Rancho Cucamonga City Council
January 5, 2022

CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO.

DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DRC2021-00175 – CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA January 5, 2022

such negotiations in good faith. If Buyer and Seller are unable, within sixty (60) days after delivery of such request, to agree upon changes to this Agreement or to resolve issues relating to changes to this Agreement, then any Party may submit issues pertaining to changes to this Agreement to the dispute resolution process set forth in Article 17. Notwithstanding the foregoing, (i) a change in cost shall not in and of itself be deemed to render this Agreement or any of the provisions hereof incapable of being performed or administered, and (ii) all of the unaffected provisions of this Agreement shall remain in full force and effect during any period of such negotiation or dispute resolution.

1.68. Further Assurances. Each of the Parties hereto agrees to provide such information, execute and deliver any instruments and documents and to take such other actions as may be necessary or reasonably requested by the other Party which are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Agreement and which do not involve the assumptions of obligations other than those provided for in this Agreement, to give full effect to this Agreement and to carry out the intent of this Agreement.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each Party has caused this Agreement to be duly executed by its authorized representative as of the date of last signature provided below.

CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
(Seller) (Buyer)
(Signature) (Signature)
(Type/Print Name) (Type/Print Name)
(Title) (Title)
(Date) (Date)

CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO.

DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DRC2021-00175 – CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA January 5, 2022

Appendix A – Definitions
“Affiliate” means, with respect to a Party, any entity that, directly or indirectly, through one or more intermediaries, controls, or is controlled by, or is under common control with that Party. “Arbitration" has the meaning set forth in Section 17.
“As-Available Facility” means a generating facility that is powered by one of the following sources, except for a de minimis amount of Energy from other sources: (a) wind, (b) solar energy, (c) hydroelectric potential derived from small conduit water distribution facilities that do not have storage capability, or (d) other variable sources of energy that are contingent upon natural forces other than geothermal.
“Available Capacity” means the rated alternating current (AC) generating capacity of the Facility, expressed in whole kilowatts, that is available to generate Product. “Bankrupt” means with respect to any entity, such entity:
(a) Files a petition or otherwise commences, authorizes or acquiesces in the commencement of a proceeding or cause of action under any bankruptcy, insolvency, reorganization or similar law, or has any such petition filed or commenced against it;
(b) Makes an assignment or any general arrangement for the benefit of creditors; (c) Otherwise becomes bankrupt or insolvent (however evidenced); (d) Has a liquidator, administrator, receiver, trustee, conservator or similar official appointed with respect to such entity or any substantial portion of its property or assets; or (e) Is generally unable to pay its debts as they fall due. “Baseload Facility” means a generating facility that does not qualify as an As-Available Facility.
“Business Day” means any day except a Saturday, Sunday, a Federal Reserve Bank holiday, or the Friday following Thanksgiving during the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. local time for the relevant Party’s principal place of business where the relevant Party in each instance shall be the Party from whom the notice, payment or delivery is being sent. “CAISO” means the California Independent System Operator Corporation or any successor entity performing similar functions.
“CAISO Grid” means the system of transmission lines and associated facilities that have been placed under the CAISO’s operational control.

CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO.

DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DRC2021-00175 – CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA January 5, 2022

“CAISO Tariff” means the CAISO FERC Electric Tariff, Fifth Replacement Volume No. 1, as amended from time to time.
“California Renewables Portfolio Standard” means the renewable energy program and policies codified in California Public Utilities Code Sections 399.11 through 399.33 and California Public Resources Code Sections 25740 through 25751, as such provisions may be amended or supplemented from time to time.
“Capacity Attributes” means any current or future defined characteristic, certificate, tag, credit, or ancillary service attribute, whether general in nature or specific as to the location or any other attribute of the Project, intended to value any aspect of the capacity of the Project to produce Energy or ancillary services, including, but not limited to, any accounting construct so that the full Contract Capacity of the Project may be counted toward a Resource Adequacy Requirement or any other measure by the CPUC, the CAISO, the FERC, or any other entity invested with the authority under federal or state Law, to require Buyer to procure, or to procure at Buyer’s expense, Resource Adequacy Benefits or other such products.
“CEC” means the California Energy Commission or its successor agency. “CEC Certification” means certification by the CEC that the Facility is an ERR and that all Energy produced by the Facility qualifies as generation from an ERR. “CEC Pre-Certification” means provisional certification of the proposed Facility as an ERR by the CEC upon submission by a facility of a complete application and required supplemental information.
“Check Meter” means the Buyer revenue-quality meter section(s) or meter(s), which Buyer may require at its discretion, and which will include those devices normally supplied by Buyer or Seller under the applicable utility electric service requirements. “City Manager” means the City Manager of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. “Claiming Party” has the meaning set forth in Section 10.2. “Commercial Operation” means the Contract Capacity has been installed and the Facility is operating and able to produce and deliver the Product to Buyer pursuant to the terms of this Agreement.
“Commercial Operation Date” means the date on which the Facility achieves Commercial Operation.
“Contract Capacity” means the amount of electric energy generating capacity, set forth in Section 3.1, that Seller commits to install at the Site. “Contract Price” has the meaning set forth in Section 3.6.

CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO.

DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DRC2021-00175 – CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA January 5, 2022

“Contract Quantity” has the meaning set forth in Section 3.2. “Contract Year” means a period of twelve (12) consecutive months with the first Contract Year commencing on the Commercial Operation Date and each subsequent Contract Year commencing on the anniversary of the Commercial Operation Date.
“Costs” means (a) brokerage fees, commissions and other similar third-party transaction costs and expenses reasonably incurred either in terminating any arrangement pursuant to which it has hedged its obligations or in entering into new arrangements which replace the Transaction; and (b) all reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses incurred in connection with the termination of the Transaction. “CPUC” means the California Public Utilities Commission, or successor entity. “Credit Rating” means, with respect to any entity, (a) the rating then assigned to such entity’s unsecured senior long-term debt obligations (not supported by third party credit enhancements), or (b) if such entity does not have a rating for its unsecured senior long-term debt obligations, then the rating assigned to such entity as an issuer rating by S&P and/or Moody’s. If the entity is rated by both S&P and Moody’s and such ratings are not equivalent, the lower of the two ratings shall determine the Credit Rating. If the entity is rated by either S&P or Moody’s, but not both, then the available rating shall determine the Credit Rating.
“Current Inverters” means devices used to convert DC electric energy to alternating current electric energy.
“Curtailment Order” means any instruction from Buyer to Seller to reduce the delivery of Energy from the Facility for any reason other than as set forth in Sections 3.6.3 (a) or (b). “DC” means direct current.
“DC Collection System” means the DC equipment, cables, components, devices and materials that interconnect the Photovoltaic Modules with the Current Inverters. “Delivered Energy” means all Energy produced from the Facility and delivered by Seller to the Delivery Point, expressed in kWh, as recorded by the meter specified in Section 6.2.1 or the Check Meter, as applicable.
“Delivery Point” has the meaning set forth in Section 2.5. “Delivery Term” has the meaning set forth in Section 3.5. “Early Termination Date” has the meaning set forth in Section 12.3. “Eligible Renewable Energy Resource” or “ERR” has the meaning set forth in Public Utilities Code Sections 399.12 or Section 399.16 and California Public Resources Code Section 25741, as these code provision may be amended or supplemented from time to time.

CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO.

DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DRC2021-00175 – CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA January 5, 2022

“Emergency” means (a) an actual or imminent condition or situation which jeopardizes the integrity of the electric system or the integrity of any other systems to which the electric system is connected or any condition so defined and declared by the CAISO; or (b) an emergency condition as defined under an Interconnection Agreement and any abnormal interconnection or system condition that requires automatic or immediate manual action to prevent or limit loss of load or generation supply, that could adversely affect the reliability of the electric system or generation supply, that could adversely affect the reliability of any interconnected system, or that could otherwise pose a threat to public safety.
“Energy” means three-phase, 60-cycle alternating current electric energy measured in kWh, net of Station Use. For purposes of the definition of “Green Attributes,” the word “energy” shall have the meaning set forth in this definition.
“Execution Date” means the latest signature date found at the end of the Agreement. “Facility” has the meaning set forth in Section 2. The terms “Facility” or “Project” as used in this Agreement are interchangeable.
“FERC” means the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission or any successor government agency.
“Force Majeure” means an event or circumstance which prevents one Party from performing its obligations under the Agreement, which event or circumstance was not anticipated as of the Execution Date, which is not within the reasonable control of, or the result of the negligence of, the Claiming Party, and which, by the exercise of due diligence, the Claiming Party is unable to overcome or avoid or cause to be avoided, including war, riot, civil disturbance or disobedience, terrorism, sabotage, strike or labor dispute. Force Majeure does not include: (a) the lack of wind, sun, or other fuel source of an inherently intermittent nature; (b) reductions in generation from the Facility resulting from ordinary wear and tear, deferred maintenance or operator error; or (c) any delay in providing, or cancellation of, interconnection service by a Transmission/Distribution Owner or the CAISO, except to the extent such delay or cancellation is the result of a Force Majeure claimed by the Transmission/Distribution Owner or the CAISO. Force Majeure may include delays in performance or inability to perform or comply with the terms and conditions of this Agreement due to delays in obtaining necessary equipment, labor, or materials or other issues caused by or attributable to pandemics or epidemics, including the disease designated COVID-19 or the related virus designated SARS-CoV-2 or any mutations thereof (collectively, “COVID-19”), if the elements of Force Majeure defined in the first sentence hereof (other than the requirement that the event or circumstance was not anticipated as of the date the Agreement was agreed to) have been satisfied; provided, however, that the general existence of COVID-19 shall not be sufficient to prove the existence of a Force Majeure absent a showing of other facts and circumstances which in the aggregate establish that a Force Majeure as defined in the first sentence hereof (other than the requirement that the event or circumstance was not anticipated as of the date the Agreement was agreed to) has occurred.

CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO.

DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DRC2021-00175 – CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA January 5, 2022

“Gains” means with respect to any Party, an amount equal to the present value of the economic benefit to it, if any (exclusive of Costs), resulting from the termination of the Transaction, determined in a commercially reasonable manner, subject to Section 12.5. Factors used in determining economic benefit may include, without limitation, reference to information either available to it internally or supplied by one or more third parties, including, without limitation, quotations (either firm or indicative) of relevant rates, prices, yields, yield curves, volatilities, spreads or other relevant market data in the relevant markets, market price referent, market prices for a comparable transaction, forward price curves based on economic analysis of the relevant markets, settlement prices for a comparable transaction at liquid trading platforms (e.g., NYMEX), all of which should be calculated for the remaining Delivery Term to determine the value of the Product. “Governmental Authority” means any federal, state, local or municipal government, governmental department, commission, board, bureau, agency, or instrumentality, or any judicial, regulatory or administrative body, having jurisdiction as to the matter in question. “Governmental Charges” has the meaning set forth in Section 13.1. “Green Attributes” means any and all credits, benefits, emissions reductions, offsets, and allowances, howsoever entitled, attributable to the generation from the Project, and its avoided emission of pollutants. Green Attributes include but are not limited to Renewable Energy Credits, as well as: (1) any avoided emission of pollutants to the air, soil or water such as sulfur oxides (SOx), nitrogen oxides (NOx), carbon monoxide (CO) and other pollutants; (2) any avoided emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, sulfur hexafluoride and other greenhouse gases (GHGs) that have been determined by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or otherwise by law, to contribute to the actual or potential threat of altering the Earth’s climate by trapping heat in the atmosphere; (3) the reporting rights to these avoided emissions, such as Green Tag Reporting Rights. Green Tag Reporting Rights are the right of a Green Tag Purchaser to report the ownership of accumulated Green Tags in compliance with federal or state law, if applicable, and to a federal or state agency or any other party at the Green Tag Purchaser’s discretion, and include without limitation those Green Tag Reporting Rights accruing under Section 1605(b) of The Energy Policy Act of 1992 and any present or future federal, state, or local law, regulation or bill, and international or foreign emissions trading program. Green Tags are accumulated on a MWh basis and one Green Tag represents the Green Attributes associated with one (1) MWh of Energy. Green Attributes do not include (i) any energy, capacity, reliability or other power attributes from the Project, (ii) production tax credits associated with the construction or operation of the Project and other financial incentives in the form of credits, reductions, or allowances associated with the project that are applicable to a state or federal income taxation obligation, (iii) fuel- related subsidies or “tipping fees” that may be paid to Seller to accept certain fuels, or local subsidies received by the generator for the destruction of particular preexisting pollutants or the promotion of local environmental benefits, or (iv) emission reduction credits encumbered or used by the Project for compliance with local, state, or federal operating and/or air quality permits. If the Project is a biomass or biogas facility and Seller receives any tradable Green Attributes based on the greenhouse gas reduction benefits or other emission offsets attributed to its fuel usage, it shall provide Buyer with

CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO.

DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DRC2021-00175 – CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA January 5, 2022

sufficient Green Attributes to ensure that there are zero net emissions associated with the production of electricity from the Project.
“Interconnection Agreement” means the small generator interconnection agreement entered into separately between Seller, Transmission/Distribution Owner, and CAISO (as appropriate) obtained by Seller pursuant to Transmission/Distribution Owner’s Wholesale Distribution Tariff. “Interconnection Facilities” has the meaning set forth in the tariff applicable to the Seller’s Interconnection Agreement.
“Interconnection Point” has the meaning set forth in Section 2.3. “Interest Rate” means the rate per annum equal to the “Monthly” Federal Funds Rate (as reset on a monthly basis based on the latest month for which such rate is available) as reported in Federal Reserve Bank Publication H.15-519, or its successor publication. “JAMS” means JAMS, Inc. or its successor entity, a judicial arbitration and mediation service. “kW” means kilowatt.
“kWh” means kilowatt-hour.
“kWPDC” means peak DC power.
“Law” means any statute, law, treaty, rule, regulation, ordinance, code, permit, enactment, injunction, order, writ, decision, authorization, judgment, decree or other legal or regulatory determination or restriction by a court or Governmental Authority of competent jurisdiction, including any of the foregoing that are enacted, amended, or issued after the Execution Date, and which becomes effective during the Delivery Term; or any binding interpretation of the foregoing. “Letter of Credit” means an irrevocable, non-transferable standby letter of credit issued either by a U.S. commercial bank or a foreign bank with a U.S. branch office with a Credit Rating of at least “A-” by S&P and “A3” by Moody’s (without a “credit watch”, “negative outlook” or other rating decline alert if its Credit Rating is “A-” by S&P or “A3” by Moody’s). The Letter of Credit must be substantially in the form as contained in Appendix G to this Agreement; provided that if the Letter of Credit is issued by a branch of a foreign bank, Buyer may require changes to such form. “Losses” means, with respect to any Party, an amount equal to the present value of the economic loss to it, if any (exclusive of Costs), resulting from the termination of the Transaction, determined in a commercially reasonable manner, subject to Section 12.5. Factors used in determining the loss of economic benefit may include, without limitation, reference to information either available to it internally or supplied by one or more third parties including, without limitation, quotations (either firm or indicative) of relevant rates, prices, yields, yield curves, volatilities, spreads or other relevant market data in the relevant markets, market price referent, market prices for a comparable transaction, forward price curves based on economic analysis of the relevant markets, settlement prices for a

CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO.

DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DRC2021-00175 – CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA January 5, 2022

comparable transaction at liquid trading platforms (e.g. NYMEX), all of which should be calculated for the remaining term of the Transaction to determine the value of the Product. “Manager” has the meaning set forth in Section 17.2.
“Mechanical Completion” means that all equipment and systems that are necessary to generate the effective capacity of the Facility are installed. The Facility is mechanically, electrically, and structurally constructed with all control systems installed and connected. The Facility is functionally complete to the extent necessary to begin commissioning and testing of the Facility, though commissioning and testing need not have commenced.”
“MW” means megawatt (AC).
“MWh” means megawatt-hour.
“Notice,” unless otherwise specified in the Agreement, means written communications by a Party to be delivered by hand delivery, United States mail, overnight courier service, facsimile or electronic messaging (e-mail).
“Party” means the Buyer or Seller individually, and “Parties” means both collectively. For purposes of Section 16 (Governing Law) the word “party” or “parties” shall have the meaning set forth in this definition.
“Phasing Plan” means the plan submitted by Seller to the City of Rancho Cucamonga specifying the phases of the Project and the Contract Capacity associated with each Phase, and further, consistent with the requirements of Section 17.76.020 of Chapter 17.76 of (Alternative Energy Systems and Facilities) of Article IV (Site Development Provisions) of Title 17 (Development Code) of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code.
“Phasing Plan Transition Event” means the occurrence of an event that transitions the Facility from one Phase to a different Phase as specified in the Phasing Plan. “Photovoltaic Module” means the individual module or component that produces DC electric energy from sun light.
“Photovoltaic Module DC Rating” means, for each Photovoltaic Module installed or to be installed at the Site, the number (expressed in kWPDC) stated on the nameplate affixed thereto representing the manufacturer’s maximum (at “peak” sunlight) DC power rating at the standard test condition (“Pmp” or Power maximum at peak).
“Product” means all Energy produced by the Facility throughout the Delivery Term, net of Station Use and electrical losses from the Facility to the Delivery Point; all Green Attributes; all Capacity Attributes, if any; and all Resource Adequacy Benefits, if any; generated by, associated with or attributable to the Facility throughout the Delivery Term.

CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO.

DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DRC2021-00175 – CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA January 5, 2022

“Project” has the meaning set forth in Section 2. The terms “Facility” and “Project” as used in this Agreement are interchangeable.
“Prudent Electrical Practices” means those practices, methods and acts that would be implemented and followed by prudent operators of electric energy generating facilities in the Western United States, similar to the Facility, during the relevant time period, which practices, methods and acts, in the exercise of prudent and responsible professional judgment in the light of the facts known at the time the decision was made, could reasonably have been expected to accomplish the desired result consistent with good business practices, reliability and safety. Prudent Electrical Practices shall include, at a minimum, those professionally responsible practices, methods and acts described in the preceding sentence that comply with manufacturers’ warranties, restrictions in this Agreement, and the requirements of Governmental Authorities, WECC standards, the CAISO and Laws. Prudent Electrical Practices also includes taking reasonable steps to ensure that:
(a) Equipment, materials, resources, and supplies, including spare parts inventories, are available to meet the Facility’s needs;
(b) Sufficient operating personnel are available at all times and are adequately experienced and trained and licensed as necessary to operate the Facility properly and efficiently, and are capable of responding to reasonably foreseeable emergency conditions at the Facility and Emergencies whether caused by events on or off the Site;
(c) Preventive, routine, and non-routine maintenance and repairs are performed on a basis that ensures reliable, long term and safe operation of the Facility, and are performed by knowledgeable, trained, and experienced personnel utilizing proper equipment and tools; (d) Appropriate monitoring and testing are performed to ensure equipment is functioning as designed;
(e) Equipment is not operated in a reckless manner, in violation of manufacturer’s guidelines or in a manner unsafe to workers, the general public, or the Transmission/Distribution Owner’s electric system or contrary to environmental laws, permits or regulations or without regard to defined limitations such as, flood conditions, safety inspection requirements, operating voltage, current, volt ampere reactive (VAR) loading, frequency, rotational speed, polarity, synchronization, and control system limits; and
(f) Equipment and components are designed and manufactured to meet or exceed the standard of durability that is generally used for electric energy generating facilities operating in the Western United States and will function properly over the full range of ambient temperature and weather conditions reasonably expected to occur at the Site and under both normal and emergency conditions.
“Renewable Energy Credit” has the meaning set forth in Public Utilities Code Section 399.12(h), as may be amended from time to time or as further defined or supplemented by Law.

CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO.

DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DRC2021-00175 – CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA January 5, 2022

“Reservation Deposit” means the deposit submitted by Seller to Buyer at the time Seller submitted its application for an Industrial Zoning District Renewable PPA contract, which amount shall equal four dollars ($4.00) for each kilowatt of proposed alternating current (AC) generator capacity. Buyer shall return the Reservation Deposit to Seller once the Project achieves Commercial Operation by crediting Seller the full amount of the Reservation Deposit on Buyer’s first payment for delivered Product. Buyer shall retain the full amount of the Reservation Deposit in the event the Project does not achieve Commercial Operation by the Commercial Operation Date. “Resource Adequacy Benefits” means the rights and privileges attached to the Facility that satisfy any entity’s resource adequacy obligations, as those obligations are set forth in any Resource Adequacy Rulings and shall include any local, zonal, or otherwise locational attributes associated with the Facility.
“Resource Adequacy Requirements” has the meaning set forth in Section 4.4.1. “Resource Adequacy Rulings” means any other resource adequacy laws, rules or regulations enacted, adopted or promulgated by any applicable Governmental Authority, as such decisions, rulings, Laws, rules or regulations may be amended or modified from time-to-time during the Delivery Term.
“Restricted Period” has the meaning set forth in Section 12.8.1. “Settlement Amount” has the meaning set forth in Section 12.5. “Site” means the real property on which the Facility is, or will be, located, as further described in Appendix D.
“Site Control” means the Seller: (a) owns the Site, (b) leases the Site, (c) is the holder of a right-of-way grant or similar instrument with respect to the Site, or (d) prior to the Commercial Operation Date, has the unilaterally exercisable contractual right to acquire or cause to be acquired on its behalf any of (a), (b), or (c).
“Station Use” means energy consumed within the Facility’s electric energy distribution system as losses, as well as energy used to operate the Facility’s auxiliary equipment. The auxiliary equipment may include, but is not limited to, forced and induced draft fans, cooling towers, boiler feeds pumps, lubricating oil systems, plant lighting, fuel handling systems, control systems, and sump pumps. This use is not to exceed 1% of average annual output. “Term” has the meaning set forth in Section 3.4.1.
“Transaction” means the particular transaction described in Section 3.3. “Transmission/Distribution Owner” means any entity or entities responsible for operating the electric distribution system or transmission system, as applicable, at and beyond the Interconnection Point.

CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO.

DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DRC2021-00175 – CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA January 5, 2022

“WECC” means the Western Electricity Coordinating Council, the regional reliability council for the Western United States, Northwestern Mexico and Southwestern Canada. “WREGIS” means the Western Renewable Energy Generating Information System or any successor renewable energy tracking program.
“WREGIS Certificates” has the same meaning as “Certificate” as defined by WREGIS in the WREGIS Operating Rules and are designated as eligible for complying with the California Renewables Portfolio Standard.
“WREGIS Operating Rules” means those operating rules and requirements adopted by WREGIS as of December 2010, as subsequently amended, supplemented or replaced (in whole or in part) from time to time.
*** End of Appendix A ***

CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO.

DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DRC2021-00175 – CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA January 5, 2022

Appendix B – Commercial Operation Date Confirmation Letter In accordance with the terms of that certain Industrial Zoning District Renewable Power Purchase Agreement dated ________(“Agreement”) for the Facility named ________________________ by and between CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA “Buyer”) and ____________________ (“Seller”), this letter serves to document the Parties further agreement that (i) the conditions precedent to the occurrence of the Commercial Operation Date have been satisfied as of this _____ day of _________, ______. This letter shall confirm the Commercial Operation Date, as defined in the Agreement, as the date referenced in the preceding sentence.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each Party has caused this Agreement to be duly executed by its authorized representative as of the date of last signature provided below:

By: By:

CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
(Seller) (Buyer)
(Signature) (Signature)
(Type/Print Name) (Type/Print Name)
(Title) (Title)
(Date) (Date)
*** End of Appendix B ***

CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO.

DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DRC2021-00175 – CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA January 5, 2022

Appendix C – Forecasting Requirements
A. AVAILABLE CAPACITY FORECASTING.

Seller shall provide the Available Capacity forecasts described below. [The following bracketed language applies to As-Available solar or wind Projects only] [Seller’s availability forecasts below shall include Project availability and updated status of [The following bracketed language applies to solar Projects only] [photovoltaic panels, inverters, transformers, and any other equipment that may impact availability] or [The following bracketed language applies to wind Projects only] [transformers, wind turbine unit status, and any other equipment that may impact availability].] [The following bracketed language applies to As-Available Product only] Seller shall use commercially reasonable efforts to forecast the Available Capacity of the Project accurately and to transmit such information in a format reasonably acceptable to Buyer. Buyer and Seller shall agree upon reasonable changes to the requirements and procedures set forth below from time-to-time, as necessary.

1. Annual Forecast of Available Capacity. No later than (I) the earlier of July 1 of the first calendar year following the Execution Date or one hundred and eighty (180) days before the first day of the first Contract Year of the Delivery Term (“First Annual Forecast Date”), and (II) on or before July 1 for each calendar year from the First Annual Forecast Date for every subsequent Contract Year during the Delivery Term, Seller shall provide to Buyer a non-binding forecast of the hourly Available Capacity for each day in each month of the following calendar year in a form reasonably acceptable to Buyer.

2. Monthly Forecast of Available Capacity. Ten (10) Business Days before the beginning of each month during the Delivery Term, Seller shall provide to Buyer a non-binding forecast of the hourly Available Capacity for each day of the following month in a form reasonably acceptable to Buyer.
*** End of Appendix C ***

CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO.

DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DRC2021-00175 – CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA January 5, 2022

Appendix D – Description of the Facility
Seller should complete the information below and attach a description of the Facility, including a summary of its significant components, a drawing showing the general arrangements of the Facility, and a single line diagram illustrating the interconnection of the Facility and loads with Buyer’s electric distribution system.

Name of the Facility:

Address of the Facility:

Description of the Facility, including a summary of its significant components, such as for solar photovoltaic [Photovoltaic Modules, DC Collection System, Current Inverters], meteorological station, instrumentation and any other related electrical equipment:

Drawing showing the general arrangement of the Facility:

A single-line diagram illustrating the interconnection of the Facility with Buyer:

A legal description of the Site, including a Site map:

Longitude and latitude of the centroid of the Site:
*** End of Appendix D ***

CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO.

DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DRC2021-00175 – CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA January 5, 2022

APPENDIX E – INDUSTRIAL ZONING DISTRICT RENEWABLE PPA MILESTONES

AND EXAMPLE ACTION STEPS
Action Deadline Date Completed Responsible Party
Step 1: Submit Application Seller
Step 2: Approve Application Buyer
Step 3: Sign Conditional PPA Both
Step 4: Acquire Interconnection Agreement Seller
Step 4A: Submit copy of Interconnection Agreement to
Buyer Seller
Step 5: Submit confirmation of RPS precertification
requirement and provide Copy of precertification
application to Buyer
Seller
Step 6: File Project with WREGIS and submit proof to
Buyer. Seller
Step 7: Pay Interconnection Fee and submit proof to
Buyer. Seller
Step 8: Acquire Conditional Use Permit and
Construction Permits Seller
Step 8A: Submit proof of permits to Buyer. Seller
Step 9: Notify Buyer 10 days prior to construction start. Seller Step 10: Submit proof of insurance to Buyer. Seller
Step 11: Mechanical Completion. Seller
Step 12: Notify Buyer 30 days in advance of the
Commercial Operation Date. Seller
Step 12: Commercial Operation Date Seller
Step 13: Submit application for certification to CEC. Seller *** End of Appendix E ***

CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO.

DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DRC2021-00175 – CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA January 5, 2022

Appendix F – Delivery Term Contract Quantity Schedule
Dated: XXXXX XX, 20XX
Delivery Term Contract Quantity Schedule
Contract Year Contract Quantity (kWh/Yr) Phase Effective Date 1 Phase 1 XXXXX XX, 20XX
2 Phase 1 XXXXX XX, 20XX
3 Phase 1 XXXXX XX, 20XX
4 Phase 1 XXXXX XX, 20XX
5 Phase 1 XXXXX XX, 20XX
6 Phase 1 XXXXX XX, 20XX
7 Phase 1 XXXXX XX, 20XX
8 Phase 1 XXXXX XX, 20XX
9 Phase 1 XXXXX XX, 20XX
10 Phase 1 XXXXX XX, 20XX
11 Phase 1 XXXXX XX, 20XX
12 Phase 1 XXXXX XX, 20XX
13 Phase 1 XXXXX XX, 20XX
14 Phase 1 XXXXX XX, 20XX
15 Phase 1 XXXXX XX, 20XX
16 Phase 1 XXXXX XX, 20XX
17 Phase 1 XXXXX XX, 20XX
18 Phase 1 XXXXX XX, 20XX
19 Phase 1 XXXXX XX, 20XX
20 Phase 1 XXXXX XX, 20XX
21 Phase 1 XXXXX XX, 20XX
22 Phase 1 XXXXX XX, 20XX
23 Phase 1 XXXXX XX, 20XX
24 Phase 1 XXXXX XX, 20XX
25 Phase 1 XXXXX XX, 20XX
*** End of Appendix F***

CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO.

DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DRC2021-00175 – CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA January 5, 2022

Appendix G – Notices List
Name: ______(“Seller”) Name: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, a (“Buyer” or “RCMU”)
All Notices: [Seller to complete] All Notices:

Delivery Address: Delivery Address:

Street:

City: State: Zip:

Mail Address: (if different from above) Mail Address:

Attn: Attn:

Phone: Phone:

Facsimile: Facsimile:

DUNS: DUNS:

Federal Tax ID Number: Federal Tax ID Number:

Invoices: Invoices:

Attn: Attn:

Phone: Phone:

Facsimile: Facsimile:

Payments: Payments:

Attn: Attn:

Phone: Phone:

Facsimile: Facsimile:

Wire Transfer: Wire Transfer:

BNK:

ABA:

ACCT:

BNK:

ABA:

ACCT:

Credit and Collections: Credit and Collections:

Attn: Attn:

Phone: Phone:

Facsimile: Facsimile:

CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO.

DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DRC2021-00175 – CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA January 5, 2022

With additional Notices of an Event of
Default to Contract Manager:

Contract Manager:

Attn: Attn:

Phone: Phone:

Facsimile:
*** End of Appendix G***

CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO.

DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DRC2021-00175 – CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA January 5, 2022

Appendix H – FORM OF LETTER OF CREDIT
Issuing Bank Letterhead and Address
STANDBY LETTER OF CREDIT NO. XXXXXXXX
Date: [insert issue date]
Beneficiary: City of Rancho Cucamonga Applicant: [Insert name and address of Applicant]

Attention:

Letter of Credit Amount: [insert amount]
Expiry Date: [insert expiry date]
Ladies and Gentlemen:

By order of [insert name of Applicant] (“Applicant”), we hereby issue in favor of City of Rancho Cucamonga (the “Beneficiary”) our irrevocable standby letter of credit No. [insert number of letter of credit] (“Letter of Credit”), for the account of Applicant, for drawings up to but not to exceed the aggregate sum of U.S. $ [insert amount in figures followed by (amount in words)] (“Letter of Credit Amount”). This Letter of Credit is available with [insert name of issuing bank, and the city and state in which it is located] by sight payment, at our offices located at the address stated below, effective immediately, and it will expire at our close of business on [insert expiry date] (the “Expiry Date”).

Funds under this Letter of Credit are available to the Beneficiary against presentation of the following documents:

1. Beneficiary’s signed and dated sight draft in the form of Exhibit A hereto, referencing this Letter of Credit No. [insert number] and stating the amount of the demand; and

2. One of the following statements signed by an authorized representative or officer of Beneficiary:

A. “Pursuant to the terms of that certain [insert name of the agreement] (the “Agreement”), dated [insert date of the Agreement], between Beneficiary and [insert name of Seller under the

CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO.

DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DRC2021-00175 – CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA January 5, 2022

Agreement], Beneficiary is entitled to draw under Letter of Credit No. [insert number] amounts owed by [insert name of Seller under the Agreement] under the Agreement; or B. “Letter of Credit No. [insert number] will expire in thirty (30) days or less and [insert name of Seller under the Agreement] has not provided replacement security acceptable to Beneficiary.

Special Conditions:

1. Partial and multiple drawings under this Letter of Credit are allowed;

2. All banking charges associated with this Letter of Credit are for the account of the Applicant;

3. This Letter of Credit is not transferable; and

4. The Expiry Date of this Letter of Credit shall be automatically extended without a written amendment for a period of one year and on each successive Expiry Date, unless at least sixty (60) days before the then current Expiry Date, we notify you by registered mail or courier that we elect not to extend the Expiry Date of this Letter of Credit for such additional period.

We engage with you that drafts drawn under and in compliance with the terms of this Letter of Credit will be duly honored upon presentation, on or before the Expiry Date (or after the Expiry Date as provided below), at our offices at [insert issuing bank’s address for drawings].

All demands for payment shall be made by presentation of originals or copies of documents; or by facsimile transmission of documents to [insert fax number], Attention: [insert name of issuing bank’s receiving department], with originals or copies of documents to follow by overnight mail. If presentation is made by facsimile transmission, you may contact us at [insert phone number] to confirm our receipt of the transmission. Your failure to seek such a telephone confirmation does not affect our obligation to honor such a presentation.

Our payments against complying presentations under this Letter of Credit will be made no later than on the sixth (6th) banking day following a complying presentation.

Except as stated herein, this Letter of Credit is not subject to any condition or qualification. It is our individual obligation, which is not contingent upon reimbursement and is not affected by any agreement, document, or instrument between us and the Applicant or between the Beneficiary and the Applicant or any other party.

Except as otherwise specifically stated herein, this Letter of Credit is subject to and governed by the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits, 2007 Revision, International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) Publication No. 600 (the “UCP 600”); provided that, if this Letter of Credit expires during an interruption of our business as described in Article 36 of the UCP 600, we will honor drafts presented in compliance with this Letter of Credit within thirty (30) days after the resumption of our business and effect payment accordingly.

The law of the State of California shall apply to any matters not covered by the UCP 600.

CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO.

DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DRC2021-00175 – CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA January 5, 2022

For telephone assistance regarding this Letter of Credit, please contact us at [insert number and any other necessary details].

Very truly yours,
[insert name of issuing bank]
By:

Authorized Signature
Name: [print or type name]
Title:
*** End of Appendix H***

CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO.

DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DRC2021-00175 – CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA January 5, 2022

Appendix I – FORM OF CONSENT TO ASSIGNMENT

CONSENT AND AGREEMENT
This CONSENT AND AGREEMENT (“Consent and Agreement”) is entered into as of [_______ __, 2___], between CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA (“RCMU”), and [_________________] , as collateral agent (in such capacity, “Financing Provider”), for the benefit of various financial institutions (collectively, the “Secured Parties”) providing financing to [_______] (“Seller”). RCMU, Seller, and the Financing Provider shall each individually be referred to as a “Party” and collectively as the “Parties”.

Recitals
A. Pursuant to that certain Power Purchase Agreement dated as of _____________, 2___ (as amended, modified, supplemented or restated from time to time, as including all related agreements, instruments and documents, collectively, the “Assigned Agreement”) between RCMU and Seller, RCMU has agreed to purchase energy from Seller.

B. The Secured Parties have provided, or have agreed to provide, to Seller financing (including a financing lease) pursuant to one or more agreements (the “Financing Documents”), and require that Financing Provider be provided certain rights with respect to the “Assigned Agreement” and the “Assigned Agreement Accounts,” each as defined below, in connection with such financing.

C. In consideration for the execution and delivery of the Assigned Agreement, RCMU has agreed to enter into this Consent and Agreement for the benefit of Seller.

Agreement

1. Definitions. Any capitalized term used but not defined herein shall have the meaning specified for such term in the Assigned Agreement.

2. Consent. Subject to the terms and conditions below, RCMU consents to and approves the pledge and assignment by Seller to Financing Provider pursuant to the Loan Agreement and/or Security Agreement of (a) the Assigned Agreement, and (b) the accounts, revenues and proceeds of the Assigned Agreement (collectively, the “Assigned Agreement Accounts”).

3. Limitations on Assignment. Financing Provider acknowledges and confirms that, notwithstanding any provision to the contrary under applicable law or in any Financing Document executed by Seller, Financing Provider shall not assume, sell or otherwise dispose of the Assigned Agreement (whether by foreclosure sale, conveyance in lieu of foreclosure or otherwise) unless, on or before the date of any such assumption, sale or disposition, Financing Provider or any third party, as the case may be, assuming, purchasing or otherwise acquiring the Assigned Agreement (a) cures any

CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO.

DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DRC2021-00175 – CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA January 5, 2022

and all defaults of Seller under the Assigned Agreement which are capable of being cured and which are not personal to the Seller, (b) executes and delivers to RCMU a written assumption of all of Seller’s rights and obligations under the Assigned Agreement in form and substance reasonably satisfactory to RCMU, (c) otherwise satisfies and complies with all requirements of the Assigned Agreement, (d) provides such tax and enforceability assurance as RCMU may reasonably request, and (e) is a Permitted Transferee (as defined below). Financing Provider further acknowledges that the assignment of the Assigned Agreement and the Assigned Agreement Accounts is for security purposes only and that Financing Provider has no rights under the Assigned Agreement or the Assigned Agreement Accounts to enforce the provisions of the Assigned Agreement or the Assigned Agreement Accounts unless and until an event of default has occurred and is continuing under the Financing Documents between Seller and Financing Provider (a “Financing Default”), in which case Financing Provider shall be entitled to all of the rights and benefits and subject to all of the obligations which Seller then has or may have under the Assigned Agreement to the same extent and in the same manner as if Financing Provider were an original party to the Assigned Agreement. “Permitted Transferee” means any person or entity who is reasonably acceptable to RCMU. Financing Provider may from time to time, following the occurrence of a Financing Default, notify RCMU in writing of the identity of a proposed transferee of the Assigned Agreement, which proposed transferee may include Financing Provider, in connection with the enforcement of Financing Provider’s rights under the Financing Documents, and RCMU shall, within thirty (30) business days of its receipt of such written notice, confirm to Financing Provider whether or not such proposed transferee is a “Permitted Transferee” (together with a written statement of the reason(s) for any negative determination) it being understood that if RCMU shall fail to so respond within such thirty (30) business day period such proposed transferee shall be deemed to be a “Permitted Transferee”.

4. Cure Rights.
(a) Notice to Financing Provider by RCMU. RCMU shall, concurrently with the delivery of any notice of an event of default under the Assigned Agreement (each, an “Event of Default”) to Seller (a “Default Notice”), provide a copy of such Default Notice to Financing Provider pursuant to Section 9(a) of this Consent and Agreement. In addition, Seller shall provide a copy of the Default Notice to Financing Provider the next business day after receipt from RCMU, independent of any agreement of RCMU to deliver such Default Notice.
(b) Cure Period Available to Financing Provider Prior to Any Termination by RCMU.

Upon the occurrence of an Event of Default, subject to (i) the expiration of the relevant cure periods provided to Seller under the Assigned Agreement, and (ii) Section 4(a) above, RCMU shall not terminate the Assigned Agreement unless it or Seller provides Financing Provider with notice of the Event of Default and affords Financing Provider an Additional Cure Period (as defined below) to cure such Event of Default. For purposes of this Agreement “Additional Cure Period” means (i) with respect to a monetary default, ten (10) days in addition to the cure period (if any) provided to Seller in the Assigned Agreement, and (ii) with respect to a non-monetary default, thirty (30) days in addition to the cure period (if any) provided to Seller in the Assigned Agreement.

CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO.

DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DRC2021-00175 – CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA January 5, 2022

(c) Failure by RCMU to Deliver Default Notice. If neither RCMU nor Seller delivers a Default Notice to Financing Provider as provided in Section 4(a), the Financing Provider’s applicable cure period shall begin on the date on which notice of an Event of Default is delivered to Financing Provider by either RCMU or Seller. Except for a delay in the commencement of the cure period for Financing Provider and a delay in RCMU’s ability to terminate the Assigned Agreement (in each case only if both RCMU and Seller fail to deliver notice of an Event of Default to Financing Provider), failure of RCMU to deliver any Default Notice shall not waive RCMU’s right to take any action under the Assigned Agreement and will not subject RCMU to any damages or liability for failure to provide such notice.
(d) Extension for Foreclosure Proceedings. If possession of the Project (as defined in the Assigned Agreement) is necessary for Financing Provider to cure an Event of Default and Financing Provider commences foreclosure proceedings against Seller within thirty (30) days of receiving notice of an Event of Default from RCMU or Seller, whichever is received first, Financing Provider shall be allowed a reasonable additional period to complete such foreclosure proceedings, such period not to exceed ninety (90) days; provided, however, that Financing Provider shall provide a written notice to RCMU that it intends to commence foreclosure proceedings with respect to Seller within ten (10) business days of receiving a notice of such Event of Default from RCMU or Seller, whichever is received first. In the event Financing Provider succeeds to Seller’s interest in the Project as a result of foreclosure proceedings, the Financing Provider or a purchaser or grantee pursuant to such foreclosure shall be subject to the requirements of Section 3 of this Consent and Agreement.

5. Setoffs and Deductions. Each of Seller and Financing Provider agrees that RCMU shall have the right to set off or deduct from payments due to Seller each and every amount due RCMU from Seller whether or not arising out of or in connection with the Assigned Agreement. Financing Provider further agrees that it takes the assignment for security purposes of the Assigned Agreement and the Assigned Agreement Accounts subject to any defenses or causes of action RCMU may have against Seller.

6. No Representation or Warranty. Seller and Financing Provider each recognizes and acknowledges that RCMU makes no representation or warranty, express or implied, that Seller has any right, title, or interest in the Assigned Agreement or as to the priority of the assignment for security purposes of the Assigned Agreement or the Assigned Agreement Accounts. Financing Provider is responsible for satisfying itself as to the existence and extent of Seller’s right, title, and interest in the Assigned Agreement, and Financing Provider releases RCMU from any liability resulting from the assignment for security purposes of the Assigned Agreement and the Assigned Agreement Accounts.

7. Amendment to Assigned Agreement. Financing Provider acknowledges and agrees that RCMU may agree with Seller to modify or amend the Assigned Agreement, and that RCMU is not obligated to notify Financing Provider of any such amendment or modification to the Assigned Agreement. Financing Provider hereby releases RCMURCMU from all liability arising out of or in connection with the making of any amendment or modification to the Assigned Agreement.

CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO.

DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DRC2021-00175 – CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA January 5, 2022

8. Payments under Assigned Agreement. RCMU shall make all payments due to Seller under the Assigned Agreement from and after the date hereof to [__________], as depositary agent, to ABA No. [__________], Account No. [__________], and Seller hereby irrevocably consents to any and all such payments being made in such manner. Each of Seller, RCMU and Financing Provider agrees that each such payment by RCMU to such depositary agent of amounts due to Seller from RCMU under the Assigned Agreement shall satisfy RCMU’s corresponding payment obligation under the Assigned Agreement.

9. Miscellaneous.
(a) Notices. All notices hereunder shall be in writing and shall be deemed received (i) at the close of business of the date of receipt, if delivered by hand or by facsimile or other electronic means, or (ii) when signed for by recipient, if sent registered or certified mail, postage prepaid, provided such notice was properly addressed to the appropriate address indicated on the signature page hereof or to such other address as a party may designate by prior written notice to the other parties, at the address set forth below:

If to Financing
Provider:

Name:

Address:

Attn:

Telephone:

Facsimile:

Email:

If to RCMU:

Name:

Address:

Attn:

Telephone:

Facsimile:

Email:
(b) No Assignment. This Consent and Agreement shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the successors and assigns of RCMU, and shall be binding on and inure to the benefit of

CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO.

DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DRC2021-00175 – CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA January 5, 2022

the Financing Provider, the Secured Parties and their respective successors and permitted transferees and assigns under the loan agreement and/or security agreement. (c) No Modification. This Consent and Agreement is neither a modification of nor an amendment to the Assigned Agreement.
(d) Choice of Law. The parties hereto agree that this Consent and Agreement shall be construed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of California, excluding any choice of law rules which may direct the application of the laws of another jurisdiction. (e) No Waiver. No term, covenant or condition hereof shall be deemed waived and no breach excused unless such waiver or excuse shall be in writing and signed by the party claimed to have so waived or excused.
(f) Counterparts. This Consent and Agreement may be executed in one or more duplicate counterparts, and when executed and delivered by all the parties listed below, shall constitute a single binding agreement.
(g) No Third Party Beneficiaries. There are no third party beneficiaries to this Consent and Agreement.
(h) Severability. The invalidity or unenforceability of any provision of this Consent and Agreement shall not affect the validity or enforceability of any other provision of this Consent and Agreement, which shall remain in full force and effect. (i) Amendments. This Consent and Agreement may be modified, amended, or rescinded only by writing expressly referring to this Consent and Agreement and signed by all parties hereto.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of RCMU and Financing Provider has duly executed this Consent and Agreement as of the date first written above.

City of Rancho Cucamonga (RCMU)
By: _________________________________
Name: _______________________________
Title: ________________________________
[_________________________________]
(Financing Provider), as collateral agent

CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO.

DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DRC2021-00175 – CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA January 5, 2022

By: _________________________________
Name: _______________________________
Title: ________________________________

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The undersigned hereby acknowledges the Consent and Agreement set forth above, makes the agreements set forth therein as applicable to Seller, including the obligation of Seller to provide a copy of any Default Notice it receives from RCMU to Financing Provider the next business day after receipt by Seller, and confirms that the Financing Provider identified above and the Secured Parties have provided or are providing financing to the undersigned. [________________________][name of Seller]
By: _________________________________
Name: _______________________________
Title: ________________________________
*** End of Appendix I***

CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO.

DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DRC2021-00175 – CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA January 5, 2022

EXHIBIT“F”RCMU Line Extension
Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Utility ResponsibilityDeveloper Responsibility Approximate location of stub out for developer constructed infrastructure from here to building POC/switch gear. Final location to be coordinated with City’s Etiwanda Grade Separation Project and RCMU. Developer constructed line extension including RCMU interconnection point and private infrastructure from line extension to building POC/switch gear for electrical and fiberoptic infrastructure.Developer constructed infrastructure to include design and construction by developer of both electrical and fiberoptic communications infrastructure from stub outpoints shown above to the POC/switch gear and telecommunications room for each building.

N
Final design may include infrastructure within the County of San Bernardino’s jurisdiction. Developer to coordinate with the County and RCMU to obtain all necessary permits and rights-of-way to construct and maintain utility infrastructure outside of the City limits.

RESOLUTION NO. 2022-006

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING THE
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH No. 2020090076)
FOR THE “SPEEDWAY COMMERCE CENTER” PROJECT

WHICH PROPOSES THE DEVELOPMENT OF TWO NEW

INDUSTRIAL WAREHOUSE BUILDINGS TOTALING
APPROXIMATELY 655,878 SQUARE FEET ON AN
APPROXIMATE 35-ACRE PROJECT SITE LOCATED
APPROXIMATELY 650 FEET EAST OF ETIWANDA AVENUE
NORTH OF NAPA STREET – APNS: 0229-291-23, -46 AND -54,

MAKING FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, AND ADOPTING A

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
A. Recitals.

1.WHEREAS, Kimley-Horn and Associates, on behalf of Hillwood Enterprises, L.P., filed an application for Annexation DRC2020-00185, Prezoning DRC2020-00186, General Plan Amendment DRC2020-00184, Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM20251, Design Review DRC2020- 00177, Conditional Use Permit DRC2021-00317, Uniform Sign Program DRC2020-00178, and Development Agreement DRC2021-00175 for a development project as described in the title of this Resolution (collectively, the “Project”).

2.WHEREAS, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines, the City prepared an initial study for the Project and concluded that there was substantial evidence that the Project might have a significant environmental impact on several resources and determined that an EIR must be prepared for the Project in order to analyze the Project’s potential impacts on the environment.

3.WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Section 15082, on September 3, 2020, the City published a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of a Draft EIR for the Project, and circulated the NOP and initial study to the Office of Planning and Research, the County Clerk, responsible and trustee agencies, governmental agencies, organizations, and persons who may be interested in the application for a 30-day public review period.

4.WHEREAS, the City received comments from the Native American Heritage Commission, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, California Department of Transportation, San Bernardino County Department of Public Works, Inland Empire Biking Alliance, South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), Cucamonga Valley Water District (CVWD) and the Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA) in response to the NOP.

5.WHEREAS, after providing notice to the required tribes under AB 52 and SB 18, the City initiated consultation with one tribe in the area, the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians - Kizh Nation, and comments were also received from the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians, in accordance with the City’s obligations under AB 52 and SB 18.

6.WHEREAS, the City released the Draft EIR for a 45-day public review period beginning June 29, 2021 and ending on August 13, 2021. During the public review period the

CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 2021-006
HILLWOOD ENTERPRISES, L.P., “SPEEDWAY COMMERCE CENTER”, FINAL EIR

CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS
January 5, 2022
City of Rancho Cucamonga 2 January 2022
City received a total of 6 comment letters on the Draft EIR that required responses, and the City has prepared responses to each comment.

7.WHEREAS, the EIR concludes that with the inclusion of mitigation measures, the Project will not have a significant impact on any environmental resources.

8.WHEREAS, the City prepared a Final EIR in accordance with CEQA, which contains the City’s responses to comments, a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the Project, the Draft EIR as modified by the Final EIR, and all appendices.

9.WHEREAS, on December 8, 2021, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing where it reviewed the contents of the Draft EIR and Final EIR and all associated materials, and after concluding the hearing recommended that the City Council approve the Project and certify the Final EIR.

10.WHEREAS, on January 5, 2022, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the Project and concluded the hearing on that date.

11.WHEREAS, All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.

B. Resolution.

NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows:

1. Recitals. The City Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct.

2. Findings. Based upon the information and evidence set forth in the Final EIR, together with its appendices, and all other available evidence presented to the City Council during the above-referenced public hearing on January 5, 2022, including written and oral staff reports and public testimony, and upon the recommendation of the Planning Commission, the City Council hereby specifically finds as follows:
a. Agencies and interested members of the public have been afforded due notice and an opportunity to comment on the EIR and the Project. b. Section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines requires that the City, before approving the Project, make one or more of the following written findings for each significant effect identified in the Final EIR accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding:
i. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR;

CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 2021-006
HILLWOOD ENTERPRISES, L.P., “SPEEDWAY COMMERCE CENTER”, FINAL EIR

CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS
January 5, 2022
City of Rancho Cucamonga 3 January 2022
ii. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency; or iii. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR.

These required findings are set forth in the attached Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference.
c. Environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR that are found to have no impact are described in Section 3 of Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated by reference. d. Environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR that are found to be less than significant and do not require mitigation are described in Section 4 of Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
e. Environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR as potentially significant, but that can be reduced to less than significant levels with mitigation, are described in Section 5 of Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. f. No environmental impacts were identified in the Final EIR as significant and unavoidable despite the imposition of all feasible mitigation measures, and a statement further confirming this conclusion is provided Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
g. State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 and Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 requires the City to prepare and adopt a mitigation monitoring and reporting program for any project for which mitigation measures have been imposed to assure compliance with the adopted mitigation measures. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program is attached hereto as Exhibit B and is hereby incorporated herein by reference. Further, the mitigation measures set forth therein are made applicable to the Project. h. Prior to taking action on the Final EIR and approving the Project, the City Council specifically finds and certifies that: (1) the Final EIR was presented to the City Council; (2) the City Council reviewed and considered the Final EIR and all of the information and data in the administrative record, and all oral and written testimony presented to it during meetings and hearings; (3) the Final EIR is adequate and has been completed in full compliance with CEQA; and (4) the Final EIR reflects the City Council’s independent judgment and analysis. i. No comments or any additional information submitted to the City have produced any substantial new information requiring additional recirculation or additional environmental review of the Project under CEQA.

3. Determination. On the basis of the foregoing and all of the evidence in the administrative record before it, the City Council hereby certifies the Final EIR, adopts findings

CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 2021-006
HILLWOOD ENTERPRISES, L.P., “SPEEDWAY COMMERCE CENTER”, FINAL EIR

CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS
January 5, 2022
City of Rancho Cucamonga 4 January 2022
pursuant to the CEQA as set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, and adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by reference.

4. Location of Record. The documents and other materials, including the staff reports, technical studies, appendices, plans, and specifications, that constitute the record on which this Resolution is based are located in the Planning Department and are in the custody of the Planning Director, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730. All such documents are incorporated herein by reference.

5. Certification. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.

APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 5TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022.

CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:

L. Dennis Michael, Mayor
I, Janice C. Reynolds, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 5th day of January 2022, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ATTEST: _______________________________
City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga

CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 2021-006
HILLWOOD ENTERPRISES, L.P., “SPEEDWAY COMMERCE CENTER”, FINAL EIR

CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS
January 5, 2022
City of Rancho Cucamonga 5 January 2022
Exhibit A
CEQA Findings and Facts in Support of Findings

FINDINGS OF FACT FOR
Speedway Commerce Center Project
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2020090076

LEAD AGENCY

CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
Sean McPherson, Senior Planner
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
(909) 774-4302
January 2021

Speedway Commerce Center Project
Findings of Fact Introduction
City of Rancho Cucamonga i January 2022

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section 1: Introduction 1

1.1 Purpose ................................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Records of Proceedings .......................................................................................... 2

1.3 Custodian and Location of Records......................................................................... 3

1.4 CEQA Findings of Independent Judgment, Review and Analysis ........................... 4 Section 2: General CEQA Findings 5
Section 3: Environmental Impacts Found to Have No Impact 7 Aesthetics ...........................................................................................................................7 Agriculture and Forestry Services ......................................................................................7 Air Quality ...........................................................................................................................9 Biological Resources ........................................................................................................10 Geology and Soils ............................................................................................................11 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ...................................................................................12 Land Use and Planning ....................................................................................................13 Noise ................................................................................................................................14 Population and Housing ...................................................................................................14 Public Services and Recreation........................................................................................14 Wildfire..............................................................................................................................15 Section 4: Environmental Impacts Found to be Less Than Significant (No Mitigation Required) 17 Aesthetics .........................................................................................................................17 Air Quality .........................................................................................................................18 Biological Resources ........................................................................................................19 Cultural Resources ...........................................................................................................19 Energy ..............................................................................................................................20 Geology and Soils ............................................................................................................21 Greenhouse Gas Emissions.............................................................................................22 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ...................................................................................22 Hydrology and Water Quality............................................................................................23 Land Use and Planning ....................................................................................................27 Noise ................................................................................................................................28 Population and Housing ...................................................................................................29 Public Services and Recreation........................................................................................30 Transportation ..................................................................................................................31 Utilities and Service Systems ...........................................................................................33 Section 5: Environmental Impacts Found to be Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated 37
Air Quality .........................................................................................................................37 Biological Resources ........................................................................................................39 Cultural Resources ...........................................................................................................41 Geology and Soils ............................................................................................................41 Greenhouse Gas Emissions.............................................................................................46 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ...................................................................................47 Tribal Cultural Resources .................................................................................................48 Section 6: Alternatives to the Proposed Project 51
Alternatives Rejected from Further Consideration............................................................51 Alternatives Selected for Further Analysis........................................................................52 Section 7: Additional CEQA Considerations 55
Significant and Irreversible Environmental Changes (DEIR Section 5.1).........................55 Growth Inducing Impacts (DEIR Section 5.2)...................................................................55

Speedway Commerce Center Project
Findings of Fact Introduction
City of Rancho Cucamonga ii January 2022
Mandatory Findings of Significance (DEIR Section 5.3)...................................................56 Section 8: General CEQA Findings 59
Section 9: Findings Regarding Recirculation 61
Section 10: Legal Effects of Findings 63

Speedway Commerce Center Project
Findings of Fact Introduction
City of Rancho Cucamonga 1 January 2022
Section 1: Introduction
This statement of Findings of Fact (Findings) addresses the environmental effects associated with the proposed Speedway Commerce Center Project (Project), as described in the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR). These Findings are made pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (California Public Resources Code [PRC] § 21000 et seq.), specifically PRC §§ 21081, 21081.5, and 21081.6, and the CEQA Guidelines (14 California Code of Regulations [CCR] 15000 et seq.), specifically §§ 15091 and 15093. The Draft EIR (DEIR) examines the full range of potential effects of construction and operation of the Project and identifies mitigation measures that will be employed to reduce, minimize, or avoid those potential effects.

In accordance with, and in furtherance of the mandates contained in California Public Resources Code Section 21002 and related case law, the Project design reflects the identification and implementation of feasible mitigation measures to lessen identified environmental impacts, and the FEIR presented includes information on the environmental effects of the Project, including effects that are mitigated and those that, despite the inclusion of feasible mitigation measures, remain significant and unavoidable.

1.1 Purpose
PRC § 21081, and CEQA Guidelines § 15091 require that the lead agency, in this case the City of Rancho Cucamonga (City), prepare written findings for identified significant effects, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding. PRC § 21081(a) affirmatively requires a lead agency make one or more of three possible findings in reference to each significant impact. In addition, PRC § 21081(b) requires an additional finding for impacts that include specific economic, legal, social, technological, and other considerations wherein the lead agency affirms that the project benefits outweigh the environmental impacts.

CEQA Guidelines § 15091 states, in part, that:
a) No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been certified which identifies one or more significant environmental effects of the project unless the public agency makes one or more written findings for each of those significant effects, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding. The possible findings are:
1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR. 2) Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency.

Speedway Commerce Center Project
Findings of Fact Introduction
City of Rancho Cucamonga 2 January 2022
3) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR.

In accordance with PRC § 21081, and CEQA Guidelines § 15093 (Statement of Overriding Conditions [SOC]), whenever significant effects cannot be mitigated to below a level of significance, the decision-making agency is required to balance, as applicable, the benefits of the project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve the project. If the benefits of a project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse effects may be considered “acceptable.” In that case, the decision-making agency may prepare and adopt an SOC, pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines.

Section 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines provides:
a) CEQA requires the decision-making agency to balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve the project. If the specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered "acceptable." b) When the lead agency approves a project which will result in the occurrence of significant effects which are identified in the final EIR but are not avoided or substantially lessened, the agency shall state in writing the specific reasons to support its action based on the FEIR and/or other information in the record. The statement of overriding considerations shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record.
c) If an agency makes a statement of overriding considerations, the statement should be included in the record of the project approval and should be mentioned in the notice of determination.

This statement does not substitute for, and shall be in addition to, findings required pursuant to Section 15091.

The FEIR identified potentially significant effects that could result from the project. The City finds that the inclusion of feasible mitigation measures as part of the approval of the Project will reduce all of those effects to less-than-significant levels.

As required by CEQA, the City, in adopting these Findings, also adopts a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the Project. The City finds that the MMRP, which is incorporated by reference and made a part of these Findings, meets the requirements of PRC § 21081.6, by providing for the implementation and monitoring of measures intended to mitigate potentially significant effects of the Project.

In accordance with the CEQA Statutes and Guidelines, the City adopts these Findings for the Project.

Pursuant to PRC § 21082.1(c)(3), the City also finds that these Findings reflect the City’s independent

Speedway Commerce Center Project
Findings of Fact Introduction
City of Rancho Cucamonga 3 January 2022
judgment as the lead agency for the Project (see Findings Section 1.4, CEQA Findings of Independent Judgment, Review and Analysis).

1.2 Records of Proceedings
For the purposes of CEQA and these Findings, the record of proceedings for the Project includes all data and materials outlined in PRC § 21167.6(e), along with other Project-relevant information contained within the City’s files. Specifically, the record of proceedings for the City’s decision on the Project includes the following documents, all of which are incorporated by reference and are relied on in supporting these Findings:
The Notice of Preparation (NOP), Notice of Availability (NOA), and all other public notices issued by the City in conjunction with the Project
All written comments submitted by agencies, organizations, or members of the public during the public review comment period on the NOP
The DEIR for the Project and all technical appendices, technical memoranda and documents relied upon or incorporated by reference
All written comments submitted by agencies, organizations, or members of the public during the public review comment period on the DEIR and the City’s responses to those comments, including related referenced technical materials and DEIR errata
The FEIR for the Project
The MMRP for the Project
All reports, studies, memoranda, maps, staff reports, or other planning documents relating to the Project prepared by the City or consultants to the City with respect to the City’s compliance with the requirements of CEQA and with respect to the City’s action on the Project All documents submitted to the City by other public agencies or members of the public in connection with the DEIR
Any minutes and/or verbatim transcripts of all information sessions, public meetings, and public hearings held by the City in connection with the Project Any documentary or other evidence submitted to the City at such information sessions, public meetings, and public hearings
All resolutions adopted by the City regarding the Project, and all staff reports, analyses, and summaries related to the adoption of those resolutions

Speedway Commerce Center Project
Findings of Fact Introduction
City of Rancho Cucamonga 4 January 2022
Matters of common knowledge to the City, including, but not limited to federal, state, and local laws and regulations
Any documents expressly cited in these Findings, in addition to those cited above, and any other materials required for the record of proceedings by PRC § 21167.6(e)

1.3 Custodian and Location of Records
The documents and other materials that, as a whole, make up the Record of Proceedings for the City’s actions related to the Project are located at the City of Rancho Cucamonga, Planning Department, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730. The City, as the lead agency for the Project, is the custodian of the Record of Proceedings for the Project.

1.4 CEQA Findings of Independent Judgment, Review and Analysis Under CEQA, the lead agency must (1) independently review and analyze the EIR; (2) circulate draft documents that reflect its independent judgment; (3) as part of the certification of an EIR, find that the report or declaration reflects the independent judgment of the lead agency; and (4) submit copies of the documents to the State Clearinghouse if there is state agency involvement or if the project is of statewide, regional, or area-wide significance (PRC § 21082.1[c]).

The Findings contained in this document reflect the City’s conclusions, as required pursuant to CEQA, for the Project. The City has exercised independent judgment, in accordance with PRC § 21082.1(c)(3), in the preparation of the EIR. The review, analysis and revision material prepared by the Project Applicant and its consultants, and the review, analysis, and revision of the EIR based on comments received during the public comment process.

Having received, reviewed, and considered the information in the FEIR, as well as any and all other information in the record, the City hereby makes these Findings pursuant to and in accordance with PRC §§ 21081, 21081.5, and 21081.6.

Speedway Commerce Center Project
Findings of Fact CEQA Findings: General
City of Rancho Cucamonga 5 January 2022
Section 2: General CEQA Findings
Pursuant to PRC § 21081 and CEQA Guidelines § 15091, no public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been certified which identifies one or more significant effects on the environment that would occur if the project is approved or carried out unless the public agency makes one or more of the following findings with respect to each significant impact:

1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigates or avoid the significant effects on the environment. [referred to in these Findings as “Finding 1”].

2. Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by that other agency. [referred to in these Findings as “Finding 2”].

3. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other consideration, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the environmental impact report. (The concept of infeasibility also encompasses whether a particular alternative or mitigation measure promotes the Project’s underlying goals and objectives, and whether an alternative or mitigation measure is impractical or undesirable from a policy standpoint. See, California Native Plant Society v. City of Santa Cruz (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 957; City of Del Mar v. City of San Diego (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 410). [referred to in these Findings as “Finding 3”].

The City has made one or more of the required written findings for each significant impact associated with the Project. Those written findings, along with a presentation of facts in support of each of the written findings, are presented below. The City certifies these findings are based on full appraisal of all viewpoints, including all comments received up to the date of adoption of these findings, concerning the environmental issues identified and discussed.

The mitigation measures adopted as part of the Project are feasible and mitigate the environmental impacts to the maximum extent feasible and possible as discussed in the findings made below. The FEIR includes minor clarifications to the DEIR. These changes made to the DEIR are shown in the FEIR in response to individual comments and are shown in strikethrough and underline text. Changes to mitigation measure, as shown in the FEIR Errata and MMRP, are also shown below in strikethrough and underline text.

Thus, it is the finding of the City that such clarifying changes as described in the FEIR, do not present any new, significant information requiring recirculation or additional environmental review under PRC § 21092.1 and CEQA Guidelines § 15088.5.

A MMRP for the Project has been adopted pursuant to the requirements of PRC § 21081.6 to ensure implementation of the adopted mitigation measures to reduce significant effects on the environment and

Speedway Commerce Center Project
Findings of Fact CEQA Findings: General
City of Rancho Cucamonga 6 January 2022
is included in the FEIR document. The City is the custodian of the documents and other material that constitute the record of the proceedings upon which certification of the FEIR for the Project is based, as described above in Section 1.3, Custodian and Location of Records.

It is the finding of the City of Rancho Cucamonga’s City Council that the FEIR, as presented for review and approval, fulfills environmental review requirements for the Project, and that the document constitutes a complete, accurate, adequate, and good faith effort at full disclosure under CEQA, and reflects the independent judgment of the City.

Speedway Commerce Center Project
Findings of Fact Environmental Impacts Found to Have No Impact City of Rancho Cucamonga 7 January 2022
Section 3: Environmental Impacts Found to Have No Impact For the following significance thresholds, the City finds that, based upon substantial evidence in the record, the proposed Project would have no impact; therefore, no mitigation is required, and no significant, unavoidable adverse impacts would occur.

Aesthetics
Impact 7.2-2: Would the Project substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
Basis for Conclusion: Roadways surrounding the proposed Project area include Napa Street, Etiwanda Avenue, and Whittram Avenue. As discussed in the City’s General Plan EIR, scenic routes within the valley area of the County (which includes the southwestern section of the County located south of the San Bernardino and San Gabriel Mountains), where the proposed Project is located, are located in the eastern section of the valley area near the cities of Loma Linda, Redlands, and Yucaipa and in the southwestern corner of the County. Other scenic routes are in the mountain and desert regions, where natural settings remain. The closest State-designated Scenic Highway is Route. 142, from the Orange County Line to Peyton Drive.1,2 The intersection of Peyton Drive and Route. 142 is approx. 14.5 miles southeast of the proposed Project site. There are no officially designated county scenic highways in the County.3 Given the distance between the proposed Project Site and the nearest officially designated state scenic highways, the proposed Project would not substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway. Therefore, no impacts to scenic resources would be anticipated under the Project or Alternate Project.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DEIR page 7.2.

Agriculture and Forestry Services
Impact 7.3-1: 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 non-agricultural use?
Basis for Conclusion: According to the California Department of Conservation’s California Important Farmland Finder and Exhibit 4.2-1: Farmland Resources from the City’s General Plan EIR, the proposed Project site does not contain Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, or 1 Caltrans. 2017. California Scenic Highways. Available at https://www.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=f0259b1ad0fe4093a5604c9b838a486a (accessed May 2020). 2 Caltrans. 2019. List of eligible and officially designated State Scenic Highways. Available at https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot- media/programs/design/documents/desig-and-eligible-aug2019_a11y.xlsx (accessed May 2020). 3 Caltrans. ND. Officially Designated County Scenic Highways. Available at https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot- media/programs/design/documents/od-county-scenic-hwys-2015-a11y.pdf (accessed May 2020).

Speedway Commerce Center Project
Findings of Fact Environmental Impacts Found to Have No Impact City of Rancho Cucamonga 8 January 2022
Farmland of Local Importance. 4,5 The site is classified as Urban and Built-Up Land by the Farmland Finder and Exhibit 4.2-1. In addition, the Project site has largely been graded and leveled. Because implementation of the Project would not involve the conversion of Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to non-agricultural use, no impact would occur.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DEIR page 7-6.

Impact 7.3-2: Would the Project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
Bases for Conclusion: According to the City’s General Plan Land Use Plan map (Figure LU-2 of the General Plan), the City does not have an agricultural land use designation. The City’s Development Code also does not have an agricultural zone, although agricultural uses are permitted under the following base zoning districts: Open Space (OS), Flood Control-Open Space (FC), and Utility Corridor-Open Space (UC).

Additionally, according to the City’s General Plan, there are no lands within the City that are under a Williamson Act contract; therefore, no impacts related to Williamson Act contracts would occur.

In addition, the Project site is classified as Urban and Built-Up Land by the Farmland Finder and according to Figure 6-9A: Prime Farmland – Valley Region from the County of San Bernardino General Plan, the Project site is not within a Williamson Act contract area. The Project site is zoned HI. According to Table 17.30.030-1: Allowed Land Uses and Permit Requirements by Base Zoning District, Agriculture Uses are not permitted under HI zoning.6 As a result, no impacts associated with agricultural zoning conflicts would occur.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DEIR page 7-6.

Impact 7.3-3: Would the Project 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))?
Impact 7.3-4: Would the Project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non- forest use?
Bases for Conclusion: The Project site would not conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by PRC Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g)) given that the property is zoned HI and surrounded by properties zoned HI, KC/SP – Kaiser Commerce Center Specific Plan and IR – Regional Industrial (KC/SP and IR by San Bernardino 4 Rancho Cucamonga. 2010. Rancho Cucamonga 2010 General Plan Update Draft Program Environmental Impact Report. Exhibit

4.2-1. Available at
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/micnzuy7wxmd8po/AABneqBoO_i2GiNyWkRX9OaRa?dl=0&preview=2010+General+Plan+EIR.pdf (accessed May 2020).
5 California Department of Conservation. 2016. California Important Farmland Finder. Available at https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/ (accessed May 2020). 6 Rancho Cucamonga. ND. Title 17 Development Code, Section 17.30.030 Allowed land uses and permit requirements. Available at http://qcode.us/codes/ranchocucamonga/view.php?topic=17-iii-17_30-17_30_030&frames=on (accessed May 2020).

Speedway Commerce Center Project
Findings of Fact Environmental Impacts Found to Have No Impact City of Rancho Cucamonga 9 January 2022
County). Adjacent and surrounding properties to the Project Site are urban and built-up with industrial and commercial uses. The Project Site is currently undeveloped. The majority of the site has been leveled and graded and is covered over in dirt and sparse ruderal vegetation. Development/redevelopment of the Project site would not result in rezoning of forest land as it proposes industrial warehouses or an E-Commerce building with office space that would not result in a conflict with the zoning of, or need for other rezoning of, other parcels within the City. Operation activities for the Project and Alternate Project would not involve logging, forestry, or agricultural uses. Therefore, no impacts associated with conflicts with existing zoning for forest land or timberland would occur.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DEIR page 7-7.

Impact 7.3-5: Would the Project involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
Basis for Conclusion: Due to the lack of existing farmland, forest lands, or areas zoned for agriculture, or timberlands on the Project site or immediately surrounding areas, development of the Project site would not involve changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use.

The nearest designated farmland and active agricultural operations are located approximately 2.25 miles northeast of the Project site. Construction of either the Project or Alternate Project would be limited to the same site and would not impact existing off-site agricultural operations. Further, operations for the Project and Alternate Project would not involve logging, forestry, or agricultural uses. Therefore, no impact would occur.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DEIR page 7-7.

Air Quality
Impact 4.1-1: Would the Project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
Basis for Conclusion: The Project area is within the South Coast Air Basin and therefore is under the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). The SCAQMD has two criteria used to determine consistency with the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). The Project would comply with both of the AQMP’s criteria. Therefore, the Project would be compliant with the applicable AQMP.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DEIR page 4.1-13 through 4.1-14.

Speedway Commerce Center Project
Findings of Fact Environmental Impacts Found to Have No Impact City of Rancho Cucamonga 10 January 2022
Impact 4.1-4: Would the Project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Basis for Conclusion: During construction, emissions from construction equipment, such as diesel exhaust, and volatile organic compounds from architectural coatings and paving activities may generate odors. However, these odors would be temporary, are not expected to affect a substantial number of people and would disperse rapidly. Furthermore, the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook identifies certain land uses as sources of odors. These land uses include agriculture (farming and livestock), wastewater treatment plants, food processing plants, chemical plants, composting facilities, refineries, landfills, dairies, and fiberglass molding. The Project would not include any of the land uses that have been identified by the SCAQMD as odor sources. As a result, the Project would not create objectionable odors.

Therefore, no impacts related to odors would occur.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DEIR pages 4.1-33 through 4.1-34.

Biological Resources
Impact 4.2.3: Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? Basis for Conclusion: The Project would not impact jurisdictional waters. The jurisdictional delineation performed for the Project site concluded that the Project site does not contain waters subject to the jurisdictions of the Corps, Regional Board, or California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). As such, the Project would not require a United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps, or USACE) Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404 Permit, a Regional Board CWA Section 401 Water Quality Certification or California Water Code (CWC) Section 13260 Waste Discharge Order, or a CDFW Section 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement. Therefore, no impacts to jurisdictional waters would occur.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DEIR page 4.2-30.

Impact 4.2.4: Would the Project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? Basis for Conclusion: The Project site is not located within a known migratory wildlife corridor nor does it serve as a wildlife nursery site. The site does not have any water resources that support fish species and the site would not be used as a migration corridor due to the presence of surrounding existing development/redevelopment. The Project site is predominately surrounded by areas that are disturbed, graded and roads that have been paved including Southern California Edison (SCE) utility properties and easement. Specifically, the Project site is adjacent to an approximate 425-foot utility easement to the west. To the north, west, and east boundary, the easement connects to substantially fragmented and previously disturbed/developed areas. The Project site is enclosed by existing fencing and is bounded by the BNSF railway to the north, Napa Street to the south, the fenced East Etiwanda Creek to the west, and

Speedway Commerce Center Project
Findings of Fact Environmental Impacts Found to Have No Impact City of Rancho Cucamonga 11 January 2022
the fenced San Sevaine Channel to the east. The fencing that encloses the site limits any wildlife movement. The Project proposes new walls around the property, which would continue to limit any access to the site for wildlife movement. Further, the site is highly disturbed, lacks natural habitat or topography, and is predominantly surrounded by development. Therefore, no impacts to migratory wildlife or corridors would occur.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DEIR page 4.2-30.

Impact 4.2.5: Would the Project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Basis for Conclusion: The Project and Alternative Project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. The City’s Development Code Section 17.80 protects trees from indiscriminate cutting or removal, with emphasis on the protection and expansion of eucalyptus windrows. The Biological Technical Report prepared for the Project did not identify any trees on the Project site, thus no trees would be removed during construction and the Project would be consistent with the City’s Municipal Code as it pertains to tree preservation. Because the site has been disturbed and there are no identified biological resources that are subject to such regulation, no impact would occur.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DEIR pages 4.2-31.

Impact 4.2.6: 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?
Basis for Conclusion: The Project site is not identified as a Conservation or Open Space Area in the City’s Open Space and Conservation Plan, as shown on Figure RC-1 of the City’s General Plan. Furthermore, the City does not have any areas that are covered by an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), Natural Community Conservation Planning Act (NCCP), or other approved State Habitat Conservation Plan. As a result, the Project would not conflict with an adopted HCP NCCP, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DEIR page 4.2.31.

Geology and Soils
Impact 4.5-4: Would the proposed Project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property?
Basis for Conclusion: Per Section 1803.2 Expansive Soil of the 1994 Uniform Building Code, “When the expansive characteristics of a soil are to be determined, the procedures shall be in accordance with U.B.C. Standard 18-2 and the soil shall be classified according to Table 18-1-B. The near-surface soils found

Speedway Commerce Center Project
Findings of Fact Environmental Impacts Found to Have No Impact City of Rancho Cucamonga 12 January 2022
by SoCalGeo generally consist of sands and silty sands with no appreciable clay content and soils were visually classified as non-expansive. Therefore, no impact related to expansive soils would occur.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DEIR page 4.5.19.

Impact 4.5-5: Would the proposed Project 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?
Basis for Conclusion: No septic tanks or other alternative wastewater disposal systems are planned for the Project, this as the Project would be connected to the Cucamonga Valley Water District’s existing sewer system. Groundwater and wastewater systems are further discussed in Section 4.18 Utilities and Service, of this EIR.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DEIR page 4.5.20.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Impact 4.7-3: Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
Basis for Conclusion: The nearest school site, Redwood Elementary School is located approximately 1 mile to the northeast of the Project site. Construction of the Project would involve the transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials on-site and off-site, which include fuels, paints, mechanical fluids, and solvents, but would not be present in such a quantity or used in such a manner that would pose a significant hazard to nearby schools. The routine transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials must adhere to federal, state, and local regulations for transport, handling, storage, and disposal of hazardous substances. Compliance with the regulatory framework would ensure Project construction would not create a significant hazard to nearby schools.

The Project does not propose any industrial uses which could generate hazardous emissions or involve the handling of hazardous materials, substances, or waste in significant quantities that would have an impact to surrounding schools. The types of hazardous materials that would be routinely handled would be limited to cleaners, paints, solvents, and fertilizers and pesticides for site landscaping, but would not be present in such a quantity or used in such a manner that would pose a significant hazard to nearby schools.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DEIR page 4.7-21.

Impact 4.7-5: For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the

Speedway Commerce Center Project
Findings of Fact Environmental Impacts Found to Have No Impact City of Rancho Cucamonga 13 January 2022
project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area?
Basis for Conclusion: The LA/Ontario International Airport is located approximately 4 miles southwest of the Project site. The Project site is not within the AIA, Safety Zones, Noise Impact Zones, Airspace Protection Zones or the Overflight Notification Zones (Maps 2-2 through 2-5 of the ONT ALUCP). Thus, the Project would not result in a safety hazard impact to people residing or working in the Project area, and no impact would occur.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DEIR page 4.7-22 through 4.7-23.

Impact 4.7-7: Would the project expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires? Basis for Conclusion: According to CAL FIRE’s Fire and Resource Assessment Program, FHSZ Viewer, the Project site is not located in or near a State Responsibility Area (SRA); the nearest SRA to the development site is located approximately 4 miles to north. The Project site is located in a Local Responsibility Area. In addition, the Project site does not contain lands classified as a very high fire hazard severity zone (VHFHSZ). The closest VHFHSZs are located approximately four miles to the north and south of the Project site. Review of Exhibit 4.8-2: Fire Hazard Severity Zones of the City’s 2010 General Plan EIR further supports the finding that the Project site is not located in or near an SRA and the Project site is not within a VHFHSZ. No impact would occur in this regard.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DEIR page 4.7-23 through 4.7-24.

Land Use and Planning
Impact 4.9-1: Would the project physically divide an established community? Basis for Conclusion: The Project or Alternate Project does not include construction of structures or other improvements that would be located between existing neighborhoods. The Project site is located on an undeveloped lot in the southeast portion of the City in an industrial development area. The site is surrounded by existing development but would not physically divide an established community.

Additionally, the site is not located near an established community and does not propose a significant alteration of roadways that would disrupt residential uses to the north. The Project does not require or propose improvements to a highway or above ground infrastructure that would preclude or impede movement through the Project site or that which would cause permanent disruption to the existing physical arrangement of the surrounding community. While new development and improvements would occur, implementation of the Project would not physically divide an established community. Therefore, no impact associated with physically dividing an established community would occur.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DEIR page 4.9-7 through 4.9-8.

Mineral Resources

Speedway Commerce Center Project
Findings of Fact Environmental Impacts Found to Have No Impact City of Rancho Cucamonga 14 January 2022
Impact 7.4-2: Would the Project 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?
Basis for Conclusion: Exhibit 4.11-1, Mineral Land Classification, of the City’s General Plan EIR and the Mineral Land Classification of a Part of Southwestern San Bernardino County: The San Bernardino Valley Area, California (West) map7 shows that the proposed Project site is located within Mineral Zone 3 (MRZ- 3), which means that aggregate resources are present, but their significance cannot be evaluated with present data. Also, according to the City’s General Plan EIR Exhibit 4.11-2, the Project site is not located in a regionally significant aggregate resource area.

The Project site is within approximately 1.5 miles of one mine site: the Kaiser Fontana Mine. The mine was an open-pit sand and gravel mine, which has since been reclaimed.8 Review of historic aerial imagery dating back to 1938 indicates mining activities on the Project site have not occurred in recent history.9 Past land use appears to be for agricultural purposes. The Project site is currently undeveloped and does not involve the use or operation of extracting mineral resources. Further, the Project and the Alternate Project would not involve the production or depletion of locally significant mineral resources. Therefore, no impacts associated with the loss of availability of a known mineral resource would occur.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DEIR page 7-8.

Noise
Impact 4.10-3: For a Project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
Basis for Conclusion: The closest airport is the Ontario International Airport and the southern border of the City is about one mile away from the airport’s 65 dBA CNEL noise contour.10 The Project site is not within 2.0 miles of a public airport or within an airport land use plan. Additionally, there are no private airstrips located within the Project vicinity. Therefore, no impacts related to exposing people residing or working in the Project area to excessive airport- or airstrip-related noise levels would occur.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DEIR pages 4.10-26.

Population and Housing
7 California Department of Conservation. 1995. Mineral Land Classification of a Part of Southwestern San Bernardino County: The San Bernardino Valley Area, California (West). Available at ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dmg/pubs/ofr/OFR_94-08/OFR_94- 08_West.pdf (accessed May 2020).
8 DOC. 2016. Mines Online. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/mol/index.html (accessed May 2020). 9 Historic Aerials. 2020. https://www.historicaerials.com/viewer (accessed January 2020). 10 City of Rancho Cucamonga, General Plan Update, May 2020.

Speedway Commerce Center Project
Findings of Fact Environmental Impacts Found to Have No Impact City of Rancho Cucamonga 15 January 2022
Impact 7.5-2: Would the Project displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Basis for Conclusion: The Project site is vacant. Neither of the Project nor the Alternate Project would require the demolition of residential properties that would displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. Therefore, no impacts associated with the displacement of substantial numbers of people or housing would occur.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DEIR page 7-9.

Public Services and Recreation
Impact 7.6-2: Would the proposed 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?
Basis for Conclusion: Patricia Murray Park, located at 8040 Jamestown Circle in Fontana, is the closest park to the Project site. The park is located 3 roadway miles north of the Project site. However, the Project is warehouse buildings, or an E-Commerce building, with office space and does not propose any residential development or other land use that may generate a population that would increase the use of this park or any existing neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facility. Implementation of the Project would not result in the increased use or substantial physical deterioration of an existing neighborhood or regional park. Therefore, no impact would occur.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DEIR page 7-13.

Impact 7.6-3: Would the proposed Project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
Basis for Conclusion: The Project and Alternate Project propose the construction of a warehouse facility, or an E-Commerce building, with office space and associated infrastructure improvements. Neither the Project nor Alternate Project proposes, nor require, the construction or expansion of recreational facilities. The Project does not include the subdivision of land for residential use and therefore is not required to dedicate land or pay fees in lieu thereof, or combination of both, for park or recreational purposes. See Chapter 3.68: Park In-Lieu/Park Impact Fees of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code for detailed information. Implementation of the Project would not have an adverse physical effect on the environment as it pertains to construction/expansion of recreational facilities. Therefore, no impacts would occur.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DEIR page 7-14.

Wildfire

Speedway Commerce Center Project
Findings of Fact Environmental Impacts Found to Have No Impact City of Rancho Cucamonga 16 January 2022
Impact 7.7-1: Would the Project substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Basis for Conclusion: According to CAL FIRE’s Fire and Resource Assessment Program, Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ) Viewer, the Project site is not located in or near a State Responsibility Area (SRA); the nearest SRA to the development site is located approximately 4 miles to north. The Project site is located in a Local Responsibility Area. In addition, the Project site does not contain lands classified as a very high fire hazard severity zone (VHFHSZ).11 The closest VHFHSZs are located approximately four miles to the north and south of the Project site. Review of Exhibit 4.8-2: Fire Hazard Severity Zones of the City’s 2010 General Plan EIR further supports the finding that the Project site is not located in or near an SRA and the Project site is not within a VHFHSZ.12 Therefore, no impact associated with the substantial impairment of an adopted emergency response plan would occur.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DEIR pages 7-14.

Impact 7.7-2: Would the Project, 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?
Basis for Conclusion: Refer to Impact 7.7-1 above. The Project site is not located in or near an SRA and the Project site does not contain lands classified as VHFHSZs. Neither the Project nor the Alternate Project would exacerbate wildfire risks or expose Project occupants to pollutant concentrations or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire. Therefore, no impact would occur.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DEIR pages 7-14 through 7-15.

Impact 7.7-3: Would the Project 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?
Basis for Conclusion: Refer to Impact 7.7-1 above. The Project site is not located in or near an SRA and does not contain lands classified as VHFHSZs. The Project and Alternate Project would include construction of warehouse facilities, or an E-Commerce building, with parking and landscaping included.

Construction and operation of the Project or Alternate Project would not increase the risk of fire nor would it require the installation/maintenance of infrastructure that would exacerbate fire risk. Therefore, no impact would occur.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DEIR page 7-15.
11 CAL FIRE. 2020. CAL FIRE, Fire and Resource Assessment Program, FHSZ Viewer. Available at https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/ (accessed May 2020).
12 Rancho Cucamonga. 2010. Rancho Cucamonga 2010 General Plan Update Draft Program Environmental Impact Report.

Exhibit 4.8-2. Available at
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/micnzuy7wxmd8po/AABneqBoO_i2GiNyWkRX9OaRa?dl=0&preview=2010+General+Plan+EIR.pdf (accessed May 2020).

Speedway Commerce Center Project
Findings of Fact Environmental Impacts Found to Have No Impact City of Rancho Cucamonga 17 January 2022
Impact 7.7-4: Would the Project 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?
Basis for Conclusion: Refer to Impact 7.7-1 above. Neither the Project site nor Alternate Project are located in or near an SRA and do not contain lands classified as VHFHSZs. Because the site is located within a heavily urbanized area, it would not expose people or structures to significant risks as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes. Therefore, no impact would occur.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DEIR page 7-15.

Speedway Commerce Center ProjectEnvironmental Impacts Found to be Findings of Fact Less Than Significant (No Mitigation Required) City of Rancho Cucamonga 18 January 2022
Section 4: Environmental Impacts Found to be Less Than Significant (No Mitigation Required)
For the following significance thresholds, the City finds that, based upon substantial evidence in the record, the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact; therefore, no mitigation is required, and no significant, unavoidable adverse impacts would occur.

Aesthetics
Impact 7.2-1: Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Basis of Conclusion: Scenic resources identified in the City’s 2010 General Plan include the San Gabriel and San Bernardino Mountains and foothills, vistas of the City from hillside areas, and other views of special vegetation and permanent open space features. The City recognizes other scenic resources, including remaining stands of eucalyptus windrows, scattered vineyards and orchards, and natural vegetation in flood-control channels and utility corridors13; however, none of these resources occur on the Project site.

Prominent natural features visible from the Project site, include the San Gabriel (approx. 5 miles north), San Bernardino (approx. 13 miles northeast), and Jurupa (approx. 4 miles south) mountains. Views of these mountain ranges are available from the Project site and adjacent streets and properties. The Project site is located in a highly developed area with buildings and structures of varying heights.

The Project would involve the development of two warehouse buildings. The proposed Building A height is anticipated to be up to 56 feet and Building B height anticipated to be up to 48 feet. Under the Alternate Project, only one warehouse building would be developed with a maximum height not to exceed 58’-6”.

Buildings on the site would not exceed the maximum allowed 75-foot height limit in the HI Zoning District.

Based on the proposed building heights, and the distance between the Project and surrounding mountain ranges (approx. 4 to 13 miles), views of these scenic features would remain unobstructed.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DEIR pages 7-1 through 7-2.

Impact 7.2-3: Would the Project, in non-urbanized area, 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?
Basis of Conclusion: The Project site is located in an urbanized area and the Project site is largely undeveloped, minus a railroad that traverses the proposed Project site. The majority of the site has been 13 Rancho Cucamonga. 2010. Rancho Cucamonga General Plan. Available at https://www.dropbox.com/sh/micnzuy7wxmd8po/AABneqBoO_i2GiNyWkRX9OaRa?dl=0&preview=GP+Chapters+1+-+9+Updated+09- 2019.pdf (accessed May 2020).

Speedway Commerce Center ProjectEnvironmental Impacts Found to be Findings of Fact Less Than Significant (No Mitigation Required) City of Rancho Cucamonga 19 January 2022
leveled and graded and is covered over in dirt and sparse ruderal vegetation. The proposed Project site is located within the City’s HI Zoning District, and the County’s General Industrial (GI) District. Project design would meet the City’s development standards/requirements for the HI Land Use Zoning Districts as required by the Rancho Cucamonga Development Code. Project development would be consistent with the general design principles outlined in the Community Design section of the General Plan. The Project and Alternate Project design and development would be consistent with City standards for HI zoning and would not conflict with the principles, goals and policies of the General Plan. Therefore, impacts on visual character would be less than significant under the Project and Alternate Project.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DEIR pages 7-3 through 7-4.

Impact 7.2-4: Would the Project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Basis of Conclusion: Existing sources of light and glare in the immediate Project area include streetlights along Napa Street, and outdoor safety and security lighting associated with adjacent developments. The predominant source of light impacts from either the Project or Alternate Project would be related to the exterior lighting, building lighting, and vehicle headlights. To minimize effects from lighting and glare, Project lighting would be directed inward and downward and/or shielded to minimize the light from adversely affecting adjacent properties. Concrete tilt-up screen walls (8 feet in height) and landscaping/trees would also serve to block and filter mobile light sources, such as from passenger vehicles and trucks, from adversely affecting adjacent properties. The exterior façade would consist of non-reflective materials, such as concrete. In addition, the windows would be comprised of blue reflective glazing, which reduces glare over other transparent surfaces. Through these design features and adherence with the Development Code, impacts associated with new source of substantial light or glare would be less than significant for the Project and Alternate Project.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DEIR pages 7-4 through 7-5.

Air Quality
Impact 4.1-3: Would the Project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Basis for Conclusion: The Local Significance Threshold (LST) guidance provides thresholds for projects disturbing 1-, 2-, and 5-acres in size and the thresholds increase with size of the site. The nearest receptor is approximately 223 meters away. Therefore, the Project was analyzed using a conservative LST threshold for evaluation. The Project used a 3.5-acre threshold (the amount of disturbance proposed by the Project) were interpolated and utilized for the analysis. It was determined that construction related emissions of CO, NOx, PM10, and PM2.5. would not result in significant concentrations of pollutants at nearby sensitive receptors. Therefore, significant impacts related to LSTs would not occur during construction. The maximum daily operational emissions of CO, NO x, PM 10, and PM 2.5. would not result in significant concentrations of pollutants at nearby sensitive receptors. The same is true for the Alternate Project and

Speedway Commerce Center ProjectEnvironmental Impacts Found to be Findings of Fact Less Than Significant (No Mitigation Required) City of Rancho Cucamonga 20 January 2022
100 Percent E-Commerce Worst-Case Scenario. Therefore, overall impacts would remain less than significant.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DEIR page 4.1-23 through 4.1-33.

Biological Resources
Impact 4.2.2: Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or US Fish and Wildlife Service?
Basis for Conclusion: The Project site does not support natural vegetation communities. The Project site is approximately 50-percent vegetated with mostly non-native herbaceous ruderal species. The Project site would impact 2.01 acres of developed lands of which 1.70 acres occur on-site and 0.30 acre is associated with the offsite improvement areas. The Project would impact 33.69 acres of disturbed lands that contain imported compacted material including gravel and road base. The Project would not impact riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations. Therefore, impacts on non-native vegetation communities or habitats would be less than significant.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DEIR page 4.2-29.

Cultural Resources
Impact 4.3-1: Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to §15064.5?
Basis for Conclusion: Construction of the Project and Alternate Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significant of a historical or archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5. 11 cultural resources deemed historical have been previously documented within one mile of the Project area. All of these resources date to the historic period and include three archaeological sites and eight built-environment (buildings and structures) resources. No prehistoric archaeological resources were identified within the record search area. The Project area lies within the mapped boundary of one of these resources, the Kaiser Steel Mill (CASBR-4131H). Previous cultural resources studies completed within the vicinity of the Project area found that by 2008, all of the major components of the mill had been demolished and the resource no longer existed. In addition, no evidence of the resource was identified during the May 5, 2020 pedestrian survey and archival information suggests this portion of the steel mill property was primarily used for agricultural purposes. Following completion of construction of the Project and disturbances of the site, the Project would include use for industrial warehousing. These land use operations would not impact any known or unknown historical resources. Because no historic resources were identified within in the Project site, implementation of the proposed Project would not be expected to cause a substantial adverse change to an historic resource.

Speedway Commerce Center ProjectEnvironmental Impacts Found to be Findings of Fact Less Than Significant (No Mitigation Required) City of Rancho Cucamonga 21 January 2022
Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DEIR pages 4.3-12 through 4.3-13.

Impact 4.3-3: Would the Project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
Basis for Conclusion: The Project site is located in an area mainly developed with industrial uses and is not located near a formal cemetery. The Project site was previously used primarily for agricultural uses and was more recently used as overflow parking associated with the adjacent Auto Club Speedway for races and other events. In 2005, a railroad spur was constructed that extended south of the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe (AT&SF) Railway line, through the Project site. Regardless of the possible absence of historical or archeological resources on-site, if human remains are discovered, those remains would require proper treatment in accordance with applicable laws, including HSC Sections 7050.5-7055 and PRC Section 5097.98 and Section 5097.99. It is unlikely that any human remains would be encountered given that the Project site is already disturbed. However, previously undiscovered human remains could be encountered during construction activities. If human remains are found during excavation, excavation would be halted in the vicinity of the find and any area that is reasonably suspected to overlay adjacent remains shall remain undisturbed until the County Coroner has investigated, and appropriate recommendations have been made for the treatment and disposition of the remains. Following compliance with the established regulatory framework (i.e., HSC Sections 7050.5-7055 and PRC Sections 5097.98 and 5097.99), the Project’s impacts concerning potential to disturb human remains, would be reduced to a less than significant.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DEIR pages 4.3-14 through 4.3-15.

Energy
Impact 4.4-1: Would the Project result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during Project construction or operation?
Basis for Conclusion: The Project would entail construction activities that would use energy, primarily in the form of diesel fuel (e.g., mobile construction equipment) and electricity (e.g., power tools).

Contractors would be required to monitor air quality emissions of construction activities using applicable regulatory guidance such as from SCAQMD CEQA Guidelines. This requirement indirectly relates to construction energy conservation because when air pollutant emissions are reduced from the monitoring and the efficient use of equipment and materials, energy use is reduced. There are no aspects of the Project that would foreseeably result in the inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary use of energy during construction activities. The same is true for Alternative Project and the 100 Percent E-Commerce Worst-Case Scenario. Furthermore, due to increasing transportation costs and fuel prices, Contractors and Owners have a strong financial incentive to avoid wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary use of energy during construction.

Speedway Commerce Center ProjectEnvironmental Impacts Found to be Findings of Fact Less Than Significant (No Mitigation Required) City of Rancho Cucamonga 22 January 2022
None of the Project energy uses exceed one percent of their corresponding County use. Project operations would not substantially affect existing energy or fuel supplies or resources. The Project would comply with applicable energy standards and new capacity would not be required. Impacts would be less than significant in this regard.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DEIR pages 4.4-9 through 4.4-22.

Impact 4.4-2: Would the Project conflict with or obstruct a State or Local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
Basis for Conclusion: Project design and operation will comply with State Building Energy Efficiency Standards, appliance efficiency regulations, and green building standards. As discussed above in Impact 4.4-1, Project development will not cause inefficient, wasteful, and unnecessary energy use, and impacts will be less than significant.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DEIR pages 4.4-22 through 4.4-23.

Geology and Soils
Impact 4.5-1: Would the project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault (Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42)?
Basis for Conclusion: According to the latest U.S Quaternary Faults data, the nearest quaternary earthquake fault to the proposed Project site is an unnamed fault near the City of Fontana. The unnamed fault is classified as a late quaternary fault, but not considered an Alquist-Priolo Fault. Furthermore, the Geotechnical Investigation Report conducted by SoCalGeo did not identify the Project site within an Alquist-Priolo fault zone. In addition, each proposed building would be designed using the latest California Building Codes to minimize impacts from seismic activity and other regulatory standards such as the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). FEMA provides standards for buildings to resist the effects of earthquake motions.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DEIR pages 4.5-14 through 4.5-15.

Impact 4.5-1: Would the project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
ii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?

Speedway Commerce Center ProjectEnvironmental Impacts Found to be Findings of Fact Less Than Significant (No Mitigation Required) City of Rancho Cucamonga 23 January 2022
Basis for Conclusion: The California Geological Survey (CGS) has not yet conducted detailed seismic hazards mapping in the area of the Project site according to the County’s Land Use Plan, General Plan, and Geologic Hazard Overlays Map. The County’s Map FH28 indicates that the subject site is not located within an area of liquefaction susceptibility. Furthermore, on-site subsurface conditions encountered by SoCalGeo geologists at the boring and trench locations indicates that liquefaction would not be considered a design concern for the Project. Therefore, impacts regarding ground failure, including liquefaction would be less than significant.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DEIR pages 4.5-16.

Impact 4.5-1: Would the project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
iv. Landslides?
Basis for Conclusion: The Project site is not located within or near extreme elevation differences that would potentially result in landslide effects. According to the San Bernardino County Geologic Hazard map, the Project site is not regionally located within a zone of generalized landslide susceptibility and is also outside of the hazard zone for rockfall/debris-flow14. Therefore, impacts resulting from landslides would be less than significant.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DEIR page 4.5-16.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Impact 4.6-2: Would the Project conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions?
Basis for Conclusion: As shown in Table 4.6-6 of the DEIR, the Project would be consistent with the stated goals of the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS). As shown in Table 4.6-7 of the DEIR, the Project is consistent with most of the strategies of the CARB Scoping Plan, while others are not applicable to the Project. Regarding goals for 2050 under Executive Order S-3-05, at this time it is not possible to quantify the emissions savings from future regulatory measures, as they have not yet been developed; nevertheless, it can be anticipated that operation of the Project would benefit from the implementation of current and potential future regulations (e.g., improvements in vehicle emissions, S.B. 100/renewable electricity portfolio improvements, etc.) enacted to meet an 80 percent reduction below 1990 levels by 2050. The Project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation of an agency adopted for reducing the emissions of GHGs because the Project would generate low levels of GHGs, and would 14 County of San Bernardino. (2010). San Bernardino County Land Use Plan General Plan Geologic Hazard Overlays. San Bernardino, CA: County of San Bernardino

Speedway Commerce Center ProjectEnvironmental Impacts Found to be Findings of Fact Less Than Significant (No Mitigation Required) City of Rancho Cucamonga 24 January 2022
not impede implementation of the Scoping Plan, or conflict with the policies of the Scoping Plan or any other GHG reduction plan.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DEIR page 4.5-21 through 4.6-28.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Impact 4.7-4: Would the project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? Environmental Analysis: The Project site is not included on the hazardous sites list compiled pursuant to California Government Code Section 65962.5. 15 The Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) indicated there was one Recognized Environmental Condition (REC) (as defined by American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Practice E 1527-13) identified in association with the Project site that required additional investigation. Therefore, a Phase II Investigation was conducted, which concluded pollutant concentrations found in soil associated with the REC was below applicable screening levels.

Therefore, no significant adverse impacts relative to hazardous materials sites would result with Project implementation.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DEIR page 4.7-22.

Impact 4.7-6: Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Environmental Analysis: No revisions to the adopted ReadyRC disaster preparedness manual would be required as a result of the proposed Project. Further, as identified in the LHMP, the City maintains an Emergency Operations Plan which is updated by the City’s Emergency Management Program. The proposed Project would not modify or impede existing emergency routes. Primary access to all major roads would be maintained during construction and operation of the proposed Project. By complying with the General Plan and participating in the City’s Impact Fee Program, implementation of the Project would result in a less than significant impact with respect to interference with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DEIR page 4.7-23.
15 California, State of, Department of Toxic Substances Control, DTSC's Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List - Site Cleanup (Cortese List). Available at: https://dtsc.ca.gov/dtscs-cortese-list/. Accessed: August 17, 2020.

Speedway Commerce Center ProjectEnvironmental Impacts Found to be Findings of Fact Less Than Significant (No Mitigation Required) City of Rancho Cucamonga 25 January 2022
Hydrology and Water Quality
Impact 4.8-1: Would the proposed project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality?
Basis for Conclusion: The Project and Alternate Project construction-related activities would include excavation, grading, and trenching, which would displace soils and temporarily increase the potential for soils to be subject to wind and water erosion. Construction-related erosion effects would be addressed through compliance with the NPDES program’s Construction General Permit. Construction activity subject to the Construction General Permit includes any construction or demolition activity, including, but not limited to, clearing, grading, grubbing, or excavation, or any other activity that results in a land disturbance of equal to or greater than 1.0 acre. The Project would disturb approximately 35 acres and would be subject to the Construction General Permit. The Project will comply with NPDES and RCMC requirements, which include implementation of BMPs as a Condition of Approval, and therefore, the Project’s construction-related activities would not violate any water quality standards or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality. Stormwater pollutants that would be produced during Project operation include pathogens, nutrients, noxious aquatic plants, sediment, metals, oil and grease, trash/debris, pesticides/herbicides, and organic compounds (Albert A. Webb Associates 2020). The Project Applicant would be required to prepare and implement a WQMP (Project’s Preliminary WQMP, prepared by Albert A. Webb Associates, is included as Appendix F to the DEIR), which is a Project site-specific post-construction water quality management program designed to minimize the release of potential waterborne pollutants, including pollutants of concern for downstream receiving waters. In addition to mandatory implementation of a WQMP, the NDPES program also requires industrial land uses to prepare a SWPPP for operational activities and to implement a long-term water quality sampling and monitoring program, unless an exemption has been granted. Therefore, impacts related to groundwater supplies and water quality standards during operations would be less than significant impact.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DEIR pages 4.8-9 through 4.8-10.

Impact 4.8-2: Would the proposed project substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
Basis for Conclusion: The Project would be developed within the FWC service area. FWC receives groundwater from multiple groundwater sources including the Chino Basin, the Lytle Basin, the Rialto-Colton Basin, and the No Man’s Land Basin. The proposed Project’s total water demand of 47 acre feet per year (AFY) would constitute approximately 0.47 percent of the FWC’s Chino Basin sourced groundwater in the year 2020. The FWC’s water supply is projected to increase through 2040 with a projected 18,093 sourced from the Chino Basin that year.16 The Project would comprise 0.26 percent of the projected Chino Basin sourced groundwater in the year 2040. This means that as FWC’s water supply increased through 2040, the proposed Project would continue to comprise a decreasing percentage of 16 Ibid.

Speedway Commerce Center ProjectEnvironmental Impacts Found to be Findings of Fact Less Than Significant (No Mitigation Required) City of Rancho Cucamonga 26 January 2022
that sourced groundwater. Therefore, impacts related to groundwater supplies would be less than significant impact.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DEIR pages 4.8-10 through 4.8-11.

Impact 4.8-3: Would the proposed 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? Basis for Conclusion: The Project and Alternate Project would include development of new warehousing buildings and hardscapes that would increase the amount of impermeable surface covering on the Project site compared to existing conditions. These proposed improvements may cause changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, and the rate and amount of surface water runoff. Per the Project’s Drainage Study, located in EIR Appendix F, on-site flows generated by the Project or Alternate Project, would surface flow through the site utilizing ribbon gutters, curb and gutters, and grate inlets. The Project would utilize subsurface storm drain systems that convey flows into the proposed underground corrugated metal pipe (CMP) detention systems. Higher flows would bypass the underground system and drain into the existing 36-inch storm drain line in Napa Street that discharges into San Sevaine Channel. Any runoff that exceeds the system's capacity would be directed to an existing underground system and begin to discharge into a proposed 24-inch line that would connect the existing East Etiwanda Creek reinforced concrete box (RCB) culvert in Napa Street. Further, the Project site is located mostly on land that is designated as having a minimal flood hazard. The NPDES, SWPPP, and WQMP created for the Project would minimize potential impacts from erosion and siltation. Further, an erosion control plan would also be implemented to further minimize potential siltation and erosion effects. Therefore, impacts related to erosion or siltation would be less than significant impact.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DEIR pages 4.8-11 through 4.8-12.

Impact 4.8-3: Would the proposed 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:
ii. Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site?
Basis for Conclusion: The Project or Alternate Project would include development of one and two building(s), respectively, and hardscapes that would increase the amount of impermeable surface covering on the Project site compared to existing conditions. These proposed improvements may cause changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, and the rate and amount of surface water runoff. The Project site is also bounded along the eastern border by the San Sevaine Flood Control Channel, and along the western border by the Etiwanda Creek Channel. Despite the nearby flood control infrastructure, the

Speedway Commerce Center ProjectEnvironmental Impacts Found to be Findings of Fact Less Than Significant (No Mitigation Required) City of Rancho Cucamonga 27 January 2022
Project site is not located in a documented flood plain or floodway, nor is the Project within any special flood hazard areas.17
Further, the Project site contains a natural gradient slope downward to the south at a gradient of 2 percent, excluding the northwest plateau, northeast berm, and the southeast corner of the site. The southeast corner slopes gently to north at a gradient of 2.5 percent.18 As stated in Section 4.8.1, floodwaters would likely flow into and along the main channel of the East Etiwanda Creek. According to FEMA’s categorization, the Project site is not located within a documented flood plain or floodway or any special flood hazard areas. Therefore, impacts related to increasing rates of runoff would be less than significant impact.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DEIR pages 4.8-13.

Impact 4.8-3: Would the proposed 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:
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?
Basis for Conclusion: The existing Project site is comprised of largely vacant and undeveloped lands with asphaltic concrete driveways in the western portion of the site. Existing ground cover includes sparse to moderate native grass, weed growth, limited areas of debris and trash, limited areas of open-graded- gravel driveways, and exposed soils. All projects would be required to obtain a General Construction Permit. The General Construction Permit requires implementation of a SWPPP, which would include BMPs designed to protect the quality of storm water runoff. Preparation, implementation, and participation with both the NPDES General Permit and the General Construction Permit, including the SWPPP and BMPs, would reduce the potential for storm water flows, and any potential contaminants contained within those flows, to be conveyed off-site during construction of the Project. Per the Project’s Drainage Study, on-site flows generated by the Project would surface flow through the site utilizing ribbon gutters, curb and gutters, and grate inlets. The Project would utilize subsurface storm drain systems that convey flows into the proposed underground CMP detention systems. Higher flows would bypass the underground system and drain into the existing 36-inch storm drain line in Napa Street that discharges into San Sevaine Channel. In accordance with the NPDES, SWPPP, and WQMP required for the Project, BMPs would be implemented on-site to prevent runoff of sediment and pollutants entering the City’s existing stormwater system. Therefore, impacts related to runoff exceeding the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems would be less than significant impact. 17 Federal Emergency Management Agency (2016). FEMA Flood Map Service Center: Search By Address. Retrieved from:
https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search?AddressQuery=napa%20street#searchresultsanchor (Accessed September 2020) 18 Southern California Geotechnical (2020). Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Commercial/Industrial Development North Side of Napa Street, East of Etiwanda Avenue

Speedway Commerce Center ProjectEnvironmental Impacts Found to be Findings of Fact Less Than Significant (No Mitigation Required) City of Rancho Cucamonga 28 January 2022
Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DEIR pages 4.8-14.

Impact 4.8-3: Would the proposed 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:
iv. Impede or redirect flood flow?
Basis for Conclusion: Refer to discussion in Impact 4.8-3(ii). While the Project site is bounded by the San Sevaine Flood Control Channel and the Etiwanda Creek Channel, the site is not located in a documented flood plain or floodway, nor is the site located within any special flood hazard areas.19 The Project site’s natural gradient slope and FEMA’s designation of East Etiwanda Creek as a profile baseline led to the anticipation that flood flows would occur along the main channel of the Etiwanda Creek Main Channel.

Therefore, impacts related to flood flows would be less than significant impact.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DEIR pages 4.8-15.

Impact 4.8-4: Would the proposed project in flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
Basis for Conclusion: FEMA does not categorize the Project site as being located within a documented floodplain or floodway or any special flood hazard areas. The Project site is located in FEMA Zone X which are areas determined to be outside of the 0.2% annual chance floodplain. Therefore, the Project site is not located within a flood hazard zone. The Project site is approximately 55 miles east of the Pacific Ocean and there are no nearby bodies of standing water. The nearest hydrological features to the Project site include East Etiwanda Creek and San Sevaine Flood Control Channel. Tsunamis and seiches do not pose hazards due to the Project site’s inland location and lack of nearby bodies of standing water. An analysis of hazards associated with the development of the Project are fully analyzed and discussed in Section 4.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials which determined that no hazardous material would be released from the site. Therefore, potential impacts associated with inundation by flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche would be less than significant.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DEIR pages 4.8-15 through 4.8-16.

Impact 4.8-5: Would the proposed project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? Basis for Conclusion: The Project’s Geotechnical Investigation found no evidence of groundwater at a level that would be affected at the Project site.20 Further, the Project is not within a groundwater 19 Federal Emergency Management Agency (2016). FEMA Flood Map Service Center: Search By Address. Retrieved from:
https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search?AddressQuery=napa%20street#searchresultsanchor (Accessed September 2020) 20 Southern California Geotechnical (2020). Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Commercial/Industrial Development North Side of Napa Street, East of Etiwanda Avenue

Speedway Commerce Center ProjectEnvironmental Impacts Found to be Findings of Fact Less Than Significant (No Mitigation Required) City of Rancho Cucamonga 29 January 2022
replenishment zone such as a recharge basin or spreading ground21. Further, the Project does not propose the modification of the existing East Etiwanda Creek Channel, or San Sevaine Flood Control Channel.

The City’s Storm Water and Urban Runoff Management and Discharge Control Ordinance requires the creation of a WQMP in order to identify BMPs to be used to minimize harmful stormwater pollutants and discharge. The WQMP would be effective through the life of the Project and amended as necessary throughout its duration. Like the WQMP, the SWPPP and NPDES permit would be subject to review periodically through the duration of the Project to ensure compliance and maximum mitigation. The Project would be required to comply with all other applicable Federal, State, and local regulations regarding water quality and/or groundwater maintenance. With implementation of Mitigation Measures, impacts related to potential obstruction or modification of water quality control plans or groundwater management plans would be less than significant.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DEIR pages 4.8-16 through 4.8-17.

Land Use and Planning
Impact 4.9-2: Would the Project cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
Basis for Conclusion: The Project would be consistent with the SCAG RTP/SCS, Rancho Cucamonga (General Plan) GP, and the County of San Bernardino Local Agency Formation Commission. With approval and implementation of the proposed General Plan Amendment (GPA), Pre-zone, and annexation, the Project would not result in a change in, or conflict with a land use or zoning designation that would result in potentially significant impacts. Therefore, impacts associated with any existing plan, policy, or regulation would be less than significant.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DEIR pages 4.9-8 through 4.9-19.

Mineral Resources
Impact 7.4.1: Would the Project 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? Basis for Conclusion: Gravel deposits in the alluvial fans of the San Bernardino County valley represent the most significant and widely spread mineral resource in the region. Aggregates are essential ingredients in construction materials such as concrete, plaster and mortar. The Project would involve the development of two warehouse buildings and the Alternate Project would develop one building for E-Commerce use. Construction of the proposed Project and Alternate Project would demand aggregate 21 City of Rancho Cucamonga. (2010). Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Figure RC-3: Water Resources. Page RC-19.

Rancho Cucamonga, CA: City of Rancho Cucamonga.

Speedway Commerce Center ProjectEnvironmental Impacts Found to be Findings of Fact Less Than Significant (No Mitigation Required) City of Rancho Cucamonga 30 January 2022
resources as part of the construction phase. These resources are commercially available in the southern California region without any constraint and no potential for adverse impacts to the natural resources base supporting these materials is forecast to occur over the foreseeable future. The proposed Project’s and Alternate Project’s demand for mineral resources would be minimal due to the abundance of available local aggregate resources. Therefore, impacts associated with the loss of availability of known mineral resources would be less than significant.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DEIR page 7-8.

Noise
Impact 4.10-1: Would the Project generate 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? Basis for Conclusion: Construction activities for the Project and Alternate Project would include site preparation, grading, building construction, paving, and architectural coating. Such activities would require graders, scrapers, and tractors during site preparation; graders, dozers, and tractors during grading; cranes, forklifts, generators, tractors, and welders during building construction; pavers, rollers, mixers, tractors, and paving equipment during paving; and air compressors during architectural coating.

The nearest noise sensitive receptors come from the residential community 0.43 miles (2,244 feet) to the north. All construction equipment was assumed to operate simultaneously at a construction area nearest to sensitive receptors. Construction equipment would operate throughout the Project site and the associated noise levels would not occur at a fixed location for extended periods of time. These sensitive uses may be exposed to elevated noise levels during project construction. However, construction noise would be acoustically dispersed throughout the project site and not concentrated in one area near surrounding sensitive uses.

As determined by the Project’s Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA), Site Plan A would generate 966 daily trips, which includes 596 passenger cars and 370 trucks. The resulting Project generated traffic would result in a maximum increase of 0.9 dBA. As the noise level increase is below 3.0 dBA, impacts would be less than significant. As determined by the Project’s TIA, the Project would generate 2,484 daily trips for the E-Commerce Scenario which includes 2,161 passenger cars and 323 trucks. The resulting Project generated traffic would result in a maximum increase of 1.9 dBA. As the noise level increase is below

3.0 dBA, impacts would be less than significant.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DEIR pages 4.10-17 through 4.10-24.

Speedway Commerce Center ProjectEnvironmental Impacts Found to be Findings of Fact Less Than Significant (No Mitigation Required) City of Rancho Cucamonga 31 January 2022
Impact 4.10-2: Would the Project expose persons to or generate excessive ground borne vibration or ground-borne noise levels?
Basis for Conclusion: Based on Federal Transit Administration (FTA) data, vibration velocities from typical heavy construction equipment operations that would be used during Project construction range from

0.003 to 0.089 in/sec PPV at 25 feet from the source of activity. FTA architectural damage criterion threshold is 0.2 in/sec. The nearest sensitive receptors are the residential uses approximately 2,244 feet to the north of the Project site.

The nearest structure is a warehouse located approximately 93 feet to the north of the future construction zone. vibration velocities from construction equipment would not exceed 0.016 in/sec PPV, which is below the FTA’s 0.20 in/sec PPV threshold for building damage and below the 0.10 in/sec PPV annoyance threshold. It is also acknowledged that construction activities would occur throughout the Project site and would not be concentrated at the point closest to the nearest structure. Therefore, vibration impacts associated with Project construction and operation would be less than significant.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DEIR pages 4.10-25 through 4.10-26.

Population and Housing
Impact 7.5-1: Would the Project induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
Basis for Conclusion: The Project would have a beneficial effect on the City’s employment base by developing a site that is currently vacant with a new industrial/warehouse facility with ancillary office space. Given that the current unemployment rate for the Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario area is approximately 4.0%,22 it is reasonably assured that the jobs would be filled by people living in the City, unincorporated County area, and surrounding communities, such as Fontana, Rialto, Jurupa Valley, and Ontario. Furthermore, the Project site is served by existing public roadways, and utility infrastructure is already installed beneath the public rights of way that abut the Project site (Napa Street). As a result, the Project would not be anticipated to induce substantial population growth in the project area. Therefore, impacts associated with substantial, unplanned population growth would be less than significant.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DEIR page 7-9.

Public Services and Recreation
Impact 7.6-1: 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 22 U.S. Bureau of Labor and Statistics. 2020. Economy at a Glance: Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA. https://www.bls.gov/eag/eag.ca_riverside_msa.htm (accessed May 2020).

Speedway Commerce Center ProjectEnvironmental Impacts Found to be Findings of Fact Less Than Significant (No Mitigation Required) City of Rancho Cucamonga 32 January 2022
significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services including those for fire prevention, police protection, schools, parks, and other public facilities? Basis for Conclusion: The Project would not 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. The Project and Alternate Project propose the construction of warehouse building(s) and associated infrastructure improvements. No governmental facilities are included in the Project design.

Based on the Projects proximity to existing fire protection/fire stations, the Project would receive adequate fire protection service and would not result in adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of or need for new or physically altered fire protection facilities, and would not adversely affect service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives. There are no existing fire protection facilities that exist on the Project site, and therefore development of either the Project or Alternate Project would not conflict with existing fire structures or require modification of fire protection facilities.

Compliance with applicable local and state regulations would ensure that Project implementation would result in a less than significant impact to fire protection services.

Based on the Projects proximity to existing Police protection services, the Project would receive adequate police protection service and would not result in adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of or need for new or physically altered police protection facilities, and would not adversely affect service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives. There are no police protection facilities that exist on the Project site, and therefore, development of the Project and Alternate Project would not conflict with existing police structures or require modification of police protection facilities. Compliance with applicable local regulations would ensure that Project implementation would result in a less than significant impact to police protection services.

Project implementation would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered school facilities, need for new or physically altered school facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios or other performance objectives. The Project and Alternate Project would not conflict with existing school structures or require modification of school facilities. Compliance with applicable local and state regulations would ensure that Project implementation would result in a less than significant impact to school services.

Project implementation would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered park facilities, need for new or physically altered park facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios or other performance objectives.

Speedway Commerce Center ProjectEnvironmental Impacts Found to be Findings of Fact Less Than Significant (No Mitigation Required) City of Rancho Cucamonga 33 January 2022
Project implementation would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered other public facilities, need for new or physically altered other public facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios or other performance objectives. Therefore, Project implementation would result in a less than significant impact to other public facilities.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DEIR pages 7-9 through 7-13.

Transportation
Impact 4.11-1: Would the Project conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy, addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? Basis for Conclusion: The majority of the Project site is presently vacant and undeveloped, with the exception of asphaltic concrete driveways in the western portion of the site, overhead powerlines, and a railroad easement and rail spur. The railroad easement and rail spur extends from the center, southern portion of the site and curves towards the northeast corner property line. The site does not include any pedestrian, bicycle, or public transit facilities. Located on the western edge of the Project site is an existing road that is associated with the adjacent property to the north. As well, construction of the Project would provide newly paved internal roads to provide circulation throughout the Project site, including Buildings A and B.

Construction of Site Plan A would require off-site circulation improvements to support operations through 2040. For opening year (2022), the Project would be required to improve phasing on the I-15 Southbound Ramp and 4th Street intersection which would include the addition of overlap phasing to the northbound, southbound, and westbound right turn lanes to optimize the cycle lengths. These improvements are not included in any fee program, but a fair share contribution has been calculated.

The Project’s circulation elements for Site Plan A and Site Plan B would be consistent with the City’s General Plan elements pertaining to the land use and mobility (circulation) system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities.

The Project would comply with Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Standards for Accessible Designs to be readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities. The Project would also be compliant with Caltrans’ construction practice requirements by developing and implementing a temporary traffic control plan for construction activities that interfere with the normal function of a roadway. The Project would comply with Federal and State Manual on Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) standards to install and maintain traffic-control devices on all public streets, highways, bikeways, and private roads that are open to public traffic. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy, addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Therefore, impacts under the Warehouse Scenario and E-Commerce Scenario would be less than significant.

Speedway Commerce Center ProjectEnvironmental Impacts Found to be Findings of Fact Less Than Significant (No Mitigation Required) City of Rancho Cucamonga 34 January 2022
Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DEIR pages 4.11-29 through 4.11-38.

Impact 4.11-2: Would the Project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
Basis for Conclusion: Construction of the Project would be a temporary activity not associated with a specific land use. Although there would be vehicle trips and vehicle miles traveled associated with construction workers, excavation, and transport of materials and equipment, these activities do not fall squarely into the primary goals of SB 743, which is to reduce reliance on individual automobiles and promote multi-modal transportation networks through effective land use planning. In addition, impacts from construction-related activities are captured in the analysis of air quality and greenhouse gas emissions for the Project.

The Site Plan A Project would not exceed the City’s VMT per service for either the baseline (without Project) or plus-Project scenarios. As a result, the Site Plan A would not conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b). Site Plan B Project would also not exceed the City’s VMT per service in either baseline (without Project) or with-Project scenarios. As a result, the Project would not conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b). Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DEIR pages 4.11-38 through 4.11-42.

Impact 4.11-3: Would the Project substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
Basis for Conclusion: Construction impacts associated with the Project, the Alternate Project, and 100 Percent E-Commerce Worst-Case Scenario may temporarily restrict vehicular traffic or cause temporary hazards. Access to the Project site would be provided via four driveways along Napa Street and a new public street. Depending on the development scenario implemented, some driveways would be exclusively for vehicle traffic, with others providing access for both vehicles and trucks. Driveways would be continually maintained to allow for the safe ingress and egress to/from the Project site. Additionally, driveways would be designed in accordance with all applicable design and safety standards required by adopted fire codes, safety codes, and building codes established by the City’s Engineering and Fire Departments.

The Project Construction Manager would implement necessary traffic control measures in conformance with the City’s construction permit requirements, Lane Closure Permit, and Encroachment Permit requirements. Further measures would be taken to provide adequate access to and from the Project site as needed. As a result, the Project would not result in increased hazards due to design features from the Project site.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DEIR pages 4.11-42 through 4.11-43.

Speedway Commerce Center ProjectEnvironmental Impacts Found to be Findings of Fact Less Than Significant (No Mitigation Required) City of Rancho Cucamonga 35 January 2022
Impact 4.11-4: Would the Project result in inadequate emergency access? Basis for Conclusion: The Project would not be anticipated to result in any significant emergency access impacts during construction. In case of an emergency, the Project’s construction manager would have assigned staff to flag emergency response vehicles and direct them to the emergency location.

Unimpeded access would be provided throughout the Project site by ensuring construction vehicles are not be parked or placed in a manner that would impede access for emergency response vehicles. Site conditions, during and after the workday, would be either maintained or left in a condition that adheres to Division of Occupational Safety and Health (OSHA) safety standards to prevent any hazardous condition that may affect construction staff and emergency responders. Access roads throughout the Project site would be constructed for use by construction staff/inspectors, construction equipment and materials delivery/removal, and emergency response vehicles. Access roads would be maintained in good condition in order to allow for the safe passage for emergency response vehicles. As a result, the Project would not result in inadequate emergency access at off-site construction locations.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DEIR pages 4.11-43 through 4.11-44.

Utilities and Service Systems
Impact 4.13-1: Would the Project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
Basis for Conclusion: The Project and Alternate Project propose the construction of one and two building(s), respectively, and associated infrastructure improvements. All required improvements to existing electrical, natural gas, or telecommunications utilities would occur within the existing right-of-way’s. All areas adjacent to the existing roadways also are heavily disturbed and are within the overall footprint of Project and any impacts are therefore, discussed and disclosed as part of this Draft EIR within the various sections of this document. Therefore, impacts associated with extension of services in these areas and within the site, are less than significant.

The Project’s Drainage Study concluded that with the proposed system, the Project could adequately convey flows and provide flood protection for the 100-year storm event. Further, the Drainage Study found that the CMP detention system would adequately treat on-site flows and would not impact flooding conditions to upstream or downstream properties. The Project would include construction of the necessary water infrastructure to provide potable water to the proposed Project. Internal to the Project, no new water mains are anticipated. Both buildings A and B are anticipated to require two 12-inch water lines, extending from the existing water main in Napa Street to each of the buildings to provide water supply for fire protection. No additional relocation or construction of new or expanded water supply would be necessary to meet the Project’s water demand. Improvements to facilitate wastewater service to the Project site would consist of tie-ins to existing CVWD sewer lines and the Project would be required to meet Santa Ana RWQCB wastewater requirements. As a result, the increase in daily wastewater

Speedway Commerce Center ProjectEnvironmental Impacts Found to be Findings of Fact Less Than Significant (No Mitigation Required) City of Rancho Cucamonga 36 January 2022
generated by the Project would be minimal and no expansion of sewer pipelines or wastewater facilities would be required
Communications infrastructure exists in the Project area and it is not anticipated that new or expanded communication facilities would be required to serve the Project site. It is anticipated that the Project would require some amount of natural gas to support future operations, which would be supplied by SCGC. Similar to electrical services, natural gas lines already exist in the Project area. Additionally, it is not anticipated that new or expanded gas supply facilities would be required to serve the Project site.

Additionally, there are overhead SCE powerlines present along the northern property line of the Project site. The relocation of the overhead lines from the center of the property to the southern property line, would not reduce services or require the construction of additional facilities, but would facilitate the development of the site. Therefore, impacts related to the expansion of utilities to serve the Project would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DEIR pages 4.13-15 through 4.13-18.

Impact 4.13-2: Would the Project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years?
Basis of Conclusion: The Project is estimated to result in an average potable water building demand of 37 AFY and a landscape demand of 10 AFY with a total demand of 51 AFY. FWC’s available water supplies would be sufficient to meet all present and future water supply requirements of the Project, as well as demands from other planned and potential developments within FWC’s service area between now and 2040, including single and multiple dry years. Therefore, impacts related to insufficient water supplies for the Project and reasonably foreseeable future development would be less than significant.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DEIR pages 4.13-18 through 4.13-20.

Impact 4.13-3: 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? Basis of Conclusion: The Project proposes an approximately 655,878 sf of warehouse buildings with ancillary office spaces on 35.38 acres. The Alternate Project would develop a single fulfilment/E-Commerce building, Building A only (500,648 sf), for fulfillment use with ancillary office space. The Project would produce wastewater at a rate of approximately 29,300 gpd. This rate is equal to 0.2 percent of RP-4’s capacity of 14 MGD and 0.07 percent of RF-1’s treatment capacity of 44 MGD. As a result, the FWC would have sufficient treatment capacity to serve the Project and its existing customers. Therefore, impacts related to insufficient wastewater treatment capacity would be less than significant impact.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DEIR pages 4.13-20.

Speedway Commerce Center ProjectEnvironmental Impacts Found to be Findings of Fact Less Than Significant (No Mitigation Required) City of Rancho Cucamonga 37 January 2022
Impact 4.13-4: Would the Project generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
Basis of Conclusion: The Project and Alternate Project is anticipated to generate solid waste during the temporary, short-term construction phase, as well as the operational phase, but it would not be anticipated to result in inadequate landfill capacity. According to CalRecycle’s Estimated Solid Waste Generation Rates, a warehouse facility similar to the Project is estimated to produce 13.82 pounds of waste per employee per day.23 The estimated number of employees to operate the facility under the Project (worst-case) would be approximately 1,172 people and approximately 750 under the Alternate Project. The 1,172 employees under the Project equates to approximately 16,197 pounds (8 tons) of waste per day from Project-related activities, which would account for approximately 0.11 percent of the Mid-Valley Sanitary Landfill’s maximum daily throughput of 7,500 tons per day. Further, the Project, as with all other development in the City, would be required to adhere to City ordinances with respect to waste reduction and recycling. For these reasons, the Project’s solid waste disposal needs during construction and operation could be met by the Mid-Valley Sanitary Landfill. Therefore, impacts related to the generation of excess solid waste would be less than significant.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DEIR pages 4.13-20 through 4.13-21.

Impact 4.13-5: Would the Project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years?
Basis of Conclusion: The Project and Alternate Project would comply with applicable local, state, and federal regulations regarding solid waste, including those of the City. Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code Section 8.17 provides policies and regulation regarding solid waste handling by both customers and collectors. In coordination with Burrtec Waste Management, the Project would comply with the City’s various programs to increase recycling efforts. In addition, the City implements AB 939 source reduction and recycling measures to reduce solid waste generation and has been found to be compliant with AB 939. Therefore, impacts related to compliance with solid waste reduction statutes and regulations would be less than significant.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DEIR pages 4.13-21 through 4.13-22. 23 CalRecycle. 2020. Estimated Solid Waste Generation Rates. https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/WasteCharacterization/General/Rates#Industrial. Accessed October 14, 2020.

Speedway Commerce Center ProjectEnvironmental Impacts Found to be Findings of Fact Less Than Significant (No Mitigation Required) City of Rancho Cucamonga 38 January 2022
This page intentionally left blank.

Speedway Commerce Center ProjectEnvironmental Impacts Found to be Findings of Fact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated City of Rancho Cucamonga 39 January 2022
Section 5: Environmental Impacts Found to be Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated
Pursuant to PRC § 21081(a) and CEQA Guidelines § 15091(a)(1), based on substantial evidence, the City finds that for each of the impacts discussed below the Project’s potentially significant impacts have been avoided, offset or reduced to less than significant levels in consideration of existing regulatory plans and programs (described in the DEIR Section 4 for each applicable impact topic), PDFs (summarized in Findings Table 1), and EIR mitigation measures (as listed in Resolution Attachment 5d, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program [MMRP], and summarized below).

Air Quality
Impact 4.1-2: Would the Project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the Project region is non-attainment under an applicable state or federal ambient air quality standard?
Environmental Analysis: Construction associated with the Project would generate short-term emissions of criteria air pollutants. The criteria pollutants of primary concern within the Project area include O 3- precursor pollutants (i.e., ROG and NOX) and PM10 and PM2.5. Construction-generated emissions are short term and of temporary duration, lasting only as long as construction activities occur, but would be considered a significant air quality impact if the volume of pollutants generated exceeds the SCAQMD’s thresholds of significance.

All criteria pollutant emissions associated with construction of the Project would remain below their respective thresholds. As well, all criteria pollutant emissions associated with construction of the Alternate Project would remain below their respective thresholds. Finally, Construction emissions attributable to the 100 Percent E-Commerce Worst Case Scenario would remain below their respective thresholds. However, operations associated with the Project would exceed the SCAQMD threshold for NOX. The majority of NO X emissions are from area and mobile sources. Mitigation measures would be required to reduce emissions to the extent feasible; however, emissions of motor sources are controlled by State and Federal standards and the Project has no jurisdiction over these standards.

Mitigation Measures: Based upon the analysis presented in Section 4.1, Air Quality of the DEIR, which is incorporated herein by reference, the following Mitigation Measures are feasible and are made binding through the MMRP. Imposition of these mitigation measures will reduce potentially significant impacts to less than significant.

MM AQ-1: Prior to issuance of occupancy permits for the Project, the Project operator shall prepare and submit a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program for review and approval of the City of Rancho Cucamonga detailing strategies that would reduce the use of single-occupant vehicles by employees by increasing the number of trips by walking, bicycle, carpool, vanpool and transit.

Speedway Commerce Center ProjectEnvironmental Impacts Found to be Findings of Fact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated City of Rancho Cucamonga 40 January 2022
The TDM shall include, but is not limited to the following:
Provide a transportation information center and on-site TDM coordinator to educate residents, employers, employees, and visitors of surrounding transportation options; Promote bicycling and walking through design features such as showers for employees, self- service bicycle repair area, etc. around the project site; Provide on-site car share amenities for employees who make only occasional use of a vehicle, as well as others who would like occasional access to a vehicle of a different type than they use day- to-day;
Promote and support carpool/vanpool/rideshare use through parking incentives and administrative support, such as ride-matching service; and Incorporate incentives for using alternative travel modes, such as preferential load/unload areas or convenient designated parking spaces for carpool/vanpool users. Provide meal options onsite or shuttles between the facility and nearby meal destinations.

MM AQ-2: For the Project, electrical hookups shall be provided at all loading bays for truckers to plug in any onboard auxiliary equipment and power refrigeration units while their truck is stopped.

MM AQ-3: All truck access gates and loading docks (both interior- and exterior-facing signs) within the Project site shall have a sign posted that states:
Truck drivers shall turn off engines when not in use.
Truck drivers shall shut down the engine after five minutes of continuous idling operation. Once the vehicle is stopped, the transmission is set to “neutral” or “park,” and the parking brake is engaged.
Telephone numbers of the building facilities manager and CARB to report Violations.

MM AQ-4: The Project will require contractors and building operator(s) (by contract specifications) to utilize on-road heavy-duty diesel trucks with a gross vehicle weight rating greater than 14,000 pounds to meet or exceed 2010 engine emission standards or to be equipped with a particulate matter trap (as available) or to be powered by natural gas, electricity, or other diesel alternative.

MM AQ-5: Prior to the issuance of building permits for the Project, the City of Rancho Cucamonga Building and Safety Department shall confirm that applicable Project plans and specifications indicate that refrigerated space for the Project does not exceed 56,000 square feet.

Speedway Commerce Center ProjectEnvironmental Impacts Found to be Findings of Fact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated City of Rancho Cucamonga 41 January 2022
MM AQ-6: Post signs at every truck exit driveway providing directional information to the truck route., so that trucks will not travel on Arrow Route and Foothill Boulevard next to or near sensitive land uses (e.g., residences).

MM AQ-7: The Applicant shall make its tenants aware of the funding opportunities, such as the Carl Moyer Memorial Air Quality Standards Attainment Program (Moyer Program), and other similar funding opportunities, by providing applicable literature available from the California Air Resources Board (CARB).

The Moyer Program On-Road Heavy-Duty Vehicles Voucher Incentive Program (VIP) provides funding to individuals seeking to purchase new or used vehicles with 2013 or later model year engines to replace an existing vehicle that is to be scrapped.

Finding: Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 20181(a) and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a), the City hereby finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect on the environment to below a level of significance.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DEIR page 4.1-14 through 4.1-23.

Biological Resources
Impact 4.2-1: Would the Project 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? Environmental Analysis: The Project would be developed on a previously vacant and disturbed site.

Construction activities would include the demolition of existing infrastructure including utilities, road improvements associated with the easement on the west side of the property, and relocation of the overhead utility line. The site is located in an area that is surrounded by developed industrial property with infrastructure including roadways, electrical, and utilities. The Project site is bordered to the west by the East Etiwanda Creek and to the east by San Sevaine Channel. There are no trees on the site, however, the Project site contains ground cover and shrubs that provide suitable habitat for nesting migratory birds.

Thus, there is a potential for nesting bird impacts to occur.

The habitat assessment conducted for the Project included focused plant surveys conducted in April, June, and August of 2020. No special-status plants were detected at the Project site and none are expected to occur due to a lack of suitable habitat. The Project would not impact special-status plants due to a lack of suitable habitat for all species and the high level of site disturbance. The Project would result in the loss of habitat that supports or potentially supports one listed special-status species: Swainson’s hawk. The Project would also result in the loss of habitat that supports or potentially supports two non-listed special- status species: golden eagle and San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit. With the implementation of Mitigation Measures, potential construction impacts to special-status animals would be less than significant.

Speedway Commerce Center ProjectEnvironmental Impacts Found to be Findings of Fact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated City of Rancho Cucamonga 42 January 2022
Mitigation Measures: Based upon the analysis presented in Section 4.2, Biological Resources of the DEIR, which is incorporated herein by reference, the following Mitigation Measures are feasible and are made binding through the MMRP. Imposition of these mitigation measures will reduce potentially significant impacts to less than significant.

MM BIO-1: In accordance with the CDFG Staff Report on Burrowing Owl (2012), a qualified biologist shall conduct a pre-construction presence/absence survey for burrowing owls between 30 and 14 days prior to site disturbance. If burrowing owls are detected on-site, the qualified biologist shall contact California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and conduct an impact assessment in accordance with Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation prior to commencing project activities to determine appropriate mitigation, including the acquisition and conservation of occupied replacement habitat at no less than a 2:1 ratio and the owls shall be relocated/excluded from the site outside of the breeding season following accepted protocols, and subject to approval by CDFW. A qualified biologist shall prepare and submit a passive relocation program in accordance with Appendix E (i.e., Example Components for Burrowing Owl Artificial Burrow and Exclusion Plans) of the CDFW’s Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (CDFG 2012) for CDFW review/approval prior to the commencement of disturbance activities onsite. When a qualified biologist determines that burrowing owls are no longer occupying the Project site and passive relocation is complete, construction activities may begin. A final letter report shall be prepared by the qualified biologist documenting the results of the passive relocation. The letter shall be submitted to CDFW.

Prior to passive relocation, suitable replacement burrows site(s) shall be provided within adjacent open space lands and/or other off-site lands, as approved by CDFW at a ratio of 2:1 and permanent conservation and management of burrowing owl habitat such that the habitat acreage, number of burrows and burrowing owl impacts are replaced consistent with the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation including its Appendix A within designated adjacent conserved lands identified through coordination with CDFW. A qualified biologist shall confirm the natural or artificial burrows on the conservation lands are suitable for use by the owls. Monitoring and management of the replacement burrow site(s) shall be conducted and a reporting plan shall be prepared. The objective shall be to manage the replacement burrow sites for the benefit of burrowing owls (e.g., minimizing weed cover), with the specific goal of maintaining the functionality of the burrows for a minimum of 2 years.

MM BIO-2: Vegetation clearing should be conducted outside of the nesting season (typically February 1 through August 31). If avoidance of the nesting season cannot be accomplished, then a qualified biologist shall conduct a nesting bird survey in all suitable areas including trees, shrubs, bare ground, burrows, cavities, and structures, at the appropriate time of day/night, during appropriate weather conditions within three days prior any disturbance of the site, including disking and grading. Pre-construction surveys shall focus on both direct and indirect evidence of nesting, including nest locations and nesting behavior (e.g., copulation, carrying of food or nest materials, nest building, removal of fecal sacks, flushing suddenly from atypically close range, agitation, aggressive interactions, feigning injury or distraction displays, or other behaviors). If active nests are identified, the biologist shall establish suitable buffers around the nests, and the buffer areas shall be avoided until the nests are no longer occupied and the juvenile birds

Speedway Commerce Center ProjectEnvironmental Impacts Found to be Findings of Fact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated City of Rancho Cucamonga 43 January 2022
can survive independently from the nests. Typically established buffers are greater for raptors than songbirds and depend upon the species, the nesting stage, and type of construction activity proposed.

The buffer should generally be a minimum of 300 feet for raptors and 100 feet for songbirds; unless a smaller buffer is specifically determined by a qualified biologist familiar with the nesting phenology of the nesting species.

Finding: Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 20181(a) and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a), the City hereby finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect on the environment to below a level of significance.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DEIR page 4.-26 through 4.2-28.

Cultural Resources
Impact 4.3-2: Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?
Environmental Analysis: Although the presence of creeks and washes within the Project vicinity suggests the area may have been attractive to prehistoric groups both as a source of water and resource procurement area, the lack of identified prehistoric resources suggests the Project site is not highly sensitive to prehistoric archaeological remains. Further, because the Project site was primarily used for agricultural purposes, it is unlikely to contain significant historic period archaeological deposits. Following completion of construction of the Project and disturbances of the site, the proposed Project would include use for industrial warehousing. These land use operations would not impact any known or unknown historical resources. However, in the event that that a potentially significant archaeological resource is encountered during Project-related ground-disturbing activities, Mitigation Measures would further minimize potential impacts to human remains.

Mitigation Measures: Based upon the analysis presented in Section 4.3, Cultural Resources of the DEIR, which is incorporated herein by reference, the following Mitigation Measures are feasible and are made binding through the MMRP. Imposition of these mitigation measures will reduce potentially significant impacts to less than significant.

MM CUL-1: In the unlikely event that cultural resources are exposed during construction of the Project, all ground disturbing activities within 100-feet of the potential resource(s) shall be suspended. A qualified archaeologist, meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards, shall evaluate the significance of the find and determine whether or not additional study is warranted. Depending upon the significance of the find, the archaeologist may simply record the find and allow work to continue. If the discovery proves significant under CEQA, additional work, such as preparation of an archaeological treatment plan, testing, or data recovery, may be warranted and shall be submitted to the Development Services Director or his/her designee. If the resource(s) are determined to be Native American in origin,

Speedway Commerce Center ProjectEnvironmental Impacts Found to be Findings of Fact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated City of Rancho Cucamonga 44 January 2022
the project archaeologist shall notify the appropriate Native American Tribe(s) from a list provided by the City.

Finding: Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 20181(a) and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a), the City hereby finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect on the environment to below a level of significance.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DEIR page 4.3-13 through 4.3-14.

Geology and Soils
Impact 4.5-1: Would the project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
Environmental Analysis: The City is located within 10 miles of two of California’s active faults, the San Andreas and San Jacinto Faults which are capable of producing ground shaking motions to the region.

Significant damage to structures may be unavoidable in earthquake conditions. However, the proposed buildings would be designed to resist structural collapse and provide protection from serious injury, catastrophic property damage and loss of life. These design standards would be congruent with the 2019 California Building Code. With implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1, all project plans would be reviewed for compliance with applicable building requirements, in order to prevent harmful effects resulting from strong seismic ground shaking. Therefore, impacts regarding strong seismic ground shaking would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Mitigation Measures: Based upon the analysis presented in Section 4.5, Geology and Soils of the DEIR, which is incorporated herein by reference, the following Mitigation Measures are feasible and are made binding through the MMRP. Imposition of these mitigation measures will reduce potentially significant impacts to less than significant.

MM GEO-1: Prior to the issuance of any grading permit or building permit, City Staff shall review all Project plans involving grading, foundation, structural, infrastructure, and all other relevant construction to ensure compliance with the applicable recommendations from the Geotechnical Investigation and other applicable Code requirements. Specific design considerations as outlined in the Geotechnical Investigation included in Appendix D shall be implemented to minimize the risk for geological hazards included in the Project construction plans.

Finding: Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 20181(a) and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a), the City hereby finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect on the environment to below a level of significance.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DEIR page 4.5-15 through 4.5-16.

Speedway Commerce Center ProjectEnvironmental Impacts Found to be Findings of Fact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated City of Rancho Cucamonga 45 January 2022
Impact 4.5-2: Would the proposed Project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Environmental Analysis: SoCalGeo performed a subsurface exploration at 10 borings at depths of 15 to 25± feet below the existing site grades. . Artificial fill soils were encountered at the ground surface of most of the boring and trench locations, extending to depths of 1½ to 5½± feet below the existing site grades. SoCalGeo concluded that the existing artificial fill material would be unsuitable to support the proposed structures. Therefore, remedial grading would be utilized within the proposed building areas in order to remove all undocumented fill soils in their entirely including the upper portion of the near-surface native alluvial soils and replaced with compacted structural fill. In addition to the excavation and removal of the fill material, development of the Project would require grading preparation, excavation, site stripping and demolition that could result in soil erosion if exposed to periods of high wind or storm- related events. General dust control measures such as watering would be required to minimize erosion and construction-related dust. Construction contractors would also be required to create a dust control plan in compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403 to further reduce wind erosion. Furthermore, the construction contractor would be required to implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that lists Best Management Practices (BMPs) for reducing the potential for water erosion and runoff during construction. Operation activities for Site Plan A or Site Plan B would not involve procedures which would result in substantial soil erosion. The site would be covered with hardscape and landscaping, which would include ground cover to reduce erosion or loss of on-site soils post-construction. This would ensure that operations under the Development Scenarios would not result in the loss of topsoil or sedimentation into local drainage facilities and water bodies. In addition, a network of storm drains and gutters would be installed, upgraded if needed, and maintained as necessary throughout the developed site. Therefore, the potential for substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil is considered less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: Based upon the analysis presented in Section 4.5, Geology and Soils of the DEIR, which is incorporated herein by reference, the following Mitigation Measures are feasible and are made binding through the MMRP. Imposition of these mitigation measures will reduce potentially significant impacts to less than significant.

MM GEO-1 would be applied.

Finding: Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 20181(a) and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a), the City hereby finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect on the environment to below a level of significance.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DEIR pages 4.5-17 through 4.5-18.

Impact 4.5-3: Would the proposed 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 landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? Environmental Analysis: The Project site is not located within any known fault lines or zones, included those considered Alquist-Priolo fault lines and fault zones. The Project site and the surrounding area is

Speedway Commerce Center ProjectEnvironmental Impacts Found to be Findings of Fact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated City of Rancho Cucamonga 46 January 2022
relatively flat and/or developed which indicates that the Project would not be susceptible to landslides nor cause significant erosion that would result in a landslide or lateral spreading. The Project site location is outside of a landslide and liquefaction susceptibility area. This combined with compliance of seismic design parameters recommended by SoCalGeo pursuant to the 2019 CBC, and implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1, impacts related to unstable soils, landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: Based upon the analysis presented in Section 4.5, Geology and Soils of the DEIR, which is incorporated herein by reference, the following Mitigation Measures are feasible and are made binding through the MMRP. Imposition of these mitigation measures will reduce potentially significant impacts to less than significant.

MM GEO-1 would be applied.

Finding: Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 20181(a) and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a), the City hereby finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect on the environment to below a level of significance.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DEIR pages 4.5-18 through 4.5-19.

Impact 4.5-6: Would the proposed Project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Environmental Analysis: According to PaleoWest’s PRA, shallow excavations in the Project site (approximately nine feet in depth or less) would be unlikely to yield any significant paleontological resources. This determination is based on the fact that younger Quaternary deposits are void of fossils and near-surface alluvium is usually too young to contain fossils, and therefore, possesses low sensitivity.

As a result, no effects to paleontological resources would be expected from earth-moving activities at shallow depths at the proposed Project site. However, deeper excavations that may extend down into older Quaternary (Pleistocene) alluvial deposits would be more likely to unearth fossil vertebrate remains (McLeod 2020 listed in the PRA). Older Quaternary deposits underlying the general Project vicinity are considered to have a high paleontological sensitivity because they have proven to yield significant paleontological resources (i.e., identifiable vertebrate fossils) in the past. Generally, ground-disturbing activities exceeding depths beyond Holocene soils and younger Quaternary alluvium would encounter older Quaternary alluvium. In order to reduce impacts to any undiscovered paleontological resource, Mitigation Measure GEO-2 through Mitigation Measure GEO-5 shall be implemented. With the following mitigation measures implemented, impacts on paleontological resources would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: Based upon the analysis presented in Section 4.5, Geology and Soils of the DEIR, which is incorporated herein by reference, the following Mitigation Measures are feasible and are made binding through the MMRP. Imposition of these mitigation measures will reduce potentially significant impacts to less than significant.

Speedway Commerce Center ProjectEnvironmental Impacts Found to be Findings of Fact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated City of Rancho Cucamonga 47 January 2022
MM GEO-1 would be applied.

MM GEO-2: Worker’s Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP). Prior to the start of the proposed Project activities, all field personnel will receive a worker’s environmental awareness training on paleontological resources. The training will provide a description of the laws and ordinances protecting fossil resources, the types of fossil resources that may be encountered in the Project area, the role of the paleontological monitor, outline steps to follow in the event that a fossil discovery is made, and provide contact information for the Project Paleontologist. The training will be developed by the Project Paleontologist and can be delivered concurrent with other training including cultural, biological, safety, etc.

MM GEO-3: Paleontological Mitigation Monitoring. Prior to the commencement of ground-disturbing activities, a professional paleontologist will be retained to prepare and implement a PRMMP for the proposed Project. The PRMMP will describe the monitoring required during excavations that extend into older Quaternary (Pleistocene) age sediments, and the location of areas deemed to have a high paleontological resource potential. Monitoring will entail the visual inspection of excavated or graded areas and trench sidewalls. If the Project Paleontologist determines full-time monitoring is no longer warranted, based on the geologic conditions at depth, he or she may recommend that monitoring be reduced or cease entirely.

MM GEO-4: Fossil Discoveries. In the event that a paleontological resource is discovered, the monitor will have the authority to temporarily divert the construction equipment around the find until it is assessed for scientific significance and, if appropriate, collected. If the resource is determined to be of scientific significance, the Project Paleontologist shall complete the following:

1. Salvage of Fossils. If fossils are discovered, all work in the immediate vicinity should be halted to allow the paleontological monitor, and/or Project Paleontologist to evaluate the discovery and determine if the fossil may be considered significant. If the fossils are determined to be potentially significant, the Project Paleontologist (or paleontological monitor) should recover them following standard field procedures for collecting paleontological as outlined in the PRMMP prepared for the project. Typically, fossils can be safely salvaged quickly by a single paleontologist and not disrupt construction activity. In some cases, larger fossils (such as complete skeletons or large mammal fossils) require more extensive excavation and longer salvage periods. In this case the paleontologist should have the authority to temporarily direct, divert or halt construction activity to ensure that the fossil(s) can be removed in a safe and timely manner.

2. Fossil Preparation and Curation. The PRMMP will identify the museum that has agreed to accept fossils that may be discovered during project-related excavations. Upon completion of fieldwork, all significant fossils collected will be prepared in a properly equipped laboratory to a point ready for curation.

Preparation may include the removal of excess matrix from fossil materials and stabilizing or repairing specimens. During preparation and inventory, the fossils specimens will be identified to the lowest taxonomic level practical prior to curation at an accredited museum. The fossil specimens must be

Speedway Commerce Center ProjectEnvironmental Impacts Found to be Findings of Fact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated City of Rancho Cucamonga 48 January 2022
delivered to the accredited museum or repository no later than 90 days after all fieldwork is completed.

The cost of curation will be assessed by the repository and will be the responsibility of the client.

MM GEO-5: Final Paleontological Mitigation Report. Upon completion of ground-disturbing activity (and curation of fossils if necessary) the Project Paleontologist should prepare a final mitigation and monitoring report outlining the results of the mitigation and monitoring program. The report should include discussion of the location, duration and methods of the monitoring, stratigraphic sections, any recovered fossils, and the scientific significance of those fossils, and where fossils were curated.

Finding: Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 20181(a) and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a), the City hereby finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect on the environment to below a level of significance.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DEIR pages 4.5-20 through 4.5-22.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Impact 4.6-1: Would the Project generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that could have a significant impact on the environment?
Environmental Analysis: Development of the Project would result in the generation of approximately 1,410 MTCO 2e over the course of construction. Construction GHG emissions are typically summed and amortized over the lifetime of the Project (assumed to be 30 years), then added to the operational emissions24. The amortized Project construction emissions would be 47 MTCO 2e per year. Once construction is complete, the generation of these GHG emissions would cease. The development of the 100 Percent E-Commerce Worst-Case Scenario would result in the generation of approximately 1,290 MTCO2e over the course of construction. Construction GHG emissions are typically summed and amortized over the lifetime of the Project (assumed to be 30 years), then added to the operational emissions25. The amortized Project construction emissions would be 43 MTCO 2e per year. Once construction is complete, the generation of these GHG emissions would cease.

Operation of the Project would generate approximately 14,394 MTCO2e annually from both construction and operations of the Project. Project-related GHG emissions would exceed the SCAQMD’s 10,000 MTCO2e per year threshold for industrial uses without mitigation. Approximately 56 percent of the GHG emissions would be from energy consumption and approximately 37 percent of the emissions would be from mobile sources. Mitigation measures have been identified to reduce emissions. It should be noted that emissions of motor vehicles are controlled by State and Federal standards and the City and Project have no control over these standards. Mitigated GHG emissions associated with the Project would not 24 The project lifetime is based on the standard 30-year assumption of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (South Coast Air Quality Management District, Minutes for the GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Stakeholder Working Group #13, August 26, 2009).
25 Ibid.

Speedway Commerce Center ProjectEnvironmental Impacts Found to be Findings of Fact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated City of Rancho Cucamonga 49 January 2022
exceed the 10,000 MTCO 2e per year threshold. Furthermore, GHG emissions from the 100 Percent E-Commerce Worst Case Scenario would not exceed the SCAQMD’s 10,000 MTCO2e per year threshold.

Mitigation Measures: Based upon the analysis presented in Section 4.6, Greenhouse Gas Emissions of the DEIR, which is incorporated herein by reference, the following Mitigation Measures are feasible and are made binding through the MMRP. Imposition of these mitigation measures will reduce potentially significant impacts to less than significant.

MM: Refer to MMs AQ-1 through AQ-7 for the Project and MMAQ-1 for the 100 Percent E-Commerce Worst-Case Scenario. No additional mitigation is required.

Finding: Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 20181(a) and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a), the City hereby finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect on the environment to below a level of significance.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DEIR pages 4.6-13 through 4.6-21.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Impact 4.7-1:Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Environmental Analysis: The routine transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials must adhere to federal, state, and local regulations for transport, handling, storage, and disposal of hazardous substances.

Compliance with the regulatory framework would ensure Project construction would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials during construction.

The proposed facilities would be expected to use limited hazardous materials and substances which would include cleaners, paints, solvents, and fertilizers and pesticides for site landscaping. The Project would not create a significant impact through the transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials since the facilities are required to comply with all applicable Federal, State, and regional regulations. Although not anticipated, mitigation measures are proposed in order to ensure that the Project does not exceed threshold quantity of a regulated substance greater than as specified by the applicable health and safety code. With implementation of Mitigation Measures and compliance with all applicable Federal, State, and regional regulations regarding hazardous material generation and usage on the site, potential impacts related to transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials would be reduced to less than significant levels.

Mitigation Measures: Based upon the analysis presented in Section 4.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials of the DEIR, which is incorporated herein by reference, the following Mitigation Measures are feasible

Speedway Commerce Center ProjectEnvironmental Impacts Found to be Findings of Fact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated City of Rancho Cucamonga 50 January 2022
and are made binding through the MMRP. Imposition of these mitigation measures will reduce potentially significant impacts to less than significant.

MM HAZ-1: If a proposed use at the Project has a threshold quantity of a regulated substance greater than as specified by the applicable health and safety code, the user shall prepare and implement a Hazardous Materials Risk Management Plan for facilities that store, handle, or use regulated substances as defined in the California Health and Safety Code 25532 (g) in excess of threshold quantities. This plan shall be reviewed and approved by the San Bernardino County Department of Environmental Health through the Certified Unified Program Agencies (CUPA) process prior to implementation as required by the California Accidental Release Prevention (CalARP) Program.

Finding: Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 20181(a) and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a), the City hereby finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect on the environment to below a level of significance.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DEIR pages 4.6-19 through 4.6-20.

Impact 4.7-2:Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
Environmental Analysis: The Phase I ESA identified one REC associated with the Project site.

Subsequently, a Phase II investigation was conducted to evaluate the potential for soil or groundwater contamination in association with the REC on the Project site. The Phase II investigation did not result in significant soil impairments associated with the past and present use of the proposed Project site.

However, if site development plans involve net export of soil from the Project site, then a Soil Management Plan (SMP) is warranted to manage off-site reuse or disposal options based on the presence of anthropogenic chemicals in the soil.

Project operations would involve typical hazardous materials/chemicals associated with warehousing uses such cleaners, paints, solvents, and fertilizers and pesticides for site landscaping. Any routine transport, use, and disposal of these materials during Project operations must adhere to federal, state, and local regulations for transport, handling, storage, and disposal of hazardous substances. Furthermore, hazardous materials/chemicals such as cleaners, paints, solvents and fertilizers in low quantities do not pose a significant threat related to the release of hazardous materials into the environment.

Mitigation Measures: Based upon the analysis presented in Section 4.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials of the DEIR, which is incorporated herein by reference, the following Mitigation Measures are feasible and are made binding through the MMRP. Imposition of these mitigation measures will reduce potentially significant impacts to less than significant.

Speedway Commerce Center ProjectEnvironmental Impacts Found to be Findings of Fact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated City of Rancho Cucamonga 51 January 2022
MM HAZ-2: If site development plans involve net export of soil from the Project site, a Soil Management Plan shall be prepared to manage off-site reuse or disposal options based on the presence of anthropogenic chemicals in the soil. The Plan would be submitted to the City for review and approval.

Finding: Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 20181(a) and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a), the City hereby finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect on the environment to below a level of significance.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DEIR pages 4.6-20 through 4.6-21.

Tribal Cultural Resources
Impact 4.12-1: Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in PRC 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:
iii. Listed or eligible for listing in the CRHR, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in PRC Section 5020.1(k) or
iv. 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 PRC Section 5024.1, the Lead Agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe?
Environmental Analysis: Paleo West contacted the NAHC, as part of the cultural resource assessment, on April 24, 2020, for a review of the Sacred Lands File Search (SLF). The NAHC responded on April 29, 2020, stating that the SLF was completed with negative results; however, the NAHC requested that 13 individuals representing 12 Native American tribal groups be contacted to elicit information regarding cultural resource issues related to the proposed Project.

Paleo West sent outreach letters to the 13 recommended individuals on May 7, 2020. These letters were followed up by phone calls and emails on May 28, 2020. As of September 2020, four responses have been received. Jill McCormick, Historic Preservation Officer for the Quechan Indian Tribe, responded on May 11, 2020 and stated that the tribe did not wish to provide comments on the Project and would defer to more local tribes. On May 13, 2020, Alexandra McCleary, Tribal Archaeologist for the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians, emailed and stated that the proposed Project is within the Serrano ancestral territory and is of interest to the tribe. Ms. McCleary further noted that the Project area is not located within the immediate vicinity of any sacred sites, but it is located near Etiwanda Creek, which the tribe considers to be sensitive for cultural resources. Donna Yocum, Chairwoman of the San Fernando Band of Mission Indians, emailed on May 28, 2020 and stated that the tribe would defer this Project to the San Manual Band of Mission Indians. Finally, Patricia Garcia-Plotkin, Tribal Historic Preservation Office for

Speedway Commerce Center ProjectEnvironmental Impacts Found to be Findings of Fact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated City of Rancho Cucamonga 52 January 2022
the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, called and stated that the Project area is outside of the tribe’s ancestral territory and had no information on cultural resources located within the Project vicinity.

The City sent letters on August 24, 2020 to all tribes in conformance with SB 18 and on December 23, 2020 to all tribes inviting consultation in conformance with AB 52. An email response was received on January 13, 2021 from the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians (SMBMI) that indicated that Project was within the Serrano ancestral territory and, therefore, was of interest to the Tribe. A phone consultation was received in January 2021 from the San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians to the City with a request to include an archeologist and/or Native American Monitor during ground disturbance. No additional consultation requests were received. The cultural resources assessment did not identify any archaeological or tribal cultural resources on the Project site. Mitigation Measures will ensure the protection of any unknown or inadvertently discovered archaeological resources and human remains, or other tribal cultural significant resources. With implementation of these measures, impacts to tribal cultural resources would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: Based upon the analysis presented in Section 4.12, Tribal Cultural Resource of the DEIR, which is incorporated herein by reference, the following Mitigation Measures are feasible and are made binding through the MMRP. Imposition of these mitigation measures will reduce potentially significant impacts to less than significant.

MM TCR-1: Tribal Cultural Resources Discovery: The San Manuel Band of Mission Indians Cultural Resources Department (SMBMI) shall be contacted, as detailed in TCR-2, of any pre-contact cultural resources discovered during Project implementation, and be provided information regarding the nature of the find, so as to provide Tribal input with regards to significance and treatment. Should the find be deemed significant, as defined by CEQA (as amended, 2015), a cultural resource Monitoring and Treatment Plan shall be created by the Project 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.

MM TCR-2: Archeological/Cultural Documents: Any and all archaeological/cultural documents created as a part of the Project (isolate records, site records, survey reports, testing reports, etc.) shall be supplied to the applicant and Lead Agency for dissemination to SMBMI. The Lead Agency and/or applicant shall, in good faith, consult with SMBMI throughout the life of the Project.

MM TCR-3: Retain an Archeologist and/or Native American Monitor/Consultant: The Project Applicant shall be required to retain and compensate for the services of a Tribal monitor/consultant. The monitor/consultant will only be present on-site during the construction phases that involve ground disturbing activities. Ground disturbing activities are activities that may include, but are not limited to, pavement removal, pot-holing or auguring, grubbing, tree removals, boring, grading, excavation, drilling, and trenching, within the project area. The Tribal Monitor/consultant will complete daily monitoring logs that will provide descriptions of the day’s activities, including construction activities, locations, soil, and any cultural materials identified. The on-site monitoring shall end when the project site grading and

Speedway Commerce Center ProjectEnvironmental Impacts Found to be Findings of Fact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated City of Rancho Cucamonga 53 January 2022
excavation activities are completed, or when the Tribal Representatives and monitor/consultant have indicated that the site has a low potential for impacting Tribal Cultural Resources.

Finding: Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 20181(a) and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a), the City hereby finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect on the environment to below a level of significance.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DEIR pages 4.12-6 through 4.12-8.

Speedway Commerce Center Project
Findings of Fact Alternatives to the Proposed Project
City of Rancho Cucamonga 54 January 2022
Section 6: Alternatives to the Proposed Project
CEQA requires that an EIR describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, that could feasibly attain the basic objectives of the project, and to evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives (14 CCR 15126.6[a]). The CEQA Guidelines direct that the selection of alternatives be governed by “a rule of reason” (14 CCR 15126.6[a], [f]). As defined by the CEQA Guidelines, “The range of alternatives required in an EIR is governed by a ‘rule of reason’ that requires the EIR to set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice. The alternatives shall be limited to ones that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project. Of those alternatives, the EIR needs to examine in detail only the ones that the Lead Agency determines could feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project” (14 CCR 15126.6[f]). The Project objectives are set forth in DEIR Section 6.3. The Project’s unavoidable significant impacts are set forth in DEIR Section 6.4.

The Alternative Project and 100% E-Commerce Worst Case Scenario Projects referenced above were not analyzed in the EIR as Project alternatives for purposes of CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6. Instead, they were analyzed at a project-level of detail in conjunction with the Project to provide the applicant and decision-makers additional information and analysis of alternative project site plans.

Alternatives Rejected from Further Consideration
The CEQA Guidelines provide that this EIR should “identify any alternatives that were considered by the Lead Agency but were rejected as infeasible during the scoping process and briefly explain the reasons underlying the Lead Agency’s determination” (14 CCR 15126.6[c]). The following is a discussion of the proposed project alternatives developed during the scoping and planning process and the reasons they were not selected for detailed analysis in this EIR.

With respect to the feasibility of potential alternatives to the proposed project, CEQA Guidelines § 15126.6(t)(l) states, “Among the factors that may be taken into account when addressing the feasibility of alternatives are site suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, general plan consistency, other plans or regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries . . . and whether the proponent can reasonably acquire, control or otherwise have access to the alternative site.” In determining an appropriate range of project alternatives to be evaluated in this EIR, a number of possible alternatives were initially considered and then rejected. Project alternatives were rejected because they could not accomplish the basic objectives of the proposed Project; they would not have resulted in a reduction of significant adverse environmental impacts; or they were considered infeasible to construct or operate.

The following alternative has been rejected from further consideration:

Alternative Sites

Speedway Commerce Center Project
Findings of Fact Alternatives to the Proposed Project
City of Rancho Cucamonga 55 January 2022
In the case of the proposed Project, an alternative site is not considered applicable or feasible, as the Project Applicant does not control other undeveloped property of similar size within the City or in the immediate area. Additionally, there are very few remaining developable sites in the City that are approximately commensurate in size to the Project. Further, due to the lack of significant environmental impacts identified during Project analysis, an alternative site would not be likely to substantially reduce any potential impact created by Project implementation. For the above reasons, the Alternative Site Alternative was rejected from further consideration.

Alternatives Selected for Further Analysis
The following alternatives were addressed in the DEIR:

1. The No Project Alternative

2. The No Annexation Alternative

3. The Reduced Footprint Alternative
Alternative 1: “No Project” Alternative
Description: Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6, the No Project Alternative assumes that the existing land uses and condition of the Project sites at the time the NOP was published (September 3, 2020) would continue to exist without the Project. The No Project Alternative assumes the Project would not be implemented and land uses and other improvements would not be constructed. This Alternative serves as the baseline against which the effects of the Project and other Project alternatives are evaluated. Under this Alternative, none of the proposed improvements would occur. However, development allowed by right under the existing Industrial Employment District, Regional Industrial and General Industrial (I-G) General Plan designation within each jurisdiction, could occur. The existing zoning would allow for industrial development, but the parcels would remain within multiple jurisdictional boundaries. Access to the site is from Napa Street, currently a County of San Bernardino road.

Finding: The City finds that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make this alternative infeasible. Although the No Project Alternative would generate lower amounts of environmental impacts, this alternative would meet none of the Project’s objectives.

Supporting Evidence – Please see DEIR Pages 6-6 through 6-11.

Alternative 2: “No Annexation” Alternative
Description: Alternative 2 was developed to eliminate the need for the annexation (and associated Pre- zone and GPA) of a portion of Assessor Parcel Number (APN) 0229-291-23 (not a part of the development project and not analyzed in this EIR) and the whole of APN 0229-291-46, each located in unincorporated

Speedway Commerce Center Project
Findings of Fact Alternatives to the Proposed Project
City of Rancho Cucamonga 56 January 2022
San Bernardino County along the southern Project boundary. This Alternative, inclusive of the Project and Alternate Project, would develop APN 0229-291-54 in accordance with the existing Industrial Employment (IE) land use zoning classification and Industrial Employment District General Plan land use designation.

This Alternative would develop the new public street constructed east of Etiwanda Creek along the west property line. The public street would be constructed per City standards and dedicated to the City.

Alternative 2 would be subject to the same development standards as the Project including parking, setback, and landscape requirements. The development of parcel APN 0229-291-46 for parking, site improvements, landscaping, driveways and roadways would occur within the County of San Bernardino to support the Project.

Finding: The City finds that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make this alternative infeasible. The No Annexation Alternative would generate equal amounts of environmental impacts. As well, this alternative would meet all of the Project’s objectives. However, implementation of this alternative would not include the consistent establishment of land use designation/zoning classifications and jurisdictional boundaries and would require review of the project by both the County and the City. This could delay the anticipated rate of development and make development of the site inconsistent as the development standards within each boundary would be based on development criteria unique to each jurisdiction.

Supporting Evidence – Please see DEIR Pages 6-11 through 6-19.

Alternative 3: “Reduced Footprint” Alternative
Description: This Alternative would reduce the overall development footprint within the Project site by 50 percent. Building A would be approximately 250,324 sf and Building B would be approximately 77,615 sf. This Alternative would result in smaller warehouse buildings and associated parking and landscaped areas and would concentrate development on the southerly/easterly end of the Project site, avoiding the areas not presently disturbed by Auto Club Speedway overflow parking. This Alternative would reduce overall impacts to the site.

Finding: The City finds that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make this alternative infeasible. The Reduced Footprint Alternative would generate overall lower amounts of environmental impacts. As well, this alternative would meet most of the Project’s objectives. Specifically, this Alternative with a smaller warehouse would not meet Project objective (2) Implement the City’s desire to create revenue-generating uses.

Supporting Evidence – Please see DEIR Pages 6-19 through 6-24.

Environmentally Superior Alternative

Speedway Commerce Center Project
Findings of Fact Alternatives to the Proposed Project
City of Rancho Cucamonga 57 January 2022
Section 15126.6(e)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an environmentally superior alternative be designated and states that if the environmentally superior Alternative is the No Project Alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives. Based on the summary of information presented in Section 6 of the DEIR, the environmentally superior Alternative is Alternative 1: No Project Alternative. Because Alternative 1 would leave the Project site essentially unchanged and would not have the operational effects that would be associated with any of the alternatives, this Alternative has fewer environmental impacts than the Project or any of the other alternatives.

Section 15126.6(e)(2) of the State CEQA Guidelines states that if the “No Project” alternative is found to be environmentally superior, “the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives.” Aside from the No Project Alternative, Alternative 3: Reduced Footprint Alternative would have the least environmental impacts because it would develop less of the Project area, result in a reduction of vehicle trips and would incrementally reduce impacts to resource areas; such as air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, noise, and traffic.

Speedway Commerce Center Project
Findings of Fact Additional CEQA Considerations
City of Rancho Cucamonga 58 January 2022
Section 7: Additional CEQA Considerations
Significant and Irreversible Environmental Changes (DEIR Section 5.1) The Project would consume limited, slowly renewable, and non-renewable resources. Fossil fuels would be used by construction vehicles and heavy equipment during the construction period and by vehicles and equipment used during Project operations. Though the Project would endeavor to utilize fossil fuels efficiently, their use would be vital for construction and operations activities, making their nonuse unlikely. However, the Project would not require the continued use of fossil fuels after at the end of its operational life. The Project would also require the commitment of land on which the Project would be developed for industrial use. None of the proposed improvements are incapable of removal or nonuse after the end of the Project. Although changes to the Project parcels are designed to remain for the life of the Project and beyond, these changes may be amendable by future uses beyond the life of the proposed Project.

The majority of identified impacts were anticipated to create a less than significant impact or no impact.

The Project’s potential impacts, though, would not commit future generations to similar uses. Although the Project would be developed in a HI land use zone, the Project does not actually propose uses beyond warehousing and office uses. The land on which the Project would be constructed would be graded and developed for large-scale buildings. However, the development activities would not affect the land in such a way that other structures could not be developed there in the future. The industrial warehousing, or E- Commerce, nature of the Project is unlikely to lead to impacts that would relegate future generations and developments to similar uses. The Project would also comply with any relevant environmental policy regarding the storage and disposal of hazardous materials. Through this compliance the Project would minimize the potential for any environmental impacts due to accidental discharges. Mitigation measures have also been proposed to further prepare for potential environmental hazards. With the addition of mitigation and compliance with federal, state, and regional regulations and laws, the Project is not expected to produce accidents that would pose an irreversible risk to the surrounding environment. The Project was also determined to produce a less than significant impact to public services such as police and fire protection.

Growth Inducing Impacts (DEIR Section 5.2)
The Project is intended to develop a warehousing facility. In regard to economic growth, the Project will not directly create significant economic growth within the City. However, the Project site may cause an indirect economic growth due to its development. While the Project site would generate revenue to the City through taxes on its revenue, comparative to the City overall it is a relatively small increase.

Construction of the Project site would generate employment consistent with other similar construction activities, and only temporarily until construction activities are complete. Most construction workers would be anticipated to come from within the City or from the nearby region, which already has a population of substantial size to supply the needed workers.

Speedway Commerce Center Project
Findings of Fact Additional CEQA Considerations
City of Rancho Cucamonga 59 January 2022
It was concluded that the Project would potentially generate approximately 1,172 employees and the Alternate Project would generate approximately 750 employees. This would be less than the City’s 10,600-person unemployed population as estimated by the EDD. The Project would, therefore, not necessarily spur a boost in population since the employees could be found within the City’s existing unemployment numbers. As well, the Project is not expected to directly affect the housing availability within the City since no new housing units or renovations to existing housing units are included as objectives. Indirectly, the Project could affect housing stock due to the expansion of the City’s economic potential.

The Project would request a GPA to designate the area north of Napa Street, west of the San Sevaine Channel to East Etiwanda Creek and within the County of San Bernardino to Industrial Employment District Land Use designation consistent with the Industrial Employment District land use designation to the north within the City of Rancho Cucamonga limits. The existing and proposed land use and zoning designations do not allow for the development of residential development. The obstacle to population growth under existing conditions is due to the existing zoning/land use designation, and this obstacle would remain with the proposed GPA and Pre-zone; therefore, the Project would not remove obstacles to population growth.

The proposed Project would include new infrastructure improvements to allow for the use of resources such as electricity and water, and potentially natural gas. The environmental impacts associated with the facility improvements associated with the proposed Project have been analyzed in DEIR Section 4.1, Air Quality through Section 4.13, Utilities and Service Systems. As concluded in those sections, no significant unavoidable impacts were discovered through the development of the Project. In the presence of potentially significant impacts which were not minimized by the Project Design Features, mitigation measures have been proposed which, when implemented, would further reduce potential impacts stemming from the proposed Project’s development to less than significant levels. Further, the Project would not require the expansion of utility facilities such as water treatment plants or landfills. Adequate capacity was concluded for each of those facilities. As well, no cumulative impacts were discovered during the analysis of the Project.

Mandatory Findings of Significance (DEIR Section 5.3)
In regard to habitats and wildlife, it was concluded that the Project site had a low capability to harbor special status plants and animals. Nevertheless, mitigation was proposed in the section to further reduce the risk to special status species. Regarding impacts to cultural and historical resources, no recorded historic or prehistoric resources were identified within the Project site. Further, mitigation proposed within the section would include the retainment of a professional archaeologist and paleontologist to further minimize potential effects to the City’s historical and prehistorical resources, in the unlikely event that cultural or paleontological resources are exposed during construction of the Project.

The Project would not achieve short term environmental goals to the detriment of long term environmental goals. The Project and Alternate Project would occupy an area previously undeveloped and vacant. This area would then be developed and used. This would assist the short term goal of the Project

Speedway Commerce Center Project
Findings of Fact Additional CEQA Considerations
City of Rancho Cucamonga 60 January 2022
by providing an area for the development of warehousing and the associated parking and landscaping improvements and facilitating the usage of the Project site by the Applicant. The Project area is in an area of the City designated for industrial land uses. As a warehousing project proposed at a scale that is considered regionally significant according to CEQA Guidelines Section 15206(b), the uses incorporated in the Project would align with the intended uses for the Project area and with the City’s long-term goals as outlined in the Rancho Cucamonga GP Land Use Element. In addition, no significant and unavoidable impacts would occur from the Project that would result in a long-term impact on the environment.

Regarding cumulatively considerable impacts, the DEIR provides a cumulative impact analysis for all thresholds that result in a less than significant impact, a potentially significant impact unless mitigated, or a significant and unavoidable impact. Cumulative impacts are addressed for each of the environmental topics listed above and are provided in DEIR Sections 4.1 through 4.13. Where the Project may result in cumulatively considerable impacts that are significant and unavoidable, these are summarized in the respective DEIR section. No significant and unavoidable impacts were identified.

Speedway Commerce Center Project
Findings of Fact Additional CEQA Considerations
City of Rancho Cucamonga 61 January 2022
This page intentionally left blank.

Speedway Commerce Center Project
Findings of Fact General CEQA Findings
City of Rancho Cucamonga 62 January 2022
Section 8: General CEQA Findings
The City hereby finds as follows:
1) The foregoing statements are true and correct;
2) The City is the “Lead Agency” for the Project evaluated in the CEQA Documents and independently reviewed and analyzed in the DEIR and FEIR for the Project; 3) The Notice of Preparation of the DEIR was circulated for public review. It requested that responsible agencies respond as to the scope and content of the environmental information germane to that agency’s specific responsibilities;
4) The public review period for the DEIR was for 45 days between June 29, 2021 and August 13, 2021. The DEIR and appendices were available for public review during that time. A Notice of Completion and copies of the DEIR were sent to the State Clearinghouse, and notices of availability of the DEIR were published by the City. The DEIR was available for review on the City’s website. Physical copies of the environmental documents are available at the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department.
5) The CEQA Documents were completed in compliance with CEQA; 6) The CEQA Documents reflect the City’s independent judgment; 7) The City evaluated comments on environmental issues received from persons who reviewed the DEIR. In accordance with CEQA, the City prepared written responses describing the disposition of significant environmental issues raised. The FEIR provided adequate, good faith and reasoned responses to the comments. The City reviewed the comments received and responses thereto and has determined that neither the comments received nor the responses to such comments add significant new information to the DEIR regarding adverse environmental impacts. The City has based its actions on full appraisal of all viewpoints, including all comments received up to the date of adoption of these Findings, concerning the environmental impacts identified and analyzed in the FEIR. 8) The City finds that the CEQA Documents, as amended, provide objective information to assist the decision-makers and the public at large in their consideration of the environmental consequences of the Project. The public review period provided all interested jurisdictions, agencies, private organizations, and individuals the opportunity to submit all comments made during the public review period;
9) The CEQA Documents evaluated the following impacts: (1) air quality; (2) biological resources; (3) cultural resources; (4) energy; (5) geology and soils; (6) greenhouse gas emissions; (7) hazards and hazardous materials; (8) hydrology and water quality; (9) land use and planning; (10) noise; (11) transportation; (12) tribal cultural resources; and (13) utilities and service systems. Additionally, the CEQA Documents considered, in separate sections, any potential significant irreversible environmental changes and growth-inducing impacts of the Project, as well as effects found not to be significant and a reasonable range of project

Speedway Commerce Center Project
Findings of Fact General CEQA Findings
City of Rancho Cucamonga 63 January 2022
alternatives. All of the significant environmental impacts of the Project were identified in the CEQA Documents;
10) The MMRP includes all of the mitigation measures identified in the CEQA Documents and has been designed to ensure compliance during implementation of the Project. The MMRP provides the steps necessary to ensure that the mitigation measures are fully enforceable; 11) The MMRP designates responsibility and anticipated timing for the implementation of mitigation; the City’s Community Development Director will serve as the MMRP Coordinator;
12) In determining whether the Project may have a significant impact on the environment, and in adopting these Findings pursuant to Section 21081 of CEQA, the City has complied with CEQA Sections 21081.5 and 21082.2;
13) The impacts of the Project have been analyzed to the extent feasible at the time of certification of the CEQA Documents;
14) The City made no decisions related to approval of the Project prior to the initial recommendation of certification of the CEQA Documents. The City also did not commit to a definite course of action with respect to the Project prior to the initial consideration of the CEQA Documents.
15) Copies of all the documents incorporated by reference in the CEQA Documents are and have been available upon request at all times at the offices of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department, the custodian of record for such documents or other materials; 16) The responses to the comments on the DEIR, which are contained in the FEIR, clarify and amplify the analysis in the DEIR;
17) Having reviewed the information contained in the CEQA Documents and in the administrative record, the City finds that there is no new significant information regarding adverse environmental impacts of the Project in the FEIR; and
18) Having received, reviewed and considered all information and documents in the CEQA Documents, as well as all other information in the record of proceedings on this matter, these Findings are hereby adopted by the City in its capacity as the CEQA Lead Agency.

Speedway Commerce Center Project
Findings of Fact Findings Regarding Recirculation
City of Rancho Cucamonga 64 January 2022
Section 9: Findings Regarding Recirculation
The City finds that the DEIR does not require recirculation under CEQA (PRC § 21092.1 and CEQA Guidelines § 15088.5). CEQA Guidelines § 15088.5 requires recirculation of an EIR prior to certification of the FEIR when “significant new information is added to the EIR after public notice is given of the availability of the draft EIR for public review.” As described in CEQA Guidelines § 15088.5:

New information added to an EIR is not “significant” unless the EIR is changed in a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of the project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect (including a feasible project alternative) that the project’s proponents have declined to implement. “Significant new information” requiring recirculation includes, for example, a disclosure showing that:

1. A new significant environmental impact would result from the project or from a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented;

2. A substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact would result unless mitigation measures are adopted that reduce the impact to a level of insignificance;

3. A feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others previously analyzed would clearly lessen the significant environmental impacts of the project, but the project’s proponents decline to adopt it;

4. The DEIR was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful public review and comment were precluded.

In addition, CEQA Guidelines § 15088.5(b) provides that “recirculation is not required where the new information added to the EIR merely clarifies and amplifies or makes insignificant modifications in an adequate EIR.” Recirculation also is not required simply because new information is added to the EIR — indeed, new information is oftentimes added given CEQA’s public/agency comment and response process and CEQA’s post-DEIR circulation requirement of proposed responses to comments submitted by public agencies. In short, recirculation is “intended to be an exception rather than the general rule.” (Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1112, 1132).

As such, the City makes the following Findings:

1. None of the public comments submitted to the City regarding the DEIR present any significant new information that would require the DEIR to be recirculated for public review.

2. No new or modified mitigation measures are proposed that would have the potential to create new significant environmental impacts.

Speedway Commerce Center Project
Findings of Fact Findings Regarding Recirculation
City of Rancho Cucamonga 65 January 2022

3. The DEIR adequately analyzed project alternatives and there are no feasible project alternatives or mitigation measures considerably different from others previously analyzed that would clearly lessen the significant environmental impacts of the project.

4. The DEIR was not fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature and did not preclude meaningful public review and comment.

In this legal context, the City finds that recirculation of the DEIR prior to certification is not required. In addition to providing responses to comments, the FEIR includes revisions to expand upon information presented in the DEIR (FEIR, Responses to Comments, Section 3, Errata, Appendices); explain or enhance the evidentiary basis for the DEIR’s findings; update information; and to make clarifications, amplifications, updates, or helpful revisions to the DEIR. The FEIR’s revisions, clarifications and/or updates do not result in any new significant impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact.

In sum, the FEIR demonstrates that the proposed Project would not result in any new significant impacts or increase the severity of a significant impact, as compared to the analysis presented in the DEIR. The changes reflected in the FEIR also do not indicate that meaningful public review of the DEIR was precluded in the first instance. Accordingly, recirculation of the EIR is not required as revisions to the EIR are not significant as defined in § 15088.5 of the CEQA Guidelines.

Section 10: Legal Effects of Findings
To the extent that these Findings conclude that the proposed mitigation measures outlined in herein are feasible and have not been modified, superseded, or withdrawn, the City hereby commits to implementing these measures. These Findings, in other words, are not merely informational, but rather constitute a binding set of obligations that will come into effect when the City approves the proposed Project.

The mitigation measures that are referenced herein and adopted concurrently with these Findings will be effectuated through the process of construction and implementation of the proposed Project.

Speedway Commerce Center
Project
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
6 6
November
2021
This page intentionally left blank.

Speedway Commerce Center
Project
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
6 7
November
2021
Exhibit B
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program
Speedway Commerce Center Project

Speedway Commerce Center
Project
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
6 8
November
2021
This page intentionally left blank.

Speedway Commerce Center
Project
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
6 9
November
2021
Section 1: Authority
This environmental Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Program) has been prepared pursuant to §21081.6 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code §21000 et seq.), and CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code Regs. §15000 et seq.) §§15091(d) and 15097, to ensure implementation of and provide for the monitoring of mitigation measures required of the Speedway Commerce Center Project (Project), as set forth in the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) prepared for the Project. This report will be kept on file in the offices of the CEQA Lead Agency, the City of Rancho Cucamonga (City).

As noted in the EIR, the Project has been designed to avoid sensitive resources, as reflected in Project design plans and in Project Design Features (PDFs). The EIR also addresses the potential environmental impacts of the Project, and, where appropriate, recommends mitigation measures to avoid or substantially lessen significant environmental impacts. The Program detailed in the matrix table below is designed to monitor and ensure implementation of all mitigation measures that are adopted for the Project.

The City is the Lead Agency for the Project and assumes ultimate enforcement responsibilities for implementation of all mitigation measures listed in this Program. The City may assign responsibility for implementation or monitoring to appropriate designees such as a construction manager or third-party monitor. However, as the Lead Agency, the City remains responsible for ensuring that implementation of the mitigation measures occurs in accordance with this Program.

In some cases, the City is required to secure permits or approvals from third-party agencies in order to implement a mitigation measure. In these cases, the City is responsible for verifying that such permits or approvals have been obtained in accordance with the conditions stipulated in the mitigation measure. The City’s existing planning, engineering, operations, and procurement review and inspection processes will be used as the basic foundation for the Program procedures and will also serve to provide the documentation for the reporting program.

Section 2: Monitoring Schedule
Prior to construction, while detailed designplans are being prepared by City staff or its agents, Citystaff will be responsible for ensuring compliance with mitigation monitoring applicable to the Project construction, development, and design phases. Once construction has begun and is underway, monitoring of the mitigation measures associated with construction will be included in the responsibilities of City staff, who shall prepare or cause to be prepared periodic monitoring reports, as appropriate. Regulatory agencies will have to harmonize CEQA mitigation with regulatory permit conditions and monitoring/reporting as part of the regulatory permitting process and will likely require submittal of formal monitoring reports. Once construction has been completed, the City will monitor the Project as specified in the mitigation measures.

Speedway Commerce Center
Project
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
7 0
November
2021
Section 3: Support Documentation
Findings and related documentation supporting the findings involving modifications to mitigation measures shall be maintained in the Project file with the Program and shall be made available to the public upon request.

Speedway Commerce Center
Project
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
7 1
November
2021
Section 4: Format of Mitigation Monitoring Matrix
The mitigation monitoring matrix on the following pages identifies the environmental issue areas for which monitoring is required, the required mitigation measures, the time frame for monitoring, and the responsible implementing and monitoring agencies.

Section 5: Definitions
The following list provides definitions for acronyms used in the mitigation monitoring and reporting program.

Acronyms/Abbreviation Description
AES Aesthetics AQ Air Quality
ARB Air Resources Board
BACT Best Available Control Technology
BIO Biological Resources
BMP Best Management Practice
CC&Rs Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions
CCR California Code of Regulations
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CFD Community Facilities Districts
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CGC California Government Code
CRMP Cultural Resources Monitoring Plan
CTR Commute Trip Reduction
CUL Cultural Resources
DBESP Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation DEIRDraft Environmental Impact Report
DTSC Department of Toxic Substances Control
EIR Environmental Impact Report

Speedway Commerce Center
Project
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
7 2
November
2021
ESA environmental site assessment
EV electronic vehicle
FMZ fuel modification zone
GEO Geology and Soils
GHG Greenhouse Gas
GP General Plan
HANS Habitat Evaluation and Acquisition Negotiation Strategy HAZ Hazards and Hazardous Materials
HSC Health and Safety Code
HVAC heating, ventilation, and air conditioning
HYD Hydrology and Water Quality
JD Jurisdictional Delineation
MC municipal code
MM mitigation measure
MOUMemorandum of Understanding
mph miles per hour
NOI Noise

Speedway Commerce Center
Project
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
7 3
November
2021
NOI Notice of Intent
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
O&M Operations & Management
PRC Public Resources Code
PRD Permit Registration Documents
SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management City
SMARTS Storm Water Multiple Application and Report Tracking System SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
TDM Transportation Demand Management
TIA Traffic Impact Analysis
TRAN Transportation
U.S. EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
VOC volatile organic compound
WEAP Worker Environmental Awareness Program
WH Wildfire Hazards

Speedway Commerce Center
Project
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
7 4
November
2021
This page intentionally left blank.

Speedway Commerce Center
Project
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
75 November
2021
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program
Mitigation Measures
Responsibility for
Implementation
Timing of
Implementation
Responsibility for
Monitoring and Verification
City Verification
of Compliance
(Date/Initials)

AIR QUALITY
MM AQ-1: Prior to issuance of occupancy permits for the Project, the Project operator shall prepare and submit a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program for review and approval of the City of Rancho Cucamonga detailing strategies that would reduce the use of single-occupant vehicles by employees by increasing the number of trips by walking, bicycle, carpool, vanpool and transit. The TDM shall include, but is not limited to the following:
 Provide a transportation information center and on-site TDM coordinator to educate residents, employers, employees, and visitors of surrounding transportation options;
 Promote bicycling and walking through design features such as showers for employees, self-service bicycle repair area, etc. around the project site;
 Provide on-site car share amenities for employees who make only occasional use of a vehicle, as well as others who would like occasional access to a vehicle of a different type than they use day- to-day;
 Promote and support carpool/vanpool/rideshare use through parking incentives and administrative support, such as ride- matching service; and
 Incorporate incentives for using alternative travel modes, such as preferential load/unload areas or convenient designated parking spaces for carpool/vanpool users.
 Provide meal options on-site or shuttles between the facility and nearby meal destinations.

Project Applicant Prior to issuance
of occupancy
permits
City of Rancho Cucamonga

Speedway Commerce Center
Project
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
76 November
2021
Mitigation Measures
Responsibility for
Implementation
Timing of
Implementation
Responsibility for
Monitoring and Verification
City Verification
of Compliance
(Date/Initials)
MM AQ-2: For the Project, electrical hookups shall be provided at all loading bays for truckers to plug in any onboard auxiliary equipment and power refrigeration units while their truck is stopped.

Project Applicant Prior to issuance
of occupancy
permits
City of Rancho Cucamonga
MM AQ-3: All truck access gates and loading docks (both interior- and exterior-facing signs) within the Project site shall have a sign posted that states:
 Truck drivers shall turnoff engines when not in use.
 Truck drivers shall shut down the engine after five minutes of continuous idling operation. Once the vehicle is stopped, the transmission is set to “neutral” or “park,” and the parking brake is engaged.
 Telephone numbers of the building facilities manager and CARB to report Violations.

Project Applicant Prior to issuance
of occupancy
permits
City of Rancho Cucamonga
MM AQ-4: The Project will require contractors and building operator(s) (by contract specifications) to utilize on-road heavy-duty diesel trucks with a gross vehicle weight rating greater than 14,000 pounds to meet or exceed 2010 engine emission standards or to be equipped with a particulate matter trap (as available) or to be powered by natural gas, electricity, or other diesel alternative.

Project Applicant Prior to issuance
of occupancy
permits
City of Rancho Cucamonga
MM AQ-5: Prior to the issuance of building permits for the Project, the City of Rancho Cucamonga Building and Safety Department shall confirm that applicable Project plans and specifications indicate that refrigerated space for the Project does not exceed 56,000 square feet.

Project Applicant Prior to the
issuance of
building permits
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Building and Safety
Department
MM AQ-6: Post signs at every truck exit driveway providing directional information to the truck route, so that trucks will not travel on Arrow Route and Foothill Boulevard next to or near sensitive land uses (e.g., residences).

Project Applicant Prior to the
issuance of
building permits
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Building and Safety
Department

Speedway Commerce Center
Project
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
77 November
2021
Mitigation Measures
Responsibility for
Implementation
Timing of
Implementation
Responsibility for
Monitoring and Verification
City Verification
of Compliance
(Date/Initials)
MM AQ-7: The Applicant shall make its tenants aware of the funding opportunities, such as the Carl Moyer Memorial Air Quality Standards Attainment Program (Moyer Program), and other similar funding opportunities, by providing applicable literature available from the California Air Resources Board (CARB). The Moyer Program On-Road Heavy-Duty Vehicles Voucher Incentive Program (VIP) provides funding to individuals seeking to purchase new or used vehicles with 2013 or later model year engines to replace an existing vehicle that is to be scrapped.

Project Applicant Prior to issuance
of occupancy
permits
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Building and Safety
Department

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
MM BIO-1: In accordance with the CDFG Staff Report on Burrowing Owl (2012), a qualified biologist shall conduct a pre-construction presence/absence survey for burrowing owls between 30 and 14 days prior to site disturbance. If burrowing owls are detected on-site, the qualified biologist shall contact California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and conduct an impact assessment in accordance with Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation prior to commencing project activities to determine appropriate mitigation, including the acquisition and conservation of occupied replacement habitat at no less than a 2:1 ratio and the owls shall be relocated/excluded from the site outside of the breeding season following accepted protocols, and subject to approval by CDFW. A qualified biologist shall prepare and submit a passive relocation program in accordance with Appendix E (i.e., Example Components for Burrowing Owl Artificial Burrow and Exclusion Plans) of the CDFW’s Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (CDFG 2012) for CDFW review/approval prior to the commencement of disturbance activities on-site. When a qualified biologist determines that burrowing owls are no longer occupying the Project site and passive relocation is complete, construction activities may begin. A final letter report shall be prepared by the qualified biologist documenting the results of the passive relocation. The letter shall be submitted to CDFW.

Prior to passive relocation, suitable replacement burrows site(s) shall be provided within adjacent open space lands and/or other off-site lands, Project Biologist Prior to ground-
disturbing
activities
City of Rancho Cucamonga

Speedway Commerce Center
Project
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
78 November
2021
Mitigation Measures
Responsibility for
Implementation
Timing of
Implementation
Responsibility for
Monitoring and Verification
City Verification
of Compliance
(Date/Initials)
as approved by CDFW at a ratio of 2:1 and permanent conservation and management of burrowing owl habitat such that the habitat acreage, number of burrows and burrowing owl impacts are replaced consistent with the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigationincludingits Appendix A within designated adjacent conserved lands identified through coordination with CDFW. A qualified biologist shall confirm the natural or artificial burrows on the conservation lands are suitable for use by the owls. Monitoring and management of the replacement burrow site(s) shall be conducted and a reporting plan shall be prepared. The objective shall be to manage the replacement burrow sites for the benefit of burrowing owls (e.g., minimizing weed cover), with the specific goal of maintaining the functionality of the burrows for a minimum of 2 years.

MM BIO-2: Vegetation clearing should be conducted outside of the nesting season (typically February 1 through August 31). If avoidance of the nesting season cannot be accomplished, then a qualified biologist shall conduct a nesting bird survey in all suitable areas including trees, shrubs, bare ground, burrows, cavities, and structures, at the appropriate time of day/night, during appropriate weather conditions within three days prior any disturbance of the site, including disking and grading. Pre-construction surveys shall focus on both direct and indirect evidence of nesting, including nest locations and nesting behavior (e.g., copulation, carrying of food or nest materials, nest building, removal of fecal sacks, flushing suddenly from atypically close range, agitation, aggressive interactions, feigning injury or distraction displays, or other behaviors). If active nests are identified, the biologist shall establish suitable buffers around the nests, and the buffer areas shall be avoided until the nests are no longer occupied and the juvenile birds can survive independently from the nests. Typically established buffers are greater for raptors than songbirds and depend upon the species, the nesting stage, and type of construction activity proposed. The buffer should generally be a minimum of 300 feet for raptors and 100 feet for songbirds; unless a smaller buffer is specifically determined by a Project Biologist Prior to ground-
disturbing
activities
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Mitigation Measures
Responsibility for
Implementation
Timing of
Implementation
Responsibility for
Monitoring and Verification
City Verification
of Compliance
(Date/Initials)

Speedway Commerce Center
Project
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
79 November
2021
qualified biologist familiar with the nesting phenology of the nesting species.

CULTURAL RESOURCES
MM CUL-1: In the unlikely event that cultural resources, as identified by a qualified historian or archaeologist, are exposed during construction of the Project, all ground disturbing activities within 100-feet of the potential resource(s) shall be suspended. A qualified archaeologist, meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards, shall evaluate the significance of the find and determine whether or not additional study is warranted. Depending upon the significance of the find, the archaeologist may simply record the find and allow work to continue. If the discovery proves significant under CEQA, additional work, such as preparation of an archaeological treatment plan, testing, or data recovery, may be warranted and shall be submitted to the Development Services Director or his/her designee. If the resource(s) are determined to be Native American in origin, the Project archaeologist shall notify the appropriate Native American Tribe(s) from a list provided by the City.

Project
Archeologist
Prior to issuance
of grading permit
City of Rancho Cucamonga

GEOLOGY AND SOILS
MM GEO-1: Prior to the issuance of any grading permit or building permit, City Staff shall review all Project plans involving grading, foundation, structural, infrastructure, and all other relevant construction to ensure compliance with the applicable recommendations from the Geotechnical Investigation and other applicable Code requirements.

Specific design considerations as outlined in the Geotechnical Investigation included in Appendix D shall be implemented to minimize the risk for geological hazards included in the Project construction plans.

Project Applicant Prior to issuance
of grading and
building permit
City of Rancho Cucamonga
MM GEO-2: Worker’s Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP).

Prior to the start of the proposed Project activities, all field personnel will receive a worker’s environmental awareness training on paleontological resources. The training will provide a description of the Project Applicant
and Qualified
Paleontologist
Prior to the start
of the proposed
Project activities
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Mitigation Measures
Responsibility for
Implementation
Timing of
Implementation
Responsibility for
Monitoring and Verification
City Verification
of Compliance
(Date/Initials)

Speedway Commerce Center
Project
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
80 November
2021
laws and ordinances protecting fossil resources, the types of fossil resources that may be encountered in the Project area, the role of the paleontological monitor, outline steps to follow in the event that a fossil discovery is made, and provide contact information for the Project Paleontologist. The training will be developed by the Project Paleontologist and can be delivered concurrent with other training including cultural, biological, safety, etc.

MM GEO-3: Paleontological Mitigation Monitoring. Prior to the commencement of ground-disturbing activities, a professional paleontologist, defined as a paleontologist who meets the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology standards for Qualified Professional Paleontologist, will be retained by the Project Applicant to prepare and implement a Paleontological Resources Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (PRMMP) for the proposed Project. The PRMMP will describe the monitoring required during excavations that extend into older Quaternary (Pleistocene) age sediments, and the location of areas deemed to have a high paleontological resource potential. The City shall have final review and approval of the PRMMP. Monitoring will entail the visual inspection of excavated or graded areas and trench sidewalls. If the Project Paleontologist determines full-time monitoring is no longer warranted, based on the geologic conditions at depth, he or she may recommend that monitoring be reduced or cease entirely.

Project Applicant
and Qualified
Paleontologist
Prior to the
commencement of
ground-disturbing
activities
City of Rancho Cucamonga
MM GEO-4: Fossil Discoveries. In the event that a paleontological resource is discovered, the monitor will have the authority to temporarily divert the construction equipment around the find until it is assessed for scientific significance and, if appropriate, collected. If the resource is determined to be of scientific significance, the Project Paleontologist shall complete the following:

1. Salvage of Fossils. If fossils are discovered, all work in the immediate vicinity should be halted to allow the paleontological monitor, and/or Project Paleontologist to evaluate the discovery and determine if the fossil may be considered significant. If the fossils Project
Paleontologist
During the
discovery of a
paleontological
resource
Paleontological monitor
and/or Project
Paleontologist
Mitigation Measures
Responsibility for
Implementation
Timing of
Implementation
Responsibility for
Monitoring and Verification
City Verification
of Compliance
(Date/Initials)

Speedway Commerce Center
Project
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
81 November
2021
are determined to be potentially significant, the Project Paleontologist (or paleontological monitor) should recover them following standard field procedures for collecting paleontological as outlined in the PRMMP prepared for the project. Typically, fossils can be safely salvaged quickly by a single paleontologist and not disrupt construction activity. In some cases, larger fossils (such as complete skeletons or large mammal fossils) require more extensive excavation and longer salvage periods. In this case the paleontologist should have the authority to temporarily.

2. Fossil Preparation and Curation. The PRMMP will identify the museum that has agreed to accept fossils that may be discovered during project-related excavations. Upon completion of fieldwork, all significant fossils collected will be prepared in a properly equipped laboratory to a point ready for curation. Preparation may include the removal of excess matrix from fossil materials and stabilizing or repairing specimens. During preparation and inventory, the fossils specimens will be identified to the lowest taxonomic level practical prior to curation at an accredited museum.

The fossil specimens must be delivered to the accredited museum or repository no later than 90 days after all fieldwork is completed.

The cost of curation will be assessed by the repository and will be the responsibility of the client.

MM GEO-5: Final Paleontological Resources Mitigation Monitoring Report. Upon completion of ground-disturbing activity (and curation of fossils if necessary) the Project Paleontologist should prepare a final mitigation and monitoring report outlining the results of the paleontological resources mitigation and monitoring program, or PRMMP. The report should include discussion of the location, duration and methods of the monitoring, stratigraphic sections, any recovered fossils, and the scientific significance of those fossils, and where fossils were curated.

Project
Paleontologist
Upon completion
of ground-
disturbing activity
(and curation of
fossils if necessary)
City of Rancho Cucamonga
and the Project
Paleontologist
Mitigation Measures
Responsibility for
Implementation
Timing of
Implementation
Responsibility for
Monitoring and Verification
City Verification
of Compliance
(Date/Initials)

Speedway Commerce Center
Project
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
82 November
2021

HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
MM HAZ-1: If a proposed use at the Project has a threshold quantity of a regulated substance greater than as specified by the applicable health and safety code, the user shall prepare and implement a Hazardous Materials Risk Management Plan for facilities that store, handle, or use regulated substances as defined in the California HSC 25532 (g) in excess of threshold quantities. This plan shall be reviewed and approved by the San Bernardino County Department of Environmental Health through the Certified Unified Program Agencies (CUPA) process prior to implementation as required by the California Accidental Release Prevention (CalARP) Program.

Project Applicant Prior to issuance
of grading permit
San Bernardino County
Department of
Environmental Health and
the City of Rancho
Cucamonga
MM HAZ-2: If the site development plans involve a net export of soil from the Project site, a Soil Management Plan shall be prepared by a qualified hazardous material specialist to manage off-site reuse or disposal options based on the presence of anthropogenic chemicals in the soil. The Plan would be submitted to the City for review and approval.

Project Applicant
and a Qualified
Hazardous Material
Specialist
Prior to
construction
City of Rancho Cucamonga

TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
MM TCR-1: Tribal Cultural Resources Discovery: The San Manuel Band of Mission Indians Cultural Resources Department (SMBMI) shall be contacted, as detailed in TCR-2, of any pre-contact cultural resources discovered during Project implementation, and be provided information regarding the nature of the find, so as to provide Tribal input with regards to significance and treatment. Should the find be deemed significant, as defined by CEQA (as amended, 2015), a cultural resource Monitoring and Treatment Plan shall be created by the Project 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.

Project Applicant
and a Tribal
monitor/consultant
Prior to the
commencement of
ground-disturbing
activities
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Mitigation Measures
Responsibility for
Implementation
Timing of
Implementation
Responsibility for
Monitoring and Verification
City Verification
of Compliance
(Date/Initials)