 0.09
Energy Source 5,959.64 0.39 0.07 5,991.68
Mobile Source 7,954.95 0.29 0.99 8,257.25
TRUs – – – 737.00
On-site Equipment 203.08 0.07 0.00 204.72
Waste 177.54 10.49 0.00 439.85
Water Usage 565.13 7.05 0.17 792.31
Total CO2e (All Sources) – – – 16,557.68
Notes:

1.1.e
Packet Pg. 183 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4157 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for City of Colton–Agua Mansa Logistics Center Project
Initial Study/Consistency Checklist Findings
FirstCarbon Solutions 105 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0237/02370034/Checklist/02370034 Agua Mansa Logistics Center Checklist_cs.docx Emission Source
Emissions (MT/year)
CO2 CH4 N2O Total CO2e
CH4 = methane
CO2 = carbon dioxide
CO2e = carbon dioxide equivalent
MT = metric tons
N2O = nitrous oxide
TRU = Transport Refrigeration Unit
The operational emissions shown in Table 12 account for the different types of trucks that would access the site. For example, as described in the GHG Report, 25 percent of the 2-4 axle trucks are modeled as Light Heavy-Duty Trucks (LHDT), 25 percent as Medium Heavy-Duty Trucks (MHDT), and 50 percent as Heavy Heavy-Duty Trucks (HHDT). In addition, the analysis took into account SCAQMDrecommended truck trip lengths of 40 miles and an assumption that 100 percent of primary trips would occur for the proposed industrial land use in order to present a conservative analysis.

Moreover, the GHG emissions present in Table 12 include on-site cargo handling equipment emissions, modeled as four, 200 hp fossil-fuel powered tractors/loaders/backhoes that would operate 4 hours per day, 365 days a year. Furthermore, the analysis included GHG emissions from TRUs because the Proposed Project would include cold storage. 42 City of Colton CAP
As described in the City of Colton CAP, and adapted from the San Bernardino County CAP, individual cities may adopt a GHG Performance Standard for New Development that would provide a streamlined and flexible program for new projects to reduce their emissions that would apply to new private developments subject to the discretionary approval process under CEQA. The City of Colton CAP indicates that the City will adopt a GHG Performance Standard for New Development requiring a 25 percent reduction in new development emissions within the cities.

Pursuant to the Draft City of Colton GHG Emissions Screening Tables and consistent with the screening tables that were customized for each of the 21 participating cities (one of which includes the City of Colton) in the San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG) CAP Implementation Tools Final Report, projects within the City of Colton that achieve at least 75 points based on the City’s screening tables are determined to be consistent with the reduction quantities anticipated in the City’s CAP.43 The Draft Screening Tables are included in Appendix A of this document. The Draft Screening Tables assign point values to various measures that are designed within intent to reduce GHG emissions. For instance, the inclusion of a public charging station for use by an EV grants 10 points per public charging station within the facility. As described in the Project Description, the Proposed Project would include several PDFs that would be consistent with the Colton CAP. For example, both buildings would be energy efficient and would utilize modern technology consistent with CALGreen 2022 standards, which require the most energy efficient and water-efficient appliances, low water demand landscaping, and solar ready rooftops. In addition, as a PDF prior to issuance of building permits the project applicants would be required to complete the City’s GHG 42 Urban Crossroads. July 2022. Agua Mansa Commerce Center GHG Analysis, page 49. 43 Atkins. March 2015. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Development Review Processes for the County of San Bernardino, Table 2.

1.1.e
Packet Pg. 184 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4157 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for City of Colton–Agua Mansa Logistics Center Project
Findings Initial Study/Consistency Checklist
106 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 Emission Reduction Screening Tables that demonstrate their commitment to achieve 75 points of GHG emission reduction measures. Therefore, the Proposed Project would be consistent with the City of Colton CAP, a qualified GHG reduction strategy. As such, the Proposed Project would not introduce new or more severe impacts than what was previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR.

No additional analysis is required.
b) Greenhouse Gases Emissions Reduction Plan Conflict
Would the project: Conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Summary of the General Plan EIR
According to the General Plan EIR, the General Plan has the potential to conflict with the 2012 SCAG Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) and ARB Scoping Plan— and thereby not attain GHG reductions targets—because land use policy does not support the same level of population growth projected. The General Plan EIR concluded that impacts at the program level are significant and unavoidable.

Agua Mansa Logistics Center Analysis and Conclusions
This impact is addressed by assessing the Proposed Project’s consistency with the ARB’s adopted 2017 Scoping Plan Update and the City of Colton CAP. This would be achieved with an assessment of the Proposed Project’s compliance with applicable Scoping Plan measures and CAP measures as addressed below.

Senate Bill 32 2017 Scoping Plan Update
The 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan Update addressing the SB 32 targets was adopted on December 14, 2017. The 2017 Scoping Plan Update reflects the 2030 target of a 40 percent reduction below 1990 levels, set by Executive Order B-30-15 and codified by Senate Bill (SB) 32. As described previously, the Proposed Project would be consistent with the City’s CAP, which is designed to achieve regional GHG reductions from the land use and transportation sectors and the SB 32 2017 Scoping Plan Update.

Table 13 provides an analysis of the Proposed Project’s consistency with the 2017 Scoping Plan Update measures. As shown in Table 13, although many of the measures are Statewide measures that cannot be implemented by an individual applicant or lead agency and therefore are not applicable to the Proposed Project, the Proposed Project is consistent with strategies that are applicable.

Table 13: Consistency with SB 32 2017 Scoping Plan Update Action Responsible Parties Consistency
Implement SB 350 by 2030

1.1.e
Packet Pg. 185 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4157 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for City of Colton–Agua Mansa Logistics Center Project
Initial Study/Consistency Checklist Findings
FirstCarbon Solutions 107 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0237/02370034/Checklist/02370034 Agua Mansa Logistics Center Checklist_cs.docx Action Responsible Parties Consistency
Increase the Renewables Portfolio
Standard to 50 percent of retail sales by
2030 and ensure grid reliability.

California Public
Utilities Commission
(CPUC), CEC, ARB
Consistent. The Proposed Project would
use energy from Southern California
Edison (SCE). SCE has committed to
diversify its portfolio of energy sources by
increasing energy from wind and solar
sources. The Proposed Project would not
interfere with or obstruct SCE energy
source diversification efforts.

Establish annual targets for Statewide
energy efficiency savings and demand
reduction that will achieve a cumulative
doubling of Statewide energy efficiency
savings in electricity and natural gas end
uses by 2030.

Consistent. The Proposed Project would
be designed and constructed to
implement the energy efficiency
measures for new commercial
developments and would include several
measures designed to reduce energy
consumption. The Proposed Project
would not interfere with or obstruct
policies or strategies to establish annual
targets for Statewide energy efficiency
savings and demand reduction.

Reduce GHG emissions in the electricity
sector through the implementation of the
above measures and other actions as
modeled in Integrated Resource Planning
(IRP) to meet GHG emissions reductions
planning targets in the IRP process. Loadserving entities and publicly- owned utilities meet GHG emissions reductions
planning targets through a combination of
measures as described in IRPs.

Consistent. The Proposed Project would
be designed and constructed to
implement the energy efficiency
measures, where applicable by including
several measures designed to reduce
energy consumption. The Proposed
Project includes energy efficient field
lighting and fixtures that meet the current
Title 24 Standards throughout the project
site and would be a modern development
with energy efficient boilers, heaters, and
air conditioning systems.

Implement Mobile Source Strategy (Cleaner Technology and Fuels) At least 1.5 million zero-emission and plugin hybrid light-duty EVs by 2025.ARB, California State Transportation
Agency (CalSTA),
Strategic Growth
Council (SGC),
Consistent. This is an ARB Mobile Source
Strategy. The Proposed Project would not
obstruct or interfere with ARB zeroemission and plug-in hybrid light-duty electric vehicle (EV) 2025 targets.

At least 4.2 million zero-emission and plugin hybrid light-duty electric vehicles by 2030.

California
Department of
Transportation
(Caltrans), CEC,
Governor’s Office of
Planning and
Research (OPR),
Local Agencies
Consistent. This is an ARB Mobile Source
Strategy. The Proposed Project would not
obstruct or interfere with ARB zeroemission and plug-in hybrid light-duty EV 2030 targets.

Further increase GHG stringency on all
light-duty vehicles beyond existing
Advanced Clean cars regulations.

Consistent. This is an ARB Mobile Source
Strategy. The Proposed Project would not
obstruct or interfere with ARB efforts to
further increase GHG stringency on all
light-duty vehicles beyond existing
Advanced Clean cars regulations.

1.1.e
Packet Pg. 186 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4157 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for City of Colton–Agua Mansa Logistics Center Project
Findings Initial Study/Consistency Checklist
108 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 Action Responsible Parties Consistency
Medium- and Heavy-Duty GHG Phase 2. Consistent. This is an ARB Mobile Source Strategy. The Proposed Project would not
obstruct or interfere with ARB efforts to
implement Medium- and Heavy-Duty
GHG Phase 2.

Innovative Clean Transit: Transition to a
suite of to-be-determined innovative clean
transit options. Assumed 20 percent of
new urbanbuses purchased beginning in
2018 will be zero-emission buses with the
penetration of zero-emission technology
ramped up to 100 percent of new sales in
2030. Also, new natural gas buses, starting
in 2018, and diesel buses, starting in 2020,
meet the optional heavy-duty low NOX
standard.

Consistent. This is an ARB Mobile Source
Strategy. The Proposed Project would not
obstruct or interfere with ARB efforts
improve transit-source emissions.

Last Mile Delivery: New regulation that
would result in the use of low NOX or
cleaner engines and the deployment of
increasing numbers of zero-emission
trucks primarily for Class 3-7 last mile
delivery trucks in California. This measure
assumes Zero-Emission Vehicles (ZEVs)
comprise 2.5 percent of new Class 3–7
truck sales in local fleets starting in 2020,
increasing to 10 percent in 2025 and
remaining flat through 2030.

Consistent. This is an ARB Mobile Source
Strategy. The Proposed Project would not
obstruct or interfere with ARB efforts to
improve last mile delivery emissions.

Further reduce VMT through continued
implementation of SB 375 and regional
Sustainable Communities Strategies;
forthcoming Statewide implementation of
SB 743; and potential additional VMT
reduction strategies not specified in the
Mobile Source Strategy but included in the
document “Potential VMT Reduction
Strategies for Discussion.”
Consistent. The Proposed Project would
not obstruct or interfere with
implementation of SB 375 and would
therefore not conflict with this measure.

Increase stringency of SB 375 Sustainable
Communities Strategy (2035 targets).

ARB Consistent. This is an ARB Mobile Source
Strategy. The Proposed Project would not
obstruct or interfere with ARB efforts to
Increase stringency of SB 375 Sustainable
Communities Strategy (2035 targets),
which apply to passenger vehicles.

Harmonize project performance with
emissions reductions and increase
competitiveness of transit and active
transportation modes (e.g., via guideline
documents, funding programs, project
selection, etc.).

CalSTA,SGC, OPR,
ARB, Governor’s
Office ofBusiness
and Economic
Development (GOBiz), California
Infrastructure and
Consistent. The Proposed Project would
not obstruct or interfere with agency
efforts to harmonize transportation
facility project performance with
emissions reductions and increase
competitiveness of transit and active
transportation modes.

1.1.e
Packet Pg. 187 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4157 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for City of Colton–Agua Mansa Logistics Center Project
Initial Study/Consistency Checklist Findings
FirstCarbon Solutions 109 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0237/02370034/Checklist/02370034 Agua Mansa Logistics Center Checklist_cs.docx Action Responsible Parties Consistency
Economic
Development Bank
(Ibank), California
Department of
Finance (CDF),
California
Transportation
Commission (CTC),
Caltrans
By 2019, develop pricing policies to
supportlow-GHG transportation (e.g., lowemission vehicle zones for heavy-duty, road user, parking pricing, transit
discounts).

CalSTA, Caltrans,

CTC, OPR, SGC, ARB
Consistent. The Proposed Project would
not obstruct or interfere with agency
efforts to develop pricing policies to
support low- GHG transportation.

Implement California Sustainable Freight Action Plan
Improve freight system efficiency. CalSTA,Cal/EPA,
CNRA, ARB, Caltrans,
CEC, GO-Biz
Consistent. This measure would apply to
all trucks accessing the project site, this
may include existing trucks or new trucks
that are part of the Statewide goods
movement sector. The Proposed Project
would not obstruct or interfere with
agency efforts to improve freight system
efficiency.

Deploy over 100,000 freight vehicles and
equipment capable of zero-emission
operation and maximize both zero and
near zero-emission freight vehicles and
equipment powered by renewable energy
by 2030.

Consistent. The Proposed Project would
not obstruct or interfere with agency
efforts to deploy over 100,000 freight
vehicles and equipment capable of zeroemission operation and maximize both zero and near zero-emission freight
vehicles and equipment powered by
renewable energyby 2030.

Adopt a Low Carbon Fuel Standard with a
Carbon Intensity reduction of 18 percent.

ARB Consistent. When adopted, this measure
would apply to all fuel purchased and
used by the Proposed Project in the State.

The Proposed Project would not obstruct
or interfere with agency efforts to adopt a
Low Carbon Fuel Standard with a Carbon
Intensity reduction of 18 percent.

Implement the Short-Lived Climate Pollutant (SLCP) Strategy by 2030 40 percent reduction in methane and
hydrofluorocarbon emissions below 2013
levels.

ARB, CalRecycle,
CDFA, State Water
Board, Local Air
Districts
Consistent. The Proposed Project would
not include major sources of black
carbon. The Proposed Project would be
required to comply with this measure and
reduce any project-source SLCP emissions
accordingly. The Proposed Project would
not obstruct or interfere agency efforts to
reduce SLCP emissions.
50 percent reduction in black carbon
emissionsbelow 2013 levels.

1.1.e
Packet Pg. 188 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4157 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for City of Colton–Agua Mansa Logistics Center Project
Findings Initial Study/Consistency Checklist
110 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 Action Responsible Parties Consistency
By 2019, develop regulations and
programsto support organic waste landfill
reduction goals in the SLCP and SB 1383.

ARB, CalRecycle,
CDFA State Water
Board, Local Air
Districts
Consistent. The Proposed Project would
implementwaste reduction and recycling
measures consistent with State and City
requirements. The Proposed Project
would not obstruct or interfere agency
efforts to support organic waste landfill
reduction goals in the SLCP and SB 1383.

Implement the post-2020 Cap-and-Trade
Program with declining annual caps.

ARB Consistent. The Proposed Project would
be requiredto comply with any applicable
Cap-and- Trade Program provisions. The
Proposed Project would not obstruct or
interfere agency efforts to implement the
post-2020 Cap- and-Trade Program.

By 2018, develop Integrated Natural and Working Lands Implementation Plan to secure California’s land base as a net carbon sink
Protect land from conversion through
conservation easements and other
incentives.

California Natural
Resources Agency
(CNRA),
departments within
California
Department of Food
and Agriculture
(CDFA), California
Environmental
Protection Agency
(Cal/EPA), ARB
Consistent. The Proposed Project would
not obstruct or interfere with agency
efforts toprotect land from conversion
through conservation easements and
other incentives.

Increase the long term resilience of carbon
storage in the land base and enhance
sequestration capacity
Consistent. The Proposed Project would
not obstruct or interfere with agency
efforts toincrease the long term resilience
of carbon storage in the land base and
enhance sequestration capacity.

Utilize wood and agricultural products to
increase the amount of carbon stored in
the natural and built environments
Consistent. Where appropriate, project
designs would incorporate wood or wood
products. The Proposed Project would not
obstruct or interfere with agency efforts
to encourage use of wood and
agricultural products toincrease the
amount of carbon stored in the natural
and built environments.

Establish scenario projections to serve as
the foundation for the Implementation
Plan
Consistent. The Proposed Project would
not obstruct or interfere with agency
efforts to establish scenario projections
to serve asthe foundation for the
Implementation Plan.

Establish a carbon accounting framework
for natural and working lands as described
in SB 859 by 2018
ARB Consistent. The Proposed Project would
not obstruct or interfere agency efforts to
establish a carbon accounting framework
for natural and working lands as
describedin SB 859 by 2018.

Implement Forest carbon Plan CNRA, California
Department of
Forestry and Fire
Consistent. The Proposed Project would
not obstruct or interfere with agency
efforts to implement the Forest Carbon
Plan.

1.1.e
Packet Pg. 189 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4157 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for City of Colton–Agua Mansa Logistics Center Project
Initial Study/Consistency Checklist Findings
FirstCarbon Solutions 111 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0237/02370034/Checklist/02370034 Agua Mansa Logistics Center Checklist_cs.docx Action Responsible Parties Consistency
Protection (CAL
FIRE), Cal/EPA
Identify and expand funding and financing
mechanisms to support GHG reductions
across all sectors.

State Agencies and
Local Agencies
Consistent. The Proposed Project would
not obstruct or interfere with agency
efforts to identify and expand funding
and financingmechanisms to support GHG
reductions across all sectors.

Notes:

Source: California Air Resources Board (ARB). California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan. Website:
https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scoping_plan_2017.pdf. Accessed March 11, 2022.

As shown in Table 13, the Proposed Project would not conflict with any of the 2017 Scoping Plan elements.

Further, recent studies show that the State’s existing and proposed regulatory framework would allow the State to reduce its GHG emissions level to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030.

Therefore, the Proposed Project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. As such, the Proposed Project would not introduce new or more severe impacts than what was previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR.

Impacts from implementation of the General Plan EIR would remain significant and unavoidable. No additional analysis is required
c) Energy Use
Would the project: Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation?
Summary of the General Plan EIR
This General Plan EIR did not include a specific topical section for energy. However, Section 6.3 provided an analysis of energy conservation. The EIR determined that during construction, future development supported by the policies of the General Plan will result in short-term energy demand, which would occur during site preparation, grading, building construction, paving, and painting activities associated with new development resulting from use of equipment, worker, vendor, and hauling trips. Furthermore, during operation, General Plan will not directly result in operation of any development or infrastructure; however, future development supported by the policies of the General Plan will result in long term energy demand. Long term energy demand will occur primarily from mobile sources, electricity and natural gas use, and water and wastewater.

The conservation of energy will result from Implementation of the CBC, the City’s landscape irrigation regulations, Regional Greenhouse Gas Inventory and Reduction Plan, and General Plan policies seeking to reduce individual vehicle use. The General Plan EIR did not determine the level of energy impacts; however, it was determined that with implementation of existing regulations and proposed policies, energy demand for development that implements the General Plan will not be wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary.

1.1.e
Packet Pg. 190 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4157 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for City of Colton–Agua Mansa Logistics Center Project
Findings Initial Study/Consistency Checklist
112 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 Agua Mansa Logistics Center Analysis and Conclusions
The Proposed Project would consist of two industrial warehouse buildings totaling approximately 930,466 square feet and associated driveways, parking lots, sidewalks, curbs, fencing, gates, lighting, and landscaping on the approximately 59-acre project site. Building 1 would be a 2-story, 474,021- square-foot automated freezer facility including approximately 77,564 square feet of mezzanine space located on approximately 35 acres in the western portion of the project site while Building 2 would be a 456,000-square-foot speculative concrete tilt-up structure (with 445 square feet for the fire pump housing) with cold storage uses constructed on approximately 24 acres in the eastern portion of the project site. Specifically, Building 2 would have 114,000 square feet of High-Cube Cold Storage Warehouse use (25 percent of total building square footage) and 342,000 square feet of High-Cube Fulfillment Center Warehouse use (75 percent of total building square footage).

Project buildings would be designed in accordance with CALGreen, which contains some of the most advanced energy efficiency requirements in the United States. As described in Impact 4 P, the Proposed Project would result in a VMT per service population less than the City-adopted thresholds of 23.38 VMT per service population in the Baseline scenario and 23.83 VMT per service population in the Cumulative scenario. As a result, the Proposed Project would not require unusually long vehicle trip lengths that exceed City-adopted thresholds or would result in inefficient fuel consumption during operation. Overall, these attributes indicate that the Proposed Project would not result in the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy or obstruct with a plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. This impact would be less than significant. d) Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Standards Consistency Would the project: Conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
Summary of the General Plan EIR
As previously discussed, the General Plan EIR did not include a separate topical section related to energy. However, Section 6.3 concluded that with implementation of existing regulations and proposed policies, energy demand for development that implements the proposed General Plan will not be wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary.

Agua Mansa Logistics Center Analysis and Conclusions
As described previously, project buildings would be designed in accordance with CALGreen, which contains some of the most advanced energy efficiency requirements in the United States. Thus, the Proposed Project would develop buildings consistent with State energy efficiency guidelines.

Furthermore, as described previously, the Proposed Project would be consistent with the City’s CAP, which includes energy efficiency measures for buildings, such as energy efficient outdoor lighting.

Prior to issuance of building permits, the project applicants would complete the applicable City’s GHG Emission Reduction Screening Tables as described in PDF GHG-1. The Proposed Project would result in a VMT per service population less than the City-adopted thresholds and would not require unusually long vehicle trip lengths. Overall, these attributes indicate that the Proposed Project would

1.1.e
Packet Pg. 191 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4157 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for City of Colton–Agua Mansa Logistics Center Project
Initial Study/Consistency Checklist Findings
FirstCarbon Solutions 113 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0237/02370034/Checklist/02370034 Agua Mansa Logistics Center Checklist_cs.docx not result in the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy or obstruct with a plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. Impacts would be less than significant.

EIR Mitigation Measures
GHG-1 Consistency with City of Colton CAP Project Design Feature Prior to issuance of building permits, the project applicants shall provide documentation to the City of Colton Planning Department demonstrating that the project will implement features that will achieve at least 75 points from the City of Colton’s Greenhouse Gas Emissions Screening Tables or achieve equivalent emission reductions from other measures approved by the City of Colton.

Conclusion
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 GHG emissions or energy efficiency use and consistency with a State or local energy plan. Application of uniformly applied policies and standards as well as regulations such as CALGreen and PDFs substantially mitigates potentially significant impacts although certain impacts remain significant and unavoidable 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.

1.1.e
Packet Pg. 192 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4157 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for City of Colton–Agua Mansa Logistics Center Project
Findings Initial Study/Consistency Checklist
114 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?
H. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?
Less than
significant
impact
No No No No
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous materials
into the environment?
Less than
significant
impact
No No No No
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one-quarter
mile of an existing or proposed school?
Less than
significant
impact
No No No No
d) Be located on a site which is included on a
list of hazardous materials sites compiled
pursuant to Government Code Section
65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a
significant hazard to the public or the
environment?
Less than
significant
with
mitigation
incorporated
No No No No
e) For a project located within an airport land
use plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport, would the
project result in a safety hazard or excessive
noise for people residing or working in the
project area?
No impact No No No No
f) Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
No impact No No No No
g) Expose people or structures, either directly
or indirectly to a significant risk of loss,
injury or death involving wildland fires?
Less than
significant
impact
No No No No

1.1.e
Packet Pg. 193 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4157 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for City of Colton–Agua Mansa Logistics Center Project
Initial Study/Consistency Checklist Findings
FirstCarbon Solutions 115 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0237/02370034/Checklist/02370034 Agua Mansa Logistics Center Checklist_cs.docx a) Routine Transport, Use, or Disposal of Hazardous Materials Would the project: Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
Summary of the General Plan EIR
According to the General Plan EIR, the General Plan will result in less than significant impacts from the use, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials and wastes. The General Plan would not directly result in the use, transport, or disposal of hazard materials or wastes but it would occur within the City’s planning area. To reduce potential impacts, the General Plan includes Policy M-5.6, which establishes truck routing performance standards and designated truck routes and other roadways to transport materials and wastes from within the City to the freeways. The truck routing performance standards are listed as follows:
• Truck routes must avoid intrusions into residential neighborhoods to limit noise, vibration, and air quality impacts.
• Truck routes shall not be provided on Local Streets and on streets with mostly residential frontage.
• Truck routes must be located on roadways that provide direct and convenient access between major arterials and freeways (I-10 and I-215) and industrial and commercial businesses. • Truck routes must be located on roadways with the design and construction capacity to accommodate truck traffic.

The General Plan EIR notes that adherence to these performance standards would ensure that transport of hazardous materials is routed away from residential neighborhoods to the maximum extent possible to minimize potential exposure to residents. Additionally, existing regulations from the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, Hazardous Wastes Control Law, and California Code of Regulation Title 22, Sections 2729 through 2732, would adequately help prevent, respond to, and clean up accidental releases of hazardous materials. Furthermore, the General Plan EIR noted the release of hazardous materials or wastes are required to be reported to the California Office of Emergency Services (OES). As a result, the General Plan EIR concluded that the implementation of the General Plan would not conflict with any of these regulations and therefore, would not result in a significant impact.

Agua Mansa Logistics Center Analysis and Conclusions
The project site has a General Plan land use designation of Heavy Industrial and zoned M-2. The Heavy Industrial designation allows land uses including heavy manufacturing, distribution, assembly, resource mining, storage, and similar activities. The M-2 zone permits warehousing uses and the Proposed Project would develop two industrial warehouse buildings. Hazardous waste would also be generated in such land use.?? Potential risks associated with hazardous materials handling and storage would generally be limited to the immediate area where the materials would be located.

1.1.e
Packet Pg. 194 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4157 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for City of Colton–Agua Mansa Logistics Center Project
Findings Initial Study/Consistency Checklist
116 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 construction and operations would involve the minor routine transport and handling of minimal quantities of hazardous substances such as diesel fuels, lubricants, solvents, asphalt, pesticides, and fertilizers. Handling and transportation of these materials could result in the exposure of workers or guests to hazardous materials. However, the Proposed Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment, because project construction and operations would comply with applicable federal, State, and local laws pertaining to the safe handling and transport of hazardous materials. If a release were to occur, compliance with these local regulations would ensure impacts to the environment remain less than significant. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not introduce impacts or create more severe impacts than those analyzed in the General Plan EIR. No additional analysis is required. b) Risk of Upset
Would the project: Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
Summary of the General Plan EIR
According to the General Plan EIR, the General Plan will result in less than significant impacts from the use, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials and wastes. As previously described, existing regulations from the RCRA, the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, Hazardous Wastes Control Law, and California Code of Regulations Title 22, Sections 2729 through 2732, would adequately help prevent, respond to, and clean up accidental releases of hazardous materials. Disposal of hazardous wastes regulated under RCRA, Hazardous Wastes Control Law, and California Code of Regulations Title 22. Sections 2729 through 2732 of the California Code of Regulations provide requirements for the reporting, inventory, and release response plans for hazardous materials. All related substance handlers are required to register with local fire or emergency response departments per the California Accidental Release Prevention Program which is overseen by the San Bernardino County Fire Department Hazardous Materials Division. Furthermore, the General Plan EIR noted the release of hazardous materials or wastes are required to be reported to the OES. As a result, the General Plan EIR concluded that the implementation of the General Plan would not conflict with any of these regulations and therefore, would not result in a significant impact.

Agua Mansa Logistics Center Analysis and Conclusions
As described in Impact(a) of this section, the Proposed Project would involve the minor use of hazardous materials required during construction and operations. Because the project site would be utilized for two industrial warehouses, the presence of hazardous substances would be expected on the property during project operation. However, the Proposed Project would comply with applicable federal, State, and local laws pertaining to the safe handling and transport of hazardous materials, which would minimize potential spill occurrences.

1.1.e
Packet Pg. 195 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4157 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for City of Colton–Agua Mansa Logistics Center Project
Initial Study/Consistency Checklist Findings
FirstCarbon Solutions 117 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0237/02370034/Checklist/02370034 Agua Mansa Logistics Center Checklist_cs.docx As discussed in more detail in Section 2, Project Description, the project site is vacant and does not contain existing buildings or structures constructed prior to 1960.44 The subject property has been owned by the CalPortland Company for approximately 30 years and was used as a buffer property between the Santa Ana River and the cement facility located north of Agua Mansa Road. By 1975, construction of a levee had been completed along the site’s southern boundary. The CalPortland Company leased the site for agricultural use, and the site was previously developed with at least three residences and several associated agricultural buildings, which are all currently vacant, along the northeastern boundary of the site, from 1931 until 1989. According to the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (Phase I ESA), there are no buildings currently on the project site; therefore, the Proposed Project would not release asbestos containing materials or lead-based paint typically found in buildings built prior to 1960.

The Phase I ESA determined that there is no evidence of Recognized Environmental Conditions (RECs), Historical Recognized Environmental Conditions (HRECs), or Controlled Recognized Environmental Conditions (CRECs) on the project site. The project site was not identified on any regulatory databases, and there are no listings on adjacent properties that would create an environmental concern on the project site. According to a database records search of Geotracker, the project site is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not introduce impacts or create more severe impacts than those analyzed in the General Plan EIR. No additional analysis is required. c) Exposure of Schools to Hazardous Materials or Emissions Would the project: Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Summary of the General Plan EIR
According to the General Plan EIR, the General Plan will result in less than significant impacts from the use, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials and wastes within 0.25 mile of a school. The General Plan EIR concluded that the siting of future schools is not subject to the City’s land use authority. Therefore, the General Plan would have no effect on the location of future school sites.

Future development in proximity to an existing or already planned school site would be subject to City review concerning potential environmental effects, in accordance with the City’s routine CEQA compliance procedures. If potentially significant impacts are identified, mitigation and avoidance measures would be implemented to reduce these impacts to less than significant levels. As a result, the General Plan EIR concluded the General Plan would have less than significant impacts regarding emitting hazardous emissions within 0.25 mile of an existing or proposed school.

Agua Mansa Logistics Center Analysis and Conclusions
The nearest school is Woodrow Wilson Elementary School located approximately 0.92-mile northeast of the project site. While the project may involve minimal routine transport, use or 44 Partner Engineering and Science, Inc. 2019. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report, CalPortland parcel Agua Mansa APNs 0260-072-08, -12 and -13, and 0275-041-07, -08, -09, -27, -28, -29, -30, and -31. South Side of Agua Mansa Road Colton, California 92324.

1.1.e
Packet Pg. 196 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4157 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for City of Colton–Agua Mansa Logistics Center Project
Findings Initial Study/Consistency Checklist
118 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 handling of minimal quantities of hazardous substances, it would comply with all applicable federal, State, and local regulations to reduce potential impacts on hazardous emissions for nearby schools.

Therefore, the Proposed Project would not introduce impacts or create more severe impacts than those analyzed in the General Plan EIR. No additional analysis is required. d) Hazardous Materials Sites
Would the project: Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? Summary of the General Plan EIR
The General Plan EIR determined that impacts to development and persons due to building siting on contaminated properties will be less than significant with implementation of MM 4.8.D-1. MM 4.8.D1 requires that site assessments be conducted prior to project approvals to identify any contamination; the measure also sets performance standards for cleanup prior to approval of development or redevelopment projects. The General Plan EIR noted this would ensure that as properties within the City are developed and recycled, site contamination is removed and impacts to persons and other resources would be reduced to less than significant levels.

Agua Mansa Logistics Center Analysis and Conclusions
The Proposed Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment because it is not located on a site included on a list of hazardous materials sites pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. The nearest cleanup program site is located at 120 South Rancho Avenue, approximately 0.21-mile east of the site. The cleanup status is complete and was closed as of June 1993.45 The next nearest cleanup program site identified is located at 1150 South Rancho Avenue, approximately 0.4-mile east of the site. The cleanup status is complete and was closed as of April 2000.46 All necessary remediation has been completed for these cleanup sites and would not impact the Proposed Project. As such, the Proposed Project would not introduce new or more severe impacts than what was previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR. No additional analysis is required.
45 California State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board). 2021. GeoTracker – Country Club Tow & Storage (T0607100187). Website: https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/profile_report.asp?global_id=T0607100187. Accessed January 3, 2022. 46 California State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board). 2021. GeoTracker – Rancho Ready Mix (T0607100612).

Website: https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/profile_report.asp?global_id=T0607100612. Accessed January 3, 2022.

1.1.e
Packet Pg. 197 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4157 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for City of Colton–Agua Mansa Logistics Center Project
Initial Study/Consistency Checklist Findings
FirstCarbon Solutions 119 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0237/02370034/Checklist/02370034 Agua Mansa Logistics Center Checklist_cs.docx e) Airports
Would the project: For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area?
Summary of the General Plan EIR
According to the General Plan EIR, no impacts related to operation of public or private airports could occur. The General Plan EIR concluded that no private or public airports are located within or near the planning area. It was noted that the planning area is not within the boundaries of an airport influence map or plan and therefore, no impact would occur.

Agua Mansa Logistics Center Analysis and Conclusions
The project site is located approximately 5.2 miles southwest from the San Bernardino International Airport, approximately 5.2 miles northeast of Flabob Airport, and approximately 8.3 miles northeast of Riverside Municipal Airport. Because the Proposed Project is located more than 2 miles from the nearest airports, the Proposed Project would not result in a safety hazard for people working in the project area with respect to conflicts with applicable Airport Land Use Plans. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not introduce impacts or create more severe impacts than those analyzed in the General Plan EIR. No additional analysis is required. f) Emergency Response and Evacuation
Would the project: Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Summary of the General Plan EIR
According to the General Plan EIR, the proposed General Plan will not interfere with the implementation of the City’s emergency response and evacuation procedures. The General Plan does not include changes in the physical organization of the planning area that could interfere with the City’s emergency response or evacuation procedures. As a result, the General Plan EIR concluded no impact would occur regarding impairing implementation of or physically interfering with an adopted emergency or evacuation plan.

Agua Mansa Logistics Center Analysis and Conclusions
The Proposed Project would not interfere with existing emergency evacuation plans or emergency response plans in the area. No roads would be permanently closed as a result of the construction or operation of the project. 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. 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

1.1.e
Packet Pg. 198 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4157 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for City of Colton–Agua Mansa Logistics Center Project
Findings Initial Study/Consistency Checklist
120 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 Civil Engineer. As a result, a traffic control plan would be prepared should any temporary road closures be required for construction. Therefore, with a traffic control plan, the Proposed Project would not impair emergency access.

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. As such, implementation of the Proposed Project would not interfere with existing emergency evacuation plans or emergency response plans in the area. As a result, the Proposed Project would not introduce new or more severe impacts than what was previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR.

No additional analysis is required.
g) Wildland Fires
Would the project: Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
Summary of the General Plan EIR
According to the General Plan EIR, impacts due to wildland fires will be less than significant. The General Plan would not directly expose people or property to the threat of wildland fires. However, development allowed 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. In addition, new development could occur in a wildland fire hazard area through approval and implementation of projects in the Pellisier Ranch and Reche Canyon areas which are classified as a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ). To reduce potential impacts, the City adopted Section 701A of the CBC to minimize the potential for property destruction due to wildland fires. As a result, the General Plan EIR concluded that compliance with the CBC would reduce impacts to a less than significant level.

Agua Mansa Logistics Center Analysis and Conclusions
The project site is located outside of a VHFHSZ delineated by CAL FIRE.47 The Proposed Project would comply with the City’s General Plan policies, the City Municipal Code, the California Fire Code, and the CBC. Additionally, the nearest fire station is Station No. 213, located approximately 0.5-mile east of the project site. With compliance to policies and regulations that would reduce impacts from wildland fires and services available from the Fire Department, implementation of the Proposed Project would not expose people or structures to significant risk from wildland fires and potential impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level.

EIR Mitigation Measures
MM 4.8.D-1 Applications for new development projects requiring City discretionary approval shall include the results of a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (Phase I ESA), prepared in accordance with the latest ASTM protocol for such assessments. If the 47 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). 2021. Fire Hazard Severity Zones Viewer. Website:
https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/. Accessed January 3, 2022.

1.1.e
Packet Pg. 199 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4157 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for City of Colton–Agua Mansa Logistics Center Project
Initial Study/Consistency Checklist Findings
FirstCarbon Solutions 121 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0237/02370034/Checklist/02370034 Agua Mansa Logistics Center Checklist_cs.docx Phase I ESA indicates some evidence of site contamination exists that could require cleanup to avoid danger to people or damage to the environment, a Phase II level review shall be completed to fully characterize the nature and extent of such contamination, and the scope of required clean up procedures. The results of the Phase II assessment shall be considered as part of the CEQA compliance process prior to any action on the project.

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 hazards and hazardous materials 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.

1.1.e
Packet Pg. 200 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4157 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for City of Colton–Agua Mansa Logistics Center Project
Findings Initial Study/Consistency Checklist
122 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?
I. Hydrology and Water Quality
Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or
waste discharge requirements or otherwise
substantially degrade surface or
groundwater quality?
No impact No No No No
b) Substantially decrease groundwater
supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that the project
may impede sustainable groundwater
management of the basin?
Less than
significant
impact
No No No No
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including
through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river or through the addition of
impervious surfaces, in a manner which
would:

Less than
significant
impact
No No No No
(i) result in substantial erosion or siltation
on- or off-site;
Less than
significant
impact
No No No No
(ii) substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a manner
which would result in flooding on- or
off-site;
Less than
significant
impact
No No No No
(iii) create or contribute runoff water which
would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned stormwater drainage systems
or provide substantial additional sources
of polluted runoff; or
Less than
significant
impact
No No No No
(iv) impede or redirect flood flows? Less than
significant
impact
No No No No
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones,
risk release of pollutants due to project
inundation?
Less than
significant
impact
No No No No
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of
a water quality control plan or sustainable
groundwater management plan?
No
significant
impact
identified
No No No No

1.1.e
Packet Pg. 201 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4157 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for City of Colton–Agua Mansa Logistics Center Project
Initial Study/Consistency Checklist Findings
FirstCarbon Solutions 123 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0237/02370034/Checklist/02370034 Agua Mansa Logistics Center Checklist_cs.docx a) Water Quality
Would the project: Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? Summary of the General Plan EIR
According to the General Plan EIR, implementation of the General Plan will not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, or otherwise degrade water quality. In addition to complying with federal, State, and local regulations for water quality, the City currently inspects all commercial and industrial development and enforces structural and nonstructural BMPs to ensure compliance with the City’s Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Permit and eliminate such discharges. As a result, no impacts related to violated water quality standards would occur.

Agua Mansa Logistics Center Analysis and Conclusions
The analysis in this section is based in part on the Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) prepared for the Proposed Project by Thienes Engineering, Inc., on September 14, 2020, and the Preliminary Hydrology Calculations prepared for the Proposed Project by Thienes Engineering, Inc., on April 9, 2020, and revised on September 11, 2020. These documents are included as Appendix E.

The Proposed Project would develop two warehouse buildings, paved parking areas, and landscaping. As a result, the Proposed Project has the potential to release water pollutants during both construction and operation that may violate water quality standards and degrade surface or groundwater quality. The Santa Ana River is located approximately 150 feet south of the project site.

However, a levee would separate the project site from the Santa Ana River. During construction activity, runoff carrying eroded soils and pollutants could enter storm drainage systems, increasing sedimentation and degrading downstream water quality or be allowed to seep into the associated groundwater table.

Under the NPDES General Construction Permit (NPDES No. CAS618036, Order No. R8-2010- 0036) process, projects that disturb one or more acres of lands, such as the project, are required to obtain a permit before the start of construction activity. As a part of the NPDES General Construction Permit, the Proposed Project would be required to prepare and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) during construction in accordance with federal and State requirements.

The SWPPP would identify structural and nonstructural BMPs intended to prevent erosion during construction. Although construction activities have the potential to generate increased water pollution and sedimentation, compliance with applicable policies and regulations would minimize the potential to degrade water quality in downstream water bodies to the maximum extent possible.

Therefore, impacts related to surface and groundwater water quality would be reduced to a less than significant level.

Additionally, the Proposed Project would increase the amount of impervious surfaces as the project site is currently undeveloped with mostly pervious surfaces. Development of the Proposed Project would create stormwater runoff that may carry pollutants into downstream waterways. However, the Proposed Project also would adhere to federal, State, and local regulatory requirements to ensure the project is compliant with water quality standards. In addition, the Proposed Project

1.1.e
Packet Pg. 202 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4157 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for City of Colton–Agua Mansa Logistics Center Project
Findings Initial Study/Consistency Checklist
124 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 comply with the City’s Municipal Code Title 14, Storm Drains and Floodplain Management, Chapter 15.04, the California Building Code, and Chapter 15.18, Floodplain Management Regulations. As a result, the Proposed Project would not result in any peculiar effects and would not result in new or more severe impacts related to water quality standard violation and degradation beyond what was previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR. No additional analysis is required. b) Groundwater
Would the project: Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
Summary of the General Plan EIR
According to the General Plan EIR, impacts related to overdrafting of groundwater resources and lowering of groundwater levels will be less than significant based on existing standards and regulations. According to the General Plan EIR, future development could require additional water services from groundwater sources, or could impact groundwater recharge by increasing impervious surfaces, or by changing drainage patterns. The General Plan EIR states that all future water production is anticipated to come from local groundwater resources. With implementation of water conservation measures and programs for the long-term management of area groundwater basins, future groundwater recharge facilities, use of natural and drought-tolerant vegetation, and implementation of the policies and programs of City’s Water Department, as well as the provisions of the applicable UWMP and existing water rights adjudication, impacts were found to be less than significant.

Agua Mansa Logistics Center Analysis and Conclusions
The Proposed Project would not include groundwater wells and would connect to existing potable water lines. The Proposed Project would include a bioretention area and landscaping which would act as a filtration system. Based on the incremental amount of urban runoff that may be generated from the proposed industrial use and the incorporation of a bioretention area to capture urban runoff, development of the project site would not notably contribute to groundwater contamination.

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. c) Drainage
Would the project: Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
(i) result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; Summary of the General Plan EIR
The General Plan EIR determined that the General Plan will not directly change drainage patterns in the planning area because no land altering activities are authorized by the General Plan. However,

1.1.e
Packet Pg. 203 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4157 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for City of Colton–Agua Mansa Logistics Center Project
Initial Study/Consistency Checklist Findings
FirstCarbon Solutions 125 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0237/02370034/Checklist/02370034 Agua Mansa Logistics Center Checklist_cs.docx future development within the City is likely to change drainage patterns that could have the potential to result in on- or off-site erosion, siltation, or flooding. Short-term and long-term development activities could potentially result in erosion and siltation impacts as a result of alteration of natural drainage patterns. However, the City has adopted existing regulations that minimize erosion and sedimentation impacts. The floodplain management regulations of the Municipal Code are specifically designed to prevent and regulate unnatural diversion of drainage that could result in flooding in other areas and also addresses potential damage associated with fluvial erosion. Development of storm drainage facilities is subject to the standard designs of the City’s Engineering Division. Detail Standards Series 200 provide a uniform method for adequate construction of storm drain facilities including catch basins, pipe bedding, culverts, and drop inlets.

Implementation of these standards ensures that drainage facilities are designed to effectively transport stormwater and thereby minimize on-site and off-site flooding due to development associated with changes in drainage patterns. Therefore, sedimentation impacts caused by on- or off-site flooding will be less than significant with implementation of existing City standards.

Agua Mansa Logistics Center Analysis and Conclusions
The Proposed Project would include storm drains and County flood control located primarily along the eastern, southern, and southeastern boundaries of the project site. The Proposed Project would be required to comply with the City’s Stormwater Municipal Regional Permit, which requires LID techniques to minimize and treat stormwater runoff, and NPDES requirements during construction, which would minimize erosion or siltation impacts. The Proposed Project would include a bioretention area and landscaping that would further minimize erosion and/or siltation impacts.

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. (ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site;
Summary of the General Plan EIR
According to the General Plan EIR, impacts related to flooding will not occur as a result of implementation of the General Plan. If local and regional storm drainage/flood control systems are not expanded in conjunction with new development, there could potentially be increased flooding downstream of development areas. On-site flooding could occur if site flow patterns are not engineered correctly or if the amount of runoff from the site exceeds the amount that can be conveyed by stormwater control devices. The General Plan EIR found that vacant land within the urbanized portions of the City contribute to localized drainage conditions; however, development of these lands will not result in the major alteration of any streams or drainage courses because of the existing drainage infrastructure. The floodplain management regulations of the Municipal Code is specifically designed to prevent and regulate unnatural diversion of drainage that could result in flooding in other areas and also addresses potential damage associated with fluvial erosion.

Development of storm drainage facilities is subject to the standard designs of the City’s Engineering Division. Detail Standards series 200 provide a uniform method for adequate construction of storm drain facilities including catch basins, pipe bedding, culverts, and drop inlets. Implementation of these standards ensures that drainage facilities are designed to effectively transport stormwater and

1.1.e
Packet Pg. 204 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4157 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for City of Colton–Agua Mansa Logistics Center Project
Findings Initial Study/Consistency Checklist
126 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 thereby minimize on-site and off-site flooding. The General Plan EIR determined that impacts would be less than significant.

Agua Mansa Logistics Center Analysis and Conclusions
As previously mentioned, the Proposed Project would include storm drains and County flood control located primarily along the eastern, southern, and southeastern boundaries of the project site. The Proposed Project would be required to comply with the City’s Stormwater Municipal Regional Permit, which requires LID techniques to minimize stormwater runoff. The Proposed Project would include a bioretention area and landscaping that would further reduce stormwater runoff and would comply with the City’s standards. 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.
(iii) create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; Summary of the General Plan EIR
According to the General Plan EIR, impacts related to polluted urban runoff and storm drain capacity will be less than significant with implementation of existing standards and regulations. The General Plan EIR states that future development within the planning area could potentially increase stormwater flows into the existing storm drain system, mainly due to an increase in impervious surfaces that inhibit infiltration of stormwater. The increase in development and therefore impervious surfaces also increases the amount of urban runoff that generally increases pollutants within the stormwater. The City’s Engineering Department requires hydrology and stormwater discharge review during the City’s standard development review process. Conditions of approval are issued based on the project’s drainage needs pursuant to municipal NPDES permit requirements and standard engineering practices. NPDES and a WQMP are required.

Drainage design is required to comply with the City’s Master Plan of Drainage. Streets must carry the 10-year flood from curb to curb and the 100-year flood within its right-of-way. Retention basins must be sized to control the 100-year frequency flood with a minimum 2-inch per hour percolation rate.

Standard drainage analysis and design practices will ensure that future development does not exceed the capacity of the existing or planned storm drain system. Additionally, fees are required pursuant to Section 14.01.050 (Stormwater Management Charges, Collection, and Adjustments) to pay for operation, administration, maintenance, improvement, environmental restoration, and replacement of the existing and future storm drainage system. The General Plan EIR determined that with implementation of existing standards, impacts would be less than significant.

Agua Mansa Logistics Center Analysis and Conclusions
The Proposed Project would increase the amount of surface runoff generated on the project site because of an increase in impervious surfaces compared to existing conditions. The approval of the previous Agua Mansa Grading Project, which occurred on the project site while under the ownership of CalPortland, resulted in the diversion of stormwater to be retained on-site and that the new drainage system be designed to meet a 50-year storm event. The City requires that residential,

1.1.e
Packet Pg. 205 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4157 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for City of Colton–Agua Mansa Logistics Center Project
Initial Study/Consistency Checklist Findings
FirstCarbon Solutions 127 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/0237/02370034/Checklist/02370034 Agua Mansa Logistics Center Checklist_cs.docx commercial, and industrial projects retain all stormwater on-site, and that the new drainage system be designed to meet a 50-year storm event. In accordance with this requirement, the currently proposed drainage system design was reviewed by the City Public Works Department to ensure adequate capacity for the proposed use, in compliance with City standards.48 Additionally, consistent with the Construction General Permit, the Proposed Project would implement a SWPPP during construction, which would identify structural and nonstructural BMPs intended to prevent significant polluted runoff during construction. In addition, a WQMP was prepared for the Proposed Project by Thienes Engineering, Inc., on September 14, 2020, and the Proposed Project would install an on-site storm drainage system consisting of stormwater infiltration area on the eastern, southern, and southeastern boundaries of the project site. The Proposed Project also involves the construction of an on-site bioretention basin, which would further reduce flooding within the site. Off-site, the 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 storm drains and County flood control would be located primarily along the east and southeast boundaries of the project site and along the southern boundary. As a result, the Proposed Project would not introduce new or more severe impacts than what was previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR. No additional analysis is required.
(iv) impede or redirect flood flows?
Summary of the General Plan EIR
According to the General Plan EIR, impacts related to the diversion of floodwaters will be less than significant with implementation of existing City regulations. The General Plan EIR states that development within portions of the Santa Ana River area could potentially place structures within a floodplain, such as roads, bridges, commercial development, and drainage control facilities. These structures would be subject to the Floodplain Management Regulations (Chapter 15.18 of the Municipal Code). The General Plan EIR concluded that implementation of existing regulations will reduce impacts associated with the potential diversion of floodwaters to less than significant levels.

Agua Mansa Logistics Center Analysis and Conclusions
The Proposed Project is not located in an area prone to flooding or within a designated flood hazard zone. According to the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) Panel 06071C8686H, the Proposed Project is located within Flood Zone X, an area of minimal flooding hazard defined as outside the 0.2 percent annual chance (500-year) floodplain.49 Therefore, the Proposed Project would not impede or redirect flood flows compared to existing conditions. As a result, the Proposed Project would not introduce new or more severe impacts than what was previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR.

No additional analysis is required.
48 City of Colton. CEQA Initial Study, Agua Mansa Grading Project–CalPortland. November 2017. 49 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) Panel 06071C8686H. Website:
https://msc.fema.gov/portal/downloadProduct?productTypeID=FINAL_PRODUCT&productSubTypeID=FIRM_PANEL&productID=06 071C8686H. Accessed February 4, 2022.

1.1.e
Packet Pg. 206 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4157 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for City of Colton–Agua Mansa Logistics Center Project
Findings Initial Study/Consistency Checklist
128 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 d) Risk of Pollutant Release Due to Inundation
Would the project: In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
Summary of the General Plan EIR
According to the General Plan EIR, impacts associated with mudflows, tsunami, and seiche will be less than significant with implementation of existing City regulations.

Agua Mansa Logistics Center Analysis and Conclusions
As previously described in Impact(c)(iv) of this section, the project site is located in FEMA Flood Zone X, an area defined as minimal flooding hazard. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not be prone to flooding or within a designated flood hazard zone. The project site is not located near any large inland bodies of water or near the ocean. Additionally, the project site is not located in a low-lying area or a recognized tsunami hazard zone susceptible to inundation. 50 As a result, the Proposed
Project would not introduce new or more severe impacts than what was previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR. No additional analysis is required.
e) Water Quality Control or Sustainable Groundwater Management Plans Consistency Would the project: Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
Summary of the General Plan EIR
The General Plan EIR did not include a separate discussion of this issue. However, according to the General Plan EIR, water quality and waste discharge standards are adopted and enforced by the Santa Ana RWQCB through its Water Quality Control Plan (Resolution No. 94-01), also known as the “Basin Plan.” The Plan provides policies, objectives, and guidelines for the maintenance and improvement of water quality in surface and groundwater bodies. The Plan identifies existing and potential beneficial uses of the Basin’s waterbodies, including recreation, drinking water, and habitat. Water quality objectives set a wide range of requirements for water bodies that include aesthetic values, and maximum chemical and mineral loads. The NPDES program’s administration is the primary method for addressing point source pollution issues within the Basin. Nonpoint source pollution is addressed through the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) participation in the State-administered Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program.

Agua Mansa Logistics Center Analysis and Conclusions
The Proposed Project would be required to comply with the NPDES Construction General Permit, and prepare and implement a SWPPP that includes BMPs intended to prevent significant polluted runoff during construction. Furthermore, the Proposed Project would include operational LID stormwater design features that further prevent pollutants from entering stormwater or groundwater. The Proposed Project would not conflict with or obstruct a water quality control plan, 50 California Department of Conservation. California Tsunami Inundation Maps and Data. Website:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehouse/ts_evacuation/. Accessed February 4, 2022.

1.1.e
Packet Pg. 207 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4157 : 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.

1.1.e
Packet Pg. 208 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4157 : 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

1.1.e
Packet Pg. 209 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4157 : 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.

1.1.e
Packet Pg. 210 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4157 : 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

1.1.e
Packet Pg. 211 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4157 : 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.

1.1.e
Packet Pg. 212 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4157 : 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.

1.1.e
Packet Pg. 213 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4157 : 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.

1.1.e
Packet Pg. 214 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4157 : 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.

1.1.e
Packet Pg. 215 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4157 : 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.

1.1.e
Packet Pg. 216 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4157 : 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,

1.1.e
Packet Pg. 217 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4157 : 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

1.1.e
Packet Pg. 218 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4157 : 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.

1.1.e
Packet Pg. 219 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4157 : 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.

1.1.e
Packet Pg. 220 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4157 : 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.

1.1.e
Packet Pg. 221 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4157 : 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.

1.1.e
Packet Pg. 222 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4157 : 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.

1.1.e
Packet Pg. 223 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4157 : 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

1.1.e
Packet Pg. 224 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4157 : 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.

1.1.e
Packet Pg. 225 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4157 : 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

1.1.e
Packet Pg. 226 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4157 : 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.

1.1.e
Packet Pg. 227 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4157 : 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.

1.1.e
Packet Pg. 228 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4157 : 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.

1.1.e
Packet Pg. 229 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4157 : 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.

1.1.e
Packet Pg. 230 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4157 : 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

1.1.e
Packet Pg. 231 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4157 : 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.

1.1.e
Packet Pg. 232 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4157 : 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.

1.1.e
Packet Pg. 233 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4157 : 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

1.1.e
Packet Pg. 234 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4157 : 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.

1.1.e
Packet Pg. 235 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4157 : 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

1.1.e
Packet Pg. 236 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4157 : 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.

1.1.e
Packet Pg. 237 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4157 : 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.

1.1.e
Packet Pg. 238 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4157 : 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

1.1.e
Packet Pg. 239 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4157 : 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.

1.1.e
Packet Pg. 240 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4157 : 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.

1.1.e
Packet Pg. 241 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4157 : 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

1.1.e
Packet Pg. 242 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4157 : 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.

1.1.e
Packet Pg. 243 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4157 : 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.

1.1.e
Packet Pg. 244 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4157 : 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

1.1.e
Packet Pg. 245 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4157 : 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

1.1.e
Packet Pg. 246 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4157 : 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.

1.1.e
Packet Pg. 247 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4157 : 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.

1.1.e
Packet Pg. 248 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4157 : 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.

1.1.e
Packet Pg. 249 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4157 : 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.

1.1.e
Packet Pg. 250 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4157 : 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.

1.1.e
Packet Pg. 251 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4157 : 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

1.1.e
Packet Pg. 252 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4157 : 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.

1.1.e
Packet Pg. 253 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4157 : 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.

1.1.e
Packet Pg. 254 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4157 : 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

1.1.e
Packet Pg. 255 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4157 : 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.

1.1.e
Packet Pg. 256 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4157 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

1.1.e
Packet Pg. 257 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4157 : 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

1.1.e
Packet Pg. 258 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4157 : Appeal - Conditional Use Permit for

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

1.1.e
Packet Pg. 259 Attachment: Attachment 5_Environmental Document_Project Initial Study-Consistency Checklist (4157 : 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:

1.1.f
Packet Pg. 260 Attachment: Attachment 6_CC Reso No_R-59-23_DAP-001-815 (4157 : 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.

1.1.f
Packet Pg. 261 Attachment: Attachment 6_CC Reso No_R-59-23_DAP-001-815 (4157 : 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

1.1.f
Packet Pg. 262 Attachment: Attachment 6_CC Reso No_R-59-23_DAP-001-815 (4157 : 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.

1.1.f
Packet Pg. 263 Attachment: Attachment 6_CC Reso No_R-59-23_DAP-001-815 (4157 : 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

1.1.f
Packet Pg. 264 Attachment: Attachment 6_CC Reso No_R-59-23_DAP-001-815 (4157 : 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).

1.1.f
Packet Pg. 265 Attachment: Attachment 6_CC Reso No_R-59-23_DAP-001-815 (4157 : 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
RESOLUTION NO. R-73-23

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COLTON
GRANTS AN APPEAL AND MODIFIES THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S DECISION (FILE INDEX DAP 001-668) APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A BUILDING HEIGHT OF 130 FEET INSTEAD OF 50 FEET MAXIMUM FOR PARCEL 1 BUILDING 1, (LOCATED AT 1500 AGUA MANSA ROAD) (FILE INDEX NO: DAP-001-815).

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 sought City approvals to allow for the construction and operation of a new warehouse/office building at 1500 Agua Mansa Road (“Project”), including the approval of a Conditional Use Permit providing for a building height of 130 feet; and WHEREAS, the City has conducted an analysis of the Project, consistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15183 (“Section 15183 Analysis”); and WHEREAS, on February 28, April 11, April 25, and May 9, 2023 the Planning Commission of the City of Colton (“Planning Commission”) held duly noticed public hearings at which all persons wishing to testify in connection with the application were heard and the Project application was fully examined; and
WHEREAS, on May 9, 2023, the Planning Commission approved the Project, including the Conditional Use Permit for a building height of 95 feet, and found that the Project, 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; and
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 the provision of Conditional Use Permit in order to allow a warehouse building of 130 feet in height instead of 50 feet maximum located in the M-2 (Heavy Industrial) Zones within the Agua Mansa Historic District

1.1.g
Packet Pg. 266 Attachment: Attachment 7_CC Reso No R-73-23_Alternative Reso (4157 : 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-73-23
June 20, 2023 – Page 2 of 6
- 2 -
(“Modified Project”); and
WHEREAS, on June 20, 2023, and July 18, 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

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

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 Council’s independent judgment.

SECTION 2. COMPLIANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. As a decision-making body for the appeal, 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 Modified Project. Based on the Council’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 Modified 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 Modified 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 as it pertains to the Modified Project.

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 Modified 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.

1.1.g
Packet Pg. 267 Attachment: Attachment 7_CC Reso No R-73-23_Alternative Reso (4157 : 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-73-23
June 20, 2023 – Page 3 of 6
- 3 -

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 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 130 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 130 foot tall building, have been fully analyzed and addressed. The findings of the Transportation Impact Analysis does not demonstrate greater impacts resulting from a 130 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 130 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 130 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 130 foot tall building and the use it will facilitate, is not inconsistent with the purpose of the General Plan and Zoning.

In summary, the 130 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.

1.1.g
Packet Pg. 268 Attachment: Attachment 7_CC Reso No R-73-23_Alternative Reso (4157 : 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-73-23
June 20, 2023 – Page 4 of 6
- 4 -
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 130 foot tall 2-story 474,021 square-foot automated freezer facility. The majority of the building, the portion which is 130 feet tall contains the freezer unit and it utilizes an automated storage and retrieval system (ASRS). The system does not involve employees. The 130 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 130 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 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 130 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 130 feet tall instead of 50 feet. The construction method for the 130 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 grants the appeal and modifies 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 130 feet instead 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 grants the Appeal and modifies the decision of the Planning Commission approving the application (DAP-001-668) for a Conditional Use Permit.

1.1.g
Packet Pg. 269 Attachment: Attachment 7_CC Reso No R-73-23_Alternative Reso (4157 : 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-73-23
June 20, 2023 – Page 5 of 6
- 5 -
SECTION 11. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.

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

1.1.g
Packet Pg. 270 Attachment: Attachment 7_CC Reso No R-73-23_Alternative Reso (4157 : 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-73-23
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

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).

1.1.g
Packet Pg. 271 Attachment: Attachment 7_CC Reso No R-73-23_Alternative Reso (4157 : 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

1.1.h
Packet Pg. 272 Attachment: Attachment 8_ Plans for 95 foot high building (4157 : 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

1.1.h
Packet Pg. 273 Attachment: Attachment 8_ Plans for 95 foot high building (4157 : 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

1.1.h
Packet Pg. 274 Attachment: Attachment 8_ Plans for 95 foot high building (4157 : 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:

Colton City CouncilJuly 18, 2023

Colton City Council
July 18, 2023