Rancho Cucamonga City Council
April 20, 2022

FINDINGS OF FACT

Jersey Industrial Complex Project Findings of Fact
January 2022 4

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.

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 ec onomic, 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,

FINDINGS OF FACT

Jersey Industrial Complex Project Findings of Fact
January 2022 5
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.

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 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program MRP 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 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.

SECTION 3. FINDINGS REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS

DETERMINED 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.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Jersey Industrial Complex Project Findings of Fact
January 2022 6

3.1. Aesthetics
Significance Threshold: Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings along a scenic highway?
Basis of Conclusion: There are no state or County eligible or designated state scenic highways in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The nearest officially designated scenic highway is State Route (SR) 2 (Angeles Crest Scenic Highway), located on the north side of the San Gabriel Mountains and approximately 12 miles from the northern City boundary. No scenic resources are located within or adjacent to the project site. Given the distance between the Project Site and the nearest officially designated state scenic highways, the proposed Project would not substantially damage scenic resources, including, bu t not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway. Therefore, no impacts to scenic resources would be anticipated.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DEIR page 5-4.

3.2. Agriculture and Forestry Resources
Significance Threshold: 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 of Conclusion: According to the California Department of Conservation’s California Important Farmland Finder, the proposed Project site does not contain Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, or Farmland o f Local Importance. The site is classified as “Urban and Built-Up Land” by the Farmland Finder. The Project site does not contain Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. No impact to these resources would occur.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DEIR pages 5-5 through 5-6.

Significance Threshold: Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract?
Basis of Conclusion: The Project site is zoned MI/HI and designated Heavy Industrial in the General Plan Update (2010). The Heavy Industrial designation permits heavy manufacturing, compounding, processing or fabrication, warehousing, storage, freight handling, and truck services and terminals, as well as supportive service commercial uses. This district is intended for Industrial use. Additionally, the Project site is not enrolled in a Williamson Act contract. As a

FINDINGS OF FACT

Jersey Industrial Complex Project Findings of Fact
January 2022 7
result, no impacts related to conflicts with agricultural zoning or a Williamson act contract would occur. No impact would occur.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DEIR page 5-6.

Significance Threshold: Would the project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in PRC Section 12220(g)) or timberland (as defined in PRC Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government
Code section 51104(g))?
Basis of Conclusion: Neither the Project site nor surrounding areas are zoned for forest use or timber production. The site has not been used for timber production or commercial agriculture.

The Project would not conflict with any zoning designations designed to preserve timber or agricultural resources. No impact would occur.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DEIR page 5-6.

Significance Threshold: Would the project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
Basis of Conclusion: There is no forest land on or in the vicinity of the proposed Project site.

The Project would not result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non -forest use. No impact would occur.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DEIR page 5-6.

Significance Threshold: Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment that, due to their location or nature, could individually or cumulatively result in loss of Farmland to nonagricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
Basis of Conclusion: There is no farmland or forest land located within or near the proposed Project site. The Project would not involve any changes that could result in the loss or conversion of farmland or forest land to other uses. No impact would occur.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DEIR page 5-6.

3.3. Biological Resources
Significance Threshold: Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations,

FINDINGS OF FACT

Jersey Industrial Complex Project Findings of Fact
January 2022 8
or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Basis of Conclusion: The Project site does not support riparian habitat; United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), or Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) jurisdictional areas; wetlands; or, sensitive natural communities. Therefore, no impact would occur.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DEIR page 5-7.

Significance Threshold: 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 of Conclusion : The Project site does not support riparian habitat; non-wetland jurisdictional resources; wetlands; or, sensitive natural communities. Therefore, no impact would occur.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DEIR page 5-7.

Significance Threshold: 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 of Conclusion: The Project site is isolated from regional wildlife corridors and linkages, and there are no riparian cor ridors, creeks, or useful patches of steppingstone habitat (natural areas) within or connecting the Project site to any identified wildlife corridors or linkages. No impact would occur.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DEIR page 5-7.

Significance Threshold: Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
Basis of Conclusion: The Project site does not contain any trees that would qualify as Heritage Trees under the City’s Municipal Code and no street trees would be removed during site preparation. Further, there are no Habitat Conservation Plans or Natural Community Conservation Plans that are applicable to the area. No impact would occur.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DEIR page 5-8.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Jersey Industrial Complex Project Findings of Fact
January 2022 9
Significance Threshold: Impact - Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat conservation plan, natural community
conservation plan, or any other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
Basis of Conclusion : The Project site is not within an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan; Natural Communities Conservation Plan; or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan area. Therefore, implementation of the Proj ect would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted plan and no impacts would occur.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DEIR page 5-8.

3.4. Cultural Resources
Significance Threshold: Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to §15064.5? Basis of Conclusion: The Project site has not been developed; thus, there are no structures or other features that may be determined a historical resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15064.5. No recorded r esources are located within the area of potential effect ( APE). The Project site is not part of a historic district nor would historic resources be affected by the Project.

No impact would occur.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DEIR page 4-53.

3.5. Energy
Significance Threshold: Would the project conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
Basis of Conclusion: The Project would not conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. No impact would occur.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DEIR page 5-9.

3.6. Geology and Soils
Significance Threshold: Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death from landslides?
Basis of Conclusion: The Project site does not exhibit sloped conditions, adverse geologic conditions, or weak earth materials and is not at risk for seismic induced landslides. The Project would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving landslides. No impact would occur.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Jersey Industrial Complex Project Findings of Fact
January 2022 10
Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DEIR page 5-9.

Significance Threshold: Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the UBC (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property?
Basis of Conclusion: As stated in the General Plan EIR, Section 4.7, Geology/Soils, expansive soils are soils with a significant amount of clay particles that have the ability to shrink or swell with water. When these soils swell, they exert pressure on building foundations and may cause damage. Soils in the City of Rancho Cucamonga and its sphere of influence have relatively low amounts of clay and no soil expansion hazards are present No impact would occur related to expansive soils.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DEIR page 4-64.

Significance Threshold: Would the project have soils that are incapable of supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?
Basis of Conclusion: No septic tanks or alternative wastewater systems will be constructed as part of the proposed Project and no impacts will occur.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DEIR page 5-9.

3.7. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Significance Threshold: Would the project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous material 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? Basis of Conclusion : Slag fill material was identified on the site that was determined to be hazardous. The site was remediated consistent with the Phase II Investigation and Remediation Plan; however, no state or local CUPA oversight occurred. As referenced in the Site Remediation Report (July 2020), a total of 12,364 tons of hazardous material was removed from the site and disposed of at the La Paz County landfill, Ar izona. Based on the amount of material excavated and properly disposed of offsite, visual evidence and verification sampling of remaining soils, it was concluded that constituents within the soil remaining on- site are below the agreed upon Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC) regulatory cleanup levels.

The Project site is not on the Cortese list, nor on databases maintained by either the DTSC or the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). Further, there are no Cortese listed sites located in pr oximity to the Project site. The Project is not located on a site included on a list

FINDINGS OF FACT

Jersey Industrial Complex Project Findings of Fact
January 2022 11
compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. No impact would occur and no mitigation is required.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DEIR pages 5-10 through 5-11.

Significance Threshold: Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within ¼ mile of an existing or proposed school?
Basis of Conclusion: No existing or proposed schools are located within one- quarter mile of the Project site. The nearest school to the Project site is the Rancho Cucamonga Middle School which is located at 10022 Feron Boulevard in Rancho Cucamonga approximately 2.6 miles west of the site. Cucamonga Elementary School is located at 8677 Archibald Avenue approximately

2.9 miles west of the site. Accordingly, the Project would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste wit hin one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. No impact would occur.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DEIR page 5-10.

Significance Threshold: For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
Basis of Conclusion: Ontario International Airport is located approximately 3.8 miles southwest of the Project site. The proposed Project is located within the Airport Influence Area and Airport Land Use Compatibility Zone E as shown in the Ontario Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) Map 2-. There are no specific land use constraints within Zone E that would apply to the Project. The proposed Project would not result in a safety concern for people residing in proximity to Ontario International Airport. No impact would occur.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DEIR page 5-10.

Significance Threshold: Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Basis of Conclusion: The proposed Project would not obstruct access to the Project vicinity through road closures or other project actions that could impact evacuation routes or otherwise impair evacuation during emergencies. Access to areas surrounding the site via Milliken Avenue and Jersey Boulevard would be maintained. No impact would occur.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DEIR page 5-10.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Jersey Industrial Complex Project Findings of Fact
January 2022 12
Significance Threshold: Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires?
Basis of Conclusion: The Project site is not located within a designated fire hazard area or a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone within a Local Responsibility Area. The Project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk associated with wildland fires. No impact would occur.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DEIR page 5-10.

3.8. Hydrology and Water Quality
Significance Threshold: Would the project, in flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
Basis of Conclusion: The Project site is not within a 100-year flood zone, is not within a tsunami zone, and is not within proximity to an enclosed or partially enclosed body of water that is capable of producing seiches. Therefore, there would be no impact related to risk of release of pollutants due to inundation of the Project site from a flood, tsunami or seiche.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DEIR page 4-101.

Significance Threshold: Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
Basis of Conclusion: The Project site is within the Santa Ana River Basin and the Project would not conflict with the Santa Ana Basin Plan. Additionally, the Project would be consistent with the City of Rancho Cucamonga MS4 Permit. No impact would occur.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DEIR pages 4-101 through 4-102.

3.9. Land Use and Planning
Significance Threshold: Would the project physically divide an established community?
Basis of Conclusion: The Project site is surrounded by warehouse/industrial uses to the north, east and west and Fire Station #174 and training facility to the south. The proposed Project would utilize the existing road network and not result in the construction of improvements that would physically divide an existing community or o therwise impact circulation on public roads surrounding the site. No impact would occur.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DEIR page 5-12.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Jersey Industrial Complex Project Findings of Fact
January 2022 13
Significance Threshold: Would the project cause a significant environmental impact due to conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
Basis of Conclusion: Implementation of the Project would not result in conflicts with any local or regional land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. The Project is consistent with the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan (2010) and Zoning Code. No impact would occur.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DEIR pages 5-12 through 5-13.

3.10. Mineral Resources
Significance Threshold: 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 of Conclusion: The Project site is not part of an area known to have significant local sand and gravel resources. As stated in the General Plan EIR, the mineral resources are primarily sand and gravel deposits within the alluvial fans in and near Lytle Creek (San Sevaine Wash and Etiwanda Creek), San Antonio Creek, Cucamonga Creek, Deer Creek, and Day Creek. These alluvial fans generally start at the canyons at the base of the San Gabriel Mountains, north of the City. While the northern portion of these fans remain undeveloped, the creeks have been channelized in and near the City of Rancho Cucamonga and in developed areas along creeks.

Implementation of the Project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region or to the residents of the State of California. No impact would result.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DEIR page 5-13.

Significance Threshold: 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 of Conclusion : The Project site is not located in an area of known sand and gravel deposits and is not identified in the General Plan as a locally-important mineral resource recovery site. Implementation of the Project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region or to the residents of the State of California. No impact would result.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DEIR page 5-13.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Jersey Industrial Complex Project Findings of Fact
January 2022 14

3.11. Noise
Significance Threshold: For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
Basis of Conclusion: The Project site is located approximately 3.8 miles northwest of Ontario International Airport. There are no private airstrips in proximity to the site. The proposed Project is located within the Airport Influence Area and Airport Land Use Compatibility Zone E as shown in the Ontario ALUCP Map 2- 1. No airport nois e limits are associated with Zone E. No impact would occur.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DEIR page 5-14.

3.12. Population and Housing
Significance Threshold: Would the project induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (e.g., by proposing new homes and business) or indirectly (e.g., through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
Basis of Conclusion: The Project would not construct housing, nor would it extend roads or other infrastructure into previously unserved areas. Thus, the Project would not directly or indirectly induce population growth. No impact related to unplanned population growth would result from Project implementation.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DEIR page 5-14.

Significance Threshold: Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
Basis of Conclusion: Construction of the proposed Project would not require the removal of existing housing; and thus , would not result in the displacement of people or require the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. No impact would occur.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DEIR page 5-14.

3.13. Public Services
Significance Threshold: Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities or a need for new or physically

FINDINGS OF FACT

Jersey Industrial Complex Project Findings of Fact
January 2022 15
altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services
including other public facilities?
v.) Other Public Facilities:

Basis of Conclusion: The Project would not increase the population of Rancho Cucamonga or otherwise affect demand for library services. No new or expanded library services would be required. No impact would occur.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DEIR page 5-16.

3.14. Recreation
Significance Threshold: Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
Basis of Conclusion: The Project does not propose any uses that would directly generate a population that would increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities. The Project would not add additional residences or business that would increase demand for any park or other recreational facility in the area. No impact would occur.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DEIR pages 5-16 through 5-17.

Significance Threshold: Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
Basis of Conclusion: No additional park land would be required to accommodate the Project, nor would staff contribute to an exceedance of the capacity of existing park capacity. The payment of impact fees by the Project applicant, if required, would contribute to funding available for improvements to existing park resources. No impact would occur.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DEIR page 5-17.

3.15. Transportation/Traffic
Significance Threshold: Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?

FINDINGS OF FACT

Jersey Industrial Complex Project Findings of Fact
January 2022 16
Basis of Conclusion: Road improvements would be limited to the driveways on the south and east side of the Project site and would be constructed consistent with Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code. The Project would not increase hazards caused by a design feature or incompatible use. No impact would occur.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DEIR page 5-17.

Significance Threshold: Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? Basis of Conclusion: The Project would not alter emergency access routes. The road improvements woul d be constructed consistent with Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code to ensure safe truck, vendor/employee and emergency vehicle access. The Project would not impair or otherwise adversely affect emergency vehicle circulation or access to the site or other properties in the area. No impact would occur.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DEIR page 5-17.

3.16. Utilities and Service Systems
Significance Threshold: Would the project comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
Basis of Conclusion: Construction and operation associated with implementation the Project would be conducted in compliance with applicable statues and regulations related to solid waste.

No impact would occur and no mitigation is required.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DEIR page 5-20.

3.17. Wildfire
Significance Threshold: 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 of Conclusion: The Project site is not located within a very high fire hazard severity zone, and is surrounded by development, with no wildland areas in the immediate vicinity. As such, no impact would occur.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DEIR page 5-21.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Jersey Industrial Complex Project Findings of Fact
January 2022 17

Significance Threshold: 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 of Conclusion : The Project site and surrounding area is relatively flat and heavily urbanized. Additionally, the Project site is not located w ithin a 100 -year floodplain. If the area were to burn, fires are anticipated to be isolated and not expected to result in substantive risk from landslide or mudflows caused by run-off, post-fire slope instability or drainage changes. No impact would occur.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DEIR page 5-22.

SECTION 4. FINDINGS REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

FOUND TO BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT (NO

MITIGATION REQUIRED)
The City agrees with the characterization in the Final EIR with respect to impacts identified as "less than significant impact" and finds that, based upon substantial evidence in the record, as discussed below, the following impacts associated with the Project are not significant or are less than significant, and do not require mitigation, as described i n the Final EIR. Under CEQA, no mitigation measures are required for impacts that are less than significant. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21002; CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15126.4, subd. (a)(3); 15091.) Note that impacts are presented below in summary form. For a full description of impacts, see the appropriate text in the EIR, which the Council hereby incorporates by reference into these Findings.

4.1. Aesthetics
Significance Threshold: Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
Basis of Conclusion: The Project site does not contain scenic resource and would be consistent with the overall context of the surrounding area. The Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista, resulting in a less than significant impact.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DEIR pages 5-2 through 5-4.

Significance Threshold: Would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
Basis of Conclusion: The Project site is within an urbanized area of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. As such, the analysis for this threshold is based on the review of the potential for

FINDINGS OF FACT

Jersey Industrial Complex Project Findings of Fact
January 2022 18
the Project to conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. The Project would not conflict with the applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality, including Rancho Cucamonga Development Code standards and General Plan polices.

A less than significant impact would occur.

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

Significance Threshold: 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: The Project site is located in an urban area, which includes existing sources of light and glare. The Project would add new lighting to the site. All outdoor street lighting and on-site security lighting and landscape lighting would be designed to City of Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code standards. Impacts would be less than significant.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DEIR page 5-5.

4.2. Air Quality
Significance Threshold: Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
Basis of 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. Impacts would be less than significant.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DEIR pages 4-19 through 4-20.

Significance Threshold Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
Basis of Conclusion: The Project would not expose sensitive receptors (e.g., residents, workers or school children) to substantial pollutant concentrations, including localized criteria pollutant emissions duri ng construction and operation, mobile source and construction -related diesel particulate matter (DPM) emissions, or carbon monoxide (CO) “Hot Spots”. Impacts would be less than significant.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DEIR pages 4-24 through 4-26.

Significance Threshold: Would the project create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?

FINDINGS OF FACT

Jersey Industrial Complex Project Findings of Fact
January 2022 19
Basis of Conclusion: The proposed Project would generate odors from construction (i.e., diesel exhaust, asphalt). Construction emissions would not exceed SCAQMD impact thresholds and would be short -term in duration. Thus, short -term odors are not expected to be significant.

Operation of the warehouse facility would not cause odors . Impacts wo uld be less than significant.

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

4.3. Energy
Significance Threshold: 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 of Conclusion: The Project would adhere to the state-mandated provisions of California Energy Code Title 24. The Project would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of ener gy, or wasteful use of energy resources, during Project construction or operation. Impacts would be less than significant.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DEIR pages 5-8 through 5-9.

4.4. Geology and Soils
Significance Threshold: Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the state geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault or strong seismic ground shaking?
Basis of Conclusion: The Project site is not in a fault hazard area; nor is the Project site within a mapped Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. The Project site is within a seismically active region. As such, the Project’s proposed structures may be subject to moderate to large seismic events, resulting in strong seismic ground shaking. The Project would be required to comply with the California Building Code (CBC) and would be required to incorporate the recommendations from the Geotechnical Investigation, which would ensure that people and/or structures would not be exposed to potential substantial adverse effects from strong seismic ground shaking. Impacts would be less than significant.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DEIR page 4-62.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Jersey Industrial Complex Project Findings of Fact
January 2022 20
Significance Threshold: Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death from seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
Basis of Conclusion: Groundwater was not encountered during site borings and groundwater within the Project area is likely of sufficient depth that liquefaction during a seismic event is unlikely. The potential for encountering groundwater and related impacts associated with liquefaction at the Project site is considered low. Impacts would be less than significant.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DEIR pages 4-62 through 4-63.

Significance Threshold: Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
Basis of Conclusion: The Project site is flat, limiting erosion potential. Construction activities would be conducted in compliance regulations pertaining to protection of water quality. With adherence to existing regulations and requirements, there would be a less than significant impact related to erosion during construction and operation.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DEIR pages 4-63 through 4-64.

Significance Threshold: Would the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? Basis of Conclusion: The Project would be required to incorporate the recommendations from the Geotechnical Investigation, which would ensure that these hazards would be reduced with proper site preparation. No groundwater was encountered during site borings and groundwater within the Project area is likely of sufficient depth that liquefaction during a seismic event is unlikely. Further, the site has dense subsurface soil conditions. Thus, potential impacts related to land subsidence or lateral spreading would be less than significant.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DEIR page 4-64.

Significance Threshold: Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Basis of Conclusion : The majority of the City is underlain by bedrock consisting of surficial sedimentary or metamorphic rocks that are unlikely to contain significant vertebrate fossils; however, there may be sedimentary deposits at a greater depth. The Geotechnical Report states that soils below the site to a depth of 16 feet bgs are comprised of native soil containing alluvial sand, fine to course-grained, silty, gravelly, dry to damp material. The Project would not excavate more than approximately four feet below bgs for the building footings, utilities and related

FINDINGS OF FACT

Jersey Industrial Complex Project Findings of Fact
January 2022 21
improvements. The surficial sediment at depths that would be encountered by project excavations are unlikely to contain vertebrate fossils. No paleontological resources were discovered during remediation activit ies nor are these resources known to occur in the area, particularly at depths that would be excavated by the Project. Excavation depths would be limited to that needed to grade the site and construct building foundations and subsurface utilities and improvements. Impacts would be less than significant.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DEIR pages 5-9 through 5-10.

4.5. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Significance Threshold: Would the project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Basis of Conclusion: Construction and operation of the Project, would not exceed the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD)/City screening threshold for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and would not generate a net increase in GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may significantly impact the environment. GHG emissions impacts would be less than significant.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DEIR page 4-75.

Significance Threshold: Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Basis of Conclusion: The Project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions, including Senate Bill (SB) 32 and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) 2017 Scoping Plan, Connect SoCal, and the City of Rancho Cucamonga Sustainable Community Action Plan. This impact is l ess than significant and no mitigation is required.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DEIR pages 4-76 through 4-81.

4.6. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Significance Threshold: Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
Basis of Conclusion: Construction and operation of the Project would involve handling of hazardous materials in limited quantities and typical to developed environments. Based on the site investigation and remediation work performed to date, encountering hazardous materials during construction is not anticipated. Through compliance with existing applicable regulations,

FINDINGS OF FACT

Jersey Industrial Complex Project Findings of Fact
January 2022 22
the Project would not pose a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, storage, emission, or disposal of hazardous materials. Impacts would be less than significant.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DEIR pages 4-87 through 4-88.

Significance Threshold: Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the likely release of hazardous materials into the environment?
Basis of Conclusion: The Project would comply with existing applicable regulations and would not increase the potential for accident conditions which could result in the release of hazardous materials into the environment. The accidental release of hazardous materials on-site is unlikely because of the regulatio ns in place to avoid such an event. Impacts are anticipated to be less than significant.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DEIR pages 4-88 through 4-89.

4.7. Hydrology and Water Quality
Significance Threshold: Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?
Basis of Conclusion: Proposed drainage patterns would maintain the existing drainage pattern and the Project would be designed to convey surface flows into an underground system where it would be treated prior to percolation into subsurface soils. The Project would not substantially degrade water quality or otherwise violate discharge standards. Impacts would be less than significant.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DEIR page 4-98.

Significance Threshold: Would the project substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
Basis of Conclusion: The Project site is currently pervious; and post-construction, the majority of the site would be impervious. However, all stormwater would be retained in an underground storage infiltration system and allowed to percolate into the soil. The Project would change how the site percolates water; however, overall recharge volumes within the basin would not change as a result of the Project. Thus, the Project would not directly interfere with groundwater recharge or contribute to depletion groundwater. A less than significant impact would occur.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Jersey Industrial Complex Project Findings of Fact
January 2022 23
Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DEIR page 4-99.

Significance Threshold: Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:

i) Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?;

ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site?;

iii) Create or contribute runoff which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?

or;

iv) Impede or redirect flood flows?
Basis of Conclusion: With implementation of the stormwater system as designed, no off -site erosion or siltation would occur. The Project site is not located within a 100- year mapped flood zone nor is it located in proximity to drainage features that would cause or contribute to flooding conditions. Thus, the Project would not expose people or structures to flood hazard from severe storm events. The Project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on - or off- site, substantially increase the rate or amount of surfac e runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site, create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff, or impede or redirect flood flows. Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DEIR pages 4-99 through 4-101.

4.8. Noise
Significance Threshold: Would the project result in generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
Basis of Conclusion: The Project would not result in the generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards

FINDINGS OF FACT

Jersey Industrial Complex Project Findings of Fact
January 2022 24
established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies. Noise levels would be below the thresholds of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code for construction and operations. This impact is less than significant and no mitigation is required.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DEIR pages 4-109 through 4-113.

Significance Threshold: Would the project result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
Basis of Conclusion: The Project would not result in the generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels during construction or operation. This impact is less than significant and no mitigation is required.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DEIR pages 4-113 through 4-114.

4.9. Public Services
Significance Threshold: Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities or a need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire Protection, Police Protection, Schools and Parks:

Basis of Conclusion: The Project would not involve new residential uses or an increase in the City’s population, and there is an existing demand for public services at the Project site associated with the existing development on-site. The Project would be developed in adherence to existing regulations relative to fire protection and required development impact fees would be paid. The Project would not increase the population of Rancho Cucamonga or otherwise affect demand for park facilities. The Project would not remove park or recreational facilities that would require replacement elsewhere. The Project would not require the construction of new or alteration of existing public service facilities to maintain an adequate level of service to the Project area, and no physical environmental impacts would resul t. Impacts to public services would be less than significant.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DEIR pages 5-14 through 5-16.

4.10. Transportation/Traffic
Significance Threshold: Would the project conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?

FINDINGS OF FACT

Jersey Industrial Complex Project Findings of Fact
January 2022 25
Basis of Conclusion: The Project would not be required to make road improvements; however, frontage and access improvements would be required per the City of Rancho Cucamonga. This would improve overall pedestrian circulation and safety within the area. The Project would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities . This impact is less than significant and no mitigation is required.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DEIR pages 4-122 through 4-123.

Significance Threshold Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
Basis of Conclusion: The Project’s VMT impact would be considered less than significant based on the City’s TPA Screening VMT Area screening threshold. The Project site is located within a TPA is considered less than significant due to meeting each of the criteria for projects within TPAs. Thus, the Project would not conflict with or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b). This impact is less than significant and no mitigation is required.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DEIR pages 4-123 through 4-125.

4.11. Utilities and Service Systems
Significance Threshold: 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 of Conclusion: The Project would create additional demand on existing facilities; however, demand would be met with exis ting infrastructure. No additional water or wastewater treatment facilities would be required to meet Project demand. No additional electrical or telecommunication systems would need to be constructed to meet Project demand. All waste material would be col lected and disposed of in nearby landfills within permitted capacity. No additional facilities would need to be constructed to accommodate Project demand. A less than significant impact would occur.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DEIR pages 5-17 through 5-19.

Significance Threshold: 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: Development allowed by the Project would require water supplies from the CVWD. Project demand would be within the demand projections provided in the CVWD Urban Water Management Plan. Impacts would be less than significant.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Jersey Industrial Complex Project Findings of Fact
January 2022 26
Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DEIR pages 5-19.

Significance Threshold: Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that 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 Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA) wastewater treatment facilities have sufficient capacity to serve the Project and existing commitments. This impact would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DEIR pages 5-19 through 5-20.

Significance Threshold: 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’s construction and operational refuse would be disposed of at the Mid Valley Landfill. Construction and operational activities would comply with applicable regulations addressing solid waste management. The Project would not generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals. This impact would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DEIR page 5-20.

Significance Threshold: Would the project comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
Basis of Conclusion: Construction and operation associated with implementation the Project would be conducted in compliance with applicable statues and regulations related to solid waste.

No impact would occur and no mitigation is required.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DEIR pages 5-20 through 5-21.

4.12. Wildfire
Significance Threshold: Would the project substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Basis of Conclusion: The Project would not alter emergency access routes. Emergency vehicle access to the site would be provided via Milliken Avenue or Jersey Boulevard. The Project would

FINDINGS OF FACT

Jersey Industrial Complex Project Findings of Fact
January 2022 27
not adversely impact traffic operations on Milliken Avenue or Jersey Boulevard and would not impact use of either street as an evacuation route. A less than significant impact would occur Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DEIR page 5-21.

Significance Threshold: 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 of Conclusion: The Project is surrounded by warehouse and industrial uses. prevailing wind is from the west and the Project is located in a flat area. Vegetation in the area is sparse and there are no areas of native habitat that could burn in the event a wildfire occurs. The Project site is not expected to be exposed to high- risks resulting from surrounding slopes or prevailing winds. Impacts would be less than significant.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DEIR page 5-21.

SECTION 5. FINDINGS REGARDING 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), and EIR mitigation measures (as listed in Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program [MMRP], and summarized below).

5.1. Air Quality
Impact 4.1-2: Would the project violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation?
Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutants for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state
ambient air quality standard?
Basis for Conclusion: The air quality plan applicable to the Project is the SCAQMD‘s Final 2016 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). The Project’s net operational emissions would not exceed the applicable South Coast Air Quality Management District ( SCAQMD) regional or local significance thresholds or (LST), and the Project’s construction and operational characteristics

FINDINGS OF FACT

Jersey Industrial Complex Project Findings of Fact
January 2022 28
would not exceed the assumptions in the AQMP. Additionally, during operation, the Project would not result in a cumulatively-considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the Project region is in nonattainment under an applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard, and impacts would therefore be less than significant.

In terms of project-related construction emissions, the DEIR assumed that graded soils would be balanced on the Project site and that no soil import or export would be required. The Project would be required to comply with SCAQMD Rule 403, which identifies measures to reduce fugitive dust and is required to be implemented at all construction sites located within the South Coast Air Basin. Therefore, the following conditions, which are conditioned as part of the Project to reduce fugitive dust in compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403, were included in air quality model (CalEEMod) for site preparation and grading phases of construction.

1. Minimization of Disturbance. Construction contractors should minimize the area disturbed by clearing, grading, earth moving, or excavation operations to prevent excessive amounts of dust.

2. Soil Treatment. Construction contractors should treat all graded and excavated material, exposed soil areas, and active portions of the construction site, including unpaved on-site roadways to minimize fugitive dust. Treatment shall include, but not necessarily be limited to, periodic watering, application of environmentally safe soil stabilization materials, and/or roll compaction as appropriate. Watering shall be done as often as necessary, and at least twice daily, preferably in the late morning and after work is done for the day. The analysis provided herein assumes watering would occur by contractor two times daily as required per SCAQMD Rule 403.

3. Soil Stabilization. Construction contractors should monitor all graded and/or excavated inactive areas of the construction site at least weekly for dust stabilization. Soil stabilization methods, such as water and roll compaction, and environmentally safe dust control materials, shall be applied to portions of the construction site that are inactive for over four days. If no further grading or excavation operations are planned for the area, the area shall be seeded and watered until landscape growth is evident, or periodically treated with environmentally safe dust suppressants, to prevent excessive fugitive dust.

4. No Grading During High Winds. Construction contractors should stop all clearing, grading, earth moving, and excavation operations during periods of high winds (20 miles per hour or greater, as measured continuously over a one-hour period).

5. Street Sweeping. Construction contractors should sweep all on- site driveways and adjacent streets and roads at least once per day, preferably at the end of the day, if visible soil material is carried over to adjacent streets and roads.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Jersey Industrial Complex Project Findings of Fact
January 2022 29
Therefore, the Project’s regional air quality impacts (including impacts related to criteria pollutants and violations of air quality standards) would be less than significant. Nonetheless, prior to mitigation the Project’s construction- related emissions could exceed the SCAQ MD regional thresholds for ROG. Thus, Project-related construction activities have the potential to result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or cause or contribute to new violations or delay the timely attainmen t of air quality standards or the interim emissions reductions specified in the 2016 AQMP, resulting in a potentially significant impact. With the implementation of MM AQ -1, which includes additional construction- related mitigation requirements to ensure that the architectural coating phase and the building phase would overlap for approximately 44 total workdays to avoid exceeding the daily ROG standard.

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 Condition Project to overlap architectural coating phase with the building phase by approximately 44 total workdays to avoid exceeding the daily ROG standard. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall submit a detailed construction schedule to the City of Rancho Cucamonga which demonstrates that the architectural coating phase will overlap with the building phase by a minimum of 44 days.

Finding: The City adopts CEQA Findings 1.

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 4-20 through 4-26.

5.2. 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 the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Basis of Conclusion: The Project site consists of undeveloped land that has been impacted by decades of anthropogenic disturbances. No special-status species were observed on-site during the habitat assessment. The Project site and surrounding areas provide limited foraging and nesting habitat for year-round and seasonal birds and migrating songbirds. While it is unknown

FINDINGS OF FACT

Jersey Industrial Complex Project Findings of Fact
January 2022 30
whether nesting would occur or what species would nest on- site, if construction activities occur between February 1 through August 31st, nesting and migratory bird species covered by the MBTA could be significantly affected by construction activities. Project construction would impact nesting and migratory bird species covered by the MBTA. Implementation of MM BIO -1, which requires pre-construction surveys, would reduce impacts to nesting and migratory birds to less than significant.

Mitigation Measure: 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 Pursuant to the MBTA and Fish and Game Code, removal of any trees, shrubs, or any other potential nesting habitat should be conducted outside the avian nesting season. The nesting season extends from February 1 through August 31 but can vary slightly from year to year based upon seasonal weather conditions. If ground disturbance and vegetation removal cannot occur outside of the nesting season, a pre-construction clearance survey for nesting birds, shall be conducted by a qualified biologist at the direction of the Project Applicant and City of Rancho Cucamonga within three (3) days of the start of any ground disturbing activities to ensure that no nesting birds will be disturbed during construction.

If an active avian nest is discovered during the pre- construction clearance survey, construction activities can commence thereafter provided activities are able to maintain a 300- foot buffer around the acti ve nest. For raptors and special -status species, this buffer will be expanded to 500 feet. A biological monitor shall be present during construction activities within the buffer area. to delineate the boundaries of the buffers and to monitor the active nes t to ensure that nesting behavior is not adversely affected by the construction activity.

If the biologist determines that bird breeding activity is being disrupted, the Project Applicant shall stop work, notify the City and coordinate with the USFWS and C DFW to agree upon an avoidance/minimization approach. Upon agreement of the avoidance/ minimization approach, work may resume subject to the revisions and continued monitoring.

If burrowing owls are detected on- site during the clearance survey, in conformance with the California Staff Report’s protocols, no ground- disturbing activities will be permitted within 656 feet of an occupied burrow during the breeding season (February 1 to August 31), unless otherwise authorized by CDFW.

Once the qualified biologist has determined the young have fledged and left the nest of any birds within the buffer area(s), or the nest otherwise becomes inactive under natural conditions, normal construction activities can occur.

Reporting. If no active nests are found during the pre-construction clearance survey, the Project Applicant shall submit to the City of Rancho Cucamonga a brief letter report prepared by the

FINDINGS OF FACT

Jersey Industrial Complex Project Findings of Fact
January 2022 31
biologist that documents the negative survey results. The letter report shall also indicate that no impacts to active avian nests will occur.

If active nests were found, the Project Applicant shall submit a final bird survey monitoring report prepared by the Project biologist to the City, the USFWS and CDFW. The report shall include documentation of all bird surveys, monitoring activities, coordination efforts with the wildlife agencies, as-built construction drawings with an overlay of any active nests in the survey areas, photographs of habitat areas during pre-construction and postconstruction conditions, and other relevant summary information documenting that authorized impacts were not exceeded and that general compliance was achieved for the avoidance/minimization provisions and the biological monitoring program required by the wildlife agencies.

Finding: The City adopts CEQA Findings 1.

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 4-37 through 4-39.

5.3. 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?
Basis of Conclusion: The Project has the potential to encounter subsurface archaeological resources during construction resulting in a potentially significant impact to previously unrecorded subsurface cultural resources prior to mitigation. Implementation of MM CUL-1 and MM CUL-2, which identify actions to be taken during construction to protect unknown resources, would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. MM CUL- 1 requires a qualified archaeologist be retained to evaluate any cultural resources that are discovered during project activities. In the event that archaeological resources are discovered and avoidance cannot be ensured, MM CUL-2 requires the qualified archaeologist to develop a Monitoring and Treatment Plan.

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 event that cultural resources are discovered during project activities, all work in the immediate vicinity of the find (within a 60 -foot buffer) shall cease and a qualified

FINDINGS OF FACT

Jersey Industrial Complex Project Findings of Fact
January 2022 32
archaeologist meeting Secretary of Interior standards shall be hired to assess the find. Work on the other portions of the Project outside of the buffered area may continue during this assessment period. Additionally, the San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians (SMBMI) Cultural Resources Department shall be contacted, as detailed within TCR -1, regarding any pre -contact and/or historic-era finds and be provided information after the archaeologist makes his/her initial assessment of the nature of the find, so as to provide Tribal input with regards to significance and treatment. Prior to the release of the Grading Bond, a Monitoring Report and/or Evaluation Report, which describes the results, analysis and conclusions of the cultural resource mitigation monitoring efforts shall be submitted by the qualified archaeologist, along with the Native American Monitor’s notes and comments, to the City for review and approval.

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

Finding: The City adopts CEQA Findings 1.

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 4-53 through 4-55.

Impact 4.3-3: Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
Basis of Conclusion: No human remains or cemeteries were identified as a result of the SCCIC search and pedestrian field survey. The potential for encountering human remains at the Project site is low, however, there is a potential to encounter subsurface remains during construction. resulting in a potentially significant impact prior to mitigation. MM CUL-3 identifies actions that should be taken if human remains are encountered. This measure would reduce impacts to a less than significant impact.

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-3 If human remains or funerary objects are encountered during any activities associated with the Project, work in the immediate vicinity (within a 100- foot buffer of the find) shall cease and the County Coroner shall be contacted pursuant to State Health and Safety Code

FINDINGS OF FACT

Jersey Industrial Complex Project Findings of Fact
January 2022 33
§7050.5 and that code enforced for the duration of the Project. If the human remains are determined to be prehistoric, the coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission, which will determine and notify a Most Likely Descendant. The Most Likely Descendant shall complete the inspection of the site within 48 hours of notification and may recommend scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American burials.

Finding: The City adopts CEQA Findings 1.

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 4-53 through 4-55.

5.4. Tribal Cultural Resources
Impact 4.10-1: Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a Tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American Tribe, and that is:

(i) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section
5020.1(k)

(ii) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its
discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1? In applying the
criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1 for the purposes of this paragraph, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American Tribe?
Basis of Conclusion: The combined South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC), Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) sacred land files (SLF) search, and pedestrian archaeological field survey did not identify any existing historic resources within the proposed Project area. Further, the Project site has been heavily disturbed by past soil remediation

FINDINGS OF FACT

Jersey Industrial Complex Project Findings of Fact
January 2022 34
activities. For this reason, the Project is not anticipated to cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a known historic resource as defined in PRC 5020.1 (k). However, if construction ground disturbance depths range within native soils (at least 1 foot or more bgs), there would be a potential to impact previously unrecorded subsurface tribal cultural resources.

Implementation of MM TCR-1 through TCR-6, agreed upon during the City’s consultation with the California Native American tribes, would reduce this impact to a less than significant level.

TCR-1 through TCR-6 require monitoring of ground-disturbing activities, outline the parameters for the monitoring activities, and identify actions that should be taken if tribal cultural resources or Native American human remains are encountered. These measures further ensure the proper identification and subsequent treatment of any tribal cultural res ources and/or Native American human remains that may be encountered during ground-disturbing activities associated with the development of the Project. These measures would reduce impacts to a less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures: Based upon t he analysis presented in Section 4. 10, Tribal 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 TCR-1 The San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians (SMBMI) Cultural Resources Department shall be contacted, as detailed in Mitigation Measure CUL -1, of any pre- contact and/or historic-era cultural resources discovered during project implementation and be provided information regarding the nature of the find, so as to provide Tribal input with regards to significance and treatment. Should the find be deemed significant, as defined by CEQA (as amended, 2015), a cultural resource Monitoring and Treatment Plan shall be created by the qualified archaeologist in coordination with SMBMI and submitted to the City of Rancho Cucamonga for review and approval. The qualified archaeologist shall be retained by the Project Applicant to implement all mitigation measures related to archaeological and historical resources.

All subsequent finds shall be subject to the Monitoring and Treatment Plan. This Plan shall include tribal contact information, protocol to following should cultural resources be discovered, curation requirements and allow for a monitor to be present that represents SMBMI for the remainder of the Project’s ground disturbing activities, should SMBMI elect to place a monitor on-site.

MM TCR-2 Any and all archaeological/cultural documents created as a part of the Project (isolate records, site records, survey reports, testing reports, etc.) shall be supplied to the applicant and the City of Rancho Cucamonga for dissemination to SMBMI. The City of Rancho Cucamonga and/or applicant shall, in good faith, consult with SMBMI until all ground disturbing activities have been completed.

MM TCR-3 The Project Applicant shall be required to retain, prior to the commencement of construction, and compensate for the services of a Tribal monitor/consultant who is both approved by the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation Tribal Government and is listed

FINDINGS OF FACT

Jersey Industrial Complex Project Findings of Fact
January 2022 35
under the NAHC’s Tribal Contact list for the area of the Project location. This list is provided by the NAHC. The monitor/consultant will only be present on- site during the construction phases that involve ground disturbing activities. Ground disturbing activities are defined by the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation as activities that may include, but are not limited to, pavement removal, 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 prov ide descriptions of the day’s activities, including construction activities, locations, soil, and any cultural materials identified. The on-site monitoring shall end when the Project site grading and excavation activities are completed, or when the Tribal Representatives and monitor/consultant have indicated that the site has a low potential for impacting Tribal Cultural Resources.

MM TCR-4 Upon discovery of any archaeological resources, cease construction activities in the immediate vicinity of the find until the find can be assessed by the qualified archaeologist and/or Native American monitor. All archaeological resources unearthed by project construction activities shall be evaluated by the qualified archaeologist and tribal monitor/consultant approved by the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation. If the resources are Native American in origin, the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians -Kizh Nation shall coordinate with the landowner regarding treatment and curation of these resources. Typically, the Tribe will request reburial or preservation for educational purposes. Work may continue on other parts of the Project while evaluation and, if necessary, mitigation takes place (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 [f]). If a resource is determined by the qualified archaeologist to constitute a “historical resource” or “unique archaeological resource”, time allotment and funding sufficient to allow for implementation of avoidance measures, or appropriate mitigation, must be available. The treatment plan establ ished for the resources shall be in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(f) for historical resources.

MM TCR-5 Preservation in place (i.e., avoidance) is the preferred manner of treatment. If preservation in place is not feasible, treatment may include implementation of archaeological data recovery excavations to remove the resource along with subsequent laboratory processing and analysis. Any historic archaeological material that is not Native American in origin shall be curated at a public, non -profit institution with a research interest in the materials, such as the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County or the Fowler Museum, if such an institution agrees to accept the material. If no institution accepts the archaeological material, they shall be offered to a local school or historical society in the area for educational purposes.

MM TCR-6 Native American human remains are defined in PRC 5097.98 (d)(1) as an inhumation or cremation, and in any state of decomposition or skeletal completeness. Funerary objects, called associated grave goods in PRC 5097.98, are also to be treated according to this statute. Health and Safety Code 7050.5 dictates that any discoveries of human skeletal material shall be immediately reported to the County Coroner and excavation halted until the coroner has determined the nature of the remains. If the coroner recognizes the human remains to be those of a Native American or has reason to believe that they are those of a Native American, he or

FINDINGS OF FACT

Jersey Industrial Complex Project Findings of Fact
January 2022 36
she shall contact, by telephone within 24 hours, the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) and PRC 5097.98 shall be followed.

Finding: The City adopts CEQA Findings 1.

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 4-130 through 4-133.

SECTION 6. FINDINGS REGARDING 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 6.2.

6.1. Alternatives Considered and Rejected
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 sit e 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

FINDINGS OF FACT

Jersey Industrial Complex Project Findings of Fact
January 2022 37
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:

6.2. Alternative Sites
In the case of the Project, an alternative site is not considered applicable or feasible, as the Project Applicant does not own or control other undeveloped property of similar size and zoning within the City or in the immediate area. Further, construction of a project different in scope from the proposed Project would not meet the objectives that focus on development of warehousing facilities within the City of Rancho Cucamonga. For the above reasons, the Alternative Site Alternative was found to be infeasible and therefore was rejected from further consideration.

6.3. Alternatives Selected for Further Analysis
The following alternatives were addressed in the DEIR:
• The No Project Alternative
• The Reduced Footprint Alternative
No Project Alternative
Consistent with CEQA Guidelines (Section 15126.6(e)(3)(b)), the No Project Alternative is defined as the “circumstance under which the project does not proceed.” Section 15126.6(e) of the CEQA Guidelines requires analysis of a No Project alternative that (1) discusses existing site conditions at the time the NOP is prepared or the EIR is commenced, and (2) analyzes what can reasonably be expected to occur in the foreseeable future based on current plans if the proposed Project were not approved. Under the No Project Alternative, the proposed Project would not be implemented and the site would remain undeveloped.

Findings Regarding Environmental Impacts
The Project would not result in any significant and unavoidable impacts; therefore, the No Project Alternative would not avoid or substantially lessen a significant and unavoidable impact. However, the No Project Alternative would avoid the Project’s less than significant impacts.

Findings Regarding Project Objectives
The No Project Alternative would not meet any of the Project objectives, would not realize any of the Project’s benefits resulting from the creation of employment opportunities in the City of Rancho Cucamonga to reduce the need for members of the local workforce to commute outside the area for employment and improve the jobs to housing balance.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Jersey Industrial Complex Project Findings of Fact
January 2022 38
Overall Finding: The City adopts Finding 3.

The City finds that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make this alternative infeasible. Although the No Project Alternative would avoid the Project’s less than significant environmental impacts, this alternative would not meet any of the Project’s objectives.

Supporting Evidence: Please see DEIR Pages 6-4 through 6-5.

Reduced Footprint Alternative
Under this alternative, the proposed Project would be reduced by approximately 2/3 of the overall square footage of each component. The warehouse would be reduced to 93,389 square feet in four separate units, 5,364 square feet of mezzanine storage, 5,364 square feet of office space (i.e., divided into four separate spaces, one for each storage unit) and a 203-square foot electrical room. The total building area would be 104,320 square feet. The highest point of the building would be 42 feet above ground level. These would be the architectural parapets on the building frontage. A total of 73 parking spaces would be provided. The warehouse building would be oriented east/west with vehicle access to office space fronting the building from Jers ey Boulevard. Truck access to the loading docks located at the rear of the building would be provided from Milliken Avenue. The truck access driveway would be gated with security cameras and monitored to ensure no unauthorized entrance to the loading area. The Reduced Footprint Alternative would provide four warehouse storage units, each with three truck loading docks (i.e., 12 total docks). Water/sewer and other utilities (i.e., electrical, communication) would be provided via existing infrastructure locat ed on- site or within the adjacent Milliken Avenue and Jersey Boulevard corridors. All other features of the Reduced Footprint Alternative would be similar to the proposed Project.

Findings Regarding Environmental Impacts
The Project would not result in any significant and unavoidable impacts; therefore, the Reduced Footprint Alternative would not avoid or substantially lessen a significant and unavoidable impact.

Project-level mitigation measures are required to reduce potentially significant impacts to levels considered less than significant for the following environmental resources: biological resources (due to potential presence of Cooper’s Hawk, California horned lark, burrowing owl and other nesting bird species), cultural resources (due to the potential to encounter previously unrecorded subsurface cultural resources), and tribal cultural resources (due to the potential to encounter previously unknown tribal cultural resources). These potentially significant impacts are associated with construction activities, not operation of the Project.

Both the Project and the Reduced Footprint Alternative would be required to comply with applicable regulations and would also implement the same mitigation measures required for the Project. The Reduced Project Alternative would disturb the same area as the proposed Project; however, the overall building footprint would be smaller. This would reduce the number of vehicles and trucks accessing the Project site daily. However, while the degree of impact would be incrementally less than the proposed Project for some issue areas, the impact determination

FINDINGS OF FACT

Jersey Industrial Complex Project Findings of Fact
January 2022 39
under the proposed Project would be similar to the proposed Project for all topical areas addressed in the Draft EIR.

Findings Regarding Project Objectives
The discussion below addresses the ability of the Reduced Footprint Alternative to attain the Project objectives.

4. Ensure that development of the Project site is accomplished consistent with applicable goals and policies of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as set f orth in the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan . The Reduced Footprint Alternative would disturb the same area as the proposed Project; however the overall building footprint would be smaller and would not develop the site at density envisioned in the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan. Therefore, while the Reduced Footprint Alternative meets the intent of this Project objective, it does not meet it to the same extent as the Project.

5. Develop a vacant and underutilized Project site. The Reduced Footprint Alternative would develop industrial/warehouse use on the Project site; however it would not maximize development of the underutilized Project site. While the Reduced Footprint Alternative meets the intent of this Project objective, it does not meet it to the same extent as the Project.

6. Contribute to the warehousing resources in the City of Rancho Cucamonga by constructing an operating a facility this designed consistent with contemporary industry standards for operational design criteria, can accommodate a wide variety of users and are economically competitive with similar industrial buildings in the local area and region. The Reduced Footprint Alternative would develop industrial/warehouse use on the Project site, thereby meeting the intent of the Project objective. Ho wever, because a smaller warehouse building would be constructed, compared to the proposed Project, the Reduced Footprint Alternative does not meet this objective to the same extent as the Project.

7. Create employment opportunities in the City of Rancho Cucamonga to reduce the need for members of the local workforce to commute outside the area for employment and improve the jobs to housing balance. The Reduced Footprint Alternative would generate more employment opportunities than what would be generated by a vacant lot; however, it would not achieve this objective to the same extent as the Project.

8. To develop a project with an architectural design and operational characteristics that complement other existing buildings in the immediate vicinity and minimize conflicts with other nearby land uses. The Reduced Footprint Alternative would not conflict with existing architecture or the operations of nearby uses and would achieve this objective.

9. To maximize industrial warehouse buildings in close proximity to an alr eady- established industrial area, designated truck routes, and the State highway

FINDINGS OF FACT

Jersey Industrial Complex Project Findings of Fact
January 2022 40
system in order to avoid or shorten truck- trip lengths on other roadways, and avoid locating industrial warehouse buildings in close proximity to residential uses. The Reduced Footprint Alternative would develop a smaller warehouse facility, compared to the proposed Project and would not maximize the amount of available industrial warehouse space, and therefore, would not meet this Project objective.

10. To develop a property that has access to available infrastructure, including roads and utilities to be used as part of the Southern California supply chain and goods movement network. The Reduced Footprint Alternative would develop industrial/warehouse use on the Project site that would utilize available infrastructure used as part of the Southern California supply chain and goods movement network.

The Reduced Footprint Alternative would meet the intent of this objective, but not to the same extent as the Project relat ive to supporting goods movement in Southern California.

Overall Finding: The City adopts Finding 3.

The City finds that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make this alternative infeasible. Although the No Project Alternative would avoid the Project’s less than significant environmental impacts, this alternative would not meet any of the Project’s objectives.

Supporting Evidence: Please see DEIR Pages 6-6 through 6-8.

Environmentally Superior Alternative
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 The No Project Alternative. Because the No Project Alternative 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 proposed 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 2:

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.

CEQA requires the identification of an environmentally superior alternative. As discussed above, the No Project/No Action Alternative, in which the proposed Project is not implemented, would result in no change from current conditions. However, Section 15126.6(e)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines states that, if the No Project Alternative is the environmentally superior alternative,

FINDINGS OF FACT

Jersey Industrial Complex Project Findings of Fact
January 2022 41
then the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives.

Additional CEQA Considerations
Significant and Unavoidable Environmental Impacts (DEIR Section 5.2) The potentially adverse effects of the proposed Project are discussed in Sections 4.1 through

4.10 of DEIR. Mitigation measures have been recommended that would avoid, reduce or minimize impacts. All the potential impacts associated with the proposed Project would be either less than significant or mitigated to less than significant. The proposed Project would not result in any significant unavoidable impacts.

Irreversible Environmental Changes (DEIR Section 5.3)
Both construction and operation of the proposed Project would lead to the consumption of limited, slowly renewable, and non-renewable resources, committing such resources to uses that future generations would be unable to reverse. The new development would require the c ommitment of resources that include: (1) building materials; (2) fuel and operational materials/resources; and (3) the transportation of goods and people to and from the new warehouse.

Title 24 of the California Administrative Code regulates the amount of energy consumed by new development. Nevertheless, the consumption of such resources would represent a long- term commitment of those resources. The commitment of resources required for the construction and operation of the proposed Project would limit the availability of such resources for future generations or for other uses during the life of the proposed Project. However, continued use of such resources is consistent with the planned changes on the proposed Project site and within the general vicinity.

Growth Inducing Impacts (DEIR Section 5.4)
The proposed Project would not directly induce growth as it does not involve residential development. The proposed Project site has been designated for industrial/warehousing uses as identified in the City’s adopted General Plan. In addition, the proposed Project would not remove obstacles to regional growth and related development.

The Project will generate approximately 111 new jobs. Of the total, approximately 86 percent, or 95 jobs, will be filled by employees residing outside the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The remaining 16 jobs will be filled by existing city residents. The addition of 111 new jobs would represent a 0.12 percent increase in total employment. The proposed Project may result in negligible population growth; however, the area is primarily built out. Any new residents would be expected to occupy existing housing units or those in the planning stage. Any new residents would not represent unplanned population growth in the community or result in economic growth that exceeds levels anticipated in plans adopted by the City. Therefore, no significant impacts related to growth inducement would occur.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Jersey Industrial Complex Project Findings of Fact
January 2022 42
Although the proposed Project site is currently undeveloped, the surrounding area is fully developed with urban land uses (i.e., warehousing and light industrial). The Project would include connections to existing utilities and installation of on- site stormwater management improvements. Utilities and streets would not need to be extended to the Project site. The addition of 111 new jobs, would not induce growth associated with the construction of new house or commercial infrastructure to support the jobs. No significant impacts related to direct growth inducement would occur.

SECTION 7. 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 30 day s between July 2,2021 and August 3, 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 si gnificant 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 im pacts 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

FINDINGS OF FACT

Jersey Industrial Complex Project Findings of Fact
January 2022 43
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) geology and soils; (5) greenhouse gas emissions; (6) hazards and hazardous materials; (7) hydrology and water quality; (8) noise; (9) transportation; and (10) tribal cultural resources. 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 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 Projec t 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.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Jersey Industrial Complex Project Findings of Fact
January 2022 44
SECTION 8. FINDINGS REGARDING CIRCULATION
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 E IR 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

FINDINGS OF FACT

Jersey Industrial Complex Project Findings of Fact
January 2022 45

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; 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 revi sions to the EIR are not significant as defined in § 15088.5 of the CEQA Guidelines.

SECTION 9. 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, supe rseded, 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.

FINAL
Jersey Industrial Complex Project
Environmental Impact Report
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
SCH No. 2021060608

Prepared for:

City of Rancho Cucamonga
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730
Contact: Vincent Acuna
Prepared by:

Birdseye Planning Group, LLC
P.O.Box 1956, Vista, CA 92085

Contact: Ryan Birdseye

January 2022

This page intentionally left blank.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Jersey Industrial Complex Project Findings of Fact
January 2022 i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page

SECTION 1. Authority ................................................................................................................. 1 SECTION 2. Monitoring Schedule ............................................................................................. 1 SECTION 3. Support Documentation ........................................................................................ 2 SECTION 4. Format of Mitigation Monitoring Matrix ............................................................... 2

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1-1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ................................................. 3

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Jersey Industrial Complex Project Findings of Fact
January 2022 ii
This page intentionally left blank.

MMRP

Jersey Industrial Complex Project Final EIR
January 2022 1

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

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 Jersey Industrial Complex 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).

The EIR 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 Proj ect 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 design plans are being prepared by City staff or its agents, City staff will be responsible for ensuring compliance with mitigation monitoring applicable to the Project construction, development, and design phases. Once cons truction 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.

MMRP

Jersey Industrial Complex Project Final EIR
January 2022 2
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.

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.

MMRP

Jersey Industrial Complex Project Final EIR
January 2022 3
TABLE 1-1

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measure Responsible for
Monitoring
Timing of
Verification
Method of
Verification
Verified
Date/initials

AIR QUALITY
AQ-1: Condition project to overlap architectural coating phase with the building phase by approximately 44 total workdays to avoid exceeding the daily ROG standard. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall submit a detailed construction schedule to the City of Rancho Cucamonga which demonstrates that the architectural coating phase will overlap with the building phase by a minimum of 44 days.

City of Rancho
Cucamonga
Prior to issuance of
building permits
Plan check

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
BIO-1: Pursuant to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and Fish and Game Code, removal of any trees, shrubs, or any other potential nesting habitat should be conducted outside the avian nesting season. The nesting season extends from February 1 through August 31 but can vary slightly from year to year based upon seasonal weather conditions. If ground disturbance and vegetation removal cannot occur outside of the nesting season, a pre-construction clearance survey for nesting birds, shall be conducted by a qualified biologist within three (3) days of the start of any ground disturbing activities to ensure that no nesting birds will be disturbed during construction.

If an active avian nest is discovered during the pre-construction clearance survey, construction activities can commence thereafter provided activities are able to maintain a 300-foot buffer around the active nest. For raptors and special-status species, this buffer will be expanded to 500 feet. A biological monitor shall be present during construction activities within the buffer area. to delineate the boundaries of the buffers and to monitor the active nest to ensure that nesting behavior is not adversely affected by the construction activity.

If the biologist determines that bird breeding activity is being disrupted, the Project Applicant shall stop work, notify the City and coordinate with the USFWS and CDFW to agree upon an avoidance/minimization approach.

City of Rancho
Cucamonga
Prior to grading
permit and/or
construction permit
issuance; during
grading, excavation
and construction
activities, upon
completion of
monitoring
activities, and prior
to final engineering
inspection.

On-site inspection,
separate submittal

MMRP

Jersey Industrial Complex Project Final EIR
January 2022 4
TABLE 1-1

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measure Responsible for
Monitoring
Timing of
Verification
Method of
Verification
Verified
Date/initials
Upon agreement of the avoidance/ minimization approach, work may resume subject to the revisions and continued monitoring.

If burrowing owls are detected on-site during the clearance survey, in conformance with the California Staff Report’s protocols, no ground- disturbing activities will be permitted within 656 feet of an occupied burrow during the breeding season (February 1 to August 31), unless otherwise authorized by CDFW.

Once the qualified biologist has determined the young have fledged and left the nest of any birds within the buffer area(s), or the nest otherwise becomes inactive under natural conditions, normal construction activities can occur.

Reporting. If no active nests are found during the pre-construction clearance survey, the Project Applicant shall submit to the City of Rancho Cucamonga a brief letter report prepared by the biologist that documents the negative survey results. The letter report shall also indicate that no impacts to active avian nests will occur.

If active nests were found, the Project Applicant shall submit a final bird survey monitoring report prepared by the project biologist to the City, the USFWS and CDFW. The report shall include documentation of all bird surveys, monitoring activities, coordination efforts with the wildlife agencies, as-built construction drawings with an overlay of any active nests in the survey areas, photographs of habitat areas during pre-construction and post-construction conditions, and other relevant summary information documenting that authorized impacts were not exceeded and that general compliance was achieved for the avoidance/minimization provisions and the biological monitoring program required by the wildlife agencies.

MMRP

Jersey Industrial Complex Project Final EIR
January 2022 5
TABLE 1-1

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measure Responsible for
Monitoring
Timing of
Verification
Method of
Verification
Verified
Date/initials

CULTURAL RESOURCES
CUL-1: In the event that cultural resources are discovered during project activities, all work in the immediate vicinity of the find (within a 60-foot buffer) shall cease and a qualified archaeologist meeting Secretary of Interior standards shall be hired to assess the find. Work on the other portions of the Project outside of the buffered area may continue during this assessment period. Additionally, the SMBMI Cultural Resources Department shall be contacted, as detailed within TCR-1, regarding any pre-contact and/or historic-era finds and be provided information after the archaeologist makes his/her initial assessment of the nature of the find, so as to provide Tribal input with regards to significance and treatment.

City of Rancho
Cucamonga
Prior to issuance of
grading
permit/during
grading and
construction
Plan check,
separate submittal

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

City of Rancho
Cucamonga
During grading and
construction
On-site inspection,
separate submittal

CUL-3: If human remains or funerary objects are encountered during any activities associated with the Project, work in the immediate vicinity (within a 100-foot buffer of the find) shall cease and the County Coroner shall be contacted pursuant to State Health and Safety Code §7050.5 and that code enforced for the duration of the Project. If the human remains are determined to be prehistoric, the coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission, which will determine and notify a Most Likely Descendant. The Most Likely Descendant shall complete the inspection of the site within 48 hours of notification and may recommend scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American burials.

City of Rancho
Cucamonga
Prior to issuance of
grading
permit/during
grading and
construction
Plan check,
separate submittal

MMRP

Jersey Industrial Complex Project Final EIR
January 2022 6
TABLE 1-1

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measure Responsible for
Monitoring
Timing of
Verification
Method of
Verification
Verified
Date/initials

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

City of Rancho
Cucamonga
Prior to issuance of
grading
permit/during
grading and
construction
Plan check,
separate submittal

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

City of Rancho
Cucamonga
During grading and
construction
Separate submittal
TCR-3: The Project Applicant shall be required to retain and compensate for the services of a Tribal monitor/consultant who is both approved by the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation Tribal Government and is listed under the NAHC’s Tribal Contact list for the area of the Project location. This list is provided by the NAHC. The monitor/consultant will only be present on-site during the construction phases that involve ground disturbing activities. Ground disturbing activities are defined by the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation as activities that may include, but are not limited to, pavement removal, 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 City of Rancho
Cucamonga
Prior to issuance of
grading
permit/during
grading and
construction
On-site inspection,
other agency
permit/approval

MMRP

Jersey Industrial Complex Project Final EIR
January 2022 7
TABLE 1-1

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measure Responsible for
Monitoring
Timing of
Verification
Method of
Verification
Verified
Date/initials
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.

TCR-4: Upon discovery of any archaeological resources, cease construction activities in the immediate vicinity of the find until the find can be assessed. All archaeological resources unearthed by project construction activities shall be evaluated by the qualified archaeologist and tribal monitor/consultant approved by the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation. If the resources are Native American in origin, the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation shall coordinate with the landowner regarding treatment and curation of these resources. Typically, the Tribe will request reburial or preservation for educational purposes.

Work may continue on other parts of the Project while evaluation and, if necessary, mitigation takes place (CEQA Guidelines Section15064.5 [f]). If a resource is determined by the qualified archaeologist to constitute a “historical resource” or “unique archaeological resource”, time allotment and funding sufficient to allow for implementation of avoidance measures, or appropriate mitigation, must be available. The treatment plan established for the resources shall be in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(f) for historical resources.

City of Rancho
Cucamonga
During grading and
construction
On-site inspection,
other agency
permit/approval

TCR-5: Preservation in place (i.e., avoidance) is the preferred manner of treatment. If preservation in place is not feasible, treatment may include implementation of archaeological data recovery excavations to remove the resource along with subsequent laboratory processing and analysis. Any historic archaeological material that is not Native American in origin shall be curated at a public, non-profit institution with a research interest in the materials, such as the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County or the Fowler Museum, if such an institution agrees to accept the material. If no institution accepts the archaeological material, they shall be offered to a local school or historical society in the area for educational purposes.

City of Rancho
Cucamonga
During grading and
construction
Onsite inspection,
other agency
permit/approval

MMRP

Jersey Industrial Complex Project Final EIR
January 2022 8
TABLE 1-1

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measure Responsible for
Monitoring
Timing of
Verification
Method of
Verification
Verified
Date/initials
TCR-6: Native American human remains are defined in PRC 5097.98 (d)(1) as an inhumation or cremation, and in any state of decomposition or skeletal completeness. Funerary objects, called associated grave goods in PRC 5097.98, are also to be treated according to this statute. Health and Safety Code 7050.5 dictates that any discoveries of human skeletal material shall be immediately reported to the County Coroner and excavation halted until the coroner has determined the nature of the remains. If the coroner recognizes the human remains to be those of a Native American or has reason to believe that they are those of a Native American, he or she shall contact, by telephone within 24 hours, the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) and PRC 5097.98 shall be followed.

City of Rancho
Cucamonga
During grading and
construction
On-site inspection,
other agency
permit/approval

RE
SOLUTION NO. 22-002
A RESO

LUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF

RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW
DRC2019-00766, A REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT A 159,580 SQUARE - FOOT INDUSTRIAL/WAREHOUSE BUILDING ON A VACANT 7.39 -

ACRE PARCEL WITHIN THE INDUSTRIAL EMPLOYMENT ( IE)

DISTRICT, LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF JERSEY
BOULEVARD AND MILLIKEN AVENUE; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN
SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 0229-111-60
A. Recitals.

1. The applicant, 11298 JERSEY BLVD, LLC, filed an application for Design Review DRC2019-00766, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Design Review is referred to as "the application."

2. On February 9, 2022, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing on that date.

3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.

B. Resolution.

NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planni ng C
ommission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows:

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

2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to the Planning Commission duri ng t
he above-referenced public hearing on February 9, 2022, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows:
a. The application applies to property located within the City; and b. The application applies to an approximately 7.39-acre rectangular piece of land within the Industrial Employment (IE) District, located at the northwest corner of Jersey Boulevard and Milliken Avenue; and
c. The land use, General Plan Designation, and Zoning Designation for the subject property and surrounding area is shown on the table below; and Land Use General Plan Zoning
Site Vacant Neo Industrial Employment Industrial Employment (IE) District
North Industrial/Warehouse
Buildings Neo Industrial Employment Neo Industrial (NI) District
Exhibit J

PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.22-002
DESIGN REVIEW DRC2019-00766– 11298 JERSEY BLVD, LLC
February 9, 2022

South Fire Station and
Training Center Neo Industrial Employment Industrial Employment (IE) District
East Industrial/Warehouse
Building Neo Industrial Employment Industrial Employment (IE) District
West Industrial/Warehouse
Building Neo Industrial Employment Industrial Employment (IE) District

d. The proposed project consists of the construction of a 159,580 square-foot warehouse/distribution building and ancillary on-site improvements; and e. The project complies with all pertinent development standards related to building height, site coverage, front/rear setbacks, parking; and f. The project complies with the landscaping requirements as prescribed in the Development Code; and

3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragr aphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows:
a. The proposed project is consistent with the objectives of the General Plan. The site is located within land designated as Neo Industrial Employment , which permits primarily light industrial and low impact uses such as incubator spaces and small warehouses that are context sensitive to the surrounding neighborhood. The project consist s of a 159,580 square-foot warehouse/distribution building surrounded by existing industrial uses. All site improvements, including parking and landscaped areas, are designed to be consistent with the warehouse/distribution use and are consistent with the Industrial Employment land use as designated in the General Plan.
b. The proposed use is in accord with the objectives of the Development Code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. The Development Code designates the project site as an Industrial Employment (IE) District . The proposed warehouse/distribution building for the site is consistent with the land use intent of the Industrial Employment (IE) District. The zoning of the adjacent sites to the property are within the Industrial Employment (IE) District and Neo Industrial (NI) District and consist mainly of industrial buildings. The overall design of the new building is similar in scale and intensity to neighboring lots. The height of the proposed building is 45 feet and does not exceed the maximum height allowed for other indus trial buildings in the Industrial Employment (IE) District. The Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of the entire site at buildout is 0.5 and will be generally consistent with other industrial properties in the area. c. The proposed use is in compliance with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code. The building is designed for warehouse/distribution operations. The building meets all setbacks, floor area ratio, height, and landscaping requirements. The building has been designed to meet the City’s archit ectural standards. The project meets the minimum parking, loading, and access requirements.

PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.22-002
DESIGN REVIEW DRC2019-00766– 11298 JERSEY BLVD, LLC
February 9, 2022

d. The proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The site is surrounded by industrial/warehouse facilities of a similar scale and intensity. Furthermore, the proposed building is substantially surrounded by existing buildings. Operations on the site are expected to meet all Development Code standards regarding noise and odor.

4. The Project was environmentally reviewed pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City’s Local CEQA Guidelines. The City determined that an EIR would be required for the Project, and therefore prepared an environmental impact report (EIR) that focused on the potentially significant effects of the Project.

By separate Resolution No. 22-001, the Planning Commission has: (i) made the required CEQA findings and determinations, (ii) certified the Final EIR; and (iii) adopted a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Project. Resolution No. 22-001 is incorporated herein by reference, and made a part hereof as if fully set forth herein. The documents and other materials that constitute the record on which this determination was made are located in the Planning Department and are in the custody of the Planning Director. Further, the mitigation measures set forth therein are made applicable to the Project.

5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 4 above, this Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth in the attached Conditions of Approval.

6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.

APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 9TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022.

PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA

BY:

Bryan Dopp, Chairman

ATTEST:

Matthew R. Burris, AICP, LEED, AP, Secretary

I, Matthew R. Burris , AICP, LEED, AP, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 9 th day of February 2022, by the following vote-to-wit:

AYES: COMMISSIONERS:

NOES: COMMISSIONERS:

PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.22-002
DESIGN REVIEW DRC2019-00766– 11298 JERSEY BLVD, LLC
February 9, 2022

ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:

ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS:

Planning Department
S
tatement of Agreement and Acceptance
of Conditions of Approval for Design Review DRC2019-00766 I, H
annibal Petrossi, as applicant for Design Review DRC2019-00766 hereby state that I am in agreement with and accept the conditions of approval for Design Review DRC2019-00766, for property located at the northwest corner of Jersey Boulevard and Milliken Avenue, APN: 0229- 111-60, Rancho Cucamonga, California, as adopted by the Planning Commission of the City o f Rancho Cucamonga on February 9, 2022 and as listed below and attached.

A
pplicant Signature____________________________
D
ate ______________________________
Conditions of Approval

1. The appl
icant shall sign the Statement of Agreement and Acceptance of Conditions of Approval provided by the Planning Department. The signed Statement of Agreement and Acceptance of Conditions of Approval shall be returned to the Planning Department prior t o t
he submittal of grading/construction plans for plan check, request for a business license, and/or commencement of the approved activity.

2. A
ll conditions of approval attached to Resolution of Approval No. 22- 002 for Design Review DRC2019-00766 and Resolution of Approval No. 22-001 for the Environmental Impact Report and Mitigation Monitoring Program.

Exhibit M

Conditions of Approval
Community Development Department
Project #: DRC2019-00766
Project Name: EDR - Jersey and Milliken Warehouse
Location: -- - 022911160-0000
Project Type: Design Review
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:

Planning Department
Please be advised of the following Special Conditions
Building plans shall demonstrate that all walls comply with wall height requirements, as outlined in RCMC Chapter 17.48.

1. Photometric plans submitted during building plan check shall comply with the City's outdoor and site lighting standards, as outlined in RCMC Sec. 17.58.050.

2. Design Review DRC2019-00766 is for the approval of a 159,580 square-foot industrial/warehouse building, subdivided into four (4) suites. Any modifications to the square footage of the overall building, size of suites, or the number of suites shall require Planning Department review and approval.

3. Developer shall provide all prospective tenants a disclosure stating that fire and smoke are to be expected
to be visible from the subject property, as the property is located across from a City fire training center. A draft copy of this disclosure shall be provided to the Planning Department for review, prior to the issuance of building permits.

4. Standard Conditions of Approval
All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners and other roof mounted equipment and /or projections shall be screened from all sides and the sound shall be buffered from adjacent properties and streets as required by the Planning Department. Such screening shall be architecturally integrated with the building design and constructed to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. Any roof -mounted mechanical equipment and/or ductwork, that projects vertically more than 18 inches above the roof or roof parapet, shall be screened by an architecturally designed enclosure which exhibits a permanent nature with the building design and is detailed consistent with the building. Any roof -mounted mechanical equipment and/or ductwork, that projects vertically less than 18 inches above the roof or roof parapet shall be painted consistent with the color scheme of the building. Details shall be included in building plans.

5. The applicant shall sign the Statement of Agreement and Acceptance of Conditions of Approval provided
by the Planning Department. The signed Statement of Agreement and Acceptance of Conditions of Approval shall be returned to the Planning Department prior to the submittal of grading/construction plans for plan check, request for a business license, and/or commencement of the approved activity.

6. www.CityofRC.us
Printed: 2/1/2022
Exhibit L

Project #: DRC2019-00766
Project Name: EDR - Jersey and Milliken Warehouse
Location: -- - 022911160-0000
Project Type: Design Review
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:

Planning Department
Standard Conditions of Approval
The applicant shall agree to defend at his sole expense any action brought against the City, its agents, officers,
or employees, because of the issuance of such approval, or in the alternative, to relinquish such approval. The applicant shall reimburse the City, its agents, officers, or employees, for any Court costs and attorney's fees which the City, its agents, officers, or employees may be required by a court to pay as a result of such action. The City may, at its sole discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense of any such action but such participation shall not relieve applicant of his obligations under this condition.

7. Copies of the signed Planning Commission Resolution of Approval or Approval Letter, Conditions of Approval,
and all environmental mitigations shall be included on the plans (full size). The sheet(s) are for information only to all parties involved in the construction/grading activities and are not required to be wet sealed/stamped by a licensed Engineer/Architect.

8. The applicant shall be required to pay California Department of Fish and Wildlife Notice of Determination
& Environmental Impact Report fee in the amount of $3,495.25. All checks are to be made payable to the Clerk of the Board Supervisors and submitted to the Planning Commission Secretary prior to public hearing.

9. Any approval shall expire if Building Permits are not issued or approved use has not commenced within 2 years from the date of approval or a time extension has been granted.

10. This project is subject to public art requirement outlined in Chapter 17.124 of the Development Code.

Prior to the issuance of building permits (for grading or construction), the applicant shall inform the Planning Department of their choice to install public art, donate art or select the in-lieu option as outlined in 17.124.020.D.

If the project developer chooses to pay the in-lieu fee, the in-lieu art fee will be invoiced on the building permit by the City and shall be paid by the applicant prior to building permit issuance.

If the project developer chooses to install art, they shall submit, during the plan check process, an application for the art work that will be installed on the project site that contains information applicable to the art work in addition to any other information as may be required by the City to adequately evaluate the proposed the art work in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 17.124.

If the project developer chooses to donate art, applications for art work donated to the City shall be subject to review by the Public Art Committee which shall make a recommendation whether the proposed donation is consistent with Chapter 17.124 and final acceptance by the City Council.

No final approval, such as a final inspection or the a issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, for any development project (or if a multi-phased project, the final phase of a development project) that is subject to this requirement shall occur unless the public art requirement has been fulfilled to the satisfaction of the Planning Department.

11. www.CityofRC.us

Project #: DRC2019-00766
Project Name: EDR - Jersey and Milliken Warehouse
Location: -- - 022911160-0000
Project Type: Design Review
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:

Planning Department
Standard Conditions of Approval
A detailed landscape and irrigation plan, including slope planting and model home landscaping in the case of residential development, shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and submitted for Planning Director review and approval prior to the issuance of Building Permits for the development or prior final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision. For development occurring in the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone, the landscape plans will also be reviewed by Fire Construction Services.

12. Landscaping and irrigation systems required to be installed within the public right -of-way on the perimeter of this project area shall be continuously maintained by the developer.

13. A minimum of 20 percent of trees planted within industrial projects, and a minimum of 30 percent within commercial and office projects, shall be specimen size trees - 24-inch box or larger.

14. Within parking lots, trees shall be planted at a rate of one 15-gallon tree for every three parking stalls.15.

The final design of the perimeter parkways, walls, landscaping, and sidewalks shall be included in the required landscape plans and shall be subject to Planning Director review and approval and coordinated for consistency with any parkway landscaping plan which may be required by the Engineering Services Department.

16. Tree maintenance criteria shall be developed and submitted for Planning Director review and approval prior to issuance of Building Permits. These criteria shall encourage the natural growth characteristics of the selected tree species.

17. Trees shall be planted in areas of public view adjacent to and along structures at a rate of one tree per 30 linear feet of building.

18. All walls shall be provided with decorative treatment. If located in public maintenance areas, the design shall be coordinated with the Engineering Services Department.

19. Landscaping and irrigation shall be designed to conserve water through the principles of water efficient landscaping per Development Code Chapter 17.82.

20. All parking lot landscape islands shall have a minimum outside dimension of 6 feet.21.

All parking spaces shall be double striped per City standards and all driveway aisles, entrances, and exits shall be striped per City standards.

22. The signs indicated on the submitted plans are conceptual only and not a part of this approval. Any signs proposed for this development shall comply with the Sign Ordinance and shall require separate application and approval by the Planning Department prior to installation of any signs.

23. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Development Code, all other applicable City Ordinances, and applicable Community, Specific Plans and /or Master Plans in effect at the time of Building Permit issuance.

24. All building numbers and individual units shall be identified in a clear and concise manner, including proper illumination and in conformance with Building and Safety Services Department standards, the Municipal Code and the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Department (RCFD) Standards.

25. www.CityofRC.us Page 3 of 16Printed: 2/1/2022

Project #: DRC2019-00766
Project Name: EDR - Jersey and Milliken Warehouse
Location: -- - 022911160-0000
Project Type: Design Review
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:

Planning Department
Standard Conditions of Approval
The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved plans which include Site Plans, architectural elevations, exterior materials and colors, landscaping, sign program, and grading on file in the Planning Department, the conditions contained herein, and the Development Code regulations.

26. Downspouts shall not be visible from the exterior of any elevations of the buildings. All downspouts shall be routed through the interior of the building walls.

27. All ground -mounted utility appurtenances such as transformers, AC condensers, etc ., shall be located out of public view and adequately screened through the use of a combination of concrete or masonry walls, berming, and /or landscaping to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. For single -family residential developments, transformers shall be placed in underground vaults.

28. All parkways, open areas, and landscaping shall be permanently maintained by the property owner, homeowners' association, or other means acceptable to the City. Proof of this landscape maintenance shall be submitted for Planning Director and Engineering Services Department review and approved prior to the issuance of Building Permits.

29. A detailed on -site lighting plan, including a photometric diagram, shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director and Police Department (909-477-2800) prior to the issuance of Building Permits .

Such plan shall indicate style, illumination, location, height, and method of shielding so as not to adversely affect adjacent properties.

30. Occupancy of the facilities shall not commence until such time as all California Building Code and State Fire Marshal regulations have been complied with. Prior to occupancy, plans shall be submitted to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District and the Building and Safety Services Department to show compliance. The buildings shall be inspected for compliance and final acceptance granted prior to occupancy.

31. All site, grading, landscape, irrigation, and street improvement plans shall be coordinated for consistency prior to issuance of any permits (such as grading, tree removal, encroachment, building, etc.) or prior to final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision, or approved use has commenced, whichever comes first.

32. Prior to any use of the project site or business activity being commenced thereon, all Conditions of Approval shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Planning Director.

33. Trash receptacle (s) are required and shall meet City standards. The final design, locations, and the number of trash receptacles shall be subject to Planning Director review and approval prior to the issuance of Building Permits.

34. Engineering Services Department
Please be advised of the following Special Conditions
Any existing public improvements that are damaged or substandard such as sidewalks, driveways, curb & gutters, asphalt, etc, shall be removed and replaced to the current City Standards.

1. www.CityofRC.us Page 4 of 16Printed: 2/1/2022

Project #: DRC2019-00766
Project Name: EDR - Jersey and Milliken Warehouse
Location: -- - 022911160-0000
Project Type: Design Review
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:

Engineering Services Department
Please be advised of the following Special Conditions
Developer shall limit vehicular access of the east driveway along Jersey Blvd to passenger cars only. All truck access along Jersey Blvd shall be right -in, right -out only at the west driveway along this frontage .

Provide a driveway design to include an island median and all signing and striping to be reviewed during the plan check process.

2. Rail Spurs:

The City has a strong interest in creating urban trails that increase connectivity between neighborhoods, workplaces, and other destinations. To that end, General Plan Policy CS -6.3 provides: “Continue to incorporate, where feasible, regional and community trails along utility corridors and drainage channels.” Further, the City supports the eventual closure and abandonment of railroad spurs to avoid unnecessary crossings. A north /south railroad spur currently owned by the BNSF Railway (“BNSF”) is located on portions of APNs 0229-111-15 and 0209-145-11 (the “Rail Spur ”), immediately west of the subject property (APN 0229-111-60). Although the applicant does not currently own the Rail Spur, the City believes that BNSF may convey some or all of the Rail Spur to the applicant or a subsequent owner of the subject property when the Rail Spur is no longer necessary for BNSF ’s operations. If BNSF conveys some or all of the Rail Spur and the fee interest in the underlying real property immediately adjacent to the subject property to the applicant or a subsequent owner, then the applicant or subsequent owner shall make an irrevocable offer to dedicate such real property to the City for use as a public trail. The applicant shall record a covenant against the subject property that implements the terms of this condition.

3. Standard Conditions of Approval
Easements for public sidewalks placed outside the public right-of-way shall be dedicated to the City.4.

Corner property line cutoffs shall be dedicated per City Standards.5.

A final drainage study shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer prior to final map approval or the issuance of Building Permits, whichever occurs first. All drainage facilities shall be installed as required by the City Engineer.

6. ** CD Information Required Prior to Sign-Off for Building Permit Prior to the issuance of building permits, if valuation is greater or equal to $ 100,000, a Diversion Deposit and a related administrative fee shall be paid for the Construction and Demolition Diversion Program. The deposit is fully refundable if at least 65% of all wastes generated during construction and demolition are diverted from landfills, and appropriate documentation is provided to the City. Applicant must identify if they are self -hauling or utilizing Burrtec prior to issuance of a building permit. Proof of diversion must be submitted to the Environmental Engineering Division within 60 days following the completion of the construction and / or demolition project.

Contact Marissa Ostos, Environmental Engineering, at (909) 774-4062 for more information.

Instructions and forms are available at the City's website, www .cityofrc.us, under City Hall / Engineering / Environmental Programs / Construction & Demolition Diversion Program.

7. www.CityofRC.us Page 5 of 16Printed: 2/1/2022

Project #: DRC2019-00766
Project Name: EDR - Jersey and Milliken Warehouse
Location: -- - 022911160-0000
Project Type: Design Review
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:

Engineering Services Department
Standard Conditions of Approval
Add the following note to any private landscape plans that show street trees: “All improvements within the public right -of-way, including street trees, shall be installed per the public improvement plans .” If there is a discrepancy between the public and private plans, the street improvement plans will govern.

8. Construct the following perimeter street improvements including, but not limited to:

Curb & Gutter
A.C. Pvmt
Side-walk
Drive Appr.

Street Lights
etc.

Notes: (a) Pavement reconstruction and overlays will be determined during plan check.

9. Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 16.37.010, no person shall make connections from a source of energy, fuel or power to any building or structure which is regulated by technical codes and for which a permit is required unless, in addition to any and all other codes, regulations and ordinances, all improvements required by these conditions of development approval have been completed and accepted by the City Council, except: that in developments containing more than one building, structure or unit, the development may have energy connections made in equal proportion to the percentage of completion of all improvements required by these conditions of development approval, as determined by the City Engineer, provided that reasonable, safe and maintainable access to the property exists. In no case shall more than 95 percent of the buildings, structures or units be connected to energy sources prior to completion and acceptance of all improvements required by these conditions of development approval.

10. Improvement Plans and Construction:
a. Street improvement plans, including street trees shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. Security shall be posted and an agreement executed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the City Attorney guaranteeing completion of the public street improvements, prior to the issuance of Building Permits. b. Prior to any work being performed in public right -of-way, fees shall be paid and a construction permit shall be obtained from the Engineering Services Department in addition to any other permits required. c. Pavement striping, marking, and traffic signing shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
d. Existing City roads requiring construction shall remain open to traffic at all times with adequate detours during construction. Street or lane closure permits are required. A cash deposit shall be provided to cover the cost of grading and paving, which shall be refunded upon completion of the construction to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
e. Concentrated drainage flows shall not cross sidewalks. Under sidewalk drains shall be installed to City Standards, except for single-family residential lots.

11. www.CityofRC.us Page 6 of 16Printed: 2/1/2022

Project #: DRC2019-00766
Project Name: EDR - Jersey and Milliken Warehouse
Location: -- - 022911160-0000
Project Type: Design Review
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:

Engineering Services Department
Standard Conditions of Approval
Install street trees per City street tree design guidelines and standards as follows. The completed legend (box below) and construction notes shall appear on the title page of the street improvement plans. Street improvement plans shall include a line item within the construction legend stating: “Street trees shall be installed per the notes and legend on Sheet ___ (typically Sheet 1).” Where public landscape plans are required, tree installation in those areas shall be per the public landscape improvement plans.

Street Name
Botanical Name
Common Name
Min. Grow Space
Spacing
Size
Qty.

Construction Notes for Street Trees:
1) All street trees are to be planted in accordance with City standard plans. 2) Prior to the commencement of any planting, an agronomic soils report shall be furnished to the City inspector. Any unusual toxicities or nutrient deficiencies may require backfill soil amendments, as determined by the City inspector.
3) All street trees are subject to inspection and acceptance by the Engineering Services Department.

Street trees are to be planted per public improvement plans only.

12. Intersection line of sight designs shall be reviewed by the City Engineer for conformance with adopted policy. On collector or larger streets, lines of sight shall be plotted for all project intersections, including driveways. Local residential street intersections and commercial or industrial driveways may have lines of sight plotted as required.

13. All public improvements (interior streets, drainage facilities, community trails, paseos, landscaped areas, etc.) shown on the plans and /or tentative map shall be constructed to City Standards. Interior street improvements shall include, but are not limited to, curb and gutter, AC pavement, drive approaches, sidewalks, street lights, and street trees.

14. Street trees, a minimum of 15-gallon size or larger, shall be installed per City Standards in accordance with the City's street tree program.

15. A signed consent and waiver form to join and /or form the appropriate Landscape and Lighting Districts shall be filed with the Engineering Services Department prior to issuance of Building Permits .

Formation costs shall be borne by the developer.

16. Developer shall execute a Line Extension Agreement for electric service and shall construct electrical distribution facilities in accordance with such agreement and shall construct electrical distribution facilities in accordance with such agreement and Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Utility requirements and dedicate such facilities to the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Utility. The Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Utility shall be the electrical service provider for all project related development.

17. www.CityofRC.us Page 7 of 16Printed: 2/1/2022

Project #: DRC2019-00766
Project Name: EDR - Jersey and Milliken Warehouse
Location: -- - 022911160-0000
Project Type: Design Review
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:

Engineering Services Department
Standard Conditions of Approval
Water and sewer plans shall be designed and constructed to meet the requirements of the Cucamonga Valley Water District (CVWD), Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, and the Environmental Health Department of the County of San Bernardino. A letter of compliance from the CVWD is required prior to final map approval or issuance of permits, whichever occurs first. Such letter must have been issued by the water district within 90 days prior to final map approval in the case of subdivision or prior to the issuance of permits in the case of all other residential projects.

18. The separate parcels contained within the project boundaries shall be legally combined into one parcel prior to issuance of Building Permits.

19. Fire Prevention / New Construction Unit
Standard Conditions of Approval
Locking and latching hardware for access doors is required to be operable from the exterior of the building and is required to be single action latch/lock release on the interior of the building.

1. Access doors are required to be identified in accordance with Fire District Standard 5-5. The Standard has been uploaded to the Documents section.

2. Access doors are required to be distributed along the exterior of the building such that the lineal distance between adjacent access doors does not exceed 125 feet measured center to center.

3. Required alarm systems and supervision systems are required to be in accordance with Fire District Standard 9-3. The Standard has been uploaded to the Documents section.

4. Plans for the alarm and /or supervision (monitoring) system are required to be submitted separately and issued a separate permit. Submit all plans to the Building & Safety Department for routing to the Fire District.

5. Plans for the egress lighting are required to be submitted separately and issued a separate permit .

Submit all plans to the Building & Safety Department for routing to the Fire District.

6. Plans for high piled combustible storage are required to be submitted separately and issued a separate permit. Submit all plans to the Building & Safety Department for routing to the Fire District.

7. Plans for the private, onsite fire underground water infrastructure are required to be submitted separately and issued a separate permit. Submit all plans to the Building & Safety Department for routing to the Fire District.

8. Plans for the public, offsite fire underground water infrastructure are required to be submitted separately and issued a separate permit. Plans are required to be submitted prior to or concurrently with the submittal of the Water District mylars. Submit all plans to the Building & Safety Department for routing to the Fire District.

9. Plans for the racks used for high piled combustible storage are required to be submitted separately and issued a separate permit. Submit all plans to the Building & Safety Department for routing to the Fire District.

10. Plans for the sprinkler system are required to be submitted separately and issued a separate permit .

Submit all plans to the Building & Safety Department for routing to the Fire District.

11. www.CityofRC.us Page 8 of 16Printed: 2/1/2022

Project #: DRC2019-00766
Project Name: EDR - Jersey and Milliken Warehouse
Location: -- - 022911160-0000
Project Type: Design Review
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:

Fire Prevention / New Construction Unit
Standard Conditions of Approval
Exterior doors and doors providing access to fire protection and life safety systems and equipment are required to have identification signage in accordance with Fire District Standard 5-5. The Standard has been uploaded to the Documents section.

12. The location, size, construction materials, or other features of this building and the associated project are such that adequate emergency responder radio coverage may not be achievable within the building that is proposed. It is highly recommended that a radio signal strength assessment is completed by San Bernardino County Information Services Department (ISD). Please contact Tim Trager with County ISD at 909-388-5563 or [email protected]
Upon substantial completion and final completion of construction, the fire code official will oversee a radio signal strength test that is in accordance with the California Fire Code. If acceptable radio coverage cannot be achieved after construction is completed, equipment necessary to increase the radio signal strength or otherwise allow adequate emergency responder radio communication will be required to be installed.

13. Designated and conforming aerial apparatus access is required in accordance with Fire District Standard 5-1. Show aerial apparatus access on the fire access plan. The Standard has been uploaded to the Documents section.

14. Fire apparatus access (fire lane) design, construction, and identification are required to be in accordance with Fire District Standard 5-1. The Standard has been uploaded to the Documents section.

15. Fire extinguishers are required in accordance with Section 906 of the California Fire Code. Consult with the Fire Inspector for the correct type, size, and exact installation locations.

16. Fire flow information for this project is obtained from the Cucamonga Valley Water District (CVWD).

CVWD can be reached at 909-944-6000 or [email protected].

17. Fire flow is required to be in accordance with Appendix B of the California Fire Code. The Fire District has adopted the appendix without local amendments. Proof of the availability of the required fire flow must be provided to the Fire District in the form of a letter or written report dated within the past 12 months.

18. Fire sprinkler are required to be installed in accordance with Fire District Standard 9-5. The Standard has been uploaded to the Documents section.

19. Gates installed across a commercial /industrial emergency vehicle access road (fire lane) are required to be in accordance with Standard 5-4. The Standard has been uploaded to the Documents section.

20. A Knox Box key box is required in accordance with Fire District Standard 5-9. Additional boxes may be required depending on the size of the building, the location of fire protection and life safety system controls, and the operational needs of the Fire District. The Standard has been uploaded to the Documents section. If an installed Knox Box is available to this project or business, keys for the building/suite/unit are required to be provided to the Fire Inspector at the final inspection.

21. www.CityofRC.us Page 9 of 16Printed: 2/1/2022

Project #: DRC2019-00766
Project Name: EDR - Jersey and Milliken Warehouse
Location: -- - 022911160-0000
Project Type: Design Review
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:

Fire Prevention / New Construction Unit
Standard Conditions of Approval
Coordinate landscaping with the roof access ladder points and address signage. Landscaping cannot obstruct roof access or clear visibility of address signage from time of installation to maturity of the shrubs and trees.

22. A fire service site plan is required in accordance with Fire District Standard 5-11. The Standard has been uploaded to the Documents section.

23. Roof access is required to be in accordance with Fire District Standard 5-6. The Standard has been uploaded to the Documents section.

24. Street address and unit /suite signage for commercial and industrial buildings are required to be in accordance with Fire District Standard 5-8. The Standard has been uploaded to the Documents section.

25. Identification of fire protection systems and components, fire alarm systems and components, and equipment and devices associated with fire and life safety systems is required to be in accordance with Fire District Standards 5-5 and 5-10. The Standards have been uploaded to the Documents section.

26. Fire apparatus access roads (fire lanes) can be included in an engineered onsite storm water retention plan. The ponding of storm water shall not exceed a designed depth of four (4) inches in the designated fire apparatus access road (s) and the area between the fire apparatus access road (s) and the exterior walls of all normally occupied buildings.

27. Public and private fire service water mains, public and private hydrants, water control valves, fire sprinkler risers, fire department connections (FDCs), and other fire protection water related devices and equipment are required to be provided, designed, and installed in accordance with Fire District Standard 5-10. The Standard has been uploaded to the Documents section.

28. Building and Safety Services Department
Please be advised of the following Special Conditions
When the Entitlement Review is approved submit complete construction drawings including structural calculations and T -24 energy calcualtions to Building and Safety for plan review in accordance with the current edition of the California Building and Fire Codes including all local ordinances and standards .

The new structure is required to be equipped with automatic fire sprinklers. A soils report is required for new structures. Disabled access to the site and building must be provided in accordance to the State of California published thresholds at the time of plan check submittal

1. Grading Section
Please be advised of the following Special Conditions
Prior to issuance of a wall permit, a copy of the Grading Special Conditions of Approval shall be included within the engineered wall plans and calculations.

1. Standard Conditions of Approval
www.CityofRC.us Page 10 of 16Printed: 2/1/2022

Project #: DRC2019-00766
Project Name: EDR - Jersey and Milliken Warehouse
Location: -- - 022911160-0000
Project Type: Design Review
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:

Grading Section
Standard Conditions of Approval
Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with current adopted California Building Code and/or the California Residential Code, City Grading Standards, and accepted grading practices. The Grading and Drainage Plan (s) shall be in substantial conformance with the approved conceptual Grading and Drainage Plan.

2. A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified Engineer licensed by the State of California to perform such work. Two copies will be provided at grading and drainage plan submittal for review. Plans shall implement design recommendations per said report.

3. The final Grading and Drainage Plan, appropriate certifications and compaction reports shall be completed, submitted, and approved by the City Engineer, or designee, prior to the issuance of building permits.

4. A separate Grading and Drainage Plan check submittal is required for all new construction projects and for existing buildings where improvements being proposed will generate 50 cubic yards or more of combined cut and fill. The Grading and Drainage Plan shall be prepared, stamped, and wet signed by a California licensed Civil Engineer prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit.

5. The applicant shall comply with the City of Rancho Cucamonga Dust Control Measures and place a dust control sign on the project site prior to the issuance of a grading permit. All dust control sign (s) shall be located outside of the public right of way.

6. If a Rough Grading and Drainage Plan /Permit are submitted to the Engineering Services for review, the rough grading plan shall be a separate plan submittal and permit from Precise Grading and Drainage Plan/Permit.

7. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit the applicant shall obtain written permission from the adjacent property owner (s) to construct wall (s) on property line (s) or provide a detail (s) showing the perimeter wall(s) to be constructed offset from the property line.

8. Prior to issuance of a grading permit the Final Grading and Drainage Plan shall show the accessibility path from the public right of way and the accessibility parking stalls to the building doors in conformance with the current adopted California Building Code. All accessibility ramps shall show sufficient detail including gradients, elevations, and dimensions and comply with the current adopted California Building Code.

9. The Grading and Drainage Plan shall implement City Standards for on -site construction where possible, and shall provide details for all work not covered by City Standard Drawings.

10. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the grading and drainage plan shall show the maximum parking stall gradient at 5 percent. Accessibility parking stall grades shall be constructed per the, current adopted California Building Code.

11. This project shall comply with the accessibility requirements of the current adopted California Building Code.

12. www.CityofRC.us Page 11 of 16Printed: 2/1/2022

Project #: DRC2019-00766
Project Name: EDR - Jersey and Milliken Warehouse
Location: -- - 022911160-0000
Project Type: Design Review
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:

Grading Section
Standard Conditions of Approval
Grading Inspections:
a) Prior to the start of grading operations the owner and grading contractor shall request a pre -grading meeting. The meeting shall be attended by the project owner /representative, the grading contractor and the Building Inspector to discuss about grading requirements and preventive measures, etc. If a pre-grading meeting is not held within 24 hours from the start of grading operations, the grading permit may be subject to suspension by the Building Inspector; b) The grading contractor shall call into the City of Rancho Cucamonga Building and Safety Department at least 1 working day in advance to request the following grading inspections prior to continuing grading operations:
i) The bottom of the over-excavation;
ii) Completion of Rough Grading, prior to issuance of the building permit; iii) At the completion of Rough Grading, the grading contractor or owner shall submit to the Permit Technicians (Building and Safety Front Counter) an original and a copy of the Pad Certifications to be prepared by and properly wet signed and sealed by the Civil Engineer and Soils Engineer of Record; iv) The rough grading certificates and the compaction reports will be reviewed by the Associate Engineer or a designated person and approved prior to the issuance of a building permit.

13. Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit, the permitted grading plan (or architectural site plan ) set shall show in each of the typical sections and the plan view show how the separations between the building exterior and exterior ground surface meet the requirements of Sections CBC 1804.3/CRC R401.3, CBC 2304.11.2.2/CRC R 317.1(2) and CBC 2512.1.2/CRC R 703.6.2.1 of the current adopted California Building Code/Residential Code.

14. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall obtain a signed and notarized letter from the adjacent property owner (s) for ALL work proposed on the adjacent property. The letter shall be scanned and pasted onto the permitted grading plan set. The letter shall show on either the title sheet or a detail sheet of the grading and drainage plan set.

15. Prior to approval of the project -specific storm water quality management plan, the applicant shall submit to the City Engineer, or his designee, a precise grading plan showing the location and elevations of existing topographical features, and showing the location and proposed elevations of proposed structures and drainage of the site.

16. A drainage study showing a 100-year, AMC 3 design storm event for on -site drainage shall be prepared and submitted to the City Engineer, or his designee for review and approval for on -site storm water drainage prior to issuance of a grading permit. The report shall contain water surface profile gradient calculations for all storm drain pipes 12-inches and larger in diameter. All reports shall be wet signed and sealed by the Engineer of Record. In addition, the project specific drainage study shall provide inlet calculations showing the proper sizing of the water quality management plan storm water flows into the proposed structural storm water treatment devices.

17. Roof water is not permitted to flow over the public parkway and shall be directed to an under parkway culvert per City of Rancho Cucamonga requirements prior to issuance of a grading permit.

18. Private sewer, water, and storm drain improvements will be designed per the latest adopted California Plumbing Code. Private storm drain improvements shall be shown on the grading and drainage plan.

19. www.CityofRC.us Page 12 of 16Printed: 2/1/2022

Project #: DRC2019-00766
Project Name: EDR - Jersey and Milliken Warehouse
Location: -- - 022911160-0000
Project Type: Design Review
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:

Grading Section
Standard Conditions of Approval
Prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy or final sign off by the Building Inspector the engineer of record shall certify the functionality of the storm water quality management plan (WQMP) storm water treatment devices and best management practices (BMP).

20. Prior to approval of the Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), the WQMP shall include a copy of the project Conditions of Approval.

21. Prior to the issuance of a Grading Permit the City of Rancho Cucamonga ’s “Memorandum of Agreement of Storm Water Quality Management Plan” shall be submitted for review and approval by the City Engineer, or his designee, and recorded with the County Recorder’s Office.

22. Prior to issuance of a Grading Permit the applicant shall obtain a Waste Discharge Identification Number (WDID). The WDID number shall also be shown on the WQMP Site and Drainage Plan document.

23. The applicant shall provide a copy of a completed EPA Form 7520-16 (Inventory of Injection Wells) for each underground infiltration device, with the Facility ID Number assigned, to the City Engineer, or his designee, prior to issuance of the Grading Permit and /or approval of the project -specific Water Quality Management Plan. A copy of EPA Form 7520-16 shall be scanned and pasted onto the permitted grading plan set, and a copy of said form shall be included in the project -specific Water Quality Management Plan.

24. The land owner shall provide an inspection report by a qualified person /company on a biennial basis for the Class V Injection Wells /underground infiltration chambers to the City of Rancho Cucamonga Environmental Program Manager. The land owner shall maintain on a regular basis all best management practices (BMP”s) as described in the Storm Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) prepared for the subject project. All costs associated with the underground infiltration chamber are the responsibility of the land owner.

25. The land owner shall provide an inspection report on a biennial basis for the structural storm water treatment devices, commonly referred to as BMPs, to the City of Rancho Cucamonga Environmental Program Manager. The land owner shall maintain on a regular basis as described in the Storm Water Quality Management Plan prepared for the subject project. All costs associated with the underground infiltration chamber are the responsibility of the land owner.

26. The land /property owner shall follow the inspection and maintenance requirements of the approved project specific Water Quality Management Plan and shall provide a copy of the inspection reports on a biennial basis to the City of Rancho Cucamonga Environmental Program Manager.

27. A final project -specific Storm Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) shall be approved by the City Engineer, or his designee, and the City of Rancho Cucamonga ’s “Memorandum of Storm Water Quality Management Plan” shall be recorded prior to the issuance of a grading permit or any building permit.

28. The Site and Drainage Plan in the final project -specific Water Quality Management Plan shall show the locations of all roof downspout drains. if required for storm water quality purposes, the downspouts shall include filters.

29. www.CityofRC.us Page 13 of 16Printed: 2/1/2022

Project #: DRC2019-00766
Project Name: EDR - Jersey and Milliken Warehouse
Location: -- - 022911160-0000
Project Type: Design Review
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:

Grading Section
Standard Conditions of Approval
Prior to the issuance of a building permit or Engineering Services Department issued right of way permit, the applicant shall submit to the City Engineer, or his designee, a final project specific water quality management plan for review and approval, and shall have said document recorded with the San Bernardino County Recorder's Office.

30. Prior to the start of landscaping operations, the landscape architect and the landscape contractor shall provide a sample of the weed fabric barrier to the Project Planner, City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department. The weed barrier shall be permeable.

31. The final project -specific water quality management plan (WQMP) shall include executed maintenance agreements along with the maintenance guidelines for all proprietary structural storm water treatment devices (BMP’s). In the event the applicant cannot get the proprietary device maintenance agreements executed prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant is required to submit a letter to be included within the WQMP document, and scanned and pasted onto the Site and Drainage Plan which states that prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy with applicant shall enter into a contract for the maintenance of the proprietary storm water treatment device. If the proprietary storm water treatment device is part of a residential subdivision, prior to the sale of the residential lot, the developer shall include maintenance agreement (s) as part of the sale of the residential lot to the buyer. A copy of the maintenance agreements to be included in the sale of the property shall be included within the WQMP document.

32. Prior to issuance of a grading permit and approval of the project specific water quality management plan all private storm water catch basin inlets shall include insert filters to capture those pollutants of concern as addressed in the in the final project -specific water quality management plan (WQMP). At a minimum catch basin insert filters to capture trash and other floating debris. All catch basin insert filters shall be maintained on a regular basis as described in the “Inspection and Maintenance Responsibility for Post Construction BMP” section of the final project-specific water quality management plan.

33. Prior to issuance of a grading permit the Final Project -Specific Water Quality Management Plan shall include a completed copy of “Worksheet H: Factor of Safety and Design Infiltration Worksheet” located in Appendix D “Section VII – Infiltration Rate Evaluation Protocol and Factor of Safety Recommendations, …” of the San Bernardino County Technical Guidance Document for Water Quality Management Plans. The infiltration study shall include the Soil Engineer ’s recommendations for Appendix D, Table VII .3: Suitability Assessment Related Considerations for Infiltration Facility Safety Factors”.

34. Prior to approval of the final project -specific water quality management plan the applicant shall have a soils engineer prepare a project -specific infiltration study for the project for the purposes of storm water quality treatment. The infiltration study and recommendations shall follow the guidelines in the current adopted “San Bernardino County Technical Guidance Document for Water Quality Management Plans”.

35. www.CityofRC.us Page 14 of 16Printed: 2/1/2022

Project #: DRC2019-00766
Project Name: EDR - Jersey and Milliken Warehouse
Location: -- - 022911160-0000
Project Type: Design Review
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:

Grading Section
Standard Conditions of Approval
GROUND WATER PROTECTION:

Prior to approval of the final project specific water quality management plan (WQMP), the WQMP document shall meet the requirements of the State Water Resources Control Board Order No .

R8-2010-0036 (NPDES No. CAS 618036), the San Bernardino County Municipal Separate Storm Sewers Separation (MS4) Permit reads:

Section XI.D(Water Quality Management Plan Requirements).8(Groundwater Protection):

Treatment Control BMPs utilizing infiltration [exclusive of incidental infiltration and BMPs not designed to primarily function as infiltration devices (such as grassy swales, detention basins, vegetated buffer strips, constructed wetlands, etc.)] must comply with the following minimum requirements to protect groundwater:
a. Use of structural infiltration treatment BMPs shall not cause or contribute to an exceedance of ground water quality objectives.
b. Source control and pollution prevention control BMPs shall be implemented to protect groundwater quality. The need for pre -treatment BMPs such as sedimentation or filtration should be evaluated prior to infiltration.
c. Adequate pretreatment of runoff prior to infiltration shall be required in gas stations and large commercial parking lots. ( NOTE: The State Water Quality Control Board defines a large commercial parking lot as ‘100,000 sq. ft. or more of commercial development to include parking lot (with 100 or more vehicle traffics ), OR, by means of 5,000sqft or more of allowable space designated for parking purposes’).
d. Unless adequate pre -treatment of runoff is provided prior to infiltration structural infiltration treatment BMPs must not be used for areas of industrial or light industrial activity{ 77}, areas subject to high vehicular traffic (25,000 or more daily traffic ); car washes; fleet storage areas; nurseries; or any other high threat to water quality land uses or activities.
e. Class V injection wells or dry wells must not be placed in areas subject to vehicular{ 78} repair or maintenance activities{ 79}, such as an auto body repair shop, automotive repair shop, new and used car dealership, specialty repair shop (e.g., transmission and muffler repair shop) or any facility that does any vehicular repair work.
f. Structural infiltration BMP treatment shall not be used at sites that are known to have soil and groundwater contamination.
g. Structural infiltration treatment BMPs shall be located at least 100 feet horizontally from any water supply wells.
h. The vertical distance from the bottom of any infiltration structural treatment BMP to the historic high groundwater mark shall be at least 10-feet. Where the groundwater basins do not support beneficial uses, this vertical distance criteria may be reduced, provided groundwater quality is maintained. i. Structural infiltration treatment BMPs shall not cause a nuisance or pollution as defined in Water Code Section 13050.

36. www.CityofRC.us Page 15 of 16Printed: 2/1/2022

Project #: DRC2019-00766
Project Name: EDR - Jersey and Milliken Warehouse
Location: -- - 022911160-0000
Project Type: Design Review
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:

Grading Section
Standard Conditions of Approval
NONRESIDENTIAL MANDATORY MEASURES – CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS CODE – Prior to the issuance of any building permit the applicant shall comply with Section 5.106.10 (Grading and paving) of the current adopted California Green Building Standards Code:

Construction plans shall indicate how site grading or a drainage system will manage all surface water flows to keep water from entering buildings. Examples of methods to manage surface water include, but are not limited to, the following:

1. Swales.

2. Water collection and disposal systems.

3. French drains.

4. Water retention gardens.

5. Other water measures which keep surface water away from buildings and aid in groundwater recharge.

Exception: Additions and alterations not altering the drainage path.

37. The applicant shall provide a grading agreement and grading bond for all cut and fill combined exceeding 5,000 cubic yards prior to issuance of a grading permit. The grading agreement and bond shall be approved by the City Engineer, or designee.

38. (Grd.100) Prior to issuance of a grading permit the applicant shall show on the site plan and the permitted grading plan set for non -residential projects the designated parking for clean air vehicles per the current adopted California Green Building Standards Code, section 5.106.5.2.

39. (Grd.017) Prior to issuance of a grading permit the precise grading and drainage plan shall follow the format provided in the City of Rancho Cucamonga handout “Information for Grading Plans and Permit”.

40. (Grd.101) Prior to issuance of a grading permit for non -residential projects the applicant shall show on the electrical plans and the permitted grading plan set the location for a future installation of an Electric Vehicle (EV) charging station /parking area per the current adopted California Green Building Standards Code, section 5.106.5.3.

41. www.CityofRC.us Page 16 of 16Printed: 2/1/2022

Via Email and Overnight Mail

February 17, 2022

Chair Oaxaca
Vice Chair Dopp
Commissioner Guglielmo
Commissioner Morales
Commissioner Williams
Planning Commission
Attn: Elizabeth Thornhill, Executive Assistant
City of Rancho Cucamonga
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
[email protected]
Janice Reynolds, City Clerk
City of Rancho Cucamonga
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
[email protected]

Re: Appeal of Decision of the Planning Commission to Approve Design Review DRC2019-00766 for the Jersey Boulevard Industrial Complex Project

Dear Chair Oaxaca, Vice Chair Dopp, Honorable Commissioners, Ms. Reynolds, and Ms. Thornhill:

I am writing on behalf of the Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (“SAFER”) and its members living and/or working in or around the City of Rancho Cucamonga (“City”) regarding the Planning Commission’s decisions of February 9, 2022 to approve Design Review DRC2019-00590 for the Jersey Boulevard Industrial Complex Project, a 159,580 square foot warehouse/storage building located at Milliken Avenue and Jersey Boulevard (“Project”), and to adopt the Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) prepared for the Project.

This appeal is filed pursuant to Municipal Code section 17.14.070, is timely filed within 10 days of the Planning Commission’s decision, and is accompanied by the required filing fee of $3,279. The reasons for the appeal are set forth in the attached letter, which was submitted to the Planning Commission prior to its decision.

Sincerely,

Victoria Yundt

LOZEAU DRURY LLP

Via E-Mail

February 8, 2022

Chair Oaxaca
Vice Chair Dopp
Commissioner Guglielmo
Commissioner Morales
Commissioner Williams
Planning Commission
Attn: Elizabeth Thornhill, Executive Assistant
City of Rancho Cucamonga
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
[email protected]

Janice Reynolds, City Clerk
City of Rancho Cucamonga
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
[email protected]

Vincent Acuna, Associate Planner
Planning Department
City of Rancho Cucamonga
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
[email protected]

RE: Comment on the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Jersey Boulevard Industrial Complex Project (SCH No. 2021060608)

Dear Chair Oaxaca, Vice Chair Dopp, Honorable Commissioners, Ms. Reynolds, Ms. Thornhill, and Mr. Acuna:

I am writing on behalf of the Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (“SAFER”), a California nonprofit benefit corporation, including their members that live and work in and around Rancho Cucamonga regarding the Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) prepared for the Jersey Boulevard Industrial Complex Project (“Project”) located at the northwest corner of Milliken Avenue and Jersey Boulevard (APN 0229-111-60-0-000) located in the City of Rancho Cucamonga (“City”). After reviewing the EIR, we conclude that it fails to analyze all environmental impacts and implement all necessary mitigation measures. SAFER respectfully requests that the City withdraw the Final EIR (“FEIR”) and instead prepare a revised draft environmental impact report (“RDEIR”) and recirculate the RDEIR prior to considering approvals for the Project.

Comment re: Jersey Industrial Complex Project EIR
February 8, 2022

These comments have been prepared with the assistance of wildlife biologist Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D., and environmental consulting firm Soil/Water/Air Protection Enterprise (“SWAPE”). Dr. Smallwood’s comment and curriculum vitae are attached as Exhibit A hereto and are incorporated herein by reference and entirety. SWAPE’s comment and curriculum vitae are attached as Exhibit B hereto and are incorporated herein by reference in their entirety.

I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The Project proposes to construct a 159,580 square foot warehouse/storage building, composed of 143,014 square feet of storage in four separate units, 8,127 square feet of mezzanine storage, 8,127 square feet of office space (i.e., divided into four separate spaces, one for each storage unit), and a 312 square foot electrical room, and 98 parking spaces, on a 7.39- acre site at the northwest corner of Milliken Avenue and Jersey Boulevard. The building would be oriented east/west with vehicle access to office space fronting the building from Jersey Boulevard. Truck access to the loading docks located at the rear of the building would be provided from Milliken Avenue.

In 2019, the Project applicant submitted an application package for Design Review (DR) associated with the construction and operation of the new warehouse building proposed for the northwest corner of Jersey Boulevard and Milliken Avenue in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. A total of 98 parking spaces would be provided. As part of the Design Review (DRC2019-00766) process, an Initial Study and related technical reports were submitted to the City of Rancho Cucamonga to facilitate compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

The Initial Study and related technical reports were circulated for public review from April 13, 2021, to May 12, 2021 (SCH# 2021040209). Based on comments received addressing Greenhouse Gas emission calculations and the Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) analysis, the City determined that an EIR is required based on the Project’s potential to create short-term, long- term, and cumulative impacts. The EIR addresses only those environmental topical areas that could be significantly impacted by the Project based on information presented in the 2021 CEQA Initial Study Checklist. Implementation of the proposed Project requires approval of an EIR.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

CEQA requires that an agency analyze the potential environmental impacts of its proposed actions in an EIR (except in certain limited circumstances). (See, e.g., Pub. Res. Code [“PRC”] § 21100.) The EIR is the very heart of CEQA. (Dunn-Edwards v. BAAQMD (1992) 9 Cal.App.4th 644, 652.) “The ‘foremost principle’ in interpreting CEQA is that the Legislature intended the act to be read so as to afford the fullest possible protection to the environment within the reasonable scope of the statutory language.” (Communities for a Better Environment v. Calif. Resources Agency (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 98, 109.)

CEQA has two primary purposes. First, CEQA is designed to inform decision makers and the public about the potential, significant environmental effects of a project. (14 Cal. Code Regs. [“CCR”] § 15002(a)(1) [CEQA Guidelines].) “Its purpose is to inform the public and its responsible officials of the environmental consequences of their decisions before they are made.

Thus, the EIR ‘protects not only the environment but also informed self-government.’” (Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 564.) The EIR has been described as “an environmental ‘alarm bell’ whose purpose it is to alert the public and its

Comment re: Jersey Industrial Complex Project EIR
February 8, 2022

responsible officials to environmental changes before they have reached ecological points of no return.” (Berkeley Keep Jets Over the Bay v. Bd. of Port Comm’rs. (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1344, 1354 (“Berkeley Jets”); County of Inyo v. Yorty (1973) 32 Cal.App.3d 795, 810.)

Second, CEQA requires public agencies to avoid or reduce environmental damage when “feasible” by requiring “environmentally superior” alternatives and all feasible mitigation measures. (14 CCR § 15002(a)(2) & (3); see also, Berkeley Jets, 91 Cal.App.4th at 1344, 1354; Citizens of Goleta Valley, 52 Cal.3d at 564.) The EIR serves to provide agencies and the public with information about the environmental impacts of a proposed project and to “identify ways that environmental damage can be avoided or significantly reduced.” (14 CCR § 15002(a)(2).) If the project will have a significant effect on the environment, the agency may approve the project only if it finds that it has “eliminated or substantially lessened all significant effects on the environment where feasible” and that any unavoidable significant effects on the environment are “acceptable due to overriding concerns.” (PRC § 21081; 14 CCR § 15092(b)(2)(A) & (B).) The lead agency may deem a particular impact to be insignificant only if it produces rigorous analysis and concrete substantial evidence justifying the finding. (Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692, 732.)

While the courts review an EIR using an “abuse of discretion” standard, “the reviewing court is not to ‘uncritically rely on every study or analysis presented by a project proponent in support of its position. A clearly inadequate or unsupported study is entitled to no judicial deference.’” (Berkeley Jets, 91 Cal.App.4th at 1355 [quoting Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 391, 409, fn.12].) As the court stated in Berkeley Jets:

A prejudicial abuse of discretion occurs “if the failure to include relevant information precludes informed decisionmaking and informed public participation, thereby thwarting the statutory goals of the EIR process.” (Id. at 1355 [citing San Joaquin Raptor/Wildlife Rescue Center v. County of Stanislaus (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 713, 722; Galante Vineyards v. Monterey Peninsula Water Management Dist. (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 1109, 1117; County of Amador v. El Dorado County Water Agency (1999) 76 Cal. App. 4th 931, 946].)

More recently, the California Supreme Court has emphasized that:

When reviewing whether a discussion is sufficient to satisfy CEQA, a court must be satisfied that the EIR (1) includes sufficient detail to enable those who did not participate in its preparation to understand and to consider meaningfully the issues the proposed project raises [citation omitted], and (2) makes a reasonable effort to substantively connect a project's air quality impacts to likely health consequences.

(Sierra Club v. Cty. of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal.5th 502, 510 [citing Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 405].) “Whether or not the alleged inadequacy is the complete omission of a required discussion or a patently inadequate one-paragraph discussion devoid of analysis, the reviewing court must decide whether the EIR serves its purpose as an informational document.” (Sierra Club v. Cty. of Fresno, 6 Cal.5th at 516.) Although an agency has discretion to decide the manner of discussing potentially significant effects in an EIR, “a reviewing court must determine whether the discussion of a

Comment re: Jersey Industrial Complex Project EIR
February 8, 2022

potentially significant effect is sufficient or insufficient, i.e., whether the EIR comports with its intended function of including ‘detail sufficient to enable those who did not participate in its preparation to understand and to consider meaningfully the issues raised by the proposed project.’” (Id. [citing Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City of Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1184, 1197.]) “The determination whether a discussion is sufficient is not solely a matter of discerning whether there is substantial evidence to support the agency’s factual conclusions.” (Id.) Whether a discussion of a potential impact is sufficient “presents a mixed question of law and fact. As such, it is generally subject to independent review. However, underlying factual determinations—including, for example, an agency’s decision as to which methodologies to employ for analyzing an environmental effect—may warrant deference.” (Id.) As the Court emphasized:

[W]hether a description of an environmental impact is insufficient because it lacks analysis or omits the magnitude of the impact is not a substantial evidence question. A conclusory discussion of an environmental impact that an EIR deems significant can be determined by a court to be inadequate as an informational document without reference to substantial evidence.

(Id. at 514.)

III. DISCUSSION

A. The EIR Fails to Establish an Accurate Baseline for Sensitive Biological Resources and Fails to Disclose and Properly Mitigate Impacts of the Project on Numerous Sensitive Species.

Wildlife biologist Dr. Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D., concludes that the Project may have significant impacts on several special-status species and non-special status species. A RDEIR is required to mitigate these impacts. Dr. Smallwood’s conclusions were informed by wildlife biologist Noriko Smallwood’s site visit in June 2021. (See, Ex. A, pp. 1-13.) Ms. Smallwood visited the site of the proposed Project on Dr. Smallwood’s behalf for nearly 2 hours from 06:26 to 08:16 hours on June 16, 2021. (Id.) Dr. Smallwood’s expert comments and curriculum vitae are attached hereto as Exhibit A.

1. The EIR fails to establish an accurate baseline for sensitive biological resources.

The DEIR and FEIR rely on the Habitat Assessment at Appendix C, which states that “[b]ased on habitat requirements for specific species and the availability and quality of on-site habitats, it was determined that the proposed project site has a low potential to support Cooper’s hawk [] and California horned lark []. All remaining special-status wildlife species are presumed to be absent from the project site due to lack of quality habitat.” (DEIR, Appx. C, p. 7; see also DEIR, p. 4-38.) However, the DEIR adopts this conclusion by relying on a single habitat survey conducted on the site on May 14, 2020, during which no special-status species were observed on-site. (Id.) Dr. Smallwood points out numerous flaws with the DEIR’s biological assessment.

First, according to Dr. Smallwood, “[t]he reporting of the site survey did not include the most basic information that a wildlife ecologist would need for assessing whether the survey

Comment re: Jersey Industrial Complex Project EIR
February 8, 2022

truly met due diligence standards.” (Ex. A, p. 6.) As such, “[a] much more rigorous survey and reporting effort is warranted.” (Id.)

Second, the DEIR improperly concluded that “the Project site and surrounding areas provide limited foraging and nesting habitat for year-round and seasonal birds and migrating songbirds,” because “[n]o active nests or birds displaying nesting behavior were observed during the field investigation.” (DEIR, p. 4-38.) However, “Noriko, on the other hand, photographed a juvenile black phoebe,” (Ex. A, p. 10 [citing p. 5, Photo 8]), “observed mourning doves copulating on the project site where the doves had a nest, and observed a northern mockingbird defending its territory against common ravens, one of which also exhibited behaviors typical of nesting.” (Id., p. 10.) According to Dr. Smallwood, the Habitat Assessment’s “failure to detect signs of avian nesting is inexplicable, other than the possibility that [the surveyor] ELMT spent very little time to survey the site.” (Id.; see also id., p. 14.)

Third, the DEIR asserts that the Project plans to improperly rely on a future preconstruction survey to determine “the presence/absence of burrowing owl” on the Project site. (DEIR, p. 4-39.) However, such an “assertion is misleading because preconstruction surveys are not performed for the purpose of determining presence or absence [of] a species.” (Ex. A, p. 10.) As Dr. Smallwood explains:

Preconstruction surveys are performed solely for the purpose of avoiding take of plants or animals that are readily detectable and collectable just prior to construction grading. To determine presence or absence of a species, detection surveys designed for this purpose must be implemented. In the case of burrowing owl, the CDFW (2012) survey protocol would need to be implemented. A preconstruction survey cannot serve as a surrogate or substitute for detection surveys, and City of Rancho Cucamonga should not characterize them as such. (Id., p. 10.)

Fourth, neither the DEIR nor the Habitat Assessment make use of the available data on wildlife observations in the area. (Ex. A, pp. 10-14; see also DEIR, Appx. C, p. 7; DEIR, pp. 4- 38–4-39.) Instead, the DEIR and Habitat Assessment solely relies on a query to the California Natural Diversity Database (“CNDDB”) but fails to take advantage of other databases such as eBird and iNaturalist that gather site specific expert and birder knowledge. (Ex. A, p. 10; id. pp. 11-13, Table 2; DEIR, Appx. C, p. 7; DEIR, pp. 4-38–4-39.) The DEIR and FEIR are therefore incomplete in its search of available data on special-status species occurrences. (Ex. A, pp. 1-13.)

Thus, the current environmental setting needs to be accurately characterized in RDEIR so that an appropriate impact analysis on biological resources from the Project can be completed.

Furthermore, since “most special-status species are rare and cryptic, and because most species are expert at hiding their nests lest they get predated,” Dr. Smallwood recommends that detection surveys be performed for breeding birds “to inform preconstruction take-avoidance surveys by mapping out where biologists performing preconstruction surveys are most likely to find animals before the tractor blade finds them.” (Ex. A, pp. 18-19.)

Comment re: Jersey Industrial Complex Project EIR
February 8, 2022

2. The EIR fails to address the Project’s potential significant impact on loss of breeding capacity.

Neither the DEIR, FEIR, nor the Habitat Assessment adequately assess the lost breeding capacity of nesting birds that would result from the Project. (See, Ex. A, pp. 14-15.) In so doing, the EIR fails to analyze the impact of habitat loss, or the loss of productive capacity on bird species likely to nest on the ground within the Project area. (Id.) While habitat loss results in the immediate numerical decline of birds and other animals, it also results in a permanent loss of productive capacity. (Id., p. 14.) Dr. Smallwood cites a recent study that documented a “29% decline in overall bird abundance across North America over the last 48 years,” a decline which he says was “driven by multiple factors, but principally attributed to habitat loss and habitat fragmentation.” (Id. [citing Rosenberg et al. 2019].)

Here, the DEIR claims that, other than for killdeer which nest on the ground, nesting potential exists only in the trees scattered beyond the site’s perimeter. (DEIR, p. 4-38.) In reality, however, Dr. Smallwood found that “the DEIR mischaracterizes the number of species that nest on the ground,” because “[m]any bird species are ground-nesters, including mourning doves at the site.” (Ex. A, p. 14.) Dr. Smallwood cites two studies that show bird nesting densities that were between 32.8 and 35.8 bird nests per acre, for an average of 34.3 bird nests per acre. (Id. [citing Young (1948) & Yahner (1982), respectively].) Assuming nesting density at the Project site is a fifth of the average reported, then based on 6.8 bird nests per acre multiplied by the Project’s 7.39 acres of habit, Dr. Smallwood predicts that 50 bird nests produce new birds at the site annually. Based on an average of 2.9 fledglings per nest, the Project would prevent the production of 145 new birds per year. (Id., p. 14 [citing Young (1948)].) Based on Dr.

Smallwood’s calculations, “[a]fter 100 years and further assuming an average bird generation time of 5 years, the lost capacity of both breeders and annual fledgling production would total 16,500 birds.” (Id., p. 14 [emphasis added].)

The potential loss of 16,500 birds in California over the first century following construction of this Project easily qualifies as a significant and substantial impact that has not been analyzed. A RDEIR is required to fully analyze the Project’s impact on lost breeding capacity, and to mitigate that impact. Dr. Smallwood recommends, at a minimum, substantial compensatory mitigation is needed in response to the Project’s impacts from habitat loss, including impacts to birds and bats using the site as stop-over or staging during migration. (Ex.

A, p. 19.)

3. The EIR inadequately analyzed the Project’s impact on wildlife movement.

The DEIR concludes that the Project would have “no impact” on wildlife corridors because “[t]he project site is isolated from regional wildlife corridors and linkages, and there are no riparian corridors, creeks, or useful patches of steppingstone habitat (natural areas) within or connecting the Project site to any identified wildlife corridors or linkages.” (DEIR, p. 5-7; DEIR, Appx. C, pp. 5-6.) However, the CEQA standard is whether a project would interfere with wildlife movement in the region. As Dr. Smallwood explains, “[t]he primary phrase of the CEQA standard goes to wildlife movement regardless of whether the movement is channeled by a corridor.” (Ex. A, p. 15.) Wildlife movement includes stopover habitat used by birds and bats, and staging habitat during dispersal, and migration or home range patrol. (Id.) Dr. Smallwood

Comment re: Jersey Industrial Complex Project EIR
February 8, 2022

notes that many species of wildlife likely use the Project site for movement across the region and the Project would cut wildlife off from stopover and staging habitat, lengthening the distances wildlife must travel before finding alternate stopover habitat. (Id.) Therefore, the Project would interfere with wildlife movement in the region and an RDEIR must be prepared to address this impact and mitigate it accordingly. In addition, Dr. Smallwood recommends, at a minimum, substantial compensatory mitigation is needed in response to the Project’s impacts from interference with wildlife movement, including impacts to birds and bats using the site as stop- over or staging during migration. (Ex. A, p. 19.)

4. The EIR fails to address the impacts on wildlife from additional traffic generated by the Project.

The EIR fails to analyze one of the most important potential Project impacts to wildlife:
wildlife mortality from Project-generated traffic. (See, Ex. A, pp. 15-18.) As Dr. Smallwood points out:

According to Mizuta Traffic Consulting (MTC 2020), the project would generate an average daily trip (ADT) rate of 182 passenger cars and 96 trucks. However, neither MTC (2020, 2021) nor the DEIR report any prediction of vehicle miles traveled (VMT). Thus, the DEIR provides only a weak basis for estimating the possible extent of project impacts to wildlife along roads. (Ex. A, p. 15.)

Based on studies of traffic-caused wildlife mortality, Dr. Smallwood estimates that the Project- generated traffic would cause “3,608 wildlife fatalities per year,” and “[o]perations over 50 years would accumulate 180,400 wildlife fatalities.” (Id., pp. 17-18 [emphasis added].)

Vehicle collisions with special-status species is not a minor issue, but rather results in the deaths of millions of species each year. Dr. Smallwood explains:

Across North America, traffic impacts have taken devastating tolls on wildlife (Forman et al. 2003). In Canada, 3,562 birds were estimated killed per 100 km of road per year (Bishop and Brogan 2013), and the US estimate of avian mortality on roads is 2,200 to 8,405 deaths per 100 km per year, or 89 million to 340 million total per year (Loss et al. 2014). Local or regional impacts can be more intense than at the national level. (Id., pp. 15-16.)

Especially due to the special-status bird species likely to occur at or near the Project site, these collisions represent a significant impact to wildlife that has not been addressed, discussed, or mitigated in the DEIR. A RDEIR is needed to analyze and mitigate this significant impact on wildlife. In addition, Dr. Smallwood points out that “[m]itigation measures to improve wildlife safety along roads are available and are feasible, and they need exploration for their suitability with the proposed project.” (Ex. A, pp. 18, 20.)

5. The EIR fails to adequately address the Project’s cumulative impacts on wildlife in the region.

The DEIR fails to consider cumulative impacts on wildlife from the Project. (Ex. A, p.

18.) According to Dr. Smallwood:

Comment re: Jersey Industrial Complex Project EIR
February 8, 2022

The DEIR provides no analysis of cumulative impacts to biological resources other than to imply that cumulative impacts are really just residual impacts of incomplete mitigation of project-level impacts. If that was CEQA’s standard, then cumulative effects analysis would be merely an analysis of mitigation efficacy.

And if that was the standard, then I must point out that none of the project-level impacts would be offset to any degree by the proposed preconstruction surveys to be performed for nesting birds. But the DEIR’s implied standard is not the standard of analysis of cumulative effects. CEQA defines cumulative impacts, and it outlines two general approaches for performing the analysis. The DEIR needs to be revised, and it needs to include an appropriate, serious analysis of cumulative impacts. (Id.)

Thus, the DEIR needs to be revised to adequately address the Project’s contributions to cumulative impacts on wildlife in the region and to mitigate those impacts accordingly. (Id.)

B. The EIR Fails to Adequately Address and Mitigate the Significant Air Quality, Health Risk, and Greenhouse Gas Impacts of the Project.

Matt Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg., and Dr. Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D., of the environmental consulting firm SWAPE reviewed the DEIR, FEIR, and associated appendices’ analysis of the Project’s air quality, health risk, and greenhouse gases (“GHG”) impacts and found that the EIR fails to adequately evaluate these impacts of the Project. (See, Ex. B, pp. 1-10.) As a result, SWAPE concluded that a revised DEIR needs to be prepared to adequately assess and mitigate air quality, health risk, and GHG impacts that the Project may have on the surrounding environment. (Id., p. 1.) SWAPE’s comment letter and CVs are attached as Exhibit B.

1. The EIR relies on unsubstantiated input parameters to estimate Project emissions and thus the Project will result in significant air quality impacts.

SWAPE found that the DEIR underestimated the Project’s emissions and therefore cannot be relied upon to determine the significance of the Project’s air quality impacts. (See, Ex.

B, pp. 1-4.) The DEIR relies on emissions calculated from the California Emissions Estimator Model Version CalEEMod.2020.4.0 (“CalEEMod”). (DEIR, p. 4-14.) This model, which is used to generate a project’s construction and operational emissions, relies on recommended default values based on site specific information related to a number of factors. (Ex. B, pp. 1-2.) CEQA requires any changes to the default values to be justified by substantial evidence. (Id., p. 2.)

SWAPE reviewed the DEIR’s CalEEMod output files, provided in the Air Quality Report as Appendix B to the DEIR, and found that the values input into the model were inconsistent with information provided in the DEIR. (Id.) This results in an underestimation of the Project’s emissions. (Id.) As a result, the DEIR’s air quality analysis cannot be relied upon to determine the Project’s emissions.

Specifically, SWAPE found that the following values used in the DEIR’s air quality analysis were either inconsistent with information provided in the DEIR or otherwise unjustified:

Comment re: Jersey Industrial Complex Project EIR
February 8, 2022

1. Failure to model all proposed land uses. (Ex. B, pp. 2-3.)

2. Incorrect application of area-related operational mitigation measures. (Ex.

B, pp. 3-5.)

As a result of these errors in the DEIR, the Project’s construction and operational emissions are underestimated and cannot be relied upon to determine the significance of the Project’s air quality impacts. (Id., pp. 4-5.) A RDEIR is needed to adequately address and mitigate the significant air quality impacts of the Project.

2. The EIR fails to adequately evaluate health risk impacts from diesel particulate matter emissions.

One of the primary emissions of concern regarding health effects for land development projects is diesel particulate matter (“DPM”), which can be released during Project construction and operation. DPM consists of fine particles with a diameter less than 2.5 micrometers including a subgroup of ultrafine particles (with a diameter less than 0.1 micrometers). Diesel exhaust also contains a variety of harmful gasses and cancer-causing substances. Exposure to DPM is a recognized health hazard, particularly to children whose lungs are still developing and the elderly who may have other serious health problems. According to the California Air Resources Board (“CARB”), DPM exposure may lead to the following adverse health effects:
aggravated asthma; chronic bronchitis; increased respiratory and cardiovascular hospitalizations; decreased lung function in children; lung cancer; and premature deaths for those with heart or lung disease.

The DEIR concludes that the proposed Project would have a less-than-significant health risk impact without conducting a quantified construction or operational health risk analysis (“HRA”). (DEIR, pp. 4-22–4-24; see also Ex. B, pp. 5-7.) Specifically, regarding potential health risk impacts associated with Project construction, the DEIR justifies its “less-than- significant” health risk impact conclusion by explaining that “the short-term construction duration would not result in substantial toxic air contaminant (“TAC”).” (Ex. B, p. 5 [citing DEIR, pp. 4-22–4-23].) Additionally, “the DEIR concludes that the Project would result in a less-than-significant operational health risk impact because the nearest sensitive receptor is located a half mile from the Project site and the traffic volumes along Milliken Avenue are less than the CARB recommended threshold.” (Ex. B, p. 5 [citing DEIR, pp. 4-23–4-24].)

However, SWAPE’s review of the DEIR and its evaluation of potential health risk impacts for the Project found that the DEIR incorrectly concluded that the Project would have a less-than-significant health risk impact on nearby receptors, and completely failed to conduct a quantified construction or operational HRA. (Ex. B, pp. 5-7.) SWAPE concluded that the DEIR’s evaluation of the Project’s potential health impacts, as well as the less-than-significant health impact conclusion, is incorrect for several reasons. (Id.)

First, the DEIR fails to quantitatively evaluate construction-related and operational TAC emissions, or make a reasonable effort to connect emissions to health impacts posed to nearby existing sensitive receptors. (Ex. B, p. 6.) SWAPE identifies potential emissions from both the exhaust stacks of construction equipment and daily vehicle trips. (Id.) In failing to connect TAC emissions to potential health risks to nearby sensitive receptors, the Project fails to meet the

Comment re: Jersey Industrial Complex Project EIR
February 8, 2022

CEQA requirement that projects correlate increases in project-generated emissions to adverse impacts on human health caused by those emissions. (Id.; see also, Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal.5th 502, 510.)

Second, by failing to prepare a quantified construction and operational HRA, the Project is inconsistent with CEQA’s requirement to correlate the increase in emissions that the Project would generate to the adverse impacts on human health caused by those emissions. (Ex. B, p. 6.) The DEIR’s conclusion is also inconsistent with recommendations set forth by the Office of Health Hazard Assessment’s (“OEHHA”) most recent Risk Assessment Guidelines: Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments, which was formally adopted in March of 2015. (See, “Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, Feb 2015 [available at:
https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf].) OEHHA recommends that projects lasting at least 2 months be evaluated for cancer risks to nearby sensitive receptors, a time period which this Project easily exceeds. (Ex. B, p. 6.) The OEHHA document also recommends that if a project is expected to last over 6 months, the exposure should be evaluated throughout the project using a 30-year exposure duration to estimate individual cancer risks. (Id.) Based on its extensive experience, SWAPE reasonably assumes that the Project will last at least 30 years, and therefore recommends that health risk impacts from the project be evaluated in a revised DEIR. Id. A RDEIR is therefore required to analyze and mitigate these impacts. (Id.)

Third, by claiming a less than significant impact without conducting a quantified construction or operational HRA for nearby, existing sensitive receptors, SWAPE found that the DEIR fails to compare the excess health risk impact to the SCAQMD’s specific numeric threshold of 10 in one million. (Ex. B, pp. 6-7.) Thus, in accordance with the most relevant guidance, an assessment of the health risk posed to nearby existing receptors from Project construction and operation should have been conducted. Thus, a RDEIR is required to adequately address and mitigate the health risk impacts of the Project’s construction-related and operational activities.

3. The EIR fails to adequately evaluate greenhouse gas impacts from the Project.

The DEIR estimates that the Project would generate net annual GHG emissions of 2,410 metric tons of CO2 equivalents per year (“MT CO2e/year”), which would not exceed the SCAQMD threshold of 10,000 MT CO2e/year. (Ex. B, p. 7; see also DEIR, pp. 4-75, Table

4.51.) Further, the DEIR relies on the Project’s consistency with the City of Rancho Cucamonga Sustainable Community Action Plan, CARB’s 2017 Scoping Plan, and Connect SoCal 2020- 2045 RTP/SCS in order to conclude that the Project would result in a less-than-significant GHG impact. (Ex. B, p. 7; see also, DEIR, pp. 4-77–4-81.) However, SWAPE states that the DEIR’s GHG analysis and subsequent less-than-significant impact conclusion is incorrect for several reasons. (Ex. B, pp. 7-10.)

First, the DEIR estimates that the Project would generate net annual GHG emissions of 2,410 MT CO2e/year but the DEIR’s quantitative GHG analysis should not be relied upon since it relies on an unsubstantiated air model, as discussed above. (Ex. B, pp. 7-8.)

Comment re: Jersey Industrial Complex Project EIR
February 8, 2022

Second, the DEIR fails to consider the performance-based standards underlying CARB’s Scoping Plan. (Id., p. 8.)

Third, the DEIR fails to consider the performance-based standards underlying SCAG’s RTP/SCS. (Id., pp. 8-10.) Based on SWAPE’s quantitative consistency evaluation utilizing these standards, SWAPE concluded that the DEIR’s GHG significance determination regarding the Project’s consistency with applicable plans and policies should not be relied upon. (Id., p. 9.)

Thus, a RDEIR needs to be prepared for the Project to provide additional information and analysis to conclude less than significant GHG impacts.

IV. CONCLUSION

In light of the above comments, SAFER requests that the Planning Commission refrain from recommending the certification of the EIR in order to allow staff additional time to address concerns raised herein. Please include this letter in the record of proceedings for this Project.

Thank you for considering these comments.

Sincerely,

`
Victoria Yundt

LOZEAU DRURY LLP

EXHIBIT A

1 Shawn Smallwood, PhD
3108 Finch Street
Davis, CA 95616

Vincent Acuna, Planning Department
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Planning Department
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91 8 February 2022

RE: Jersey Industrial Complex Project

Dear Mr. Acuna,

I write to comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) prepared for the proposed Jersey Industrial Complex Project (City of Rancho Cucamonga 2021), specifically on its analysis of potential impacts to biological resources. I understand the project would consist of 143,014 square feet of floor space on 7.39 acres at the northwest corner of Milliken Avenue and Jersey Boulevard.

My qualifications for preparing expert comments are the following. I hold a Ph.D. degree in Ecology from University of California at Davis, where I subsequently worked for four years as a post-graduate researcher in the Department of Agronomy and Range Sciences. My research has been on animal density and distribution, habitat selection, habitat restoration, interactions between wildlife and human infrastructure and activities, conservation of rare and endangered species, and on the ecology of invading species. I study wildlife mortality caused by wind turbines, electric distribution lines, agricultural practices, and road traffic. I authored numerous papers on special-status species issues. I served as Chair of the Conservation Affairs Committee for The Wildlife Society – Western Section. I am a member of The Wildlife Society and the Raptor Research Foundation, and I’ve been a part-time lecturer at California State University, Sacramento. I was Associate Editor of wildlife biology’s premier scientific journal, The Journal of Wildlife Management, as well as of Biological Conservation, and I was on the Editorial Board of Environmental Management. I have performed wildlife surveys in California for thirty-six years, including at many proposed project sites. My CV is attached.

SITE VISIT

Noriko Smallwood, a wildlife biologist pursuing a Master’s Degree at California State University Los Angeles, visited the site of the proposed project for nearly 2 hours from 06:26 to 08:16 hours on 16 June 2021 (Photos 1-2). She walked the site’s perimeter, stopping to scan for wildlife with the use of binoculars. The sky was clear with no wind, and temperatures ranged 70‒75° F.

Noriko Smallwood certifies that the foregoing and following survey results are true and accurately reported.

2 Ms. Smallwood detected nearly 15 species of vertebrate wildlife during her 110 minutes at the site (Table 1). She saw mourning doves (Photo 3), a family of coyotes (Photos 4 and 5), house finches and Great Basin fence lizards (Photos 6 and 7), and black phoebe (Photo 8), among other species. Tracks indicated that coyotes routinely use a hole at the bottom of the perimeter fence to access the site for foraging, which has been important for the rearing of their pups. Noriko also evidence of pocket gophers, which are members of a keystone species that provides habitat for many other vertebrate species and which serve as prey to raptors, snakes and other carnivorous species. She saw birds expressing territorial behavior indicative of breeding, and she saw mourning doves copulating in close proximity to their on-site nest.

Photos 1-2. Site of proposed Jersey Industrial Complex project, next to railroad tracks (background trees are where coyotes denned). Photos by Noriko Smallwood, 16 June 2021.

3 Table 1. Species of wildlife Noriko Smallwood observed during 06:26 to 08:16 hours on 16 June 2021 at the proposed Project site, where RR = adjacent railroad tracks.

Species Scientific name Status Notes
Botta's pocket gopher Thomomys bottae Soil mounds
Coyote Canis latrans Adults, 3-4 pups by RR
Mourning dove Zenaida macroura nested on ground; mated Anna's hummingbird Calypte anna offsite near RR
Black phoebe Sayornis nigricans offsite
Cassin's kingbird Tyrannus vociferans offsite
Common raven Corvus corax socializing
American crow Corvus brachyrhynchos offsite
Northern rough-winged
swallow Stelgidopteryx serripennis
near RR
Northern mockingbird Mimus polyglottos offsite; harassed raven Bushtit Psaltiparus minimus offsite near RR
European starling Sturnus vulgaris Non-native offsite
House finch Carpodacus mexicanus many; socializing, calling Lesser goldfinch Carduelis psaltria offsite
Great Basin fence lizard
Scelophorus occidentalis
longipes

many

Photo 3. Mourning
dove at the site of the
proposed project, 16
June 2021. Photo by
Noriko Smallwood.

4 Photo 4 and 5. Coyote pups, one tracked by its mother, next to the project site, 16 June 2021. Photos by Noriko Smallwood.

5 Photos 6 and 7. House finch and Great Basin fence lizard at the project site. Photos by Noriko Smallwood, 16 June 2021.

Photo 8. Juvenile black phoebe
at the project site, 16 June 2021.

Photo by Noriko Smallwood.

CURRENT ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

The first step in analysis of potential project impacts to biological resources is to accurately characterize the existing environmental setting, including the species that use the site, their relative abundances, how they use the site, key ecological relationships, and known and ongoing threats to those species with special status. A reasonably accurate characterization of the environmental setting can provide the baseline against which to analyze project impacts. Methods to achieve this first step should include surveys of the site for biological resources and reviews of literature, databases and local experts for documented occurrences of special-status species. In this case, these essential steps remain incomplete. Herein I provide additional characterization of the

6 wildlife community as a component of the current environmental setting, including the identification of special-status species likely to use the site at one time or another.

A biologist visited the site on May 14, 2020 (ELMT 2020). Unfortunately, ELMT (2020) did not report when the biologist arrived, how long he stayed, nor what methods he used while on site. The reporting of the site survey did not include the most basic information that a wildlife ecologist would need for assessing whether the survey truly met due diligence standards. A much more rigorous survey and reporting effort is warranted.

During the site survey, ELMT (2020) detected only 9 species of vertebrate wildlife. As reported earlier, Noriko Smallwood detected 15 species. The difference in numbers of species detected could have been due to daily or yearly variation in wildlife use of the site. Another explanation could be that ELMT surveyed the site very briefly; Noriko’s data indicate that 9 species would have been detected in a 25-minute survey. A third explanation could be that ELMT visited the site in the middle of the day when wildlife are less active. Without better reporting by ELMT, an explanation for the difference in survey outcomes remains elusive.

However, whereas Noriko detected 6 species that ELMT did not, ELMT detected 4 species that Noriko did not: Western side-blotched lizard, Say’s phoebe, house sparrow, and desert cottontail. More surveys would add species known to use the site because a single reconnaissance-level survey typically detects only a fraction of the species that actually use the site. Insufficient survey effort has been committed to the site.

Noriko’s detection of 15 species of vertebrate wildlife needs to be interpreted within the context of her survey effort. To matter who performs the survey, the results of a single survey qualify as an absurdly thin empirical foundation for characterizing the environmental setting of any given site, including one proposed for a project. A single survey can serve only as a starting point toward characterization of a site’s wildlife community. Noriko had only <2 hours available to perform a visual scan survey on 16 June 2021, so there were only so many species she was likely to detect. It would have been inappropriate of us to have reported that the site supports only 15 species of wildlife. However, when a reconnaissance-level survey is diligently performed, and when the outcome is analyzed appropriately and fully reported, the number of species detected within a given reconnaissance survey effort can inform of the number of species that likely would have been detected with a larger survey effort during the same time of year.

By recording when she detected each species, we were able to forecast the number of species that could have been detected with a longer effort using the same visual scan method. Figure 1 shows Noriko’s cumulative count of species detected at the site with increasing time into her survey. Just as we have seen for many other survey efforts, a nonlinear regression model fit the data very well, explaining 99% of the variation in the data, and it showed progress towards the inevitable asymptote of the number of species detectable over a longer time period using the same survey method. In our case, the model predicted Noriko would have eventually detected 44 species had she continued

7 performing morning surveys during mid-June. She actually detected only a third of what the pattern in her data predicts she could have detected with an expanded effort.

Figure 1. Actual and
predicted relationships
between the number of
vertebrate wildlife species
detected and the elapsed
survey time based on
Noriko Smallwood’s visual
scan survey on 16 June
2021. Note that the
relationships would differ
if the surveys were based
on another method,
another time of day, or
during another season.

Also note that the
cumulative number of
vertebrate species across
all methods, times of day,
and seasons would
increase substantially.

Noriko could have detected many more species than predicted had she also performed surveys at different times of day to detect diurnal, nocturnal and crepuscular species, or surveys in different seasons and years to detect migrants and species with multi-annual cycles of abundance, or surveys of different methods such as se of acoustic detectors or thermal-imaging for bats, owls, and nocturnally migratory birds, and live-trapping for small mammals. Her reconnaissance-level survey, performed carefully and analyzed appropriately, informs us that the site is richer in wildlife than the 15 species detected, but also that its environmental setting remains insufficiently characterized as foundation for analysis of impacts to special-status species (more on this later). What Noriko’s survey does not inform us, and what detection surveys could, is which of the potentially occurring special-status species actually occur at the site.

To answer the forgoing question, I completed a much larger survey effort across 167 km2 of annual grasslands of the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, where from 2015 through 2019, I performed 721 1-hour visual-scan surveys, or 721 hours of surveys, at 46 stations. I used binoculars and otherwise the methods were the same as the methods I use for surveys at proposed project sites. Each of the 46 stations were surveyed much like a survey is performed at a proposed project site. At each of the 46 survey stations, I tallied new species detected with each sequential survey at that station, and then related the cumulative species detected to the hours (number of surveys, as each survey lasted 1 hour) used to accumulate my counts of species detected. I used combined quadratic and simplex methods of estimation in Statistica to estimate least-squares, best-fit nonlinear 0 50 100 150 200 250 300
0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14
16 18
20 Y
Actual count of species
Model prediction
r2 = 0.99, loss = 2.8
Cumulative number of wildlife species detected

8 models of cumulative species detected regressed on hours of survey (number of surveys) at the station: 𝑅̂ =
1 1 𝑎⁄ +𝑏×(𝐻𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑠)𝑐 , where 𝑅̂ represented cumulative species richness detected. Coefficients of determination of model-fit ranged 0.88 to 1.00, with a mean of

0.97 (95% CI: 0.96, 0.98). I projected the predictions of each model to 10,000 hours to find predicted asymptotes of wildlife species richness, but I was more interested in predicted species richness at a survey effort within the data range, thereby minimizing bias. I averaged the model predictions of species richness at each incremental increase of number of surveys, i.e., number of hours. The mean model-predicted asymptote of species richness was 57 after 11,857 hours of visual-scan surveys. On average I detected

9.5 species over the first 1.83 hours of surveys (to match the number of hours Noriko completed) in the Altamont Pass, which composed 16.67 % of the total predicted species Noriko would detect with a much larger survey effort. Given the example illustrated in Figure 2, and assuming the pattern of survey results is robustly represented by Figure 2, the 15 species Noriko detected after her 1.83 hours of survey at the project site likely represented 16.67% of the species to be detected after many more visual-scan surveys.

With many more repeat surveys, Noriko would likely detect 15 0.1667⁄ = 90 species of vertebrate wildlife at the site. I would perform the same analysis for the ELMT survey had ELMT reported sufficient details of their survey for me to do so.

Figure 2. Mean (95% CI)
predicted wildlife species
richness, 𝑅̂, as a nonlinear
function of hour-long
survey increments across
46 visual-scan survey
stations across the
Altamont Pass Wind
Resource Area, Alameda
and Contra Costa
Counties, 2015‒2019.

There is no question that a larger survey effort would result in a longer list of species documented to use the project site, thereby changing our understanding of the current environmental setting. But still unknown are which species have yet to be detected, how many of the yet-to-be-detected species are special-status species, and how many are 0 20 40 60 80 100
0 10
20 30
40 50
Cumulative number of surveys (hours)
(95% CI)

9 listed species. The likelihood of detecting special-status species is typically lower than that of more common species. This difference can be explained by the fact that special- status species tend to be rarer than common species. Special-status species also tend to be more cryptic, fossorial, or active during nocturnal periods when reconnaissance surveys are not performed. Another useful relationship from careful recording of species detections and subsequent comparative analysis is the probability of detection of listed species as a function of an increasing number of vertebrate wildlife species detected (Figure 3). (Note that listed species number fewer than special-status species, which are inclusive of listed species.) As demonstrated in Figures 1 and 2, the number of species detected is largely a function of survey effort. Therefore, greater survey effort increases the likelihood that listed species will be detected (which is the first tenet of detection surveys for special-status species). Based on the outcomes of 152 previous surveys that Noriko and I performed at sites of proposed projects, Noriko’s survey effort at the project site carried a 17% chance of detecting a listed species. Had she continued her survey effort until she detected all 90 species of vertebrate wildlife predicted by the pattern of her data, then her odds of detecting a listed species would have risen to nearly 100%. In other words, listed species might very well use the site, but it would take more survey effort to achieve a reasonable likelihood of detecting listed species. This context bears on my comments on the DEIR’s analysis of potential project impacts to biological resources, below. A fair argument can be made for the revise the DEIR to more rigorously survey the site for wildlife.

Figure 3. Probability
of detecting ≥1
Candidate, Threatened
or Endangered Species
of wildlife listed under
California or federal
Endangered Species
Acts, based on survey
outcomes logit-
regressed on the
number of wildlife
species Noriko
Smallwood and I
detected as expert
witnesses during 152
site visits throughout
California. The vertical
dashed vertical line
represents the number
of species detected by
ELMT (2020), whereas
the solid vertical line
depicts the number
detected by Noriko.

Number of species detected
Probability of detecting Fully Protected,
Candidate, Threatened or Endangered Species
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

0.0 0.2

0.4 0.6

0.8 1.0
95% CI
152 site visits

10 According to ELMT (2020), “No active nests or birds displaying nesting behavior were observed during the field investigation.” Noriko, on the other hand, photographed a juvenile black phoebe (Photo 8), observed mourning doves copulating on the project site where the doves had a nest, and observed a northern mockingbird defending its territory against common ravens, one of which also exhibited behaviors typical of nesting. ELMT’s failure to detect signs of avian nesting is inexplicable, other than the possibility that ELMT spent very little time to survey the site.

Determinations of absence and low likelihood of occurrence of special-status species such as burrowing owl lack foundation in both ELMT (2020) and the DEIR. No field survey methods were implemented for the detection of bats. No detection surveys were performed for any of the special-status species with potential to occur at the site.

Whereas the DEIR assesses the occurrence likelihoods of only 15 special-status species of wildlife, sighting records posted to publicly available data bases indicate the occurrences of 4 times that number in the area (Table 2). Of the 15 species assessed in the DEIR, 13 (87%) are determined absent from the site, and the other 2 species are assigned a low likelihood of occurrence. Two of the “absent” species have been reported on the project site, 1 has been reported adjacent to the project site, and 5 have been seen nearby. Of all 60 special-status species reported in the area by the data bases, 3 were reported on site, 1 on adjacent property, 3 very close, and 29 nearby. Ample evidence exists in support of the likelihood that special-status species of wildlife use the site, and grossly insufficient evidence exists for dismissing the likelihoods of their use. The DEIR needs to be revised to appropriately assess the environmental baseline and to analyze potential project impacts to biological resources.

Some of the species in Table 2 likely use of the site lightly. Double-crested cormorants and other species likely target the site’s open space for flight paths. Species such as California gull and turkey vulture gain lift in the thermals generated by open space -- lift needed to attain suitable glide altitudes for long-distance travel. California gulls and other species also need open space for staging and stopover on their ways to roost sites, foraging, or long-distance migration. Ferruginous hawk and merlin need these spaces for foraging during winter migration. Even for species that lightly use the site, the DEIR needs to be revised to appropriately analyze potential project impacts to wildlife.

The DEIR (page 4-39) asserts that “the presence/absence of burrowing owl would be determined during the preconstruction survey.” This assertion is misleading because preconstruction surveys are not performed for the purpose of determining presence or absence or a species. Preconstruction surveys are performed solely for the purpose of avoiding take of plants or animals that are readily detectable and collectable just prior to construction grading. To determine presence or absence of a species, detection surveys designed for this purpose must be implemented. In the case of burrowing owl, the CDFW (2012) survey protocol would need to be implemented. A preconstruction survey cannot serve as a surrogate or substitute for detection surveys, and City of Rancho Cucamonga should not characterize them as such.

The current environmental setting needs to be accurately characterized in a revised DEIR so that an appropriate impacts analysis can be completed.

11 Table 2. Occurrence likelihoods of special-status species of vertebrate wildlife as determined by the DEIR and by publicly available data bases such as eBird (https://eBird.org) and iNaturalist, where ‘adjacent’ indiccates the adjacent property to the project site, ‘very close’ indicates within a mile, ‘nearby’ indicates within a few miles, and ‘in region’ indicates within 10 to 30 miles of the project site.

Common name

Species name

Status1
Occurrence likelihood
DEIR Data bases
Double-crested cormorant Phalacrocorax auritus WL Nearby California gull Larus californicus WL Absent Nearby
Turkey vulture Cathartes aura BOP Nearby
Golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos BGEPA, BCC, CFP Nearby
Swainson’s hawk Buteo swainsoni CT, BOP Very close
Red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis BOP On site
Ferruginous hawk Buteo regalis WL, BOP Very close
Red-shouldered hawk Buteo lineatus BOP Very close
Northern harrier Circus cyaneus SSC3, BOP Absent On site White-tailed kite Elanus leucurus CFP, BOP Absent Nearby Sharp-shinned hawk Accipiter striatus WL, BOP Nearby
Cooper’s hawk Accipiter cooperi WL, BOP Low Nearby
American kestrel Falco sparverius BOP Nearby
Merlin Falco columbarius WL, BOP Nearby
Prairie falcon Falco mexicanus WL, BOP Nearby
Peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus CE, CFP, BOP Nearby
Barn owl Tyto alba BOP Nearby
Burrowing owl Bubo virginianus BCC, SSC2, BOP Absent Nearby Great-horned owl Athene cunicularia SSC2, BOP Nearby
Western screech-owl Megascops kennicottii BOP Nearby
Vaux’s swift Chaetura vauxi SSC2 Nearby
Lewis’s woodpecker Melanerpes lewis BCC In region
Nuttall’s woodpecker Picoides nuttallii BCC Nearby
Costa’s hummingbird Calypte costae BCC Absent Adjacent
Allen’s hummingbird Selasphorus sasin BCC Nearby
Cactus wren Campylorhynchus brunneicapillus BCC In region Horned lark Eremophila alpestris actia WL Low Nearby

12 Common name

Species name

Status1
Occurrence likelihood
DEIR Data bases
California gnatcatcher Polioptila c. californica FT, SSC Absent In region Willow flycatcher Empidonax traillii CE, BCC Nearby
Olive-sided flycatcher Contopus cooperi SSC2 In region Vermilion flycatcher Pyrocephalus rubinus SSC2 Nearby
Purple martin Progne subis SSC2 In region
Oak titmouse Baeolophus inornatus BCC Nearby
Loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus BCC, SSC2 Absent On site Least Bell’s vireo Vireo belli pusillus FE, CE Absent Nearby Yellow warbler Setophaga petechia SSC2 Nearby
Yellow-breasted chat Icteria virens SSC3 Nearby
Summer tanager Piranga rubra SSC1 In region
Black-chinned sparrow Spizella atrogularis BCC In region Bell’s sage sparrow Amphispiza b. belli WL In region
Oregon vesper sparrow Pooecetes gramineus affinis SSC2 Nearby Grasshopper sparrow Ammodramus savannarum SSC2 In range Southern California rufous-crowned sparrow Aimophila ruficeps canescens BCC, WL Absent In region Tricolored blackbird Agelaius tricolor SSC1 Absent In region Yellow-headed blackbird Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus SSC3 In region Lawrence’s goldfinch Spinus lawrencei BCC Nearby
Blainville’s horned lizard Phrynosoma blainvillii SSC Absent Nearby Pallid bat Antrozous pallidus SSC, WBWG H In range
Townsend’s western big-eared bat Plecotus t. townsendii SSC, WBWG H In region Western red bat Lasiurus blossevillii SSC, WBWG H In region Western yellow bat Lasiurus xanthinus SSC, WBWG H Absent In range Small-footed myotis Myotis cililabrum WBWG M In range
Miller’s myotis Myotis evotis WBWG M In region
Fringed myotis Myotis thysanodes WBWG H In region
Long-legged myotis Myotis Volans WBWG H In range
Yuma myotis Myotis yumanensis SSC, WBWG LM In region Western mastiff bat Eumops perotis SSC Absent In region

13 Common name

Species name

Status1
Occurrence likelihood
DEIR Data bases
Hoary bat Lasiurus cinereus WBWG LM In region
American badger Taxidea taxus SSC Nearby
1 Listed as FT and FE = federal threatened and endangered, BCC = U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Bird of Conservation Concern, CT and CE = California threatened and endangered, CFP = California Fully Protected (CDFW Code 3511), BOP = California Fish and Game Code 3503.5 (Birds of prey), and SSC1, SSC2 and SSC3 = California Bird Species of Special Concern priorities 1, 2 and 3, respectively (Shuford and Gardali 2008), WL = Taxa to Watch List (Shuford and Gardali 2008), and WBWG = Western Bat Working Group listing as moderate or high priority.

14 BIOLOGICAL IMPACTS ASSESSMENT

Determination of occurrence likelihoods of special-status species is not, in and of itself, an analysis of potential project impacts. An impacts analysis should consider whether and how a proposed project would affect members of a species, larger demographic units of the species, or the whole of a species. In the following, I analyze several types of impacts likely to result from the project, and almost none of which are analyzed in the DEIR.

Habitat Loss

The DEIR claims that, other than for killdeer which nest on the ground, nesting potential exists only in the trees scattered beyond the site’s perimeter. However, the DEIR mischaracterizes the number of species that nest on the ground. Many bird species are ground-nesters, including mourning doves at the site. The ELMT (2020) survey was performed in the appropriate season for detecting nesting birds, but obvi0usly was not directed towards nesting birds or ELMT would have noticed them.

No serious effort has been directed toward the detection of nesting birds on the site.

A recent study documented a 29% decline in overall bird abundance across North America over the last 48 years – a decline driven by multiple factors, but principally attributed to habitat loss and habitat fragmentation (Rosenberg et al. 2019). Habitat loss not only results in the immediate numerical decline of wildlife, but also in permanent loss of productive capacity. For example, a grassland/wetland/woodland complex at one study site had a total bird nesting density of 32.8 nests per acre (Young 1948). In another study on a similar complex of vegetation cover, the average annual nest density was 35.8 nests per acre (Yahner 1982). These densities averaged 34.3 nests per acre, indicative of a very large productive capacity of North American birds, but also indicative of a very large source of lost capacity should habitat be taken for human uses.

Assuming nesting density at the project site is a fifth of the average reported by Young (1948) and Yahner (1982), then 6.8 bird nests per acre multiplied against the project’s

7.39 acres would predict that 50 bird nests produce new birds at the site annually. The average number of fledglings per nest in Young’s (1948) study was 2.9. Assuming Young’s (1948) study site typifies bird productivity, the project would prevent the production of 145 fledglings per year. After 100 years and further assuming an average bird generation time of 5 years, the lost capacity of both breeders and annual fledgling production would total 16,500 birds {(nests/year × chicks/nest × number of years) + (2 adults/nest × nests/year) × (number of years ÷ years/generation)}. The project’s denial to California of 16,500 birds over the first century following construction would easily qualify as a significant and substantial impact.

This impact has not been addressed by City of Rancho Cucamonga. The DEIR should be revised to appropriately analyze the project’s impacts from habitat loss.

Habitat fragmentation, which is the reduction of connectivity of remaining habitat patches on a landscape, can further diminish the productive capacity of a site (Smallwood 2015). Habitat fragmentation has progressed rapidly around the project

15 site, leaving a diminishing number of patches of open space in the area, each of which is increasingly critical to the continued existence of many wildlife species. Habitat fragmentation is one of the cumulative effects of this project that needs to be analyzed in a revised DEIR.

Wildlife Movement

According to ELMT (2020:6) and the DEIR (page 5-7), “As a result, implementation of the proposed project will not disrupt or have any adverse effects on any migratory corridors or linkages in the surrounding area.” The DEIR dismisses potential impacts to wildlife movement by concluding that development around the project site precludes its use as part of a wildlife movement corridor. The premise of this conclusion must be that the presence of a wildlife corridor determines whether a project would significantly interfere with wildlife movement in the region. However, this premise represents a false CEQA standard. The primary phrase of the CEQA standard goes to wildlife movement regardless of whether the movement is channeled by a corridor. A site such as the proposed project site is critically important for wildlife movement because it composes an increasingly diminishing patch of open space within a growing expanse of anthropogenic uses, forcing more species of birds to use the site for stopover and staging during migration, dispersal, and home range patrol (Warnock 2010, Taylor et al. 2011, Runge et al. 2014). The project would cut birds and bats off from stopover, roosting and staging, forcing them to travel even farther between remaining stopover areas along migration routes. The project would interfere with wildlife movement in the region.

The DEIR needs to be revised to address the project’s impacts on wildlife movement in the region.

Traffic Impacts on Wildlife

According to Mizuta Traffic Consulting (MTC 2020), the project would generate an average daily trip (ADT) rate of 182 passenger cars and 96 trucks. However, neither MTC (2020, 2021) nor the DEIR report any prediction of vehicle miles traveled (VMT).

Thus, the DEIR provides only a weak basis for estimating the possible extent of project impacts to wildlife along roads. To point out the potential magnitude of an important project impact that the DEIR fails to address, and which ought to be addressed in a revised EIR, I assume 20 miles per car trip and 150 miles per truck trip to predict annual VMT of 1,328,600 for passenger cars and 5,256,000 for shipping trucks and a total 6,584,600. Assuming these VMT predictions are reasonably close to accurate, then the basis exists for predicting one of the most important potential project impacts to wildlife.

Vehicle collisions have accounted for the deaths of many thousands of amphibian, reptile, mammal, bird, and arthropod fauna, and the impacts have often been found to be significant at the population level (Forman et al. 2003). Across North America, traffic impacts have taken devastating tolls on wildlife (Forman et al. 2003). In Canada, 3,562 birds were estimated killed per 100 km of road per year (Bishop and Brogan 2013), and the US estimate of avian mortality on roads is 2,200 to 8,405 deaths per 100

16 km per year, or 89 million to 340 million total per year (Loss et al. 2014). Local or regional impacts can be more intense than at the national level.

In a recent study of traffic-caused wildlife mortality, investigators found 1,275 carcasses of 49 species of mammals, birds, amphibians and reptiles over 15 months of searches along a 2.5 mile stretch of Vasco Road in Contra Costa County, California (Mendelsohn et al. 2009). Using carcass detection trials performed on land immediately adjacent to the traffic mortality study (Brown et al. 2016) to adjust the found fatalities for the proportion of fatalities not found due to scavenger removal and searcher error, the estimated traffic-caused fatalities was 12,187. This fatality estimate translates to a rate of 3,900 wild animals per mile per year killed. In terms comparable to the national estimates, the estimates from the Mendelsohn et al. (2009) study would translate to 243,740 animals killed per 100 km of road per year, or 29 times that of Loss et al.’s (2014) upper bound estimate and 68 times the Canadian estimate. An analysis is needed of whether increased traffic generated by the project site would similarly result in local impacts on wildlife.

Increased use of existing roads would increase wildlife fatalities (see Figure 7 in Kobylarz 2001). It is possible that project-related traffic impacts would far exceed the impacts of land conversion to use for a warehouse. Wildlife roadkill is not randomly distributed, and so it can be predicted. Causal factors include types of roadway, human population density, and temperature (Chen and Wu 2014), as well as time of day and adjacency and extent of vegetation cover (Chen and Wu 2014, Bartonička et al. 2018), and intersections with streams and riparian vegetation (Bartonička et al. 2018). For example, species of mammalian Carnivora are killed by vehicle traffic within 0.1 miles of stream crossings >40 times other than expected (K. S. Smallwood, 1989-2018 unpublished data). Reptiles are killed on roads where roadside fences end or where fences are damaged (Markle et al. 2017). There has even been a function developed to predict the number of golden eagles killed along the road, where the function includes traffic volume and density of road-killed animals available for eagles to scavenge upon (Lonsdorf et al. 2018). These factors also point the way toward mitigation measures, which should be formulated in a revised DEIR.

Predicting project-generated traffic impacts to wildlife

Based on my assumptions of VMT applied to the DEIR’s predicted ADT, I predict the project would generate 6,584,600 vehicle miles traveled annually. This is a lot of mileage to be driven at great peril to wildlife that must cross roads to go about their business of foraging, patrolling home ranges, dispersing and migrating (Photos 9 and 10). Despite the obvious risk to wildlife, and despite the multiple papers and books written about this type of impact and how to mitigate them, the DEIR does not address impacts to wildlife caused by vehicles traveling to and from the project site.

17 Photo 9. A Gambel’s quail dashes
across a road on 3 April 2021.

Such road crossings are usually
successful, but too often prove fatal
to the animal. Photo by Noriko
Smallwood.

Photo 10. A mourning
dove killed by vehicle traffic
on a California road. Photo
by Noriko Smallwood, 21
June 2020.

For wildlife vulnerable to front-end collisions and crushing under tires, road mortality can be predicted from the study of Mendelsohn et al. (2009) as a basis, although it would be helpful to have the availability of more studies like that of Mendelsohn et al. (2009) at additional locations. My analysis of the Mendelsohn et al. (2009) data resulted in an estimated 3,900 animals killed per mile along a county road in Contra Costa County. Two percent of the estimated number of fatalities were birds, and the balance was composed of 34% mammals (many mice and pocket mice, but also ground squirrels, desert cottontails, striped skunks, American badgers, raccoons, and others),

52.3% amphibians (large numbers of California tiger salamanders and California red- legged frogs, but also Sierran treefrogs, western toads, arboreal salamanders, slender salamanders and others), and 11.7% reptiles (many western fence lizards, but also skinks, alligator lizards, and snakes of various species).

During the Mendelsohn et al. (2009) study, 19,500 cars traveled Vasco Road daily, so the vehicle miles that contributed to my estimate of wildlife fatalities was 19,500 cars and trucks × 2.5 miles × 365 days/year × 1.25 years = 22,242,187.5 vehicle miles per 12,187 wildlife fatalities, or 1,825 vehicle miles per fatality. I predict the project would

18 generate 6,584,600vehicle miles per year, which divided by the 1,825 miles per fatality, would predict 3,608 wildlife fatalities per year. Operations over 50 years would accumulate 180,400 wildlife fatalities. It remains unknown whether and to what degree vehicle tires contribute to carcass removals from the roadway, thereby contributing a negative bias to the fatality estimates I made from the Mendelsohn et al. (2009) fatality counts. The Project’s toll on wildlife could be even higher than I predict.

The DEIR does not address this impact in the least.

Based on my assumptions and simple calculations, the project-generated traffic would cause substantial, significant impacts to wildlife. The DEIR needs to be revised to analyze this impact. Mitigation measures to improve wildlife safety along roads are available and are feasible, and they need exploration for their suitability with the proposed project.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

The DEIR provides no analysis of cumulative impacts to biological resources other than to imply that cumulative impacts are really just residual impacts of incomplete mitigation of project-level impacts. If that was CEQA’s standard, then cumulative effects analysis would be merely an analysis of mitigation efficacy. And if that was the standard, then I must point out that none of the project-level impacts would be offset to any degree by the proposed preconstruction surveys to be performed for nesting birds.

But the DEIR’s implied standard is not the standard of analysis of cumulative effects.

CEQA defines cumulative impacts, and it outlines two general approaches for performing the analysis. The DEIR needs to be revised, and it needs to include an appropriate, serious analysis of cumulative impacts.

When it comes to wildlife, cumulative effects can often be interpreted as effects on the numerical capacity (Smallwood 2015), breeding success, genetic diversity, or other population performance metrics expressed at the regional scale. In the case of migrating birds, the project’s cumulative effects could be measured as numerical reductions of breeding birds at far-off breeding sites as migrating adults and next-year’s recruits lose access to stop-over habitat. In the cases of wildlife species that are susceptible to traffic collisions, the project’s contribution to ongoing and foreseeable traffic-caused mortality can be measured or predicted. Even crude predictions of cumulative impacts are imperative. The DEIR needs to be revised to adequately address the project’s potential contributions to cumulative impacts on wildlife in the region.

MITIGATION

BIO-1: Preconstruction survey for breeding birds

Preconstruction surveys should be performed, but not as substitute for detection surveys. Preconstruction surveys are not designed or intended to reduce project impacts, let alone to reduce impacts to less than significant levels; they are not even designed to assess impacts. Preconstruction surveys are only intended as last-minute, one-time salvage and rescue operations targeting readily detectable nests or individuals

19 before they are crushed under heavy construction machinery. Because most special- status species are rare and cryptic, and because most species are expert at hiding their nests lest they get predated, most of them will not be detected by preconstruction surveys.

Detection surveys are needed to inform preconstruction take-avoidance surveys by mapping out where biologists performing preconstruction surveys are most likely to find animals before the tractor blade finds them. Detection surveys were designed by species experts, often undergoing considerable deliberation and review before adoption.

Detection surveys often require repeated efforts using methods known to maximize likelihoods of detection. Detection surveys are needed to assess impacts and to inform the formulation of appropriate mitigation measures, because preconstruction surveys are not intended for these roles either. What is missing from the DEIR, and what is in greater need than preconstruction surveys, are detection surveys consistent with guidelines and protocols that wildlife ecologists have uniquely developed for use with each special-status species. What is also missing is compensatory mitigation of unavoidable impacts.

Following detection surveys, preconstruction surveys should be performed. However, the DEIR should be revised, and it should detail how the results of preconstruction surveys will be reported. Without reporting the results, preconstruction surveys are vulnerable to serving as an empty gesture rather than a mitigation measure. For these reasons, this mitigation measure is insufficient to reduce the project’s impacts to nesting birds to less than significant.

RECOMMENDED MEASURES

Detection Surveys

Detection surveys are needed for each of the special-status species in Table 2. Detection surveys are needed for nesting birds and for bats. For bats, I recommend deployment of acoustic detectors and use of thermal-imaging. For birds, I recommend a nest survey, including the mapping of nest sites of each species. Breeding-season burrowing owl surveys need to be implemented, but they should be implemented prior to the circulation of a revised DEIR to more appropriately address potential impacts to burrowing owls and mitigation of those impacts.

Habitat Loss and Wildlife Movement

The DEIR provides no mitigation for adverse impacts from habitat loss or to regional movement of wildlife. At a minimum, substantial compensatory mitigation is needed in response to the project’s impacts from habitat loss and interference with wildlife movement, including impacts to birds and bats using the site as stop-over or staging during migration. The proposed project site composes one of the last patches of open space available to birds and bats on long-distance dispersal or migration flights.

20 Road Mortality

Compensatory mitigation is needed for the increased wildlife mortality that will be caused by the project’s contribution to increased road traffic in the region. I suggest that this mitigation can be directed toward funding research to identify fatality patterns and effective impact reduction measures. Compensatory mitigation can also be provided in the form of donations to wildlife rehabilitation facilities (see below).

Fund Wildlife Rehabilitation Facilities

Compensatory mitigation ought also to include funding contributions to wildlife rehabilitation facilities to cover the costs of injured animals that will be delivered to these facilities for care. Most of the injuries will likely be caused by the increased trip generation of cars and trucks. Many animals need treatment caused by collision injuries and an increasing number appear to be injured by the turbulence of passing trucks.

Thank you for your attention,

______________________
Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D.

REFERENCES CITED

Bartonička, T., R. Andrášik, M. Dula, J. Sedoník, and M. Bíl. 2018. Identification of local factors causing clustering of animal-vehicle collisions. Journal of Wildlife Management. Journal of Wildlife Management DOI: 10.1002/jwmg.21467

Bishop, C. A. and J. M. Brogan. 2013. Estimates of Avian Mortality Attributed to Vehicle Collisions in Canada. Avian Conservation and Ecology 8:2. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ACE-00604-080202.

Brown, K., K. S. Smallwood, J. Szewczak, and B. Karas. 2016. Final 2012-2015 Report Avian and Bat Monitoring Project Vasco Winds, LLC. Prepared for NextEra Energy Resources, Livermore, California.

CDFW (California Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2012. Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. Sacramento, California.

Chen, X. and S. Wu. 2014. Examining patterns of animal–vehicle collisions in Alabama, USA. Human-Wildlife Interactions 8:235-244.

City of Rancho Cucamonga. 2021. Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Jersey Industrial Complex Project, SCH: 2021060608. Prepared by Birdseye Planning Group, LLC. Rancho Cucamonga, California.

21 ELMT. 2020. Habitat assessment for the proposed Jersey Industrial Complex Project located in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County, California.

Prepared for Birdseye Planning Group, LLC, Vista, California.

Forman, T. T., D. Sperling, J. A. Bisonette, A. P. Clevenger, C. D. Cutshall, V. H. Dale, L.

Fahrig, R. France, C. R. Goldman, K. Heanue, J. A. Jones, F. J. Swanson, T.

Turrentine, and T. C. Winter. 2003. Road Ecology. Island Press, Covello, California.

Kobylarz, B. 2001. The effect of road type and traffic intensity on amphibian road mortality. Journal of Service Learning in Conservation Biology 1:10-15.

Lonsdorf, E. C. A. Sanders-Reed, C. Boal, and T. D. Allison. 2018. Modeling golden eagle-vehicle collisions to design mitigation strategies. Journal of Wildlife Management 82:1633-1644.

Loss, S. R., T. Will, and P. P. Marra. 2014. Estimation of Bird-Vehicle Collision Mortality on U.S. Roads. Journal of Wildlife Management 78:763-771.

Markle, C. E., S. D. Gillingwater, R. Levick, P. Chow-Fraser. 2017. The true cost of partial fencing: evaluating strategies to reduce reptile road mortality. Wildlife Society Bulletin 41:342-350.

Mendelsohn, M., W. Dexter, E. Olson, and S. Weber. 2009. Vasco Road wildlife movement study report. Report to Contra Costa County Public Works Department, Martinez, California.

MTC (Mizuta Traffic Consulting). 2020. Revised Trip Generation and VMT Assessment for the Jersey Industrial Complex Project. Report to Birdseye Planning Group, Vista, California.

Rosenberg, K. V., A. M. Dokter, P. J. Blancher, J. R. Sauer, A. C. Smith, P. A. Smith, J. C.

Stanton, A. Panjabi , L. Helft , M. Parr, and P. P. Marra. 2019. Decline of the North American avifauna. Science 10.1126/science.aaw1313 (2019).

Runge, C. A., T. G. Martin, H. P. Possingham, S. G. Willis, and R. A. Fuller. 2014.

Conserving mobile species. Frontiers in Ecology and Environment 12(7): 395–402, doi:10.1890/130237.

Shuford, W. D., and T. Gardali, [eds.]. 2008. California bird species of special concern: a ranked assessment of species, subspecies, and distinct populations of birds of immediate conservation concern in California. Studies of Western Birds 1. Western Field Ornithologists, Camarillo, California.

Smallwood, K. S. 2015. Habitat fragmentation and corridors. Pages 84-101 in M. L.

Morrison and H. A. Mathewson, Eds., Wildlife habitat conservation: concepts,

22 challenges, and solutions. John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.

Taylor, P. D., S. A. Mackenzie, B. G. Thurber, A. M. Calvert, A. M. Mills, L. P. McGuire, and C. G. Guglielmo. 2011. Landscape movements of migratory birds and bats reveal an expanded scale of stopover. PlosOne 6(11): e27054.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0027054.

Warnock, N. 2010. Stopping vs. staging: the difference between a hop and a jump.

Journal of Avian Biology 41:621-626.

Yahner, R. H. 1982. Avian nest densities and nest-site selection in farmstead shelterbelts. The Wilson Bulletin 94:156-175.

Young, H. 1948. A comparative study of nesting birds in a five-acre park. The Wilson Bulletin 61:36-47.

EXHIBIT B

2656 29th Street, Suite 201
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Matt Hagemann, P.G, C.Hg.
(949) 887-9013
[email protected]
Paul E. Rosenfeld, PhD
(310) 795-2335
[email protected]
February 8, 2022

Victoria A. Yundt
Lozeau | Drury LLP
1939 Harrison Street, Suite 150
Oakland, CA 94612

Subject: Comments on the Jersey Industrial Complex Project (SCH No. 2021060608) Dear Ms. Yundt,
We have reviewed the November 2021 Draft Environmental Impact Report (“DEIR”) for the Jersey Industrial Complex Project (“Project”) located in the City of Rancho Cucamonga (“City”). The Project proposes to construct a 159,580-SF building, including 143,014-SF of warehouse space, 8,127-SF of mezzanine storage space, 8,127-SF of office space, and a 312-SF electrical room, as well as 91 parking spaces, on the 7.39-acre site.

Our review concludes that the DEIR fails to adequately evaluate the Project’s air quality, health risk, and greenhouse gas impacts. As a result, emissions and health risk impacts associated with construction and operation of the proposed Project are underestimated and inadequately addressed. An updated EIR should be prepared to adequately assess and mitigate the potential air quality, health risk, and greenhouse gas impacts that the project may have on the surrounding environment.

Air Quality
Unsubstantiated Input Parameters Used to Estimate Project Emissions The DEIR’s air quality analysis relies on emissions calculated with CalEEMod.2020.4.0 (p. 4-14).1 CalEEMod provides recommended default values based on site-specific information, such as land use type, meteorological data, total lot acreage, project type and typical equipment associated with project type. If more specific project information is known, the user can change the default values and input project-specific values, but the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) requires that such changes

1 CAPCOA (November 2017) CalEEMod User’s Guide, http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/01_user-39-s-guide2016-3-2_15november2017.pdf?sfvrsn=4.

2 be justified by substantial evidence. Once all of the values are inputted into the model, the Project's construction and operational emissions are calculated, and "output files" are generated. These output files disclose to the reader what parameters are utilized in calculating the Project's air pollutant emissions and make known which default values are changed as well as provide justification for the values selected.

When reviewing the Project’s CalEEMod output files, provided in the Air Quality Report (“AQ Report”) as Appendix B to the DEIR, we found that several model inputs were not consistent with information disclosed in the DEIR. As a result, the Project’s construction and operational emissions are underestimated. As a result, an updated EIR should be prepared to include an updated air quality analysis that adequately evaluates the impacts that construction and operation of the Project will have on local and regional air quality.

Failure to Model All Proposed Land Uses
Regarding the Project’s proposed land uses, the DEIR provides the following table (see excerpt below) (p. 3-6):

As demonstrated above, the model should have included 8,127-SF of office space in addition to 151,455- SF of warehouse space.2 However, review of the CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the “Jersey Industrial Complex LDV” and “Jersey Industrial Complex HDV” models include all 159,580-SF as “Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail” (see excerpt below) (Appendix B, pp. 58, 86, 115, 148).

As you can see in the excerpt above, the model fails to distinguish between the warehouse and office land uses. This inconsistency presents an issue, as CalEEMod includes 63 different land use types that are each assigned a distinctive set of energy usage emission factors.3 Furthermore, each land use type

2 Calculated: 143,014-SF warehouse space + 8,127-SF mezzanine storage + 314 electrical room = 151,455-SF total warehouse space.
3 “CalEEMod User’s Guide, Appendix D.” CAPCOA, September 2016, available at:
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/caleemod/upgrades/2016.3/05_appendix-d2016-3-1.pdf?sfvrsn=2.

3 includes a specific trip rate that CalEEMod uses to calculate mobile-source emissions.4 Thus, by failing to include all proposed land use types, the model may underestimate the Project’s construction-related and operational emissions and should not be relied upon to determine Project significance.

Incorrect Application of Area-Related Operational Mitigation Measures Review of the CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the “Jersey Industrial Complex LDV” and “Jersey Industrial Complex HDV” models include the following area-related operational mitigation measures (see excerpt below) (Appendix B, pp. 82, 111, 140, 174).

Furthermore, the models include the following area-related operational mitigation measure associated with parking (Appendix B, pp. 59, 87, 116, 149):

As previously mentioned, the CalEEMod User’s Guide requires any changes to model defaults be justified.5 However the “User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data” table fails to provide a justification for the above changes. Furthermore, regarding the use of low VOC paint, the DEIR states:
“In addition to SCAQMD Rule 403 requirements, emissions modeling also accounts for the use of low-VOC paint (50 grams/Liter (g/L) for non-flat coatings and 100 g/L for pavement coatings) as required by SCAQMD Rule 1113” (p. 4-22).

However, these justifications are insufficient for three reasons.

First, the inclusion of the operational mitigation measures, based on the Project’s purported compliance with SCAQMD Rule 1113, is unsupported. As previously stated, according to the AEP CEQA Portal Topic Paper on mitigation measures:
“By definition, mitigation measures are not part of the original project design. Rather, mitigation measures are actions taken by the lead agency to reduce impacts to the environment resulting from the original project design. Mitigation measures are identified by the lead agency after the

4 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” CAPCOA, May 2021, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/user-guide-2021/01_user-39-s-guide2020-4-0.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 29. 5 CalEEMod User Guide, available at: http://www.caleemod.com/, p. 2, 9

4 project has undergone environmental review and are above-and-beyond existing laws, regulations, and requirements that would reduce environmental impacts.”6 As you can see in the excerpt above, mitigation measures “are not part of the original project design” and are intended to go “above-and-beyond” existing regulatory requirements. As such, the inclusion of these measures, based on the Project’s compliance with SCAQMD Rule 1113, is unsubstantiated.

Second, the DEIR fails to formally include the above-mentioned design features as formal mitigation measures. This is incorrect, as AEP guidance states:
“While not “mitigation”, a good practice is to include those project design feature(s) that address environmental impacts in the mitigation monitoring and reporting program (MMRP).

Often the MMRP is all that accompanies building and construction plans through the permit process. If the design features are not listed as important to addressing an environmental impact, it is easy for someone not involved in the original environmental process to approve a change to the project that could eliminate one or more of the design features without understanding the resulting environmental impact” (emphasis added).7 As you can see in the excerpt above, design features that are not formally included as mitigation measures in a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (“MMRP”) may be eliminated from the Project’s design altogether. Thus, as the above-mentioned area-related operational measures are not formally included as mitigation measures, we cannot guarantee that they would be implemented, monitored, and enforced on the Project site.

Third, we cannot verify the area-related operational mitigation measures based on SCAQMD Rule 1113 alone. The SCAQMD Rule 1113 Table of Standards provides the required VOC limits (grams of VOC per liter of coating) for 57 different coating categories (e.g., Floor coatings, Faux Finishing Coatings, Fire- Proofing Coatings, Cement Coatings, Multi-Color Coatings, Primers, Sealers, Recycled Coatings, Shellac, Stains, Traffic Coatings, Waterproofing Sealers, Wood Coatings, etc.). 8 The VOC limits for each coating
varies from a minimum value of 50 g/L to a maximum value of 730 g/L. As such, we cannot verify that SCAQMD Rule 1113 substantiates a reduction to the default coating values without more information regarding what category of coating will be used. As the DEIR and associated documents fail explicitly require the Project use non-flat and pavement coatings, we are unable to verify the use of low VOC paint would actually be implemented, monitored, and enforced on the Project site.

As a result, the inclusion of the above-mentioned area-related operational mitigation measures in the model is incorrect. By including several mitigation measures without properly committing to their

6 “CEQA Portal Topic Paper Mitigation Measures.” AEP, February 2020, available at:
https://ceqaportal.org/tp/CEQA%20Mitigation%202020.pdf, p. 5. 7 “CEQA Portal Topic Paper Mitigation Measures.” AEP, February 2020, available at:
https://ceqaportal.org/tp/CEQA%20Mitigation%202020.pdf, p. 6. 8 SCAQMD Rule 1113 Advisory Notice.” SCAQMD, February 2016, available at:
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/rule-book/reg-xi/r1113.pdf?sfvrsn=24, p. 1113-14, Table of Standards

1.