Rancho Cucamonga City Council
April 20, 2022

5 implementation, the model may underestimate the Project’s operational emissions and should not be relied upon to determine Project significance.

Diesel Particulate Matter Health Risk Emissions Inadequately Evaluated The DEIR concludes that the Project would have a less-than-significant health risk impact without conducting a quantified construction or operational health risk analysis (“HRA”) (p. 4-22 – 4-23).

Regarding the health risk impacts associated with Project construction, the DEIR states:
“The greatest potential for toxic air contaminant emissions would be related to diesel particulate emissions associated with heavy equipment operations during construction of the proposed project and truck traffic. According to SCAQMD methodology, health effects from carcinogenic air toxics are usually described in terms of “individual cancer risk”. “Individual Cancer Risk” is the likelihood that a person exposed to concentrations of toxic air contaminants over a 70-year lifetime will contract cancer, based on the use of standard risk-assessment methodology. Given the short-term construction schedule, the proposed project would not result in a long-term (i.e., 70 years) substantial source of toxic air contaminant emissions and related individual cancer risk. Therefore, no significant short-term toxic air contaminant impacts would occur during construction of the proposed project” (p. 4-22 – 4-23).

As demonstrated above, the DEIR concludes that the Project would result in a less-than-significant construction-related health risk impact because the short-term construction duration would not result in substantial toxic air contaminant (“TAC”) emissions. Furthermore, regarding the health risk impacts associated with Project operation, the DEIR states:
“While truck operation would generate DPM, the site is located along an unrestricted truck route (Milliken Avenue) within the City of Rancho Cucamonga per Section 10.56.010 of the Municipal Code. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) Air Quality and Land Use Handbook (2005) recommends avoiding the siting of new sensitive receptors within 500 feet of an urban roadway with 100,000 vehicles daily. Traffic counts from 2015 show daily volumes on Milliken Avenue in proximity to Jersey Boulevard are 30,310. If these volumes are factored up by 2% annually, the 2021 volumes would be approximately 34,134. This is less than the recommended threshold. The project is not a sensitive use and project traffic would utilize an existing truck route. The nearest receptor is located approximately one-half mile south of the site along Milliken Avenue and daily volumes are less than the CARB recommended threshold. Thus, project-related truck traffic would not pose a health risk or justify further evaluation in a health risk assessment” (p. 4-23 – 4-24).

As demonstrated above, 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. However, the DEIR’s evaluation of the Project’s potential health risk impacts, as well as the subsequent less-than-significant impact conclusion, is incorrect for three reasons.

6 First, 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. 9 This is incorrect, as construction of the proposed Project would produce diesel particulate matter (“DPM”) emissions through the exhaust stacks of construction equipment over a potential construction period of approximately 12 months (p. 3- 6). Furthermore, regardless of the DEIR’s claims, the Project would generate truck trips that would generate additional exhaust emissions and continue to expose nearby sensitive receptors to DPM emissions during Project operation. However, the DEIR fails to evaluate Project-generated TACs or indicate the concentrations at which such pollutants would trigger adverse health effects. Thus, without making a reasonable effort to connect the Project’s construction-related and operational TAC emissions to the potential health risks posed to nearby receptors, the DEIR is inconsistent with CEQA’s requirement to correlate the increase in emissions generated by the Project with the potential adverse impacts on human health.

Second, the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (“OEHHA”), the organization responsible for providing guidance on conducting HRAs in California, released its most recent Risk Assessment Guidelines: Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments in February 2015. 10 This
guidance document describes the types of projects that warrant the preparation of an HRA. The OEHHA document recommends that all short-term projects lasting at least two months be evaluated for cancer risks to nearby sensitive receptors. As the Project’s construction duration exceeds the 2-month requirement set forth by OEHHA, it is clear that the Project meets the threshold warranting a quantified HRA under OEHHA guidance. Furthermore, the OEHHA document recommends that exposure from projects lasting more than 6 months be evaluated for the duration of the project and recommends that an exposure duration of 30 years be used to estimate individual cancer risk for the maximally exposed individual resident (“MEIR”). Even though we were not provided with the expected lifetime of the Project, we can reasonably assume that the Project will operate for at least 30 years, if not more.

Therefore, we recommend that health risk impacts from Project operation also be evaluated, as a 30- year exposure duration vastly exceeds the 6-month requirement set forth by OEHHA. These recommendations reflect the most recent state health risk policies, and as such, we recommend that an analysis of health risk impacts posed to nearby sensitive receptors from Project-generated DPM emissions be included in an updated EIR for the Project.

Third, by claiming a less than significant impact without conducting a quantified construction or operational HRA for nearby, existing sensitive receptors, the DEIR fails to compare the excess health risk impact to the SCAQMD’s specific numeric threshold of 10 in one million. 11 Thus, in accordance with the

9 “Sierra Club v. County of Fresno.” Supreme Court of California, December 2018, available at:
https://ceqaportal.org/decisions/1907/Sierra%20Club%20v.%20County%20of%20Fresno.pdf. 10 “Risk Assessment Guidelines: Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February 2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf. 11 “South Coast AQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds.” SCAQMD, April 2019, available at:
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/scaqmd-air-quality-significance-thresholds.pdf.

7 most relevant guidance, an assessment of the health risk posed to nearby, existing receptors from Project construction and operation should have been conducted.

Greenhouse Gas
Failure to Adequately Evaluate Greenhouse Gas Impacts
The DEIR estimates that the Project would generate net annual greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions of 2,410 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents per year (“MT CO2e/year”), which would not exceed the SCAQMD threshold of 10,000 MT CO2e/year (see excerpt below) (p. 4-75, Table 4.5-1).

Furthermore, the DEIR relies upon 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 (p. 4-77 – 4-81).

However, the DEIR’s GHG analysis, as well as the subsequent less-than-significant impact conclusion, is incorrect for three reasons.
(1) The DEIR’s quantitative GHG analysis relies upon an incorrect and unsubstantiated air model; (2) The DEIR fails to consider the performance-based standards under CARB’s Scoping Plan; and (3) The DEIR fails to consider the performance-based standards under SCAG’s RTP/SCS.

1) Incorrect and Unsubstantiated Quantitative Analysis of Emissions As previously stated, the DEIR estimates that the Project would generate net annual GHG emissions of 2,410 MT CO2e/year (p. 4-75, Table 4.5-1). However, the DEIR’s quantitative GHG analysis is unsubstantiated. As previously discussed, when we reviewed the Project's CalEEMod output files, provided in the AQ Report as Appendix B to the DEIR, we found that several of the values inputted into the model are not consistent with information disclosed in the DEIR. As a result, the model

8 underestimates the Project’s emissions, and the DEIR’s quantitative GHG analysis should not be relied upon to determine Project significance. An updated EIR should be prepared that adequately assesses the potential GHG impacts that construction and operation of the proposed Project may have on the surrounding environment.
2) Failure to Consider Performance-based Standards Under CARB’s 2017 Scoping Plan As previously discussed, the DEIR concludes that the Project would be consistent with CARB’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan (p. 4-77 – 4-81). However, this is incorrect, as the DEIR fails to consider performance-based measures proposed by CARB.
i. Passenger & Light Duty VMT Per Capita Benchmarks per SB 375 In reaching the State’s long-term GHG emission reduction goals, CARB’s 2017 Scoping Plan explicitly cites to SB 375 and the VMT reductions anticipated under the implementation of Sustainable Community Strategies.12 CARB has identified the population and daily VMT from passenger autos and light-duty vehicles at the state and county level for each year between 2010 to 2050 under a “baseline scenario” that includes “current projections of VMT included in the existing Regional Transportation Plans/Sustainable Communities Strategies (RTP/SCSs) adopted by the State’s 18 Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) pursuant to SB 375 as of 2015.”13 By dividing the projected daily VMT by the population, we calculated the daily VMT per capita for each year at the state and county level for 2010 (baseline year), 2023 (Project operational year), and 2030 (target years under SB 32) (see table below). 2017 Scoping Plan Daily VMT Per Capita
San Bernardino County State
Year Population LDV VMT Baseline VMT Per Capita Population LDV VMT Baseline VMT Per Capita 2010 2,043,484 55,741,307.23 27.28 37,335,085 836,463,980.46 22.40 2023 2,302,993 62,347,922.72 27.07 41,659,526 924,184,228.61 22.18 2030 2,478,888 65,538,854.28 26.44 43,939,250 957,178,153.19 21.78 As the DEIR fails to evaluate the Project’s consistency with the CARB 2017 Scoping Plan performance- based daily VMT per capita projections, the DEIR’s claim that the proposed Project would not conflict with the CARB 2017 Scoping Plan is unsupported. An updated EIR should be prepared for the proposed Project to provide additional information and analysis to conclude less-than-significant GHG impacts. 3) Failure to Consider Performance-based Standards under SCAG’s RTP/SCS As previously discussed, the DEIR concludes that the Project would be consistent with SCAG’s RTP/SCS (p. 4-77). However, the DEIR fails to consider whether or not the Project meets any of the specific

12 “California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan.” CARB, November 2017, available at:
https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scoping_plan_2017.pdf, p. 25, 98, 101-103. 13 “Supporting Calculations for 2017 Scoping Plan-Identified VMT Reductions,” Excel Sheet “Readme.” CARB, January 2019, available at: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2019- 01/sp_mss_vmt_calculations_jan19_0.xlsx.

9 performance-based goals underlying SCAG’s RTP/SCS and SB 375, such as: i) per capita GHG emission targets, or ii) daily vehicles miles traveled (“VMT”) per capita benchmarks. i. SB 375 Per Capita GHG Emission Goals
SB 375 was signed into law in September 2008 to enhance the state’s ability to reach AB 32 goals by directing CARB to develop regional 2020 and 2035 GHG emission reduction targets for passenger vehicles (autos and light-duty trucks). In March 2018, CARB adopted updated regional targets requiring a 19 percent decrease in VMT for the SCAG region by 2035. This goal is reflected in SCAG’s 2020 RTP/SCS Program Environmental Impact Report (“PEIR”), in which the 2020 RTP/SCS PEIR updates the per capita emissions to 18.8 lbs/day in 2035 (see excerpt below). 14

As the DEIR fails to evaluate the Project’s consistency with the SCAG’s per capita emissions, the DEIR’s claim that the proposed Project would not conflict with SCAG’s RTP/SCS is unsupported. An updated EIR should be prepared for the proposed Project to provide additional information and analysis to conclude less-than-significant GHG impacts.
ii. SB 375 RTP/SCS Daily VMT Per Capita Target
Under the SCAG’s 2020 RTP/SCS, daily VMT per capita in the SCAG region should decrease from 23.2 VMT in 2016 to 20.7 VMT by 2045.15 Daily VMT per capita in Los Angeles County should decrease from

22.2 to 19.2 VMT during that same period.16 Here, however, the DEIR fails to consider any of the above- mentioned performance-based VMT targets. As the DEIR fails to evaluate the Project’s consistency with the SCAG’s performance-based daily VMT per capita projections, the DEIR’s claim that the proposed Project would not conflict with SCAG’s RTP/SCS is unsupported. An updated EIR should be prepared for

14 “Connect SoCal Certified Final Program Environmental Impact Report.” SCAG, May 2020, available at:
https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-attachments/fpeir_connectsocal_complete.pdf?1607981618, p. 3.8-74. 15 “Connect SoCal.” SCAG, September 2020, available at: https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file- attachments/0903fconnectsocal-plan_0.pdf?1606001176, pp. 138. 16 “Connect SoCal.” SCAG, September 2020, available at: https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file- attachments/0903fconnectsocal-plan_0.pdf?1606001176, pp. 138.

10 the proposed Project to provide additional information and analysis to conclude less-than-significant GHG impacts.

Disclaimer
SWAPE has received limited discovery regarding this project. Additional information may become available in the future; thus, we retain the right to revise or amend this report when additional information becomes available. Our professional services have been performed using that degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable environmental consultants practicing in this or similar localities at the time of service. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the scope of work, work methodologies and protocols, site conditions, analytical testing results, and findings presented. This report reflects efforts which were limited to information that was reasonably accessible at the time of the work, and may contain informational gaps, inconsistencies, or otherwise be incomplete due to the unavailability or uncertainty of information obtained or provided by third parties.

Sincerely,

Matt Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg.

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D.

Attachment A: Matt Hagemann CV
Attachment B: Paul E. Rosenfeld CV

2656 29th Street, Suite 201
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Matt Hagemann, P.

G, C.Hg.
(949) 887-9013
[email protected]
Matthew F. Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg., QSD, QSP
Geologic and Hydrogeologic C
haracterization
Investigation and Remediation Strategies
Litigation Support and Testifying Expert
Industrial Stormwater Compliance
CEQA Review
Education:

M.S. Degree, Geology, California State University Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, 1984.

B.A. Degree, Geology, Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA, 1982.

Professional Certifications:

California Professional Geologist
California Certified Hydrogeologist
Qualified SWPPP Developer and Practitioner
Professional Experience:

Matt has 30 years of experience in environmental policy, contaminant assessment and remediation, stormwater compliance, and CEQA review. He spent nine years with the U.S. EPA in the RCRA and Superfund programs and served as EPA’s Senior Science Policy Advisor in the Western Regional Office where he identified emerging threats to groundwater from perchlorate and MTBE. While with EPA, Matt also served as a Senior Hydrogeologist in the oversight of the assessment of seven major military facilities undergoing base closure. He led numerous enforcement actions under provisions of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and directed efforts to improve hydrogeologic characterization and water quality monitoring. For the past 15 years, as a founding partner with SWAPE, Matt has developed extensive client relationships and has managed complex projects that include consultation as an expert witness and a regulatory specialist, and a manager of projects ranging from industrial stormwater compliance to CEQA review of impacts from hazardous waste, air quality and greenhouse gas emissions.

Positions Matt has held include:
• Founding Partner, Soil/Water/Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE) (2003 – present); • Geology Instructor, Golden West College, 2010 – 2104, 2017; • Senior Environmental Analyst, Komex H2O Science, Inc. (2000 ‐‐ 2003); Attachment E

2 • Executive Director, Orange Coast Watch (2001 – 2004); • Senior Science Policy Advisor and Hydrogeologist, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1989– 1998);
• Hydrogeologist, National Park Service, Water Resources Division (1998 – 2000); • Adjunct Faculty Member, San Francisco State University, Department of Geosciences (1993 – 1998);
• Instructor, College of Marin, Department of Science (1990 – 1995); • Geologist, U.S. Forest Service (1986 – 1998); and
• Geologist, Dames & Moore (1984 – 1986).

Senior Regulatory and Litigation Support Analyst:

With SWAPE, Matt’s responsibilities have included:
• Lead analyst and testifying expert in the review of over 300 environmental impact reports and negative declarations since 2003 under CEQA that identify significant issues with regard to hazardous waste, water resources, water quality, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and geologic hazards. Make recommendations for additional mitigation measures to lead agencies at the local and county level to include additional characterization of health risks and implementation of protective measures to reduce worker exposure to hazards from toxins and Valley Fever.
• Stormwater analysis, sampling and best management practice evaluation at more than 100 industrial facilities.
• Expert witness on numerous cases including, for example, perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) contamination of groundwater, MTBE litigation, air toxins at hazards at a school, CERCLA compliance in assessment and remediation, and industrial stormwater contamination. • Technical assistance and litigation support for vapor intrusion concerns. • Lead analyst and testifying expert in the review of environmental issues in license applications for large solar power plants before the California Energy Commission. • Manager of a project to evaluate numerous formerly used military sites in the western U.S. • Manager of a comprehensive evaluation of potential sources of perchlorate contamination in Southern California drinking water wells.
• Manager and designated expert for litigation support under provisions of Proposition 65 in the review of releases of gasoline to sources drinking water at major refineries and hundreds of gas stations throughout California.

With Komex H2O Science Inc., Matt’s duties included the following:
• Senior author of a report on the extent of perchlorate contamination that was used in testimony by the former U.S. EPA Administrator and General Counsel. • Senior researcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronology of MTBE use, research, and regulation.
• Senior researcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronology of perchlorate use, research, and regulation.
• Senior researcher in a study that estimates nationwide costs for MTBE remediation and drinking water treatment, results of which were published in newspapers nationwide and in testimony against provisions of an energy bill that would limit liability for oil companies. • Research to support litigation to restore drinking water supplies that have been contaminated by MTBE in California and New York.

3 • Expert witness testimony in a case of oil production‐related contamination in Mississippi. • Lead author for a multi‐volume remedial investigation report for an operating school in Los Angeles that met strict regulatory requirements and rigorous deadlines. • Development of strategic approaches for cleanup of contaminated sites in consultation with clients and regulators.

Executive Director:

As Executive Director with Orange Coast Watch, Matt led efforts to restore water quality at Orange County beaches from multiple sources of contamination including urban runoff and the discharge of wastewater. In reporting to a Board of Directors that included representatives from leading Orange County universities and businesses, Matt prepared issue papers in the areas of treatment and disinfection of wastewater and control of the discharge of grease to sewer systems. Matt actively participated in the development of countywide water quality permits for the control of urban runoff and permits for the discharge of wastewater. Matt worked with other nonprofits to protect and restore water quality, including Surfrider, Natural Resources Defense Council and Orange County CoastKeeper as well as with business institutions including the Orange County Business Council.

Hydrogeology:

As a Senior Hydrogeologist with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Matt led investigations to characterize and cleanup closing military bases, including Mare Island Naval Shipyard, Hunters Point Naval Shipyard, Treasure Island Naval Station, Alameda Naval Station, Moffett Field, Mather Army Airfield, and Sacramento Army Depot. Specific activities were as follows:
• Led efforts to model groundwater flow and contaminant transport, ensured adequacy of monitoring networks, and assessed cleanup alternatives for contaminated sediment, soil, and groundwater.
• Initiated a regional program for evaluation of groundwater sampling practices and laboratory analysis at military bases.
• Identified emerging issues, wrote technical guidance, and assisted in policy and regulation development through work on four national U.S. EPA workgroups, including the Superfund Groundwater Technical Forum and the Federal Facilities Forum.

At the request of the State of Hawaii, Matt developed a methodology to determine the vulnerability of groundwater to contamination on the islands of Maui and Oahu. He used analytical models and a GIS to show zones of vulnerability, and the results were adopted and published by the State of Hawaii and County of Maui.

As a hydrogeologist with the EPA Groundwater Protection Section, Matt worked with provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act and NEPA to prevent drinking water contamination. Specific activities included the following:
• Received an EPA Bronze Medal for his contribution to the development of national guidance for the protection of drinking water.
• Managed the Sole Source Aquifer Program and protected the drinking water of two communities through designation under the Safe Drinking Water Act. He prepared geologic reports, conducted

4 public hearings, and responded to public comments from residents who were very concerned about the impact of designation.
• Reviewed a number of Environmental Impact Statements for planned major developments, including large hazardous and solid waste disposal facilities, mine reclamation, and water transfer.

Matt served as a hydrogeologist with the RCRA Hazardous Waste program. Duties were as follows:
• Supervised the hydrogeologic investigation of hazardous waste sites to determine compliance with Subtitle C requirements.
• Reviewed and wrote ʺpart Bʺ permits for the disposal of hazardous waste. • Conducted RCRA Corrective Action investigations of waste sites and led inspections that formed the basis for significant enforcement actions that were developed in close coordination with U.S.

EPA legal counsel.
• Wrote contract specifications and supervised contractor’s investigations of waste sites.

With the National Park Service, Matt directed service‐wide investigations of contaminant sources to prevent degradation of water quality, including the following tasks:
• Applied pertinent laws and regulations including CERCLA, RCRA, NEPA, NRDA, and the Clean Water Act to control military, mining, and landfill contaminants. • Conducted watershed‐scale investigations of contaminants at parks, including Yellowstone and Olympic National Park.
• Identified high‐levels of perchlorate in soil adjacent to a national park in New Mexico and advised park superintendent on appropriate response actions under CERCLA. • Served as a Park Service representative on the Interagency Perchlorate Steering Committee, a national workgroup.
• Developed a program to conduct environmental compliance audits of all National Parks while serving on a national workgroup.
• Co‐authored two papers on the potential for water contamination from the operation of personal watercraft and snowmobiles, these papers serving as the basis for the development of nation‐ wide policy on the use of these vehicles in National Parks. • Contributed to the Federal Multi‐Agency Source Water Agreement under the Clean Water Action Plan.

Policy:

Served senior management as the Senior Science Policy Advisor with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9.

Activities included the following:
• Advised the Regional Administrator and senior management on emerging issues such as the potential for the gasoline additive MTBE and ammonium perchlorate to contaminate drinking water supplies.
• Shaped EPA’s national response to these threats by serving on workgroups and by contributing to guidance, including the Office of Research and Development publication, Oxygenates in Water: Critical Information and Research Needs.
• Improved the technical training of EPAʹs scientific and engineering staff. • Earned an EPA Bronze Medal for representing the region’s 300 scientists and engineers in negotiations with the Administrator and senior management to better integrate scientific

5 principles into the policy‐making process.
• Established national protocol for the peer review of scientific documents.

Geology:

With the U.S. Forest Service, Matt led investigations to determine hillslope stability of areas proposed for timber harvest in the central Oregon Coast Range. Specific activities were as follows:
• Mapped geology in the field, and used aerial photographic interpretation and mathematical models to determine slope stability.
• Coordinated his research with community members who were concerned with natural resource protection.
• Characterized the geology of an aquifer that serves as the sole source of drinking water for the city of Medford, Oregon.

As a consultant with Dames and Moore, Matt led geologic investigations of two contaminated sites (later listed on the Superfund NPL) in the Portland, Oregon, area and a large hazardous waste site in eastern Oregon. Duties included the following:
• Supervised year‐long effort for soil and groundwater sampling. • Conducted aquifer tests.
• Investigated active faults beneath sites proposed for hazardous waste disposal.

Teaching:

From 1990 to 1998, Matt taught at least one course per semester at the community college and university levels:
• At San Francisco State University, held an adjunct faculty position and taught courses in environmental geology, oceanography (lab and lecture), hydrogeology, and groundwater contamination.
• Served as a committee member for graduate and undergraduate students. • Taught courses in environmental geology and oceanography at the College of Marin.

Matt is currently a part time geology instructor at Golden West College in Huntington Beach, California where he taught from 2010 to 2014 and in 2017.

Invited Testimony, Reports, Papers and Presentations:

Hagemann, M.F., 2008. Disclosure of Hazardous Waste Issues under CEQA. Presentation to the Public Environmental Law Conference, Eugene, Oregon.

Hagemann, M.F., 2008. Disclosure of Hazardous Waste Issues under CEQA. Invited presentation to U.S.

EPA Region 9, San Francisco, California.

Hagemann, M.F., 2005. Use of Electronic Databases in Environmental Regulation, Policy Making and Public Participation. Brownfields 2005, Denver, Coloradao.

Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in Nevada and the Southwestern U.S. Presentation to a meeting of the American Groundwater Trust, Las Vegas, NV (served on conference organizing committee).

6 Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Invited testimony to a California Senate committee hearing on air toxins at schools in Southern California, Los Angeles.

Brown, A., Farrow, J., Gray, A. and Hagemann, M., 2004. An Estimate of Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Underground Storage Tanks and the Resulting Impact to Drinking Water Wells.

Presentation to the Ground Water and Environmental Law Conference, National Groundwater Association.

Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in Arizona and the Southwestern U.S. Presentation to a meeting of the American Groundwater Trust, Phoenix, AZ (served on conference organizing committee).

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in the Southwestern U.S. Invited presentation to a special committee meeting of the National Academy of Sciences, Irvine, CA.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Invited presentation to a tribal EPA meeting, Pechanga, CA.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Invited presentation to a meeting of tribal repesentatives, Parker, AZ.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Impact of Perchlorate on the Colorado River and Associated Drinking Water Supplies. Invited presentation to the Inter‐Tribal Meeting, Torres Martinez Tribe.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. The Emergence of Perchlorate as a Widespread Drinking Water Contaminant.

Invited presentation to the U.S. EPA Region 9.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. A Deductive Approach to the Assessment of Perchlorate Contamination. Invited presentation to the California Assembly Natural Resources Committee.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate: A Cold War Legacy in Drinking Water. Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association.

Hagemann, M.F., 2002. From Tank to Tap: A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater. Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association.

Hagemann, M.F., 2002. A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater and an Estimate of Costs to Address Impacts to Groundwater. Presentation to the annual meeting of the Society of Environmental Journalists.

Hagemann, M.F., 2002. An Estimate of the Cost to Address MTBE Contamination in Groundwater (and Who Will Pay). Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association.

Hagemann, M.F., 2002. An Estimate of Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Underground Storage Tanks and the Resulting Impact to Drinking Water Wells. Presentation to a meeting of the U.S. EPA and State Underground Storage Tank Program managers.

7 Hagemann, M.F., 2001. From Tank to Tap: A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater. Unpublished report.

Hagemann, M.F., 2001. Estimated Cleanup Cost for MTBE in Groundwater Used as Drinking Water.

Unpublished report.

Hagemann, M.F., 2001. Estimated Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Leaking Underground Storage Tanks. Unpublished report.

Hagemann, M.F., and VanMouwerik, M., 1999. Potential W a t e r Quality Concerns Related to Snowmobile Usage. Water Resources Division, National Park Service, Technical Report.

VanMouwerik, M. and Hagemann, M.F. 1999, Water Quality Concerns Related to Personal Watercraft Usage. Water Resources Division, National Park Service, Technical Report.

Hagemann, M.F., 1999, Is Dilution the Solution to Pollution in National Parks? The George Wright Society Biannual Meeting, Asheville, North Carolina.

Hagemann, M.F., 1997, The Potential for MTBE to Contaminate Groundwater. U.S. EPA Superfund Groundwater Technical Forum Annual Meeting, Las Vegas, Nevada.

Hagemann, M.F., and Gill, M., 1996, Impediments to Intrinsic Remediation, Moffett Field Naval Air Station, Conference on Intrinsic Remediation of Chlorinated Hydrocarbons, Salt Lake City.

Hagemann, M.F., Fukunaga, G.L., 1996, The Vulnerability of Groundwater to Anthropogenic Contaminants on the Island of Maui, Hawaii. Hawaii Water Works Association Annual Meeting, Maui, October 1996.

Hagemann, M. F., Fukanaga, G. L., 1996, Ranking Groundwater Vulnerability in Central Oahu, Hawaii. Proceedings, Geographic Information Systems in Environmental Resources Management, Air and Waste Management Association Publication VIP‐61.

Hagemann, M.F., 1994. Groundwater Ch ar ac te r i z a t i o n and Cl ean up a t Closing Military Bases in California. Proceedings, California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting.

Hagemann, M.F. and Sabol, M.A., 1993. Role of the U.S. EPA in the High Plains States Groundwater Recharge Demonstration Program. Proceedings, Sixth Biennial Symposium on the Artificial Recharge of Groundwater.

Hagemann, M.F., 1993. U.S. EPA Policy on the Technical Impracticability of the Cleanup of DNAPL‐ contaminated Groundwater. California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting.

8 Hagemann, M.F., 1992. Dense Nonaqueous Phase Liquid Contamination of Groundwater: An Ounce of Prevention... Proceedings, Association of Engineering Geologists Annual Meeting, v. 35.

Other Experience:

Selected as subject matter expert for the California Professional Geologist licensing examinations, 2009‐2011.

SOIL WATER AIR PROTECTION ENTERPRISE
2656 29th Street, Suite 201
Santa Monica, California 90405
Attn: Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D.

Mobil: (310) 795-2335
Office: (310) 452-5555
Fax: (310) 452-5550
Email: [email protected]
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 1 of 10 October 2021
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Chemical Fate and Transport & Air Dispersion Modeling Principal Environmental Chemist Risk Assessment & Remediation Specialist Education
Ph.D. Soil Chemistry, University of Washington, 1999. Dissertation on volatile organic compound filtration.

M.S. Environmental Science, U.C. Berkeley, 1995. Thesis on organic waste economics.

B.A. Environmental Studies, U.C. Santa Barbara, 1991. Thesis on wastewater treatment.

Professional Experience
Dr. Rosenfeld has over 25 years’ experience conducting environmental investigations and risk assessments for evaluating impacts to human health, property, and ecological receptors. His expertise focuses on the fate and transport of environmental contaminants, human health risk, exposure assessment, and ecological restoration. Dr.

Rosenfeld has evaluated and modeled emissions from oil spills, landfills, boilers and incinerators, process stacks, storage tanks, confined animal feeding operations, industrial, military and agricultural sources, unconventional oil drilling operations, and locomotive and construction engines. His project experience ranges from monitoring and modeling of pollution sources to evaluating impacts of pollution on workers at industrial facilities and residents in surrounding communities. Dr. Rosenfeld has also successfully modeled exposure to contaminants distributed by water systems and via vapor intrusion.

Dr. Rosenfeld has investigated and designed remediation programs and risk assessments for contaminated sites containing lead, heavy metals, mold, bacteria, particulate matter, petroleum hydrocarbons, chlorinated solvents, pesticides, radioactive waste, dioxins and furans, semi- and volatile organic compounds, PCBs, PAHs, creosote, perchlorate, asbestos, per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFOA/PFOS), unusual polymers, fuel oxygenates (MTBE), among other pollutants. Dr. Rosenfeld also has experience evaluating greenhouse gas emissions from various projects and is an expert on the assessment of odors from industrial and agricultural sites, as well as the evaluation of odor nuisance impacts and technologies for abatement of odorous emissions. As a principal scientist at SWAPE, Dr. Rosenfeld directs air dispersion modeling and exposure assessments. He has served as an expert witness and testified about pollution sources causing nuisance and/or personal injury at sites and has testified as an expert witness on numerous cases involving exposure to soil, water and air contaminants from industrial, railroad, agricultural, and military sources.

Attachment F

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 2 of 10 October 2021

Professional History:

Soil Water Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE); 2003 to present; Principal and Founding Partner UCLA School of Public Health; 2007 to 2011; Lecturer (Assistant Researcher) UCLA School of Public Health; 2003 to 2006; Adjunct Professor UCLA Environmental Science and Engineering Program; 2002-2004; Doctoral Intern Coordinator UCLA Institute of the Environment, 2001-2002; Research Associate Komex H2O Science, 2001 to 2003; Senior Remediation Scientist National Groundwater Association, 2002-2004; Lecturer
San Diego State University, 1999-2001; Adjunct Professor Anteon Corp., San Diego, 2000-2001; Remediation Project Manager Ogden (now Amec), San Diego, 2000-2000; Remediation Project Manager Bechtel, San Diego, California, 1999 – 2000; Risk Assessor King County, Seattle, 1996 – 1999; Scientist
James River Corp., Washington, 1995-96; Scientist
Big Creek Lumber, Davenport, California, 1995; Scientist Plumas Corp., California and USFS, Tahoe 1993-1995; Scientist Peace Corps and World Wildlife Fund, St. Kitts, West Indies, 1991-1993; Scientist

Publications:

Remy, L.L., Clay T., Byers, V., Rosenfeld P. E. (2019) Hospital, Health, and Community Burden After Oil Refinery Fires, Richmond, California 2007 and 2012. Environmental Health. 18:48

Simons, R.A., Seo, Y. Rosenfeld, P., (2015) Modeling the Effect of Refinery Emission On Residential Property Value. Journal of Real Estate Research. 27(3):321-342

Chen, J. A, Zapata A. R., Sutherland A. J., Molmen, D.R., Chow, B. S., Wu, L. E., Rosenfeld, P. E., Hesse, R. C., (2012) Sulfur Dioxide and Volatile Organic Compound Exposure To A Community In Texas City Texas Evaluated Using Aermod and Empirical Data. American Journal of Environmental Science, 8(6), 622-632.

Rosenfeld, P.E. & Feng, L. (2011). The Risks of Hazardous Waste. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.

Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2011). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best Practices in the Agrochemical Industry, Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.

Gonzalez, J., Feng, L., Sutherland, A., Waller, C., Sok, H., Hesse, R., Rosenfeld, P. (2010). PCBs and Dioxins/Furans in Attic Dust Collected Near Former PCB Production and Secondary Copper Facilities in Sauget, IL.

Procedia Environmental Sciences. 113–125.

Feng, L., Wu, C., Tam, L., Sutherland, A.J., Clark, J.J., Rosenfeld, P.E. (2010). Dioxin and Furan Blood Lipid and Attic Dust Concentrations in Populations Living Near Four Wood Treatment Facilities in the United States. Journal of Environmental Health. 73(6), 34-46.

Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2010). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best Practices in the Wood and Paper Industries. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.

Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2009). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best Practices in the Petroleum Industry. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.

Wu, C., Tam, L., Clark, J., Rosenfeld, P. (2009). Dioxin and furan blood lipid concentrations in populations living near four wood treatment facilities in the United States. WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment, Air Pollution, 123 (17), 319-327.

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 3 of 10 October 2021

Tam L. K.., Wu C. D., Clark J. J. and Rosenfeld, P.E. (2008). A Statistical Analysis Of Attic Dust And Blood Lipid Concentrations Of Tetrachloro-p-Dibenzodioxin (TCDD) Toxicity Equivalency Quotients (TEQ) In Two Populations Near Wood Treatment Facilities. Organohalogen Compounds, 70, 002252-002255.

Tam L. K.., Wu C. D., Clark J. J. and Rosenfeld, P.E. (2008). Methods For Collect Samples For Assessing Dioxins And Other Environmental Contaminants In Attic Dust: A Review. Organohalogen Compounds, 70, 000527- 000530.

Hensley, A.R. A. Scott, J. J. J. Clark, Rosenfeld, P.E. (2007). Attic Dust and Human Blood Samples Collected near a Former Wood Treatment Facility. Environmental Research. 105, 194-197.

Rosenfeld, P.E., J. J. J. Clark, A. R. Hensley, M. Suffet. (2007). The Use of an Odor Wheel Classification for Evaluation of Human Health Risk Criteria for Compost Facilities. Water Science & Technology 55(5), 345-357.

Rosenfeld, P. E., M. Suffet. (2007). The Anatomy Of Odour Wheels For Odours Of Drinking Water, Wastewater, Compost And The Urban Environment. Water Science & Technology 55(5), 335-344.

Sullivan, P. J. Clark, J.J.J., Agardy, F. J., Rosenfeld, P.E. (2007). Toxic Legacy, Synthetic Toxins in the Food, Water, and Air in American Cities. Boston Massachusetts: Elsevier Publishing

Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet I.H. (2004). Control of Compost Odor Using High Carbon Wood Ash. Water Science and Technology. 49(9),171-178.

Rosenfeld P. E., J.J. Clark, I.H. (Mel) Suffet (2004). The Value of An Odor-Quality-Wheel Classification Scheme For The Urban Environment. Water Environment Federation’s Technical Exhibition and Conference (WEFTEC) 2004. New Orleans, October 2-6, 2004.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet, I.H. (2004). Understanding Odorants Associated With Compost, Biomass Facilities, and the Land Application of Biosolids. Water Science and Technology. 49(9), 193-199.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet I.H. (2004). Control of Compost Odor Using High Carbon Wood Ash, Water Science and Technology, 49( 9), 171-178.

Rosenfeld, P. E., Grey, M. A., Sellew, P. (2004). Measurement of Biosolids Odor and Odorant Emissions from Windrows, Static Pile and Biofilter. Water Environment Research. 76(4), 310-315.

Rosenfeld, P.E., Grey, M and Suffet, M. (2002). Compost Demonstration Project, Sacramento California Using High-Carbon Wood Ash to Control Odor at a Green Materials Composting Facility. Integrated Waste Management Board Public Affairs Office, Publications Clearinghouse (MS–6), Sacramento, CA Publication #442-02-008.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (2001). Characterization of odor emissions from three different biosolids. Water Soil and Air Pollution. 127(1-4), 173-191.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and Henry C. L., (2000). Wood ash control of odor emissions from biosolids application. Journal of Environmental Quality. 29, 1662-1668.

Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry and D. Bennett. (2001). Wastewater dewatering polymer affect on biosolids odor emissions and microbial activity. Water Environment Research. 73(4), 363-367.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (2001). Activated Carbon and Wood Ash Sorption of Wastewater, Compost, and Biosolids Odorants. Water Environment Research, 73, 388-393.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and Henry C. L., (2001). High carbon wood ash effect on biosolids microbial activity and odor.

Water Environment Research. 131(1-4), 247-262.

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 4 of 10 October 2021

Chollack, T. and P. Rosenfeld. (1998). Compost Amendment Handbook For Landscaping. Prepared for and distributed by the City of Redmond, Washington State.

Rosenfeld, P. E. (1992). The Mount Liamuiga Crater Trail. Heritage Magazine of St. Kitts, 3(2).

Rosenfeld, P. E. (1993). High School Biogas Project to Prevent Deforestation On St. Kitts. Biomass Users Network, 7(1).

Rosenfeld, P. E. (1998). Characterization, Quantification, and Control of Odor Emissions From Biosolids Application To Forest Soil. Doctoral Thesis. University of Washington College of Forest Resources.

Rosenfeld, P. E. (1994). Potential Utilization of Small Diameter Trees on Sierra County Public Land. Masters thesis reprinted by the Sierra County Economic Council. Sierra County, California.

Rosenfeld, P. E. (1991). How to Build a Small Rural Anaerobic Digester & Uses Of Biogas In The First And Third World. Bachelors Thesis. University of California.

Presentations:

Rosenfeld, P.E., "The science for Perfluorinated Chemicals (PFAS): What makes remediation so hard?" Law Seminars International, (May 9-10, 2018) 800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 101 Seattle, WA.

Rosenfeld, P.E., Sutherland, A; Hesse, R.; Zapata, A. (October 3-6, 2013). Air dispersion modeling of volatile organic emissions from multiple natural gas wells in Decatur, TX. 44th Western Regional Meeting, American Chemical Society. Lecture conducted from Santa Clara, CA.

Sok, H.L.; Waller, C.C.; Feng, L.; Gonzalez, J.; Sutherland, A.J.; Wisdom-Stack, T.; Sahai, R.K.; Hesse, R.C.; Rosenfeld, P.E. (June 20-23, 2010). Atrazine: A Persistent Pesticide in Urban Drinking Water.

Urban Environmental Pollution. Lecture conducted from Boston, MA.

Feng, L.; Gonzalez, J.; Sok, H.L.; Sutherland, A.J.; Waller, C.C.; Wisdom-Stack, T.; Sahai, R.K.; La, M.; Hesse, R.C.; Rosenfeld, P.E. (June 20-23, 2010). Bringing Environmental Justice to East St. Louis, Illinois. Urban Environmental Pollution. Lecture conducted from Boston, MA.

Rosenfeld, P.E. (April 19-23, 2009). Perfluoroctanoic Acid (PFOA) and Perfluoroactane Sulfonate (PFOS) Contamination in Drinking Water From the Use of Aqueous Film Forming Foams (AFFF) at Airports in the United States. 2009 Ground Water Summit and 2009 Ground Water Protection Council Spring Meeting, Lecture conducted from Tuscon, AZ.

Rosenfeld, P.E. (April 19-23, 2009). Cost to Filter Atrazine Contamination from Drinking Water in the United States” Contamination in Drinking Water From the Use of Aqueous Film Forming Foams (AFFF) at Airports in the United States. 2009 Ground Water Summit and 2009 Ground Water Protection Council Spring Meeting. Lecture conducted from Tuscon, AZ.

Wu, C., Tam, L., Clark, J., Rosenfeld, P. (20-22 July, 2009). Dioxin and furan blood lipid concentrations in populations living near four wood treatment facilities in the United States. Brebbia, C.A. and Popov, V., eds., Air Pollution XVII: Proceedings of the Seventeenth International Conference on Modeling, Monitoring and Management of Air Pollution. Lecture conducted from Tallinn, Estonia.

Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). Moss Point Community Exposure To Contaminants From A Releasing Facility. The 23rd Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Platform lecture conducted from University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA.

Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). The Repeated Trespass of Tritium-Contaminated Water Into A Surrounding Community Form Repeated Waste Spills From A Nuclear Power Plant. The 23rd Annual International

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 5 of 10 October 2021

Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Platform lecture conducted from University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA.

Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). Somerville Community Exposure To Contaminants From Wood Treatment Facility Emissions. The 23rd Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Lecture conducted from University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA.

Rosenfeld P. E. (March 2007). Production, Chemical Properties, Toxicology, & Treatment Case Studies of 1,2,3- Trichloropropane (TCP). The Association for Environmental Health and Sciences (AEHS) Annual Meeting. Lecture conducted from San Diego, CA.

Rosenfeld P. E. (March 2007). Blood and Attic Sampling for Dioxin/Furan, PAH, and Metal Exposure in Florala, Alabama. The AEHS Annual Meeting. Lecture conducted from San Diego, CA.

Hensley A.R., Scott, A., Rosenfeld P.E., Clark, J.J.J. (August 21 – 25, 2006). Dioxin Containing Attic Dust And Human Blood Samples Collected Near A Former Wood Treatment Facility. The 26th International Symposium on Halogenated Persistent Organic Pollutants – DIOXIN2006. Lecture conducted from Radisson SAS Scandinavia Hotel in Oslo Norway.

Hensley A.R., Scott, A., Rosenfeld P.E., Clark, J.J.J. (November 4-8, 2006). Dioxin Containing Attic Dust And Human Blood Samples Collected Near A Former Wood Treatment Facility. APHA 134 Annual Meeting & Exposition. Lecture conducted from Boston Massachusetts.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (October 24-25, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PFOA and Related Chemicals.

Mealey’s C8/PFOA. Science, Risk & Litigation Conference. Lecture conducted from The Rittenhouse Hotel, Philadelphia, PA.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 19, 2005). Brominated Flame Retardants in Groundwater: Pathways to Human Ingestion, Toxicology and Remediation PEMA Emerging Contaminant Conference. Lecture conducted from Hilton Hotel, Irvine California.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 19, 2005). Fate, Transport, Toxicity, And Persistence of 1,2,3-TCP. PEMA Emerging Contaminant Conference. Lecture conducted from Hilton Hotel in Irvine, California.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 26-27, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PDBEs. Mealey’s Groundwater Conference. Lecture conducted from Ritz Carlton Hotel, Marina Del Ray, California.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (June 7-8, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PFOA and Related Chemicals.

International Society of Environmental Forensics: Focus On Emerging Contaminants. Lecture conducted from Sheraton Oceanfront Hotel, Virginia Beach, Virginia.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (July 21-22, 2005). Fate Transport, Persistence and Toxicology of PFOA and Related Perfluorochemicals. 2005 National Groundwater Association Ground Water And Environmental Law Conference.

Lecture conducted from Wyndham Baltimore Inner Harbor, Baltimore Maryland.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (July 21-22, 2005). Brominated Flame Retardants in Groundwater: Pathways to Human Ingestion, Toxicology and Remediation. 2005 National Groundwater Association Ground Water and Environmental Law Conference. Lecture conducted from Wyndham Baltimore Inner Harbor, Baltimore Maryland.

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and James Clark Ph.D. and Rob Hesse R.G. (May 5-6, 2004). Tert-butyl Alcohol Liability and Toxicology, A National Problem and Unquantified Liability. National Groundwater Association. Environmental Law Conference. Lecture conducted from Congress Plaza Hotel, Chicago Illinois.

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (March 2004). Perchlorate Toxicology. Meeting of the American Groundwater Trust.

Lecture conducted from Phoenix Arizona.

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 6 of 10 October 2021

Hagemann, M.F., Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and Rob Hesse (2004). Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River.

Meeting of tribal representatives. Lecture conducted from Parker, AZ.

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (April 7, 2004). A National Damage Assessment Model For PCE and Dry Cleaners.

Drycleaner Symposium. California Ground Water Association. Lecture conducted from Radison Hotel, Sacramento, California.

Rosenfeld, P. E., Grey, M., (June 2003) Two stage biofilter for biosolids composting odor control. Seventh International In Situ And On Site Bioremediation Symposium Battelle Conference Orlando, FL.

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and James Clark Ph.D. (February 20-21, 2003) Understanding Historical Use, Chemical Properties, Toxicity and Regulatory Guidance of 1,4 Dioxane. National Groundwater Association. Southwest Focus Conference. Water Supply and Emerging Contaminants.. Lecture conducted from Hyatt Regency Phoenix Arizona.

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (February 6-7, 2003). Underground Storage Tank Litigation and Remediation. California CUPA Forum. Lecture conducted from Marriott Hotel, Anaheim California.

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (October 23, 2002) Underground Storage Tank Litigation and Remediation. EPA Underground Storage Tank Roundtable. Lecture conducted from Sacramento California.

Rosenfeld, P.E. and Suffet, M. (October 7- 10, 2002). Understanding Odor from Compost, Wastewater and Industrial Processes. Sixth Annual Symposium On Off Flavors in the Aquatic Environment. International Water Association. Lecture conducted from Barcelona Spain.

Rosenfeld, P.E. and Suffet, M. (October 7- 10, 2002). Using High Carbon Wood Ash to Control Compost Odor.

Sixth Annual Symposium On Off Flavors in the Aquatic Environment. International Water Association. Lecture conducted from Barcelona Spain.

Rosenfeld, P.E. and Grey, M. A. (September 22-24, 2002). Biocycle Composting For Coastal Sage Restoration.

Northwest Biosolids Management Association. Lecture conducted from Vancouver Washington..

Rosenfeld, P.E. and Grey, M. A. (November 11-14, 2002). Using High-Carbon Wood Ash to Control Odor at a Green Materials Composting Facility. Soil Science Society Annual Conference. Lecture conducted from Indianapolis, Maryland.

Rosenfeld. P.E. (September 16, 2000). Two stage biofilter for biosolids composting odor control. Water Environment Federation. Lecture conducted from Anaheim California.

Rosenfeld. P.E. (October 16, 2000). Wood ash and biofilter control of compost odor. Biofest. Lecture conducted from Ocean Shores, California.

Rosenfeld, P.E. (2000). Bioremediation Using Organic Soil Amendments. California Resource Recovery Association. Lecture conducted from Sacramento California.

Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Oat and Grass Seed Germination and Nitrogen and Sulfur Emissions Following Biosolids Incorporation With High-Carbon Wood-Ash. Water Environment Federation 12th Annual Residuals and Biosolids Management Conference Proceedings. Lecture conducted from Bellevue Washington.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (1999). An evaluation of ash incorporation with biosolids for odor reduction. Soil Science Society of America. Lecture conducted from Salt Lake City Utah.

Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Comparison of Microbial Activity and Odor Emissions from Three Different Biosolids Applied to Forest Soil. Brown and Caldwell. Lecture conducted from Seattle Washington.

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 7 of 10 October 2021

Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry. (1998). Characterization, Quantification, and Control of Odor Emissions from Biosolids Application To Forest Soil. Biofest. Lecture conducted from Lake Chelan, Washington.

Rosenfeld, P.E, C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Oat and Grass Seed Germination and Nitrogen and Sulfur Emissions Following Biosolids Incorporation With High-Carbon Wood-Ash. Water Environment Federation 12th Annual Residuals and Biosolids Management Conference Proceedings. Lecture conducted from Bellevue Washington.

Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. B. Harrison, and R. Dills. (1997). Comparison of Odor Emissions From Three Different Biosolids Applied to Forest Soil. Soil Science Society of America. Lecture conducted from Anaheim California.

Teaching Experience:

UCLA Department of Environmental Health (Summer 2003 through 20010) Taught Environmental Health Science 100 to students, including undergrad, medical doctors, public health professionals and nurses. Course focused on the health effects of environmental contaminants.

National Ground Water Association, Successful Remediation Technologies. Custom Course in Sante Fe, New Mexico. May 21, 2002. Focused on fate and transport of fuel contaminants associated with underground storage tanks.

National Ground Water Association; Successful Remediation Technologies Course in Chicago Illinois. April 1, 2002. Focused on fate and transport of contaminants associated with Superfund and RCRA sites.

California Integrated Waste Management Board, April and May, 2001. Alternative Landfill Caps Seminar in San Diego, Ventura, and San Francisco. Focused on both prescriptive and innovative landfill cover design.

UCLA Department of Environmental Engineering, February 5, 2002. Seminar on Successful Remediation Technologies focusing on Groundwater Remediation.

University Of Washington, Soil Science Program, Teaching Assistant for several courses including: Soil Chemistry, Organic Soil Amendments, and Soil Stability.

U.C. Berkeley, Environmental Science Program Teaching Assistant for Environmental Science 10.

Academic Grants Awarded:

California Integrated Waste Management Board. $41,000 grant awarded to UCLA Institute of the Environment.

Goal: To investigate effect of high carbon wood ash on volatile organic emissions from compost. 2001.

Synagro Technologies, Corona California: $10,000 grant awarded to San Diego State University.

Goal: investigate effect of biosolids for restoration and remediation of degraded coastal sage soils. 2000.

King County, Department of Research and Technology, Washington State. $100,000 grant awarded to University of Washington: Goal: To investigate odor emissions from biosolids application and the effect of polymers and ash on VOC emissions. 1998.

Northwest Biosolids Management Association, Washington State. $20,000 grant awarded to investigate effect of polymers and ash on VOC emissions from biosolids. 1997.

James River Corporation, Oregon: $10,000 grant was awarded to investigate the success of genetically engineered Poplar trees with resistance to round-up. 1996.

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 8 of 10 October 2021

United State Forest Service, Tahoe National Forest: $15,000 grant was awarded to investigating fire ecology of the Tahoe National Forest. 1995.

Kellogg Foundation, Washington D.C. $500 grant was awarded to construct a large anaerobic digester on St. Kitts in West Indies. 1993

Deposition and/or Trial Testimony:

In the Circuit Court Of The Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St Clair County, Illinois Martha Custer et al., Plaintiff vs. Cerro Flow Products, Inc., Defendants Case No.: No. 0i9-L-2295
Rosenfeld Deposition, 5-14-2021
Trial, October 8-4-2021

In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Joseph Rafferty, Plaintiff vs. Consolidated Rail Corporation and National Railroad Passenger Corporation d/b/a AMTRAK,
Case No.: No. 18-L-6845
Rosenfeld Deposition, 6-28-2021

In the United States District Court For the Northern District of Illinois Theresa Romcoe, Plaintiff vs. Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter Railroad Corporation d/b/a METRA Rail, Defendants
Case No.: No. 17-cv-8517
Rosenfeld Deposition, 5-25-2021

In the Superior Court of the State of Arizona In and For the Cunty of Maricopa Mary Tryon et al., Plaintiff vs. The City of Pheonix v. Cox Cactus Farm, L.L.C., Utah Shelter Systems, Inc.

Case Number CV20127-094749
Rosenfeld Deposition: 5-7-2021

In the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas Beaumont Division Robinson, Jeremy et al Plaintiffs, vs. CNA Insurance Company et al.

Case Number 1:17-cv-000508
Rosenfeld Deposition: 3-25-2021

In the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Bernardino Gary Garner, Personal Representative for the Estate of Melvin Garner vs. BNSF Railway Company.

Case No. 1720288
Rosenfeld Deposition 2-23-2021

In the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, Spring Street Courthouse Benny M Rodriguez vs. Union Pacific Railroad, A Corporation, et al.

Case No. 18STCV01162
Rosenfeld Deposition 12-23-2020

In the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri
Karen Cornwell, Plaintiff, vs. Marathon Petroleum, LP, Defendant.

Case No.: 1716-CV10006
Rosenfeld Deposition. 8-30-2019

In the United States District Court For The District of New Jersey Duarte et al, Plaintiffs, vs. United States Metals Refining Company et. al. Defendant.

Case No.: 2:17-cv-01624-ES-SCM
Rosenfeld Deposition. 6-7-2019

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 9 of 10 October 2021

In the United States District Court of Southern District of Texas Galveston Division M/T Carla Maersk, Plaintiffs, vs. Conti 168., Schiffahrts-GMBH & Co. Bulker KG MS “Conti Perdido” Defendant.

Case No.: 3:15-CV-00106 consolidated with 3:15-CV-00237 Rosenfeld Deposition. 5-9-2019

In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Los Angeles – Santa Monica Carole-Taddeo-Bates et al., vs. Ifran Khan et al., Defendants Case No.: No. BC615636
Rosenfeld Deposition, 1-26-2019

In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Los Angeles – Santa Monica The San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments et al. vs El Adobe Apts. Inc. et al., Defendants Case No.: No. BC646857
Rosenfeld Deposition, 10-6-2018; Trial 3-7-19

In United States District Court For The District of Colorado Bells et al. Plaintiff vs. The 3M Company et al., Defendants Case No.: 1:16-cv-02531-RBJ
Rosenfeld Deposition, 3-15-2018 and 4-3-2018

In The District Court Of Regan County, Texas, 112th Judicial District Phillip Bales et al., Plaintiff vs. Dow Agrosciences, LLC, et al., Defendants Cause No.: 1923
Rosenfeld Deposition, 11-17-2017

In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Contra Costa Simons et al., Plaintiffs vs. Chevron Corporation, et al., Defendants Cause No C12-01481
Rosenfeld Deposition, 11-20-2017

In The Circuit Court Of The Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St Clair County, Illinois Martha Custer et al., Plaintiff vs. Cerro Flow Products, Inc., Defendants Case No.: No. 0i9-L-2295
Rosenfeld Deposition, 8-23-2017

In United States District Court For The Southern District of Mississippi Guy Manuel vs. The BP Exploration et al., Defendants
Case: No 1:19-cv-00315-RHW
Rosenfeld Deposition, 4-22-2020

In The Superior Court of the State of California, For The County of Los Angeles Warrn Gilbert and Penny Gilber, Plaintiff vs. BMW of North America LLC Case No.: LC102019 (c/w BC582154)
Rosenfeld Deposition, 8-16-2017, Trail 8-28-2018

In the Northern District Court of Mississippi, Greenville Division Brenda J. Cooper, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Meritor Inc., et al., Defendants Case Number: 4:16-cv-52-DMB-JVM
Rosenfeld Deposition: July 2017

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 10 of 10 October 2021

In The Superior Court of the State of Washington, County of Snohomish Michael Davis and Julie Davis et al., Plaintiff vs. Cedar Grove Composting Inc., Defendants Case No.: No. 13-2-03987-5
Rosenfeld Deposition, February 2017
Trial, March 2017

In The Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda Charles Spain., Plaintiff vs. Thermo Fisher Scientific, et al., Defendants Case No.: RG14711115
Rosenfeld Deposition, September 2015

In The Iowa District Court In And For Poweshiek County
Russell D. Winburn, et al., Plaintiffs vs. Doug Hoksbergen, et al., Defendants Case No.: LALA002187
Rosenfeld Deposition, August 2015

In The Circuit Court of Ohio County, West Virginia
Robert Andrews, et al. v. Antero, et al.

Civil Action N0. 14-C-30000
Rosenfeld Deposition, June 2015

In The Iowa District Court For Muscatine County
Laurie Freeman et. al. Plaintiffs vs. Grain Processing Corporation, Defendant Case No 4980
Rosenfeld Deposition: May 2015

In the Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit, in and For Broward County, Florida Walter Hinton, et. al. Plaintiff, vs. City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, a Municipality, Defendant.

Case Number CACE07030358 (26)
Rosenfeld Deposition: December 2014

In the County Court of Dallas County Texas
Lisa Parr et al, Plaintiff, vs. Aruba et al, Defendant.

Case Number cc-11-01650-E
Rosenfeld Deposition: March and September 2013
Rosenfeld Trial: April 2014

In the Court of Common Pleas of Tuscarawas County Ohio
John Michael Abicht, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Republic Services, Inc., et al., Defendants Case Number: 2008 CT 10 0741 (Cons. w/ 2009 CV 10 0987) Rosenfeld Deposition: October 2012

In the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, Northern Division James K. Benefield, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. International Paper Company, Defendant.

Civil Action Number 2:09-cv-232-WHA-TFM
Rosenfeld Deposition: July 2010, June 2011

In the Circuit Court of Jefferson County Alabama
Jaeanette Moss Anthony, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Drummond Company Inc., et al., Defendants Civil Action No. CV 2008-2076
Rosenfeld Deposition: September 2010

In the United States District Court, Western District Lafayette Division Ackle et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Citgo Petroleum Corporation, et al., Defendants.

Case Number 2:07CV1052
Rosenfeld Deposition: July 2009

“Responsible Planning Through Environmental Leadership” 2201 N. Grand Avenue #10098 | Santa Ana, CA 92711-0098 | (714) 716-5050 www.ELMTConsulting.com

March 7, 2022

BIRDSEYE PLANNING GROUP, LLC
Contact: Ryan Birdseye
P.O. Box 1956
Vista, California 92805

SUBJECT: Response to Comments for the Addendum for the Jersey Boulevard Industrial Complex Project

Please find attached ELMT Consulting, Inc. response to comments to address the comments received on February 17, 2022 from Lozeau Drury LLP for the Jersey Boulevard industrial Complex.

Comment 1: EIR Fails to Establish an Accurate Baseline for Sensitive Biological Resources The Project Site is in an area that is almost entirely developed with minimal undeveloped parcels mixed throughout the large industrial buildings with no direct connection to undeveloped/native habitats. The Project Site has been subject to routine human disturbance associated with the surrounding developments for nearly 30 years. As noted in ELMT’s report, no natural plant communities are present on the Project Site and only heavily disturbed, human modified areas will be affected by development of the proposed project as clearly shown 2020 biological report.

ELMT’s assessment was conducted in a manor that fully covered the site and field investigation was conducted to industry standards.

The Project Site has been substantially altered by past development activities in the surrounding area over the last few decades and does not support high quality habitat for foraging or nesting. Regular site maintenance (weed clearance, etc.) and lack of vegetation severally reduces the foraging and nesting opportunities. ELMT stands by its assessment that the site provides limited foraging and nesting opportunities for avian species.

ELMT’s report states:

“No burrowing owls or rec ent sign (i.e., pellets, feathers, castings, or whitewash) was observed during the field investigation. The majority of the project site is unvegetated and/or vegetated with a variety of low-growing plant species that allow for line-of-sight observation favored by burrowing owls. However, no suitable burrows (>4 inches) were observed during the field investigation.

Further, tall fences, street lights, ornamental trees, and office buildings surround the project site which decrease the likelihood that burrowing owls would occur on the project site as these features provide perching opportunities for larger raptor species (i.e., red-tailed hawk [Buteo jamaicensis]) that prey on burrowing owls.

March 7, 2022

Based on the results of the field investigation and isolation of the undeveloped area on the project site, it was determined that the project site does not have the potential to support burrowing owls and focused surveys are not recommended.”

Dr. Smallwood’s statement that states that the Project plans to improperly rely on a future pre-construction survey to determine the presence/absence of burrowing owls is false. ELMT’s opinion is that the project site does not support suitable habitat for burrowing owls and burrowing owls are presumed absent. The pre-construction clearance survey would be conducted out of an abundance of caution to ensure no impacts to nesting birds or burrowing owls (if they were to stop over on the site) would occur. Pursuant to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and California Fish and Game Code (Sections 3503, 3503.3, 3511, and 3513 of the California Fish and Game Code prohibit the take, possession, or destruction of birds, their nests or eggs), the proposed Project would be required to protect any nesting birds present on the site. Regulatory compliance with the MBTA and California Fish and Game Code would require a preconstruction clearance survey for nesting birds be conducted within three (3) days of the start of any vegetation removal or ground disturbing activities to ensure that no nesting birds will be disturbed during construction if it occurs between February 1 and August 31. Again, given the disturbed nature of the project site, and the lack of vegetation present on the site, there is a lack of habitat suitable for use as nesting sites.

eBird and iNaturalist are citizen databases and are not always accurate in the data they present. ELMT searches those databases but does not rely on their data for their analysis. Data provided by these two databases would not change the outcome of ELMT’s original analysis.

Comment 2: EIR Fails to Address the Project’s Potential Significant Impact on Loss of Breeding Capacity
The Project Site has been substantially altered by past development activities in the surrounding area over the last few decades and does not support long term breeding habitat for nesting birds. Regular site maintenance (weed clearance, etc.) and lack of vegetation limits the breeding capacity of the project site. Implementation of the proposed project would not significantly impact the loss of breeding capacity for nesting birds, especially to the degree in which Dr. Smallwood references in his comment letter.

Comment 3: EIR Inadequately Analyzed the Project’s Impact on Wildlife Movement The Project Site has been substantially altered by past development activities in the surrounding area over the last few decades and does not currently contain functioning native habitat for any wildlife occurring in the area.

Regular site maintenance (weed clearance, etc.) has occurred on the Project Site, and the Project Site is not located in an existing wildlife migration corridor. Since the project site is surrounded by existing development and does not support native habitats, ELMT stands by its assessment and implementation of the project will not result in impacts to wildlife movement.

Comment 4: EIR Fails to Address Impacts on Wildlife from Additional Traffic Generated by the Project
The comment asserts the impacts of wildlife mortality from traffic generated by the proposed project were not addressed in the DEIR. The project site is heavily disturbed and surrounded by heavily trafficked streets and existing industrial buildings that do no support high quality habitat for wildlife species. Further, based on ELMT’s

March 7, 2022

assessment, the site is not expected to provide suitable habitat for the majority of the special-status wildlife known to occur in the area. Therefore, the proposed project would not substantially increase the level of road mortality for wildlife, in particular special status species.

Comment 5: EIR Fails to Adequately Address the Project’s Cumulative Impacts on Wildlife in the Region
As noted, the comment offered encompasses a much larger perspective on impacts to native wildlife and is not directly applicable to the immediate Project Site since the site is surrounded by existing development. ELMT stands by its assessment that the project will not result in cumulative impacts to biological resources due to the lack of resources on and immediately adjacent to the project site.

If you have further questions or comments please do not hesitate to contact Tom McGill at (951) 285-6014 or [email protected] or Travis McGill at (909) 816-1646 or [email protected].

Sincerely,

Thomas J. McGill, Ph.D. Travis J. McGill
Managing Director Director/Biologist

P.O. Box 1956, Vista, CA 92085 | (760) 712-2199 | www.birdseyeplanninggroup.com March 8, 2022

Mr. Vincent Acuna
Associate Planner
City of Rancho Cucamonga
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730

SUBJECT: Jersey Industrial Complex Draft EIR Appeal Response to Comments

Dear Mr. Acuna:

Birdseye Planning Group (BPG) is pleased to submit the following responses to the Jersey Industrial Complex Draft Environmental Impact Report appeal letter dated February 17, 2022. The appeal comments focus on Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas emissions and Biological Resources. The comments and draft responses are provided as follows:

1. Air Emissions Modeling Failed to Include the 8,127 square foot of office space as a separate use within the overall warehouse building. Thus, the project failed to accurately estimate daily operational emissions.

Response: The air emissions model was prepared to provide a conservative estimation of daily air emissions and annual greenhouse gas emissions associated with operation of the proposed project.

The modeling focus was on mobile source emissions, specifically, heavy truck emissions. However, area and energy sources were also modeled for the warehouse component, which comprises 95% of the total square footage of the project. To conservatively calculate mobile source emissions, the CalEEMod 2020.4.0 default trip generation rates were modified to calculate passenger car trips assuming 1.1 trips/1,000 square feet and truck trips were calculated assuming 0.64 trips/1,000 square feet as recommended in the South Coast Air Quality Management District Mobile Source Committee.

Warehouse Truck Trip Study Data Results and Usage (July 25, 2014). Thus, daily trips were assumed to comprise 175 passenger cars/light trucks and 102 truck trips associated with the entire 159,580 square foot facility. Including the office space as a separate use would remove 8,127 square feet from the total used to generate passenger care and heavy truck trips. This would have reduced the daily truck trip number and related heavy truck mobile source emissions by five. This would reduce the overall mobile source emissions.

However, to determine whether the point raised by the appellant would make a difference in daily and annual emissions, CalEEMod was revised to reduce the warehouse square footage by 8,127 square feet and add 8,127 square feet of office space. The only change in the area and energy emissions was a reduction in reactive organic gas emissions associated with energy use. Thus, the conclusion is energy required to operate the same relative square footage of office space is less than

Mr. Vincent Acuna
March 8, 2022

BIRDSEYE PLANNING GROUP

1354 York Drive, Vista, CA 92084 | (760) 712-2199 | www.birdseyeplanninggroup.com that required to operate the same square footage of warehouse space. The methodology used generated higher overall emissions than modeling the office space as a separate use.

2. Incorrect Application of Area-Related Operational Mitigation Measures

The appellant contends that any changes to model defaults be justified. However as stated in the comment letter, the “User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data” table fails to provide a justification for the above changes.

Response. It is true that no notes were included on the architectural coating screens in CalEEMod 2020.4.0 to justify why low VOC coatings were selected for modeling purposes.

However, the reason for doing so is provided on Page 21 of the Air Quality-Greenhouse Gas Technical Report. Similar to implementation of SCAQMD Rule 403 to control dust during construction, SCAQMD Rule 1113 requires the use of low-VOC paint (architectural coatings). It is common methodology to assume 50 g/L for nonflat coatings and 100 g/L for pavement coatings and we routinely use this approach when working in the South Coast Air Basin. Further, these assumptions were approved by peer reviewers as part of the technical report preparation process. It is important to note that compliance with existing rules and regulations is not considered mitigation for the purpose of CEQA review. However, it is understood that CalEEMod does consider these various measures control or reduce emissions as mitigation for the purpose of air emission modeling.

CalEEMod was developed by the California Air Resources Board for use statewide as an air emissions modeling tool. Not all air districts within the state have the same requirements for the use of low VOC paint and other methods for reducing emissions. Therefore, the default values in CalEEMod can be modified to reflect conditions imposed by each air district and while these change can be made in the “mitigation” screen, they are not always considered mitigation as defined under CEQA.

SCAQMD Rule 1113, Table of Standards 1, VOC Limits, shows the current limit for non-flat coatings is 50 g/Liter of VOC emissions. Further, Traffic Coatings are currently limited to 100 g/Liter of VOC emissions. Traffic coatings are defined as coatings formulated for or applied to public streets, highways, and other surfaces including, but not limited to, curbs, berms, driveways, and parking lots. Should the appellant require additional evidence that in fact low VOC coatings would be implemented, the project can be conditioned to apply only coatings meeting these emission requirements.

3. Diesel Particulate Matter Health Risk Emissions Inadequately Evaluated

The appellant states that the DEIR concludes that the Project would have a less-than-significant health risk impact without conducting a quantified construction or operational health risk analysis.

Response: The appellant states that because the DEIR fails to prepare a quantified construction and operational HRA, the Project is inconsistent with CEQA’s requirement to correlate the increase in

Mr. Vincent Acuna
March 8, 2022

BIRDSEYE PLANNING GROUP

1354 York Drive, Vista, CA 92084 | (760) 712-2199 | www.birdseyeplanninggroup.com emissions that the Project would generate to the adverse impacts on human health caused by those emissions.

The air quality analysis provides a discussion on the potential for identifiable health impacts that could result from air pollutants analyzed in environmental documents prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The discussion in Friant Ranch focuses on significant impacts and the feasibility of directly relating any identified significant adverse air quality impact to likely health consequences. The Supreme Court opinion in the “Sierra Club v. County of Fresno”, requires projects with significant air quality impacts to relate the expected adverse air quality impacts to likely health consequences or explain why it is not feasible at the time of drafting to provide such an analysis, so that the public may make informed decisions regarding the costs and benefits of the project.

As stated, the project is located within the SCAB under the jurisdiction of the SCAQMD. The City of Rancho Cucamonga defers to threshold guidance established by the SCAQMD and utilizes the SCAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Handbook (approved by the AQMD Governing Board in 1993) and subsequent guidance provided on the SCAQMD website. In addition, when considering potential air quality impacts under CEQA, consideration is given to the location of sensitive receptors within proximity to land uses that emit Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs). CARB has published and adopted the Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective (2005), which considers impacts to sensitive receptors from facilities that emit TAC emissions. CARB has also published Strategies to Reduce Air Pollution Exposure Near High-Volume Roadways: Technical Advisory, a supplement to the handbook that is intended to provide scientifically based strategies to reduce exposure to traffic emissions near high-volume roadways to protect public health and promote equity and environmental justice. The SCAQMD has also adopted land use planning guidelines in the Guidance Document for Addressing Air Quality Issues in General Plans and Local Planning (2005).

Together, the documents introduce land use-related policies and strategies that rely on project scope and location relative to the nearest sensitive properties and traffic (including heavy truck) volumes to evaluate the potential for health risks.

As stated herein, the proposed project will not exceed the daily emission thresholds established by the SCAQMD. Thus, for the purpose of this evaluation, potential project impacts have been adequately evaluated. With respect to DPM emissions, truck operations associated with the project would generate DPM; however, the site is located along an unrestricted truck route (Milliken Avenue) within the City of Rancho Cucamonga per Section 10.56.010 of the Municipal Code. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) Air Quality and Land Use Handbook (2005) recommends avoiding the siting of new sensitive receptors within 500 feet of an urban roadway with 100,000 vehicles daily.

Traffic counts from 2015 show daily volumes on Milliken Avenue in proximity to Jersey Boulevard were 30,310. If these volumes are factored up by 2% annually, the 2021 volumes would be approximately 34,134. This is less than the recommended threshold for siting new sensitive properties. While the project is not a sensitive use the nearest sensitive use is located approximately

Mr. Vincent Acuna
March 8, 2022

BIRDSEYE PLANNING GROUP

1354 York Drive, Vista, CA 92084 | (760) 712-2199 | www.birdseyeplanninggroup.com one-half mile south of the site along Milliken Avenue, and as stated, daily volumes on Milliken Avenue are and would remain less than the CARB recommended threshold.

Further, both the CARB (Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective, April 2005) and the SCAQMD analyses indicate that providing a separation of 1,000 feet substantially reduces DPM concentrations and public exposure downwind of a distribution center, the use closest to the proposed warehouse project. While these analyses do not provide specific risk estimates for distribution centers, they provide an indication of the range of risk and the benefits of providing a separation. Note that CARB recommends a separation of 1,000 feet based on the combination of risk analysis done for Transport Refrigeration Units (TRUs) associated with distribution centers. The project will not have on-site refrigeration; and thus, will not have trucks on-site with operating TRUs.

Given the distance between the project site is greater than 1,000 feet, no TRUs would operate on the site and traffic volumes on Milliken Avenue are lower than the CARB recommendations for siting new sensitive receptors, project-related truck traffic would not pose a health risk that would justify further evaluation in a construction or operational health risk assessment.

4. Failure to Adequately Evaluate Greenhouse Gas Impacts The appellant contends the following:
• The DEIR’s quantitative GHG analysis relies upon an incorrect and unsubstantiated air model; • The DEIR fails to consider the performance-based standards under CARB’s Scoping Plan; and; • The DEIR fails to consider the performance-based standards under SCAG’s RTP/SCS.

Response: The reasoning behind the methodology used to model the land uses associated with the project is described above. The annual GHG emissions (2,410 metric tons of CO2e annually) are projected to be less than 25% of the annual threshold (10,000 metric tons of CO2e annually). As stated, the modeling was intended to maximize total mobile source GHG emission estimates. While the appellant does not identify specific emission sources that were neglected in the modeling, we can assume that they are referring to energy emissions associated with operation of the office space relative to the same area of warehouse space. CalEEMod was revised to remove 8,127 square feet of warehouse space and replace it with the same amount of office space. The modeling results showed that with the office space, total GHG emissions associated with electrical consumption would increase by approximately 10 tons annually. This would increase the total annual GHG emissions to 2,420 MT CO2e. This is conservative as the heavy truck trip volumes were not reduced to reflect the smaller warehouse square footage. The GHG emissions would remain less than 25% of the annual threshold.

The significance of the impact would not change from what was disclosed in the DEIR.

The appellant further states that the DEIR is insufficient because the project was not compared to the performance-based standards within CARB’s scoping plan and the SCAG RTP/SCS. As stated in the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Technical Report, the City of Rancho Cucamonga does not have an adopted threshold of significance for GHG emissions. Thus, for CEQA purposes, the City has discretion to select an appropriate significance criterion, based on substantial evidence. The SCAQMD's adopted numerical threshold of 10,000 MTCO2e/year for industrial stationary source

Mr. Vincent Acuna
March 8, 2022

BIRDSEYE PLANNING GROUP

1354 York Drive, Vista, CA 92084 | (760) 712-2199 | www.birdseyeplanninggroup.com emissions is used as the significance criterion in the subject DEIR and other warehouse projects approved by the City. The consistency analysis is commonly performed by evaluating project consistency with applicable goals, policies and/or action items in the statewide and regional planning documents. The DEIR doesn’t provide a performance-based analysis relative to the 2017 CARB Scoping Plan and RTP/SCS because it isn’t required for the purpose of CEQA compliance.

Should you have questions or would like more information, please contact me via email at [email protected] or call 760-712-2199.

Regards,
Ryan Birdseye
Principal

Resolution No. 2022-035 - Page 1 of 4
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-035

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING THE APPEAL
OF AND UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S
APPROVAL OF 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 the approval of 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 adopted Resolution No. 22-002 approving the application and making findings in support of its decision.

3.On February 17, 2022, Lozeau Drury, LLP (“Appellant”), filed a timely appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision approving the application.

4.On April 20, 2022, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga opened a duly noticed public hearing on the appeal, conducted the public hearing, concluded the hearing on that date, and adopted this Resolution denying the appeal and upholding the Planning Commission’s approval of the application and making findings in support thereof.

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

B.Resolution.

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

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

2.Based upon all available evidence in the record and presented to the City Council during the above-referenced public hearing on April 20, 2022, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, the City Council 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

Resolution No. 2022-035 - Page 2 of 4
c.The land use, General Plan land use designation, and Zoning classification for the subject property are as follows:

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
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.

3.Based upon all available evidence in the record and presented to the City Council during the above referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in Paragraphs 1 and 2 above, the City Council 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. The project consists 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 Neo 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 industrial buildings

Resolution No. 2022-035 - Page 3 of 4
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 architectural standards. The project meets the minimum parking, loading, and access requirements.
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. 2022-036, and in connection with the City Council’s upholding of the Planning Commission’s approval of Design Review DRC2019-00766, the City Council: (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. 2022- 036 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, evidence, and conclusions set forth in Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, the City Council hereby denies the appeal of Planning Commission Decision DRC2019-00766 and upholds the Planning Commission’s decision to approve Design Review DRC2019-00766 subject to each and every condition set forth in the Conditions of Approval attached to Planning Commission Resolution No. 22-002.

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

Resolution No. 2022-035 - Page 4 of 4
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 20 day of April, 2022. __________________________________
L. Dennis Michael, Mayor
ATTEST:
__________________________________
Janice C. Reynolds, City Clerk

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO ) ss

CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA )
I, Janice C. Reynolds, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, at a Regular Meeting of said City Council held on the 20th day of April, 2022.

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAINED:

Executed this 21st day of April, 2022, at Rancho Cucamonga, California. __________________________________
Janice C. Reynolds, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
__________________________________
Nicholas R. Ghirelli, City Attorney
Richards, Watson & Gershon

Resolution No. 2022-036 - Page 1 of 7

RESOLUTION NO. 2022-036

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING THE
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH NO. 2021060608)
PREPARED FOR THE 11298 JERSEY BLVD, LLC PROJECT
WHICH PROPOSES 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 - APN: 0229-111-60, MAKING FINDINGS

PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL

QUALITY ACT, AND ADOPTING A MITIGATION

MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
A. Recitals.

1. The applicant, 11298 JERSEY BLVD, LLC , filed an application for the approval of 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. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines, the City concluded that there was substantial evidence that the Project might have a significant environmental impact on several resources and determined that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) must be prepared for the Project in order to analyze the Project’s potential impacts on the environment.

3. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Section 15082, on June 28, 2021, the City published a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of a Draft EIR for the Project, and circulated the NOP and initial study to the Office of Planning and Research, the County Clerk, responsible and trustee agencies, governmental agencies, organizations, and persons who may be interested in the application for a 30-day public review period.

4. The City received comments from the Native American Heritage Commission in response to the NOP.

5. After providing notice to the required tribes under Assembly Bill (AB) 52, the City received comments from the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians and the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians - Kizh Nation in accordance with the City’s obligations under AB 52.

6. The City released the Draft EIR for a 45-day public review period beginning November 12, 2021, and ending on December 27, 2021. During the public review period the City received a total of 2 comment letters on the Draft EIR that required a response, and the City has prepared responses to each comment.

Resolution No. 2022-036 - Page 2 of 7

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

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

9. On February 9, 2022 , the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga adopted Resolution No. 22- 002 approving the application and making findings in support of its decision.

10. On February 17, 2022, Lozeau Drury, LLP (“Appellant”), filed a timely appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision approving the application.

11. On April 20, 2022, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga opened a duly noticed public hearing on the appeal, conducted the public hearing, concluded the hearing on that date, and adopted this Resolution certifying the Final EIR, making findings pursuant to CEQA, and adopting an MMRP. On that same date, and by separate Resolution No. 2022-035, the City Council denied the appeal and upheld the Planning Commission’s approval of the application and made findings in support thereof.

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

B. Resolution.

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

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

2. Findings. Based upon the information and evidence set forth in the Final EIR, together with its appendices, and all other available evidence presented to the City Council during the above- referenced public hearing on April 20, 2022, including written and oral staff reports and public testimony, the City Council hereby specifically finds as follows:
a. Agencies and interested members of the public have been afforded due notice and an opportunity to comment on the EIR and the Project. b. Section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines requires that the City, before approving the Project, make one or more of the following written findings for each significant effect identified in the Final EIR accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding:

Resolution No. 2022-036 - Page 3 of 7

i. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR;
ii. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency; or
iii. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR.

These required findings are set forth in the attached Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference.
c. Environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR that are found to be less than significant and do not require mitigation are described in Section 4 of Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
d. Environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR as potentially significant, but that can be reduced to less than significant levels with mitigation, are described in Section 5 of Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. e. No environmental impacts were identified in the Final EIR as significant and unavoidable despite the imposition of all feasible mitigation measures, and a statement further confirming this conclusion is provided in Section 6 of Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
f. State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 and Public Resources Co de Section 21081.6 requires the City to prepare and adopt a mitigation monitoring and reporting program for any project for which mitigation measures have been imposed to assure compliance with the adopted mitigation measures. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program is attached hereto as Exhibit B and is hereby incorporated herein by reference. Further, the mitigation measures set forth therein are made applicable to the Project.
g. Prior to taking action on the Final EIR and approving the Project, the Planning Commission specifically finds and certifies that: (1) the Final EIR was presented to the Planning Commission; (2) the Planning Commission reviewed and considered the Final EIR and all of the information and data in the administrative record, and all oral and written testimony presented to it during meetings and hearings; (3) the Final EIR is adequate and has been completed in full compliance with CEQA; and (4) the Final EIR reflects the Planning Commission’s independent judgment and analysis.

Resolution No. 2022-036 - Page 4 of 7

h. No comments or any additional information submitted to the City have produced any substantial new information requiring additional recirculation or additional environmental review of the Project under CEQA.

3. Determination. On the basis of the foregoing and all of the evidence in the administrative record before it, the City Council hereby certifies the Final EIR, adopts findings pursuant to the CEQA as set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, and adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by reference.

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

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

Resolution No. 2022-036 - Page 5 of 7

PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 20th day of April, 2022. __________________________________
L. Dennis Michael, Mayor
ATTEST:
__________________________________
Janice C. Reynolds, City Clerk

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO ) ss

CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA )
I, Janice C. Reynolds, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, at a Regular Meeting of said City Council held on the 20th day of April, 2022.

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAINED:

Executed this 21st day of April, 2022, at Rancho Cucamonga, California. __________________________________
Janice C. Reynolds, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

__________________________________
Nicholas R. Ghirelli, City Attorney
Richards, Watson & Gershon

Resolution No. 2022-036 - Page 6 of 7

Exhibit A
CEQA Findings and Facts in Support of Findings

CANDIDATE FINDINGS OF FACT
for
Jersey Industrial Complex Project
SCH No. 2021060608
Prepared for:

City of Rancho Cucamonga
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730
C
ontact: 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

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
Jersey Industrial Complex Project Findings of Fact
January 2022 i
SECTION 1. INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................................1

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

1.2. Records of Proceedings ......................................................................................... 3

1.3. Custodian and Location of Records ....................................................................... 4

1.4. CEQA Findings of Independent Judgment, Review and Analysis ........................... 4 SECTION 2. GENERAL CEQA FINDINGS ..........................................................................................4 SECTION 3. FINDINGS REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS DETERMINED TO HAVE NO IMPACT5

3.1. Aesthetics ............................................................................................................... 6

3.2. Agriculture and Forestry Resources ....................................................................... 6

3.3. Biological Resources .............................................................................................. 7

3.4. Cultural Resources ................................................................................................. 9

3.5. Energy .................................................................................................................... 9

3.6. Geology and Soils ................................................................................................... 9

3.7. Hazards and Hazardous Materials ....................................................................... 10

3.8. Hydrology and Water Quality .............................................................................. 12

3.9. Land Use and Planning ......................................................................................... 12

3.10. Mineral Resources ............................................................................................... 13

3.11. Noise .................................................................................................................... 14

3.12. Population and Housing ....................................................................................... 14

3.13. Public Services ..................................................................................................... 14

3.14. Recreation ............................................................................................................ 15

3.15. Transportation/Traffic ......................................................................................... 15

3.16. Utilities and Service Systems ............................................................................... 16

3.17. Wildfire ................................................................................................................ 16 SECTION 4. FINDINGS REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS FOUND TO BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT (NO MITIGATION REQUIRED) ............................................................... 17

4.1. Aesthetics ............................................................................................................. 17

4.2. Air Quality ............................................................................................................ 18

4.3. Energy .................................................................................................................. 19

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Jersey Industrial Complex Project Findings of Fact
January 2022 ii

4.4. Geology and Soils ................................................................................................. 19

4.5. Greenhouse Gas Emissions .................................................................................. 21

4.6. Hazards and Hazardous Materials ....................................................................... 21

4.7. Hydrology and Water Quality .............................................................................. 22

4.8. Noise .................................................................................................................... 23

4.9. Public Services ..................................................................................................... 24

4.10. Transportation/Traffic ......................................................................................... 24

4.11. Utilities and Service Systems ............................................................................... 25

4.12. Wildfire ................................................................................................................ 26 SECTION 5. FINDINGS REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS FOUND TO BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED ..................................................... 27

5.1. Air Quality ............................................................................................................ 27

5.2. Biological Resources ............................................................................................ 29

5.3. Cultural Resources ............................................................................................... 31

5.4. Tribal Cultural Resources ..................................................................................... 33 SECTION 6. FINDINGS REGARDING ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT .......................... 36

6.1. Alternatives Considered and Rejected ................................................................ 36

6.2. Alternative Sites ................................................................................................... 37

6.3. Alternatives Selected for Further Analysis .......................................................... 37 SECTION 7. GENERAL CEQA FINDINGS ........................................................................................ 42 SECTION 8. FINDINGS REGARDING CIRCULATION ........................................................................ 44 SECTION 9. LEGAL EFFECTS OF FINDINGS .................................................................................... 45

FINDINGS OF FACT

Jersey Industrial Complex Project Findings of Fact
January 2022 1
SECTION 1. INTRODUCTION
This statement of Findings of Fact (Findings) addresses the environmental effects associated with the proposed Jersey Industrial Complex Project (Project), as described in the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR). These Findings are made pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (California Public Resources Code [PRC] § 21000 et seq.), specifically PRC §§ 21081, 21081.5, and 21081.6, and the CEQA Guidelines (14 California Code of Regulations [CCR] 15000 et seq.), specifically §§ 15091 and 15093. The Draft EIR (DEIR) examined the full range of potential effects of construction and operation of the Project and identified standard mitigation practices that could be employed to reduce, minimize, or avoid those potential effects.

In accordance with, and in furtherance of the mandates contained in California Public Resources Code Section 21002 and related case law, the Project design reflects the identification and implementation of feasible mitigation measures to lessen identified environmental impacts, and the FEIR presented information on the environmental effects of the Project, including effects that are mitigated to below a level of significance.

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

CEQA Guidelines § 15091 states, in part, that:
a) No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been certified which identifies one or more significant environmental effects of the project unless the public agency makes one or more written findings for each of those significant effects, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding.

The possible findings are:

1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorpor ated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR.

2. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Jersey Industrial Complex Project Findings of Fact
January 2022 2

3. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR.

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

Section 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines provides:
a) CEQA requires the decision-making agency to balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve the project. If the specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered "acceptable."
b) When the lead agency approves a project which w ill result in the occurrence of significant effects which are identified in the final EIR but are not avoided or substantially lessened, the agency shall state in writing the specific reasons to support its action based on the FEIR and/or other information in the record. The statement of overriding considerations shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. c) If an agency makes a statement of overriding considerations, the statement should be included in the record of the project approval and should be mentioned in the notice of determination. This statement does not substitute for, and shall be in addition to, findings required pursuant to Section 15091.

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

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

In accordance with the CEQA Statutes and Guidelines, the City adopts these Findings for the Project. Pursuant to PRC § 21082.1(c)(3), the City also finds that these Findings reflect the City’s

FINDINGS OF FACT

Jersey Industrial Complex Project Findings of Fact
January 2022 3
independent judgment as the lead agency for the Project (see Findings Section 1.4, CEQA Findings of Independent Judgment, Review and Analysis).

1.2. Records of Proceedings
For the purposes of CEQA and these Findings, the record of proceedings for the Project includes all data and materials outlined in PRC § 21167.6(e), along with other Project-relevant information contained within the City’s files. Specifically, the record of proceedings for the City’s decision on the Project includes the following documents, all of which are incorporated by reference and are relied on in supporting these Findings:
• The Notice of Preparation (NOP) and all other public notices issued by the City in conjunction with the Project.
• All written comments submitted by agencies, organizations, or members of the public during the public review comment period on the NOP.
• The DEIR for the Project and all technical appendices, technical memoranda and documents relied upon or incorporated by reference.
• All written comments s ubmitted by agencies, organizations, or members of the public during the public review comment period on the DEIR and the City’s responses to those comments, including related referenced technical materials and DEIR errata. • The FEIR for the Project.
• The MMRP for the Project.
• All reports, studies, memoranda, maps, staff reports, or other planning documents relating to the Project prepared by the City or consultants to the City with respect to the City’s compliance with the requirements of CEQA and with res pect to the City’s action on the Project.
• All documents submitted to the City by other public agencies or members of the public in connection with the DEIR.
• Any minutes and/or verbatim transcripts of all information sessions, public meetings, and public hearings held by the City in connection with the Project. • Any documentary or other evidence submitted to the City at such information sessions, public meetings, and public hearings.
• All resolutions adopted by the City regarding the Project, and all staff rep orts, analyses, and summaries related to the adoption of those resolutions. • Matters of common knowledge to the City, including, but not limited to federal, state, and local laws and regulations.
• Any documents expressly cited in these Findings, in addition to those cited above, and any other materials required for the record of proceedings by PRC § 21167.6(e).

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.

Resolution No. 2022-036 - Page 7 of 7

Exhibit B
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

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

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
ITEM G1: 4/20/2022 -ADDITIONAL MATERIAL - UPDATED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

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

7. 8.

9. 10.

The applicant shall agree to defend at his sole expense any action brought against the City, its agents, officers, or employees, because of the issuance of such approval, or in the alternative, to relinquish such approval. The applicant shall reimburse the City, its agents, officers, or employees, for any Court costs and attorney's fees which the City, its agents, officers, or employees may be required by a court to pay as a result of such action. The City may, at its sole discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense of any such action but such participation shall not relieve applicant of his obligations under this condition. In the event such legal action is filed, the City shall estimate its expenses for litigation. The applicant shall deposit such amount with the City or enter into an agreement with the City to pay such expenses as they become due.

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.

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.

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.

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

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