Indus Light Industrial Building Project

City of Chino Hills

Indus Light Industrial Building Project

Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration and Appendices A-H May 2016


Draft Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration

Prepared by:

City of Chino Hills Community Development Department

14000 City Center Drive Chino Hills, CA 91709

Contact: Eduardo Schonborn, Contract Senior Planner (909) 364-2769

Prepared with the assistance of:

Rincon Consultants, Inc. 180 North Ashwood Avenue

Ventura, California 93003

May 2016

This report is printed on 50% recycled paper.

Indus Light Industrial Building Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration

City of Chino Hills i

Table of Contents

Page

Initial Study 1. Project Title: ............................................................................................................................. 1 2. Lead Agency Name and Address ........................................................................................ 1 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: ................................................................................... 1 4. Project Location ...................................................................................................................... 1 5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address ................................................................................. 1 6. Existing Setting ....................................................................................................................... 1 7. General Plan Designation ...................................................................................................... 2 8. Zoning ...................................................................................................................................... 2 9. Description of Project ............................................................................................................. 2 10. Required Approvals ............................................................................................................... 3 11. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting .................................................................................... 4 12. Other Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required ....................................................... 4

Environmental Factors Potentially Affected .................................................................................... 11 Determination ...................................................................................................................................... 12 Environmental Checklist .................................................................................................................... 13

I. Aesthetics .......................................................................................................................... 13 II. Agriculture and Forest Resources ................................................................................. 17 III. Air Quality ........................................................................................................................ 18 IV. Biological Resources ........................................................................................................ 29 V. Cultural Resources .......................................................................................................... 37 VI. Geology and Soils ............................................................................................................ 41 VII. Greenhouse Gas Emissions ............................................................................................ 46 VIII. Hazards and Hazardous Materials ............................................................................... 56 IX. Hydrology and Water Quality ....................................................................................... 60 X. Land Use and Planning .................................................................................................. 65 XI. Mineral Resources ........................................................................................................... 66 XII. Noise .................................................................................................................................. 67 XIII. Population and Housing ................................................................................................ 79 XIV. Public Services.................................................................................................................. 81 XV. Recreation ......................................................................................................................... 84 XVI. Transportation/Traffic .................................................................................................... 85 XVII. Utilities and Service Systems ....................................................................................... 101 XVIII. Mandatory Findings of Significance ........................................................................... 106

References ........................................................................................................................................... 108 List of Figures

Figure 1 Regional Location ..................................................................................................................... 5 Figure 2 Project Location ........................................................................................................................ 6 Figure 3 Site Photos ................................................................................................................................. 7 Figure 4 Site Photos ................................................................................................................................. 8 Figure 5 Site Plan ..................................................................................................................................... 9 Figure 6 Existing Land Use in Project Vicinity .................................................................................. 10


City of Chino Hills ii

Figure 7 Views of Prominent Ridgelines ............................................................................................ 14 Figure 8 Noise Measurement and Sensitive Receptor Locations .................................................... 71 List of Tables Table 1 Project Summary .................................................................................................................... 2 Table 2 Health Effects Associated with Criteria Pollutants ......................................................... 20 Table 3 SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds .............................................................. 21 Table 4 Ambient Air Quality at the Upland Station ..................................................................... 21 Table 5 SCAQMD LSTs for Construction (SRA 33) ...................................................................... 22 Table 6 Construction Maximum Daily Air Pollutant Emissions without Mitigation ............. 26 Table 7 Maximum Daily Operational Emissions without Mitigation ........................................ 26 Table 8 Construction Maximum Daily On-Site Air Pollutant Emissions without Mitigation 28 Table 9 Project Consistency with 2006 CAP Report Greenhouse Gas Emission

Reduction Strategies ........................................................................................................... 48 Table 10 Project Consistency with 2006 CAT Report Greenhouse Gas Emission

Reduction Strategies ............................................................................................................ 50 Table 11 Project Consistency with Applicable SCAG SCS Greenhouse Gas Emission

Reduction Strategies ............................................................................................................ 53 Table 12 Estimated Construction Emissions of Greenhouse Gases with Mitigation ................. 55 Table 13 Operational Emissions of Greenhouse Gases .................................................................. 55 Table 14 Combined Annual Emissions of Greenhouse Gases ...................................................... 56 Table 15 Measured Noise Levels ...................................................................................................... 69 Table 16 Comparison Between Measured Ambient Noise and Modeled Traffic

Noise Levels ......................................................................................................................... 73 Table 17 Significance of Changes in Operational Roadway Noise Exposure ............................ 74 Table 18 Typical Noise Levels Generated by Construction Equipment ..................................... 75 Table 19 Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment ................................................... 76 Table 20 Comparison of Pre-Project and Post-Project Traffic Noise On Local Roadways ....... 78 Table 21 Estimated Project Traffic Trip Generation with PCE Conversion ................................ 86 Table 22 Existing Plus Project Peak Hour Intersection Capacity Analysis ................................. 90 Table 23 Year 2018 Peak Hour Intersection Capacity Analysis .................................................... 95 Table 24 Year 2035 Peak Hour Intersection Capacity Analysis .................................................... 97 Table 25 Estimated of Wastewater Generation ............................................................................. 102 Table 26 Normal Year Water Supply and Demand ..................................................................... 104 Table 27 Solid Waste Disposal Facilities ......................................................................................... 105 Table 28 Estimated Solid Waste Generation .................................................................................. 105 Appendices Appendix A Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Study Appendix B Biological Resources Assessment Appendix C Cultural Resources Study Appendix D Preliminary Geotechnical Assessment Appendix E Environmental Site Assessment Appendix F Water Quality Management Plan Appendix G Noise Study Appendix H Traffic Impact Analysis Report


City of Chino Hills 1

INITIAL STUDY 1. Project Title:


2. Lead Agency Name and Address:

City of Chino Hills 14000 City Center Drive Chino Hills, CA 91709

3. Contact Person and Phone Number:

Eduardo Schonborn, Contract Senior Planner (909) 364-2769

4. Project Location: The project site is located at the northeast corner of the intersection of Fairfield Ranch Road and Red Barn Court in the City of Chino Hills in San Bernardino County, California. The project site’s Assessor Parcel Numbers (APNs) are 1028-191-06 and -07. Placeholder for Figure 1 shows the location of the site within the region and Figure 2 shows the project site in its neighborhood context.

5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address Applicant: Newcastle Partners

4740 Green River Road, Suite 118 Corona, CA 92880

Owner: Indus-Chino LP 1818 N. Orange Avenue, Suite 206 Pomona, CA 91767 6. Existing Setting:

The site is a 4.87-acre (212,217 square feet) triangular-shaped parcel of land that is currently vacant and covered with natural low-lying vegetation. A barbed-wire fence is located along the east side of the site. Some exposed soil areas are present on-site as well as evidence of tractor or backhoe tracks. The northeastern portion of the project site is approximately three feet higher in elevation compared to the remainder of the site. Figures 3 and 4 provide photos of the existing project site and surrounding land uses. Historically, the project site was used for pasture and possible agriculture from as early as 1938. Possible agricultural use of the site appears to have ceased by the mid-1960s. From themid-1960s to the early 2000s the site appears to have been used as pasture for a nearby dairy. The site has been unoccupied since the early 2000s. (Arcadis, 2015)



7. General Plan Designation:

Business Park

8. Zoning: Light Industrial (LI)

9. Description of Project: The applicant is requesting the approval of Site Plan Review 15SPR01 for the development of a new 100,330 square foot warehouse building, consisting of 92,830 square feet of warehouse space and 7,500 square feet of office space. The proposed two-story building and warehouse would measure approximately 45-feet in overall height, would include loading docks along the eastern side of the building adjacent to Red Barn Court, and a total of 118 surface parking spaces provided throughout the site. Landscaping would make up approximately 18% of the project site and would be scattered throughout. Table 1 provides a summary of the project components, and Figure 5 shows the proposed site plan.

Table 1 Project Summary

Building Area Office – First Floor 5,000 sf

Office – Second Floor 2,500 sf Warehouse 92,830 sf

Total 100,330 sf (47.3 % site coverage)

Parking Stalls Standard (9’x19’) 102 stalls

Clean Air/Vanpool (9’x19’) 11 stalls Handicap (9’x19’) 5 stalls

Total 118 stalls 20,178 sf

(9.5% site coverage) Bicycle Parking

Interiors stalls 10 stalls Exterior stalls 10 stalls

Total 20 stalls Landscaping

Landscape area 20,530 sf (9.7%) Parking landscape area 16,783 sf (7.9%)

Total hardscape area 4,763 sf (2.2%)

Total 42,076 sf (19.8% site coverage)

The project is considered a “spec” building, meaning that the building would be constructed as proposed by the developer, but the property owner has not yet identified a tenant that would occupy the proposed building. As such, for the purposes of the environmental



impact analysis, Southern California Association of Government’s Employee Density Study (2001) was used to estimate the number of employees for a light industrial project on the project site; however, this study does not provide estimates specifically for a light industrial use. The options include various forms of retail, office, hotel, manufacturing, and warehouse uses. Given that approximately 93 percent of the proposed building would be used as warehouse space, the appropriate options under the land use categories are Light Manufacturing or Warehouse. A Light Manufacturing use would generate one employee per 1,538 sf, and a Warehouse use would generate one employee per 2,111 square feet. Based on these rates, it is projected that the project would generate an estimated 65 employees under Light Manufacturing or 48 employees under Warehouse (SCAG, 2001). To be conservative, the impact analysis assumes the project would generate 65 employees under the Light Manufacturing land use category. Construction. Construction of the proposed project is anticipated to start by June 2017, occurring over approximately seven months. Grading would consist of approximately 20,000 cubic yards of removal and re-compaction, with no import or export of earth material. Access and Parking. The project includes four ingress/egress driveways. Employee access would be provided by three 30-foot wide driveways, two driveways via Fairfield Ranch Road and the west driveway along Red Barn Court. Delivery and shipping trucks would access the site from the east 50-foot driveway along Red Barn Court. The project includes a total of 10 dock doors and a total of 118 parking spaces. Pursuant to the Municipal Code, one parking spot per 300 square feet of office space is required, and one parking space per 1,000 square-feet of warehouse space is required. Based on the proposed uses, 118 parking spaces are required. Water Quality and Drainage. Infiltration facilities would be utilized for onsite water quality treatment. The proposed infiltration water quality basin would be located at the southwest corner of the site where Fairfield Ranch Road and Red Barn Court intersect, and two underground infiltration chambers would be located on the west and east sides of the project site. The total volume being infiltrated by underground chambers and the infiltration basin is 23,737 cu-ft. These drainage improvements would convey and filter project-generated stormwater prior to discharge into the City’s storm drain system.

10. Required Approvals: The following entitlement is required for the proposed development: • Site Plan Review



11. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Los Serranos Lake Channel, a concrete-lined drainage facility, is adjacent to the northern boundary of the project site and separates the project site from a vacant 39.4-acre site that was entitled in April 2015 for an industrial business park and multi-family residential development. Red Barn Court is adjacent to the southern and eastern boundaries of the project site. An existing self-storage, residence, and water well are located along the south side of Red Barn Court. Various commercial and industrial developments are located to the east of the site, beyond Chino Creek. The lot directly west of the site is vacant, and there is existing business park development southwest of the site. The existing religious facility, BAPS Shri Swaminarayan Mandir, is located northwest of the site. Figure 6 shows the existing lands uses in the project site vicinity.

12. Other Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required:

The City of Chino Hills is the lead agency with responsibility for approving the proposed project. Approval from other public agencies is not required.

CITY OF CHINO

CITY OF CHINO HILLS

Project Location Figure 1City of Chino Hills

Initial Study - Mitigated Negative DeclarationIndus Light Industrial Building

_̂

Imagery provided by National Geographic Society, ESRI andits licensors © 2015. The topographic representation depictedin this map may not portray all of the features currentlyfound in the vicinity today and/or features depicted in this mapmay have changed since the original topographic map wasassembled.

Project LocationCity Boundary

±0 2,5001,250

Feet

5

Red

Barn Ct

Fairfield Ranch Rd

Project Location Figure 2City of Chino Hills


Imagery provided by Google and its licensors © 2015.±

0 15075Feet

Project Location

6

Indus Light Industrial Building ProjectInitial Study - Mitigated Negative Declaration

Existing Site Photos Figure 3City of Chino Hills

Photo 1: View of project site looking northwest from Red Barn Court.

Photo 2: View of project site looking northeast from Red Barn Court.

7


Existing Site Photos Figure 4City of Chino Hills

Photo 3: View of the project site from northeast corner facing southwest toward SR-71.

Photo 4: View of project site and adjacent storm channel from northwest corner facing east.

8

Source: Thienes Engineering, 2015. Site Plan Figure 5City of Chino Hills

Indus Light Industrial BuildingInitial Study - Mitigated Negative Declaration

/0 25 50 Feet

9

Red

Barn Ct

Fairfield Ranch Rd

ST71

ST71

Fairfield Ranch Rd

Pomona Rincon Rd

Monte Vista Ave

Red

Barn Ct

Vista Del Rio Ave SierraBo

nita L

n

Chino Creek

Los Serranos Lake Channel

Existing Land Uses in Project Vicinity Figure 6City of Chino Hills


Imagery provided by Google and its licensors © 2015.±

0 300150Feet

Project LocationRiver Channel

Vacant

Vacant StorageWarehouse

Residence

Commercial/Industrial

Commercial

Industrial

Office Park

Religious Center

10



ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is “Potentially Significant” or “Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.

□ Aesthetics □ Agriculture and Forest Resources

□ Air Quality

■ Biological Resources ■ Cultural Resources □ Geology/Soils

□ Greenhouse Gas Emissions

□ Hazards & Hazardous Materials

□ Hydrology/Water Quality

□ Land Use/Planning □ Mineral Resources □ Noise

□ Population/Housing □ Public Services □ Recreation

■ Transportation/Traffic □ Utilities/Service Systems ■ Mandatory Findings of Significance



ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

Potentially Significant

Impact


Unless Mitigation

Incorporated

Less than Significant

Impact No

Impact

I. AESTHETICS -- Would the Project:

a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? □ □ ■ □

b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? □ □ □ ■

c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? □ □ ■ □

d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? □ □ ■ □

a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Important visual resources in Chino Hills are defined in Title 16, Chapter 8 of the Chino Hills Municipal Code (CHMC). In particular, CHMC 16.08 is designed to protect public views from designated transportation corridors of “exceptionally prominent ridgelines,” which “provide the City with its distinct image and serve as the City's most recognizable skyline backdrop” (Chino Hills, 2015a). As described in CHMC 16.08.03A, Exceptionally Prominent Ridgelines, by virtue of their scale, mass, and visual presence form the limits of the most exceptional viewsheds of the City, and are typically four hundred (400) feet above their associated primary view point(s). The designated transportation corridor identified in the CHMC 16.08 closest to the project site is State Route 71. The closest exceptionally prominent ridge is at an elevation of approximately 1,200 feet and located approximately 9,900 feet southwest of the project site, which is at an elevation of 600 feet. Due its location, elevation and orientation, the proposed project would not impact this viewshed. Views of Prominent Ridgelines are also protected. As described in CHMC 16.08.03B, Prominent Ridgelines form the limits of significant viewsheds and provide a natural backdrop when viewed from primary view point(s). Although they vary considerably in scale, width, scope, length, alignment, accessibility, and relationship to adjacent land uses, they are typically two hundred (200) feet above their associated primary view point(s). The closest prominent ridge is at an elevation of 845 feet and located 7,500 feet southwest of the project site, which is at an elevation of 600 feet (see Figure 7). The project site and abutting properties are flat and are not located on a ridgeline.

Views of Prominent Ridgelines Figure 7Rincon Consultants, Inc.


Imagery provided by ESRI and its licensors © 2016.Ridgeline Data Source: Chino Hills, 2015.

±0 7,0003,500Scale in Feet ±

Closest Prominent RidgeDistance From Site: 7,500 FtRidge Elevation: 845 Ft

Closest Exceptoinally Prominent RidgeDistance From Site: 9,900 FtRidge Elevation: 1,200 Ft

RidgelinesExceptionally ProminentProminent

Elevation: 600 FtProject Site

14



The proposed project would convert a vacant site to an industrial land use consisting of a two-story light industrial building that would also include loading docks, office space, parking areas, and landscaping. The exceptionally prominent ridgelines and prominent ridgelines of Chino Hills State Park to the west and southwest are visible from the project site. Views of the ridgelines from east of the project site would be from an existing commercial and industrial development located over 400 feet to the east of Chino Creek in the City of Chino. As shown in Figure 7, the elevation of the project site and surrounding development is approximately 600 feet. The ridgeline elevations in the Chino Hills State Park closest to the project site range from 845 feet to 1,200 feet, and are located over a mile southwest of the project site. Given the distance of the project area from the ridgelines and the 45-foot height of the proposed building, the proposed project is not anticipated to obstruct westward scenic views of the ridgelines and knolls in Chino Hills State Park from the existing development in the City of Chino. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on scenic vistas.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT b) Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? In its current state, the project site has been recently disturbed by discing. There are no structures, trees or natural vegetation communities on site; thus, it does not contain scenic resources such as designated heritage trees, rock outcroppings, or structures that may be historic resources. Refer to Figures 3 and 4 for the existing site conditions. As discussed in Section IV, Biological Resources, the site is currently fallow and dominated by scattered ruderal, non-native, annual species. Further, the project site is not within view of a state scenic highway, as there are no scenic highways in the city and State Route 71 is not listed as eligible for such a designation (Caltrans, 2012). Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact on scenic resources. NO IMPACT c) Would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? The proposed project would alter the existing visual character of the site through construction of a two-story building, with a docking area, parking area surrounding the building, and landscaping. The current visual character of the project site is unremarkable, as it is a vacant fallow lot without any structures or distinctive visual characteristics. Although the project would alter the existing visual character and quality of the site, it would not substantially degrade the site or its surroundings because surrounding commercial and industrial developments are similar in design and intensity. Further, the project would add landscaping in the parking areas that would surround south, east and west sides of the proposed building. The proposed maximum building height of 45 feet would be similar to, or incrementally lower than, the heights of similar industrial buildings in the surrounding area. Therefore, the impact on visual character would be less than significant. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT



d) Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? The proposed project would introduce new sources of light and glare to the project site. New lighting would be typical of industrial uses in the vicinity of the project site. Project lighting would not have a significant impact on the night sky, as it would only incrementally add to the existing background light levels already present as a result of the surrounding institutional, residential, industrial, and commercial development. New sources of glare would include headlights from cars entering and leaving the site at night, as well as windows on cars and buildings, which could reflect sunlight during certain times of the day. To the east, the existing business park development is over 400 feet away and separated by Chino Creek; to the northwest, the BAPS Shri Swaminarayan Mandir (private institutional use) is set back from Fairfield Ranch Road and is approximately 300 feet from the project site; and to the south, the storage facility is the surrounding by a concrete wall. Lands directly to the north and west are vacant. These land uses would not be affected by new sources light and glare; however, the single-family residence across from the southwest end of the project site may be affected. The proposed parking area combined with the width of the road would create a buffer so that the residence would be approximately 200 feet from the proposed building. Based on the proposed landscape plan, trees would line the boundaries of the project site, which also would reduce light and glare impacts to this residence. In addition, as required by the performance standards in the City’s Development Code, for new development project, “all lights and glare associated with operations and illuminated signs shall be shielded or directed so as to not illuminate adjacent properties or cause glare to motorist” (CHMC 16.08.040). Adherence to the City’s municipal code requirements would reduce potential light and glare impacts to a less than significant level. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT




Impact


Unless Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No

Impact II. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST

RESOURCES -- In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment Project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. -- Would the project:

a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, 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? □ □ □ ■

b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? □ □ □ ■

c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))? □ □ □ ■

d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? □ □ □ ■

e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? □ □ □ ■



a) Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, 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? b) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))? d) Would the project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? e) Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? Historically, the project site was used for pasture and possible agriculture from as early as 1938. Possible agricultural use of the site appears to have ceased by the mid-1960s. From the mid-1960s to the early 2000s the Site appears to have been used for pasture for a nearby dairy. The site has been unoccupied since the early 2000s. (Arcadis, 2015) The State of California’s Important Farmland Finder identifies the project site as “Other Land” and surrounded primarily by “Urban and Built-up Land” with a small patch of “Prime Farmland” directly to the north of the site (California Department of Conservation, 2015). The project site is zoned as “Business Park” in the Chino Hills 2015 General Plan. Land surrounding the proposed project site is zoned as “Business Park”, “Institutional/Private” and “Commercial.” There is no agricultural zoning or Williamson Act contract adjacent to the site (Chino Hills, 2015b). Consequently, the proposed project would have no effect on Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance nor would it conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract (California Department of Conservation, 2015). Neither the project site nor surrounding areas contain any forest land or timberland; therefore, the project would not result in the rezoning, conversion, or loss of forest land. The proposed project would not involve changes in the existing environment that would result in the conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use. As such, the proposed project would have no impact upon agricultural or forest resources. NO IMPACT


Impact


Unless Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No

Impact III. AIR QUALITY

-- Would the project:

a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? □ □ ■ □

b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or □ □ ■ □




Impact


Unless Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No

Impact III. AIR QUALITY


projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net

increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? □ □ ■ □

d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? □ □ ■ □

e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? □ □ ■ □

Rincon Consultants, Inc. prepared an Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Study for the proposed project in November 2015. The complete study is contained in Appendix A. The following analysis is based on the results of this study. The project site is within the South Coast Air Basin (the Basin), which is under the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). As the local air quality management agency, the SCAQMD is required to monitor air pollutant levels to ensure that state and federal air quality standards are met and, if they are not met, to develop strategies to meet the standards. Depending on whether or not the standards are met or exceeded, the Basin is classified as being in “attainment” or “nonattainment.” The health effects associated with criteria pollutants upon which attainment of state and federal air quality standards is measured are described in Table 2.



Table 2 Health Effects Associated with Criteria Pollutants

Pollutant Adverse Effects1

Ozone (O3)

(a) Pulmonary function decrements and localized lung edema in humans and animals; (b) Risk to public health implied by alterations in pulmonary morphology and host defense in animals; (c) Increased mortality risk; (d) Risk to public health implied by altered connective tissue metabolism and altered pulmonary morphology in animals after long-term exposures and pulmonary function decrements in chronically exposed humans; (e) Vegetation damage; (f) Property damage

Carbon monoxide (CO)

(a) Aggravation of angina pectoris and other aspects of coronary heart disease; (b) Decreased exercise tolerance in persons with peripheral vascular disease and lung disease; (c) Impairment of central nervous system functions; (d) Possible increased risk to fetuses

Nitrogen dioxide (NO2)

(a) Potential to aggravate chronic respiratory disease and respiratory symptoms in sensitive groups; (b) Risk to public health implied by pulmonary and extra-pulmonary biochemical and cellular changes and pulmonary structural changes; (c) Contribution to atmospheric discoloration

Sulfur dioxide (SO2)

Bronchoconstriction accompanied by symptoms that may include wheezing, shortness of breath, and chest tightness during exercise or physical activity in persons with asthma

Suspended particulate matter (PM10) (a) Exacerbation of symptoms in sensitive patients with respiratory or cardiovascular

disease; (b) Decline in pulmonary function or growth in children; (c) Increased risk of premature death Suspended

particulate matter (PM2.5)

Source: SCAQMD 2012 Air Quality Management Plan, February 2013 1 More detailed health effect information can be found in the 2012 AQMP Appendix I or the U.S. EPA NAAQS documentation at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/

The Basin is designated as nonattainment for the federal and state one-hour and eight-hour ozone standards, the state PM10 standards, and the federal and state PM2.5 standard. Thus, the Basin currently exceeds state and federal ambient air quality standards for these pollutants and is required to implement strategies to reduce pollutant levels to acceptable standards. This non-attainment status is a result of several factors, the primary ones being the naturally adverse meteorological conditions that limit the dispersion and diffusion of pollutants, the limited capacity of the local airshed to eliminate air pollutants, and the number, type, and density of emission sources within the Basin. The SCAQMD has adopted an Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) that provides a strategy for the attainment of state and federal air quality standards. The SCAQMD recommends the use of quantitative thresholds to determine the significance of temporary construction-related pollutant emissions and project operations. These thresholds are shown in Table 3.

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/



Table 3 SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds

Pollutant Mass Daily Thresholds

Operation Thresholds Construction Thresholds

NOX 55 lbs/day 100 lbs/day

ROG1 55 lbs/day 75 lbs/day

PM10 150 lbs/day 150 lbs/day

PM2.5 55 lbs/day 55 lbs/day

SOX 150 lbs/day 150 lbs/day

CO 550 lbs/day 550 lbs/day

Lead 3 lbs/day 3 lbs/day

1 Reactive Organic Gases (ROG) are formed during combustion and evaporation of organic solvents. ROG are also referred to as Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC). Source: SCAQMD, 2015.

Table 4 shows the ambient air quality concentrations for ozone, particular matter, and carbon monoxide near the project site. The closest air quality monitoring station to the project site in San Bernardino County is the Upland Station.

Table 4 Ambient Air Quality at the Upland Station

Source: CARB, 2015 * = insufficient data available

Pollutant 2012 2013 2014 Ozone, ppm - maximum hourly concentration (ppm) 0.136 0.143 0.126

Number of days of state exceedance (>0.09 ppm) 4 3 1 Ozone, ppm – maximum 8-hour average 0.111 0.111 0.101

Number of days of state 8-hour average exceedance (>0.070 ppm) 66 44 60

Number of days of federal 8-hour average exceedance (>0.075 ppm) 45 27 42

Particulate Matter <10 microns, maximum 24-hour average concentration in µg/m3 92.7 96.8 80.8

Number of state 24-hour average exceedance (>50 µg/m3) sampled/calculated * * *

Number of federal 24-hour average exceedance (>150 µg/m3 ) sampled/calculated * * *

Particulate Matter <2.5 microns, maximum 24-hour average concentration in µg/m3 40.3 83,2 40.0

Number of federal 24-hour exceedances (65 µg/m3) * * * Carbon Monoxide, ppm – maximum 8-hour average Number of days above state 8-hour average exceedance (>9 ppm)

0.93 0

* 0

* 0



In addition to the above thresholds, the SCAQMD has developed Localized Significance Thresholds (LSTs) in response to the Governing Board’s Environmental Justice Enhancement Initiative (1-4), which was prepared to update the CEQA Air Quality Handbook. LSTs were devised in response to concerns regarding exposure of individuals to criteria pollutants in local communities. LSTs represent the maximum emissions from a project that will not cause or contribute to an air quality exceedance of the most stringent applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard at the nearest sensitive receptor, taking into consideration ambient concentrations in each source receptor area (SRA), project size, and distance to the sensitive receptor, etc. However, LSTs only apply to emissions within a fixed stationary location, including idling emissions during both project construction and operation. LSTs have been developed for NOX, CO, PM10 and PM2.5. LSTs do not apply to mobile sources such as cars on a roadway (SCAQMD, 2003). As such, LSTs for operational emissions do not apply to on-site development, as the majority of emissions would be generated by cars on the roadways. LSTs have been developed for emissions within areas up to five acres in size, with air pollutant modeling recommended for activity within larger areas. The SCAQMD provides lookup tables for project sites that measure one, two, or five acres. The proposed project involves a 4.87-acre parcel of land and is therefore measured against the five-acre LST threshold for construction emissions. According to the SCAQMD’s publication, Final Localized Significant Thresholds Methodology, the use of LSTs is voluntary, to be implemented at the discretion of local agencies. LSTs for construction on a 5-acre site are provided for receptors at a distance of 82 to 1,640 feet from the project site boundary. According to the SCAQMD’s publication Final Localized Significant (LST) Thresholds Methodology, projects with boundaries located closer than 82 feet to the nearest receptor should use the LSTs for receptors located at 82 feet. The construction thresholds for SCAQMD LSTs is shown below in Table 5.

Table 5 SCAQMD LSTs for Construction (SRA 33)

Pollutant

Allowable Emissions (lbs/day) from a 5-acre Site as a Function of Receptor Distance from Site Boundary

82 feet 164 feet 328 feet 656 feet 1,640 feet

Gradual conversion of NOX to NO2

270 303 378 486 778

CO 2,193 2,978 5,188 9,611 29,410

PM10 16 50 80 140 322

PM2.5 9 12 21 45 170

Source: SCAQMD, 2009.

SCAQMD recommends a local CO hotspot analysis if an intersection meets one of the following criteria:

1) The intersection is at Levels of Service (LOS) D or worse and where the project increases the volume to capacity ratio by 2 percent; or

2) The project decreases LOS at an intersection to D or worse.



A CO hotspot is a localized concentration of CO that is above the state or national 1-hour or 8-hour CO ambient air standards. Localized CO “hotspots” can occur at intersections with heavy peak hour traffic. Specifically, hotspots can be created at intersections where traffic levels are sufficiently high such that the local CO concentration exceeds the federal AAQS of 35.0 parts per million (ppm) or the state AAQS of 20.0 ppm. a) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Vehicle use, energy consumption, and associated air pollutant emissions are directly related to population growth. A project may be inconsistent with the AQMP if it would generate population, housing, or employment growth exceeding the forecasts used in the development of the AQMP. The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) projects that the population of Chino Hills will be 78,400 by 2035 (SCAG, 2012), an increase of 804 persons over the current City population of 77,596 (California Department of Finance, 2015). According to the City of Chino Hills General Plan Update Final Program Environmental Impact Report (FEIR), certified in February 2015 (SCH# 2013051082), buildout of the City’s General Plan Update would result in a population of 94,895 by 2035 (Chino Hills, 2015c). This estimate exceeds SCAG’s 2035 growth forecast for the City by 16,495 people. The 2012 RTP/SCS forecast was developed before the City completed the current land use inventory developed in support of the proposed General Plan Update. SCAG growth forecasts are periodically updated as part of recurring updates of the RTP/SCS. The next update will address the 2016-2040 planning horizon and at that time, the City’s current General Plan forecasts will be incorporated into the updated SCAG and SCAQMD forecasts, so that there will be consistency between the local and regional forecasts. Because the current difference between the SCAG 2012 RTP and Chino Hills General Plan growth forecasts for 2035 will be reconciled in the near future, the General Plan Update FEIR considered impacts with respect to consistency with the AQMP as less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measure LU-1, which requires the City to coordinate with SCAG on future growth forecast efforts as part of subsequent RTP update cycles (Chino Hills, 2015c). The project would not directly generate population growth in Chino Hills, but could cause an indirect increase in population through the creation of jobs. SCAG’s Employee Density Study (2001) states that in San Bernardino County, light manufacturing would generate one employee per 1,538 sf (SCAG, 2001). Based on this rate, the project would generate an estimated 65 employees. Most of these employees would likely be drawn from the local or regional work force, but even if all 65 employees relocated to Chino Hills to fill new jobs, this increase would not exceed General Plan growth forecasts or generate emissions outside AQMP forecasts. Population growth would be within the SCAG and the City’s population growth forecasts, and the project would be consistent with the AQMP. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT b) Would the project violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation?



c) Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? The South Coast Air Basin is a non-attainment area for the federal and state standards for ozone and PM2.5 and the state standards for NO2 and PM10. Any growth within the Los Angeles metropolitan area would contribute to existing exceedances of ambient air quality standards when taken as a whole with existing development. Cumulative impacts to air quality are evaluated under two sets of thresholds for CEQA and the SCAQMD. The SCAQMD’s approach to determining cumulative air quality impacts for criteria air pollutants is to first determine whether or not the proposed project would result in a significant project-level impact to regional air quality based on SCAQMD significance thresholds. If the project does not exceed SCAQMD thresholds, then the lead agency needs to consider the additive effects of related projects only if the proposed project is part of an ongoing regulatory program or is contemplated in a program EIR, and the related projects are located within an approximately one mile of the project site. If there are related projects within the vicinity (one-mile radius) of the project site that are part of an ongoing regulatory program or are contemplated in a program EIR, then the additive effect of the related projects should be considered. The proposed project is not part of an ongoing regulatory program; therefore, the SCAQMD recommends that project-specific air quality impacts be used to determine the potential cumulative impacts to regional air quality. The proposed project would generate project-specific temporary construction emissions and long-term operational emissions and are discussed below. Construction Emissions

Construction of the proposed project would generate temporary air pollutant emissions. These impacts are associated with fugitive dust (PM10 and PM2.5) and exhaust emissions from heavy construction vehicles and soil hauling trucks, in addition to ROG that would be released during the drying phase upon application of architectural coatings. Construction would generally consist of site preparation, grading, erection of the proposed buildings, paving, and architectural coating. Emissions were calculated using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod). The grading phase involves the greatest amount of heavy equipment and the greatest generation of fugitive dust. For the purposes of construction emissions modeling, it was assumed that the project would 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 required to reduce fugitive dust in compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403, were included in CalEEMod for the 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.

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.

The architectural coating phase involves the greatest release of ROG. The emissions modeling also includes the use of low-VOC paint (150 g/L for nonflat coatings) as required by SCAQMD Rule 1113. Table 6 summarizes the estimated maximum daily emissions of pollutants during the construction period with compliance with the above described requirements, but without any additional mitigation.



Table 6 Construction Maximum Daily Air Pollutant Emissions

without Mitigation (lbs/day)1

Construction Year2 Estimated Emissions (lbs/day)

ROG NOx CO PM10 PM2.5 SOX

2016 Maximum lbs/day 19.4 54.7 42.3 21.2 12.7 <0.1

2017 Maximum lbs/day 19.0 30.9 26.8 3.0 2.1 <0.1

SCAQMD Thresholds 75 100 550 150 55 150

Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No

Notes: All calculations were made using CalEEMod. See Appendix A for calculations. Site Preparation, Grading, Paving, Building Construction and Architectural Coating totals include worker trips, soil export hauling trips, construction vehicle emissions and fugitive dust. N/A = Not applicable 1 Daily maximum occurred during summer for NOx, PM10, and PM2.5 and during winter for ROG, CO, and SOx. 2 Grading phases incorporate anticipated emissions reductions from the conditions listed above, which are required by SCAQMD Rule 403 to reduce fugitive dust. Architectural coating during construction incorporates compliance with SCAQMD Rule 1113, which requires use of the use of low-VOC paint (150 g/L for nonflat coatings).

As shown in Table 6, emissions would not exceed SCAQMD thresholds for any pollutant, assuming adherence to the conditions listed above required by SCAQMD Rule 403. Less Than Significant Impact Long-Term Emissions

Operational Air Pollutant Emissions

Operational emissions associated with the proposed project were estimated using CalEEMod and are shown in Table 7.

Table 7 Maximum Daily Operational Emissions without Mitigation1

Emissions Source2 Estimated Emissions (lbs/day)

ROG NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5

Area 3.6 <0.1 <0.1 0.0 <0.1 <0.1

Energy 0.1 0.9 0.8 <0.1 0.1 0.1

Mobile 3.0 11.0 39.5 0.1 6.7 1.9

Total Emissions (lbs/day) 6.6 11.9 40.3 0.1 6.8 2.0

SCAQMD Thresholds 55 55 550 150 150 55

Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No Source: Calculations were made in CalEEMod, see Appendix A for full model output. Note: Numbers may not add up due to rounding. 1 Daily maximum occurred during summer for NOx, PM10, and PM2.5 and during winter for ROG, CO, and SOx. 2 Architectural coating during operation incorporates compliance with SCAQMD Rule 1113, which requires use of low-VOC paint (150 g/L for nonflat coatings).



Carbon Monoxide Hotspot Analysis

Areas with high vehicle density, such as congested intersections, have the potential to create high concentrations of carbon monoxide (CO), known as CO hotspots. A project’s localized air quality impact is considered significant if CO emissions create a hotspot where either the California one-hour standard of 20 ppm or the federal and state eight-hour standard of 9.0 ppm is exceeded. This typically occurs at severely congested intersections (level of service [LOS] E or worse). The traffic impact analysis prepared by LLG (LLG, 2015) for the project indicates that 13 key intersections of the project would continue to operate at LOS D or better during the weekday peak hours in both the morning and evening with the addition of the project traffic, and the project would not increase the volume to capacity ratio by two percent at intersections at LOS D or worse. Under cumulative conditions in year 2018, with implementation of Mitigation Measure T-1, the addition of project traffic would not cause the LOS of any intersections to change to E or F, nor would it increase the V/C by two percent or more at an intersection rated as LOS D under existing conditions. In addition, Table 7 indicates that project operation emissions of CO, including project vehicle trips, would be approximately 40 lbs per day, which is substantially below the SCAQMD threshold of 550 lbs per day for operational emissions. Ambient CO levels are extremely low, as indicated by Table 4, which shows that the maximum CO emissions in 2012 for the 8-hour average was 0.93 ppm, significantly below the state standard of 9 ppm. Moreover, the closest sensitive receiver is one residence located across the street from the project site, approximately 200-feet from the proposed building. Thus, the project would not result in a CO hotspot and the impact is considered less than significant. As discussed above, daily emissions of construction-related pollutants would not exceed SCAQMD significance thresholds. The proposed project would result in an increase in daily operational emissions; however, this increase would not exceed the SCAQMD thresholds. In addition, project traffic would not create a CO hot spot at study area intersections. By applying the SCAQMD cumulative air quality impact methodology, implementation of the proposed project would not result in an addition of criteria pollutants such that cumulative impacts, in conjunction with related projects, would occur. Because the proposed project would not generate emissions that exceed the SCAQMD’s thresholds and the project is consistent with the AQMP, the project would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution with regard to criteria pollutants. Therefore the project’s contribution to cumulative regional air quality impacts would not be cumulatively considerable and impacts would be less than significant. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT d) Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? The SCAQMD developed LSTs in response to concern regarding exposure of individuals to criteria pollutants in local communities. LSTs represent the maximum emissions from a project that will not cause or contribute to an air quality exceedance of the most stringent applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard at the nearest sensitive receptor, taking into consideration ambient concentrations in each source receptor area (SRA), project size, and distance to the sensitive receptor.



The California Air Resources Board’s (ARB’s) Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective (April 2005) recommends against siting sensitive receptors within 500 feet of a freeway, urban roads with 100,000 vehicles/day, or rural roads with 50,000 vehicles/day. However, the proposed project includes development of a light industrial building, which is not a sensitive receptor. Further, as shown in Table 8, with adherence to SCAQMD Rule 403, estimated on-site construction emissions would not exceed LSTs related to ROG, NOX, CO, PM10 and PM2.5, and SOX. The closest sensitive receptor is the single-family structure at the corner of Fairfield Ranch Road and Red Barn Court that is a caretaker’s unit for the existing self storage use. The home is located at the southeast corner of the intersection of Fairfield Ranch Road and Red Barn Court, approximately 50 feet south of the southwest boundary of the project site (200 feet from the proposed building). There is also a mobile home park 400 feet to the southeast of the project site. As the emissions would not exceed LSTs, impacts to sensitive receptors would be less than significant. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

Table 8 Construction Maximum Daily On-Site Air Pollutant Emissions

without Mitigation (lbs/day)1

Construction Year2 Estimated Emissions (lbs/day)

ROG NOx CO PM10 PM2.5 SOX

2016 Maximum On-site lbs/day 3.4 28.5 18.5 2.0 1.8 <0.1

2017 Maximum On-site lbs/day 3.1 26.4 18.1 1.8 1.7 <0.1

Local Significance Thresholds3 (LSTs) (On-site only) N/A 270 2,193 16 9 N/A

Threshold Exceeded? N/A No No No No N/A

Notes: All calculations were made using CalEEMod. See the Appendix A for calculations. Site Preparation, Grading, Paving, Building Construction, and Architectural Coating totals include worker trips, soil export hauling trips, construction vehicle emissions, and fugitive dust. N/A = Not applicable 1 Daily maximum occurred during summer for NOx, PM10, and PM2.5 and during winter for ROG, CO, and SOx. 2 Grading phases incorporate anticipated emissions reductions from the conditions listed above, which are required by SCAQMD Rule 403 to reduce fugitive dust. Architectural coating during construction incorporates compliance with SCAQMD Rule 1113, which requires use of the use of low-VOC paint (150 g/L for nonflat coatings). 3 LSTs are for a project in SRA-33 within a distance of 82 feet from the site boundary.

e) Would the project create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? The proposed project includes light industrial uses. While there is potential for odors associated with construction, such as diesel-fueled vehicle exhaust or VOCs from construction chemicals or materials, the closest sensitive receptor is the single-family residence located across the street from the southwest corner of the project site. However, a parking area and stormwater detention basin would be located at the corner of Fairfield Ranch Road and Red Barn Court that would create a buffer between the street and the proposed building. Further, combined with the width of the road, the existing residence would be approximately 200 feet from the proposed building. Additionally, the project site is zoned as “LI light Industrial” in the City of Chino Hills



Zoning map, and is located in an area that is dominated by commercial and industrial uses, so a substantial number of sensitive people or residents would not be affected by potential odors. As such, this impact would be less than significant. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT


Impact


Unless Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No

Impact

IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES


a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? □ ■ □ □

b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? □ □ □ ■

c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? □ □ □ ■

d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? □ □ □ ■

e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? □ ■ □ □

f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? □ □ □ ■



In November of 2015, Rincon Consultants, Inc. conducted a Biological Resources Assessment, including a literature review and field reconnaissance survey to document existing site conditions and the potential presence of special-status biological resources, including plant and wildlife species, plant communities, jurisdictional waters and wetlands, and habitat for nesting birds. The following summarizes the findings of the assessment. The complete Biological Resources Assessment is contained in Appendix B. The project site is undeveloped and has been recently disturbed by discing. Based on a review of historic aerial photographs, the site has been routinely disced and disturbed since at least 1994. Soils on-site consist of Chino silt loam (USDA, 2015). One vegetation community or land cover type was mapped within the project site: row crops (fallow). The site is currently fallow and dominated by scattered ruderal, non-native, annual species such as cheeseweed (Malva parviflora), red stemmed filaree (Erodium cicutarium), pigweed (Amaranthus albus), milk thistle (Silybum marianum)), and Russian thistle (Salsola tragus). A cluster of large castorbean (Ricinus communis) shrubs is located in the northeast corner of the site. The project site provides minimal habitat for wildlife as it is dominated by low-growing ruderal vegetation and surrounded by paved roadways. Avian species observed/detected on or adjacent to the site include mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), Canada goose (Branta canadensis), common raven (Corvus corax), and Say’s phoebe (Sayornis saya). Avian species were observed flying overhead and roosting on fence posts at the northern project boundary. One reptilian species, western fence lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis), was also observed on-site. a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? The potential presence of sensitive species is based on a literature review and field survey designed to assess habitat suitability only. The findings and opinions conveyed in this report are based on this methodology. Sensitive Biological Resources

This analysis discusses sensitive biological resources observed on the project site, and evaluates the potential for the project site to support other sensitive biological resources.

Special Status Species

Local, state, and federal agencies regulate special status species and generally require an assessment of their presence or potential presence to be conducted on-site prior to the approval of proposed development on a property. Assessments for the potential occurrence of special status species are based upon known ranges, habitat preferences for the species, species occurrence records from the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), species occurrence records from other sites in the vicinity of the survey area, and previous reports for the project site. The potential for each special status species to occur in the survey area was evaluated according to the following criteria:

• No Potential. Habitat on and adjacent to the site is clearly unsuitable for the species requirements (foraging, breeding, cover, substrate, elevation, hydrology, plant community, site history, disturbance regime).



• Low Potential. Few of the habitat components meeting the species requirements are present, and/or the majority of habitat on and adjacent to the site is unsuitable or of very poor quality. The species is not likely to be found on the site.

• Moderate Potential. Some of the habitat components meeting the species requirements are present, and/or only some of the habitat on or adjacent to the site is unsuitable. The species has a moderate probability of being found on the site.

• High Potential. All of the habitat components meeting the species requirements are present and/or most of the habitat on or adjacent to the site is highly suitable. The species has a high probability of being found on the site.

• Present. The species is observed on the site or has been recorded (e.g., CNDDB, other reports) on the site recently (within the last 5 years).

The CNNDB has records for eight sensitive plant species, five sensitive plant communities, and 11 sensitive wildlife species within five miles of the project site. However, sensitive plant and wildlife species typically have specific habitat requirements, none of which are found on the project site.

Special Status Plant Species

The project site primarily consists of recently disced fallow agricultural land and is dominated by scattered ruderal, non-native, annual species. Because of historic and existing disturbance from discing and prevalence of non-native species, the site is not suitable for special status plant species.

Special Status Wildlife Species

Low quality foraging habitat is present on-site for golden eagle, Swainson’s hawk, and long-eared owl; however, there are no trees on-site and the castor bean bushes on-site would not provide suitable nesting habitat for these species. Because no potential nesting habitat is present on-site, direct impacts to the species would not occur. The proposed project may result in indirect impacts to golden eagle, Swainson’s hawk and long-eared owl through the removal of foraging habitat. However, the existing foraging habitat is low in quality due to the project site’s history of frequent disturbance and location surrounded by existing development and heavily travelled transportation corridors. Therefore, potential impacts to these species would be less than significant, and no further actions are recommended for Swainson’s hawk or long-eared owl.

Marginally suitable foraging and nesting habitat for burrowing owl is present on-site due to the presence of open agricultural fields with existing California ground squirrel burrows. No burrowing owl individuals, burrows, or sign (e.g., white wash, feathers, pellets) were observed on-site. Furthermore, California ground squirrel burrows on-site were minimal and no California ground squirrel individuals were observed on-site. Therefore, the potential for occurrence of burrowing owl is low. In addition, the project site has a history of frequent disturbance and is surrounded by existing development and heavily travelled transportation corridors. These factors further reduce the habitat quality and potential for occurrence for burrowing owl. Nevertheless, due to the presence of elements of marginally suitable habitat, the potential for burrowing owl occurrence on the project site cannot be ruled out. Therefore,



Mitigation Measure BIO-1 would be required to assure avoidance of impacts to the species prior to construction.

Nesting Birds

Nesting birds are protected by CFGC 3503 and the MBTA. Ornamental shrubs (i.e., castor bean) that could provide suitable nesting habitat for several common avian species occur within the northeast corner of the project site. Because the proposed project would result in the removal of shrubs on-site, Mitigation Measure BIO-2 would be required to reduce impacts to nesting birds to a less than significant level.

The following mitigation is required to reduce construction impacts to special status species and nesting birds to a less than significant level:

BIO-1 Burrowing Owl Survey. To assure avoidance of impacts to the species prior to construction, a qualified wildlife biologist shall conduct pre-construction surveys of the permanent and temporary impact areas to locate active breeding or wintering burrowing owl burrows no more than 14 days prior to construction. The survey methodology will be consistent with the methods outlined in the CDFW Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (2012). The results of the pre-construction surveys shall be documented and filed with the City’s Community Development Department within five days after the survey. If no active breeding or wintering owls are identified, no further mitigation is required.

If burrowing owls are detected onsite, the following mitigation measures shall be implemented in accordance with the CDFW Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (2012):

• A qualified wildlife biologist shall be on-site during initial ground-disturbing activities. A “qualified biologist” for the purpose of this mitigation is defined as individuals who meet the following minimum qualifications: o Familiarity with the species and its local ecology; o Experience conducting habitat assessments and non-breeding and

breeding season surveys, or experience with these surveys conducted under the direction of an experienced surveyor;

o Familiarity with the appropriate state and federal statutes related to burrowing owls, scientific research, and conservation;

o Experience with analyzing impacts of development on burrowing owls and their habitat.

• No ground-disturbing activities shall be permitted within a buffer no less than 200 meters (656 feet) from an active burrow, depending on the level of disturbance, unless otherwise authorized by CDFW. Occupied burrows will not be disturbed during the nesting season (February 1 to August 31), unless a qualified biologist verifies through noninvasive methods that either: (1) the birds have not begun egg-laying and incubation; or (2) juveniles from the occupied burrows are foraging independently and are capable of independent survival.

• During the nonbreeding (winter) season (September 1 to January 31), ground-disturbing work can proceed near active burrows as long as the work



occurs no closer than 50 meters (165 feet) from the burrow, depending on the level of disturbance, and the site is not directly affected by the project activity. A smaller buffer may be established in consultation with CDFW. If active winter burrows are found that would be directly affected by ground-disturbing activities, owls can be excluded from winter burrows according to recommendations made in the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (2012) (i.e., through installation of one-way doors).

• Burrowing owls shall not be excluded from burrows unless or until a Burrowing Owl Exclusion Plan is developed based on the recommendations made in the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (2012). The Burrowing Owl Exclusion Plan shall be prepared by a qualified biologist and submitted to the City of Chino Hills and local CDFW office for review and approval. The plan shall include, at a minimum: o Confirmation by site surveillance that the burrow(s) is empty of

burrowing owls and other species; o Type of scope to be used and appropriate timing of scoping; o Occupancy factors to look for and what shall guide determination of

vacancy and excavation timing; o Methods for burrow excavation; o Removal of other potential owl burrow surrogates or refugia on-site; o Methods for photographic documentation of the excavation and closure

of the burrow; o Monitoring of the site to evaluate success and, if needed, to implement

remedial measures to prevent subsequent owl use to avoid take; o Methods for assuring the impacted site shall continually be made

inhospitable to burrowing owls and fossorial mammals. • Compensatory mitigation for lost breeding and/or wintering habitat shall be

implemented on-site or off-site through implementation of a Mitigation Land Management Plan based on the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (CDFW 2012) guidance. The Mitigation Land Management Plan shall be prepared by a qualified biologist and submitted to the City of Chino Hills and local CDFW office for review and approval. The plan shall include the following components, at a minimum: o Temporarily disturbed habitat on the project site shall be restored, if

feasible, to pre-project conditions, including decompacting soil and revegetating;

o Permanent impacts to nesting, occupied and satellite burrows and/or burrowing owl habitat shall be mitigated such that the habitat acreage, number of burrows and burrowing owl impacted are replaced based on a site-specific analysis which includes conservation of similar vegetation communities comparable to or better than that of the impact area, and with sufficiently large acreage, and presence of fossorial mammals;

o Mitigation land acreage shall not exceed the size of the project site; o Permanently protect mitigation land through a conservation easement

deeded to a nonprofit conservation organization or public agency with a conservation mission. If the project is located within the service area of a



CDFW approved burrowing owl conservation bank, the project operator may purchase available burrowing owl conservation bank credits.

o Fund the maintenance and management of mitigation land through the establishment of a long-term funding mechanism such as an endowment.

o Mitigation lands shall be on, adjacent or proximate to the impact site where possible and where habitat is sufficient to support burrowing owls present.

BIO-2 Nesting Birds. If project clearing and construction must occur during the avian nesting season (February to September), a survey for active nests must be conducted by a qualified biologist, one to two weeks prior to the activities to determine the presence/absence, location, and status of any active nests on or adjacent to the project site. If no active nests are discovered or identified, no further mitigation is required. In the event that active nests are discovered on-site, a suitable buffer determined by the qualified biologist (e.g. 30-50 feet for passerines) should be established around such active nests. No ground disturbing activities shall occur within this buffer until the biologist has confirmed that breeding/nesting is completed and the young have fledged the nest. Limits of construction to avoid a nest site shall be established in the field by a qualified biologist with flagging and stakes or construction fencing. Construction personnel shall be instructed regarding the ecological sensitivity of the fenced area. The results of the survey shall be documented and filed with the Community Development Director within five days after the survey.

Implementation of mitigation measures BIO-1 and BIO-2 would reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level. POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT UNLESS MITIGATION INCORPORATED b) 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, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? The project site does not contain potentially jurisdictional drainages or wetlands. The project site abuts an existing county-maintained concrete-lined municipal storm water channel (Lake Los Serranos Channel) to the north; however, the channel is separated from the site and would not be affected by the proposed project. The project site is not located in or adjacent to any existing or proposed Significant Ecological Areas (SEA), and there are no wetlands on the subject property. The project site does not contain riparian habitat or sensitive plant communities as defined by the CNDDB or local ordinances. Thus, no impacts would occur.

NO IMPACT



d) 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? The CDFW BIOS (CDFW, 2015) does not include any mapped essential habitat connectivity areas within the immediate vicinity of the project site. The closest mapped essential habitat connectivity area is located approximately one mile southwest of the project site in the vicinity of Chino Hills State Park. Another mapped essential habitat connectivity area is located approximately three miles southeast of the project site in the vicinity of Prado Regional Park. The project site is separated from these habitat connectivity areas by existing development and paved roadways. Furthermore, the project site is surrounded by existing development and heavily traveled transportation corridors, including SR-71. Thus, it is not within a location that serves or would serve as a native resident or migratory wildlife corridor. Therefore, no impact would occur. NO IMPACT e) Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? General Plan Conservation Element

The Chino Hills General Plan contains the following policy and action items that are designed to protect biological resources:

• Policy CN-1.2: Preserve and protect Chino Hills’ biological resources. o Action CN-1.2.1: Preserve natural open spaces that act as wildlife corridors. o Action CN-1.2.2: Discourage new development in areas that contain sensitive, rare, or

endangered species, oak woodlands, chaparral, and riparian habitats. o Action CN-1.2.3: Preserve oak woodlands, riparian areas, and fresh water marshes to the

maximum extent feasible. o Action CN-1.2.4: Require City approval to remove trees that in the opinion of the City

function as an important part of the City's or a neighborhood's aesthetic character. o Action CN-1.2.5: Limit channeling of streams to the minimal improvements necessary for

flood control as determined by a City approved project-specific hydrologic analysis, and encourage these improvements to have a natural appearance.

o Action CN-1.2.6: Require biological resource surveys prior to proposed development within the Biotic Resources Overlay District and in other areas where there is a potential for special-status species or habitat to occur.

o Action CN-1.2.7: Require a wildlife movement study for any project, including any new or extended roadway, potentially adversely affecting wildlife movement. This shall include identification of, and if warranted mitigation to protect, existing habitat linkages, wildlife corridors, wildlife movement in the vicinity, and crossing structures at freeways and major roadways; and recommended project design changes and avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures to offset potentially significant adverse impacts to wildlife movement. For a new or extended roadway that is anticipated to result in a significant adverse impact to wildlife movement, require project design changes and/or avoidance, minimization, and/or mitigation measures which could include, but not be limited to: construction of wildlife crossings (e.g., underpass, overpass), fencing to guide wildlife, native plant



restoration, and/or a lighting plan (to ensure that any new lighting does not deter wildlife through remaining habitat linkages.

The above policies are designed to preserve and protect Chino Hills’ biological resources including wildlife corridors, sensitive, rare, or endangered species, oak woodlands, chaparral, riparian habitats, fresh water marshes, and native and heritage trees. As described above, the project site has been routinely disced and disturbed since at least 1994 and does not contain wildlife corridors, oak woodlands, chaparral, riparian habitats, freshwater marshes, native or heritage trees, or suitable habitat for sensitive plant species. The project site does not contain nesting habitat for golden eagle, long-eared owl, and Swainson’s hawk, as these species typically require large cliffs and/or large trees for nesting, which are not present on-site. In addition, as described above, the site contains low quality foraging habitat for these species due to the site’s history of frequent disturbance and location surrounded by existing development and heavily travelled transportation corridors. Mitigation Measures BIO-1 and BIO-2, require surveys for special status species and nesting birds prior to construction and specific actions if these species are identified, which would reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level. Therefore, with incorporation of these mitigation measures, the proposed project would not conflict with local policies protecting biological resources identified in the General Plan. Thus, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.

Biotic Resources Overlay District.

The Chino Hills Municipal Code includes a Biotic Resources Overlay District, which applies to areas of the City that have been identified by a state or federal agency as potential habitat for plants or animals officially listed as threatened, endangered or sensitive by the state of California and/or the federal government. These areas are generally mapped in Figure 4-2 – CNDDB Identified Special Status Species in the City of Chino Hills General Plan (Chino Hills, 2015b). Any proposed development within these areas requires appropriate biological resource surveys to assess the potential for special-status species and their habitats. Where there is a potential for special status species or habitat to occur outside the overlay boundaries, appropriate biological resource surveys are required. The project site is located within the Biotic Resources Overlay District for golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos). Therefore, in accordance with the Chino Hills Municipal Code, appropriate biological resource surveys are required to assess the potential for golden eagle and their habitats on the project site (Chino Hills, 2015a). Golden eagles nest on cliff ledges, preferably overlooking grasslands, 10 to 100 feet above ground in dead or live trees; in artificial structures; or on the ground, and generally forage in open habitats where rabbits and small rodents are available. During the nesting season, golden eagles usually forage within 4.4 miles of the nest. Trees, live or dead, are often used for perches if they are near open areas where prey can be easily seen (Tesky 1994). As described above, the reconnaissance survey, conducted on October 27, 2015, determined that there is low quality foraging habitat and no potential nesting habitat present on-site for golden eagle, as the project site is flat and does not contain the features and habitat that would support this species. Therefore, potential impacts to golden eagle would be less than significant.

Protected Trees Municipal Code Chapter 16.90 (Tree Preservation) and Chapter 12.26 (City-Owned Trees) make it unlawful for any person, firm, partnership, corporation or other legal entity to destroy or remove any protected tree on undeveloped property or on designated developed properties within the City without a Tree Removal Permit (Chino Hills, 2015a). Protected trees include



both native and heritage trees as defined in the Municipal Code. The project site does not contain any trees. Therefore, no impact would occur.

POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT UNLESS MITIGATION INCORPORATED

f) Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?

The project site is not located within the jurisdiction of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. Thus, no impact would occur.

NO IMPACT


Impact


Unless Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No

Impact

V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -- Would the project:

a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? □ □ □ ■

b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource as defined in §15064.5? □ ■ □ □

c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? □ ■ □ □

d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? □ ■ □ □

Rincon Consultants, Inc. prepared a Cultural Resources Study for the project site in November 2015. The cultural resources study was conducted in support of the environmental review and included a records search, Native American scoping, intensive pedestrian survey, cultural resource recordation and evaluation, and report of results. The information below is derived from the Cultural Resources Study, which is included as Appendix C. As of July 1, 2015, California Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52) was enacted and expands CEQA by establishing a formal consultation process for California tribes within the CEQA process. The bill specifies that any project that may affect or cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource would require a lead agency to “begin consultation with a California Native American tribe that is traditional and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the proposed project.” According to the legislative intent for AB 52, “tribes may have knowledge about land and cultural resources that should be included in the environmental analysis for projects that may have a significant impact on those resources.”



Section 21074 of AB 52 also defines a new category of resources under CEQA called “tribal cultural resources.” Tribal cultural resources are defined as “sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe” and is either listed on or eligible for the California Register of Historical Resources or a local historic register, or if the lead agency chooses to treat the resource as a tribal cultural resource. All AB 52 consultation was carried out by the City of Chino Hills, which included mailing consultation letters to the two tribes that had requested notification (Soboba Band of Mission Indians and the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians). No request for consultation was submitted to the City as a result of this process. In addition to the AB52 consultation process, Rincon Consultants contacted the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) to request a search of the Sacred Lands File (SLF) on October 22, 2015, to determine if any cultural resources were known to exist within the project site. On November 5, 2015 Rincon received a response from the NAHC stating that their search of the SLF “failed to indicate the presence of Native American cultural resources in the immediate project area.” The NAHC provided a list of nine individuals or tribal organizations that may have information pertaining to the cultural sensitivity of the project site. Rincon mailed anticipatory letters to each contact on November 6, 2015 requesting comments on the project, and any information on or knowledge of cultural resources in or near the project site. Rincon conducted additional consultation with follow-up phone calls, and emails when a phone number was not provided, to each group or individual on November 18, 2015. A record of this consultation can be found in the Cultural Resources Study included in Appendix C. As of the circulation date of this document, the City and Rincon had not received any responses. a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? The project site is vacant and does not include any structures; therefore, no existing structures have been identified as historic resources in any local or State register. Furthermore, the site does not contain any historic resources as defined under California Public Resources Code § 15064.5 (California State Parks, 2012). As such, the project would have no impact in this regard. NO IMPACT b) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource as defined in §15064.5? c) Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? On October 21, 2015, Rincon Consultants, Inc. conducted a search of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) to identify all previously conducted cultural resources work within the project site and a 0.5-mile radius around it, as well as to identify previously recorded cultural resources within or near the project site. The CHRIS search included a review of the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), the California Points of Historical Interest list, the California Historical



Landmarks list, the Archaeological Determinations of Eligibility list, and the California State Historic Resources Inventory list. The records search also included a review of all available historic USGS 7.5- and 15-minute quadrangle maps. Fourteen potentially historic resources have been recorded within a 0.5-mile radius of the project site. Of these previously recorded resources, nine are affiliated with the Prehistoric Period. Cultural resource P-36-010821 was identified as a prehistoric burial site with the burial being recovered eight feet below the surface of an agricultural field. The burial site is located approximately 0.25 mile southeast of the current project site. Additional resources include one historical refuse scatter, three single-family residences, the Los Serranos neighborhood, and a steel lattice transmission tower. None of these resources are located within the project site. Cultural resource P-36-010821 was recorded by Kevin S. Buffington of LSA Associates, Inc. in 2002 and is less than 0.25 mile from the current project site. During construction monitoring activities, three rock features and human remains were identified. Two clusters of fire affected rock and associated manos were found eight feet below the surface within an alluvial deposit. The human burial was also found approximately 8eight feet below the surface; no artifacts were found in association with the burial. The site record does not provide any additional information regarding the eligibility of the site nor does it discuss any additional excavations that may have been undertaken as a result of the discovery. It is presumed that the entire site was destroyed as a result of construction activities. On October 22, 2015 a Sacred Lands File (SLF) search request was submitted to the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). The NAHC responded to the request stating that their SLF search “failed to indicate the presence of Native American cultural resources in the immediate project area”. Contact information was provided for nine individuals or tribal organizations affiliated with the project site. Consultation with the Native American contacts took place between November 6, 2015 and November 18, 2015. Several consultants stated that due to the high concentration of sites in the area and the proximity of the project site to Chino Creek the project site is highly sensitive for the presence of buried cultural material. On October 29, 2015, an intensive pedestrian survey of the project site was conducted. All exposed ground surfaces were examined for artifacts (e.g., flaked stone tools, toolmaking debris, stone milling tools, ceramics, fire-affected rock [FAR]), ecofacts (marine shell and bone), soil discoloration that might indicate the presence of a cultural midden, soil depressions, and features indicative of the former presence of structures or buildings (e.g., standing exterior walls, postholes, foundations) or historic debris (e.g., metal, glass, ceramics). Ground disturbances such as burrows were visually inspected. The intensive pedestrian survey identified refuse including a white porcelain jar fragment; one screw top bottle fragment; several green, brown, clear, and clear with patina colored glass fragments; and plastic debris. No diagnostic artifacts were identified during the intensive pedestrian survey making determinations regarding the age of these items impossible. Therefore, the survey was negative for the presence of cultural resources. Based on the results of the records search, the Native American consultation, and field survey, the project site is within an area highly sensitive for buried cultural resources. Despite negative survey results, the presence of several archaeological sites and prehistoric human burials within 0.25-mile radius of the project site supports the conclusion that the project site is highly



sensitive for cultural resources; thus, ground disturbing activities within the project site could have potentially significant impacts on archaeological, paleontological, and tribal cultural resources. However, with implementation of Mitigation Measures CR-1 and CR-2, whereby archaeological and Native American monitoring would be provided for all ground-disturbing activities within the project site, impacts would be reduced to less than significant.

CR-1 Unanticipated Discovery of Cultural Resources. Archaeological and Native American monitoring shall be conducted for all ground-disturbing activities within the project site. Monitoring shall be performed under the direction of a qualified archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for archaeology (National Park Service, 1983). If cultural resources are encountered during ground-disturbing activities, work in the immediate area must halt and the find must be evaluated by the qualified archaeologist. If the discovery proves to be significant under CEQA as determined by the qualified archaeologist, additional work such as on site monitoring by a qualified Native American Tribal representative, data recovery excavation, avoidance of the area of the find, documentation, testing, data recovery, reburial, archival review and/or transfer to the appropriate museum or educational institution, or other appropriate actions may be warranted at the discretion of the qualified archaeologist. The archeologist shall complete a report of excavations and findings, and submit the report to the lead agency. After the find is appropriately mitigated, work in the area may resume.

CR-2 Unanticipated Discovery of Human Remains. If human remains are found

during ground-disturbing activities, State of California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the county coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. In the event of an unanticipated discovery of human remains, the San Bernardino County Coroner shall be notified immediately. If the human remains are determined to be prehistoric, the coroner shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), which shall determine and notify a most likely descendant (MLD). The MLD 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.

CR-3 Paleontological Resource Impact Mitigation Program. Prior to any grading on

the project site, the project applicant shall retain a qualified paleontologist to prepare and implement a Paleontological Resource Impact Mitigation Program to reduce direct and indirect adverse paleontological impacts on the project site, specifically during earth-moving activities. Said program shall provide for: 1) the recovery of some scientifically highly important fossil remains, should any be encountered by such activities; (2) their comprehensive treatment and transfer to a recognized museum repository for permanent storage and maintenance; (3) the recording of associated specimen data and corresponding geologic and geographic locality data and their archiving at the repository (4) ensure the availability of the remains and data for future study by qualified scientific investigators; and shall be in place prior to any project grading activities. The



Paleontological Resource Impact Mitigation Program shall be prepared and implemented by a paleontologist approved by the City’s Community Development Director.

CR-4 Paleontological Monitoring. During all earth-moving activities, the project site

shall be monitored by a qualified, city-approved paleontologist to allow for the discovery and recovery of larger fossil remains. Said monitoring shall be implemented on a full-time basis once earth-moving activities have reached a depth of 3.5 feet below the previous ground surface and only in those areas of the project site where such activities will disturb previously undisturbed strata in the younger alluvium. Monitoring will not be required in areas where the younger alluvium will not be encountered below any artificial fill, or where the unit will be buried, but not otherwise disturbed.

CR-5 Recovery of Fossil Specimens. All fossil specimens recovered from the project

site as a result of implementation of the mitigation program shall be treated (prepared, identified, curated, cataloged) in accordance with designated museum repository requirements to the satisfaction of the city-approved paleontologist.

CR-6 Maintenance of a Daily Log. A daily log shall be kept that includes the

particular tasks accomplished, the earth-moving activity monitored, the location where monitoring was conducted, the rock unit encountered, the fossil specimens recovered, and associated specimen data and corresponding geologic and geographic locality data. Copies of the daily log shall be submitted to the City’s Community Development Director on a weekly basis or sooner if significant finds are encountered.

CR-7 Prepare a Final Paleontological Report. A final technical report of the results

and findings of the paleontological investigations shall be prepared by the paleontologist and submitted to the City’s Community Development Director.

Implementation of Mitigation Measures CR-1 through CR-8 would reduce potential impacts to cultural resources to a less than significant level. POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT UNLESS MITIGATION INCORPORATED


Impact


Unless Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No

Impact

VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS


a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:




Impact


Unless Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No

Impact

VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS


i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? □ □ ■ □

ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? □ □ ■ □ iii) Seismic-related ground failure,

including liquefaction? □ □ ■ □

iv) Landslides? □ □ ■ □ b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the

loss of topsoil? □ □ ■ □ c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is

unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? □ □ ■ □

d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 1-B of the Uniform Building Code, creating substantial risks to life or property? □ □ ■ □

e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? □ □ □ ■

A Geotechnical Engineering Investigation was performed for the project site by NorCal Engineering and their findings were reported in a document dated January 2015. The Geotechnical Engineering Investigation is included in Appendix D. a.i) Expose people or structures to 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? According to the Geotechnical Engineering Investigation, the project site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone, nor are there known active or potentially active faults trending toward or through the site. The active Chino Fault is within approximately 1.2 miles from the site and is therefore not within the project site. Therefore, since no active faults cross the site, the possibility of damage due to ground rupture is low. As such, potential impacts related to surface rupture would be less than significant. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT a.ii) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving strong seismic ground shaking? The project site is located in the highly seismic Southern California region within the influence of several fault systems that are considered to be active or potentially active. An active fault is defined by the State of California as a “sufficiently active and well defined fault that has exhibited surface displacement within the Holocene time (the last 11,000 years).” A potentially active fault is defined by the State as a “fault with a history of movement within the Pleistocene time (between 11,000 and 1.6 million years ago).” As mentioned above, no faults have been mapped across the project site. However, as with all properties in the seismically active Southern California region, the project site is susceptible to ground shaking during a seismic event. Chino Hills, along with all of Southern California, is within Seismic Zone 4 and subject to seismic ground shaking from faults in the region. Within the United States, Seismic Zones range from 1 to 4, with the latter representing the highest earthquake danger (California Seismic Safety Commission, 2005). Since the Chino fault is within approximately 1.2 miles away from the project site, ground shaking is expected due to high regional seismicity (NorCal Engineering, 2015). In general, the City regulates development (and reduced geologic and seismic impacts) through the requirements of the California Building Code (CBC), local land use policies and zoning, and compliance with the CHMC. Thus, the effects can be minimized by implementing seismic requirements specified by the City’s Buildings and Construction Code, which adopts the CBC by reference in Title 15, Chapter 15.04 of the CHMC. The CBC requires various measures of all construction in California to account for hazards from seismic shaking. As such, impacts related to seismically-induced surface rupture or ground shaking would be less than significant. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT a.iii) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Liquefaction is a phenomenon in which saturated silty to cohesionless soil below the groundwater table are subject to a temporary loss of strength due to the buildup of excess pore pressure during cyclic stresses induced by an earthquake. These soils may acquire a high degree of mobility and lead to structurally damaging deformations. Liquefaction begins below the water table, but after liquefaction has developed, the groundwater table will rise and cause the overlying soil to mobilize. Liquefaction typically occurs in areas where groundwater is less than



30 feet from the surface and where the soils are composed of poorly consolidated fine- to medium-grained sand. In addition to the necessary soil conditions, the ground acceleration and duration of the earthquake must also be of a sufficient level to initiate liquefaction. According to the Department of Conservation Division of Mines and Geology Seismic Hazard Zones Map, the area has not been evaluated to determine if the project site is/is not located within a State Seismic Hazard Zone for liquefaction. However, Figure 5-3, Liquefaction Susceptibility Seismically-Induced Landslide Hazard Zone, of the General Plan indicates that the project site is in an area of high liquefaction potential (City of Chino Hills, 2015). Notwithstanding, according to the Geotechnical Engineering Investigation, prepared by NorCal Engineering, subsurface soils were obtained from the project site to perform laboratory testing and analysis. The investigation also consisted of the placement of one onsite subsurface exploratory boring by a truck-mounted drill to a depth of 50 feet below ground elevation, and six onsite exploratory trenches by a backhoe to depths ranging from 5 to 15 feet below ground surface. A review of the exploratory boring logs and the laboratory test results by NorCal Engineering found the site’s potential for liquefaction is considered to be low due to fine-grained silt and clay soils below a historic groundwater level of 20 feet. Therefore, liquefaction impacts would be less than significant.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

a.iv) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving landslides?

The geologic character of an area determines its potential for landslides. Steep slopes, the extent of erosion, and the rock composition of a hillside all contribute to the potential for slope failure and landslide events. In order to fail, unstable slopes need to be disturbed; common triggering mechanisms of slope failure include undercutting slopes by erosion or grading, saturation of marginally stable slopes by rainfall or irrigation; and, shaking of marginally stable slopes during earthquakes. As shown in the Department of Conservation Seismic Hazard Zones Map for the Prado Dam Quadrangle, the State of California has not evaluated the project site for landslide potential (California Department of Conservation, 2001). However, the project site is relatively flat, with elevations ranging from 597 to 600 feet above mean sea level according to Google Earth Pro (2015) and hence has a low potential for landslide hazards as there are no significant hillsides or unstable slopes within the vicinity of the project site. Impacts related to landslides would be less than significant.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT b) Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? The proposed project would involve an industrial development on a vacant, undeveloped site. As noted in Section III, Air Quality, the proposed project would be required to comply with SCAQMD Rule 403 regarding incorporation of measures to reduce fugitive dust, which would also help reduce the potential for construction related erosion (SCAQMD Rule 403(d)(2)). SCAQMD Rule 403 provides measures for construction activities to reduce fugitive dust. This includes measures for the application of water or stabilizing agents to prevent generation of dust plumes, pre-watering materials prior to use, use of tarps to enclose haul trucks, stabilizing sloping surfaces using soil binders until vegetation or ground cover effectively stabilize slopes, hydroseed prior to rain, washing mud and soils from equipment at the conclusion of trenching



activities. Because the project site is relatively flat (reducing the potential for high speed stormwater flows during construction) and would comply with SCAQMD Rule 403, project development would not have the potential to cause substantial erosion or the loss of topsoil. In addition, as discussed below in Section IX, Hydrology, the proposed project would include a storm drain system that consists of an infiltration basin with slopes that would be vegetated and maintained to prevent erosion and transport of sediment. Ripraps are provided at the outlets into the basin to further prevent erosion. This impact would be less than significant. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT c) Would the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? As discussed in Item a.)iv) and iii), the project site would be subject to less than significant impacts from landslides and liquefaction. Lateral spreading is the horizontal movement or spreading of soil toward an open face. Lateral spreading may occur when soils liquefy during an earthquake event, and the liquefied soils with overlying soils move laterally to unconfined spaces. Because soils in the vicinity of the project site are not susceptible to liquefaction, the potential for lateral spreading also is low. Subsidence is the sudden sinking or gradual downward settling of the earth’s surface with little or no horizontal movement. Subsidence is caused by a variety of activities, which include, but are not limited to, withdrawal of groundwater, pumping of oil and gas from underground, the collapse of underground mines, liquefaction, and hydrocompaction. According to the City of Chino Hills General Plan Safety Element, future subsidence due to groundwater withdrawal is not anticipated to occur in the City of Chino Hills (Chino Hills, 2015b). Nonetheless, the project must comply with CBC requirements related to subsidence, lateral spreading, and collapse. With compliance with CBC requirements, impacts associated with lateral spreading, subsidence, and collapse would be less than significant. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT d) Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 1-B of the Uniform Building Code, creating substantial risks to life or property? Expansive soils are soils that have the ability to shrink or swell as its water content changes. According to Figure 5-6 of the City of Chino Hills General Plan Safety Element, the project site is located within an area of low shrink-swell potential (Chino Hills, 2015b). However, according to the Geotechnical Engineering Investigation, expansive soils were encountered at the project site. Nevertheless, appropriate construction plans would be reviewed by the City’s Building Official for consistency with current building codes and implementation of the recommendations contained in the project’s Geotechnical Engineering Investigation (See Appendix D). The proposed project would be required to comply with CBC requirements related to expansive soils. Foundation and structural design would be required to incorporate measures prescribed in the CBC to address these design considerations and minimize related project impacts. Therefore, impacts related to expansive soils would be less than significant. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT



e) Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? The proposed project would be served by the City’s wastewater disposal system. Since the project is not proposing a septic system, there is no potential for adverse effects due to soil incompatibility. Therefore, there would be no impact. NO IMPACT


Impact


Unless Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No

Impact VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS


a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? □ □ ■ □

b) Conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? □ □ ■ □

Climate change is the observed increase in the average temperature of the Earth’s atmosphere and oceans along with other substantial changes in climate (such as wind patterns, precipitation, and storms) over an extended period of time. Climate change is the result of numerous, cumulative sources of greenhouse gases (GHGs). GHGs contribute to the “greenhouse effect,” which is a natural occurrence that helps regulate the temperature of the planet. The majority of radiation from the Sun hits the Earth’s surface and warms it. The surface in turn radiates heat back towards the atmosphere, known as infrared radiation. Gases and clouds in the atmosphere trap and prevent some of this heat from escaping back into space and re-radiate it in all directions. This process is essential to supporting life on Earth because it warms the planet by approximately 60° Fahrenheit. Emissions from human activities since the beginning of the industrial revolution (approximately 250 years ago) are adding to the natural greenhouse effect by increasing the gases in the atmosphere that trap heat, thereby contributing to an average increase in the Earth’s temperature. GHGs occur naturally and from human activities. Human activities that produce GHGs are the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil and natural gas for heating and electricity, gasoline and diesel for transportation); methane from landfill wastes and raising livestock, deforestation activities; and some agricultural practices. GHGs produced by human activities include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). Since 1750, it is estimated that the concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide in the atmosphere have increased over by 36%, 148%, and 18% respectively, primarily due to human activity. Emissions of GHGs affect the



atmosphere directly by changing its chemical composition while changes to the land surface indirectly affect the atmosphere by changing the way in which the Earth absorbs gases from the atmosphere. Potential impacts of global climate change in California may include loss of snow pack, sea level rise, more extreme heat days per year, more high ozone days, more large forest fires, and more drought years (CEC, 2011). Local Regulations and CEQA Requirements

Pursuant to the requirements of SB 97, the Resources Agency adopted amendments to the CEQA Guidelines for the feasible mitigation of GHG emissions or the effects of GHG emissions in March 2010. These guidelines are used in evaluating the cumulative significance of GHG emissions from the proposed project. The vast majority of individual projects do not generate sufficient GHG emissions to create a project-specific impact through a direct influence to climate change; therefore, the issue of climate change typically involves an analysis of whether a project’s contribution towards an impact is cumulatively considerable. “Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, other current projects, and probable future projects (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15355). The significance of project GHG emissions may be evaluated based on locally adopted quantitative thresholds, or consistency with a regional GHG reduction plan (such as a Climate Action Plan). The San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG) released the San Bernardino County Regional Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan on March 5, 2014 (SANBAG, 2014). The plan includes a regional GHG inventory and summarizes actions that participating jurisdictions have selected in order to reduce GHG emissions. As part of the plan, the City of Chino Hills established a goal to reduce its community GHG emissions to a level that is 20% below its projected business as usual (BAU) emissions level in 2020. The City actually exceeds the goal with only state/county level actions (112% of goal), but has committed to additional local measures and supports applicable regional measures. Additional measures include implementing SB X7‐7 to reduce water use in the City, encouraging the installation of solar energy collectors (e.g., photovoltaics) for existing housing (reducing energy use), and working with the City’s wastewater treatment provider to upgrade to more energy efficient equipment at the wastewater treatment plant. Pursuant to the requirements of SB 97, the Resources Agency has adopted amendments to the CEQA Guidelines for the feasible mitigation of GHG emissions or the effects of GHG emissions. The adopted CEQA Guidelines provide regulatory guidance on the analysis and mitigation of GHG emissions in CEQA documents, while giving lead agencies the discretion to set quantitative or qualitative thresholds for the assessment and mitigation of GHGs and climate change impacts. The 2008 SCAQMD threshold considers emissions of over 10,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e)1 per year to be significant. However, the SCAQMD’s threshold applies only to stationary sources and is expressly intended to apply only when the SCAQMD is the CEQA lead agency. Although not formally adopted, the SCAQMD has a 1 A metric measure used to compare the emissions from various greenhouse gases based upon their global warming potential (GWP)(U.S. EPA, accessed August 2015). Carbon dioxide equivalents are commonly expressed as CO2e. The carbon dioxide equivalent for a gas is derived by multiplying the tons of the gas by the associated GWP.



recommended tiered GHG significance threshold (SCAQMD, 2010). Under Tier 2, project impacts would be less than significant if a project is consistent with an approved local or regional plan. Therefore, GHG emissions associated with the proposed project would be less than significant if the project is found to be consistent with the reduction measures included by the City in the San Bernardino County Regional Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan or other applicable GHG reduction policies or plans. For informational purposes, SCAQMD recommended Tier 3 thresholds are screening level quantitative thresholds. If a local or regional GHG reduction policy or plan does not apply to a project, emissions would be less than significant if they are under the Tier 3 screening level threshold. SCAQMD has a recommended screening level quantitative threshold for all land use types of 3,000 metric tons of CO2e/year (SCAQMD, 2010). Emissions associated with the proposed project were estimated using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) version 2013.2.2. Complete CalEEMod results and assumptions can be viewed in the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Study (see Appendix A). a) Would the project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? b) Would the project conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? As discussed above, the City of Chino Hills has selected a goal to reduce its community GHG emissions to a level that is 20% below its projected BAU emissions level in 2020 as part of SANBAG’s San Bernardino County Regional Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan, released on March 5, 2014. The City actually exceeds the goal with only state/county level actions (112% of goal), but has committed to additional local measures. The project’s consistency with local measures is described in Table 9.

Table 9 Project Consistency with 2006 CAP Report

Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Strategies

Strategy Project Consistency

Building Energy

Energy-7 Solar Installation for Existing Housing Establish a goal for solar installations on existing single-family homes to be achieved before 2020.

Not applicable The proposed project does not include housing.

Water Conveyance and Wastewater Treatment

Wastewater-2 Equipment Upgrades Work with local wastewater treatment providers to upgrade and replace wastewater treatment and pumping equipment with more energy-efficient equipment, as financially feasible, at existing facilities by 2020. Require all pumping and treatment equipment to be 25% more energy efficient at the time of replacement.

Not applicable The wastewater treatment plants in the region are responsible for implementing this measure. The City of Chino Hill’s would collaborate with local wastewater treatment providers to upgrade pumping and treatment equipment.



Table 9 Project Consistency with 2006 CAP Report



Water-4 Implement SB X7-7 SB X7-7, the Water Conservation Act of 2009, requires urban water agencies throughout California to increase conservation to achieve a statewide goal of a 20% reduction in urban per capita use (compared to nominal 2005 levels) by December 31, 2020. Each urban water retailer in the county subject to the law has established a 2020 per-capita urban water use target to meet this goal.

Consistent The project would be required to comply with the City’s water use restrictions on time, area, frequency, and duration of specified allowable water usages.

On-Road Transportation

Transportation-2 Smart Bus Technologies Collaborate with Omnitrans to implement “Smart Bus” technology, global positioning system (GPS), and electronic displays at all transit stops by 2020 to provide customers with “real-time” arrival and departure time information.

Not Applicable The project would be within a transportation corridor that is serviced by Omnitrans. Omnitrans is primarily responsible for this measure. Individual city governments would coordinate with Omnitrans as appropriate.

As part of the San Bernardino County Regional Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan, the City also supports the following applicable regional measures:

• Measure State-1: California’s Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS), established in 2002, requires that all load serving entities achieve a goal of 33 percent of retail electricity sales from renewable energy sources by 2020, within certain cost constraints.

• Measure State-2: Title 24 Standards for Non-Residential and Residential Buildings (Energy Efficiency Standards and CALGreen) require that building shells and building components be designed to conserve energy and water.

• Measure State-3: AB 1109 (Huffman) Lighting Efficiency and Toxics Reduction Act is structured to reduce statewide electricity consumption by (1) at least 50% from 2007 levels for indoor residential lighting, and (2) at least 25% from 2007 levels for indoor commercial and outdoor lighting by 2018.

• Measure State 4: AB 1470 (Huffman) Solar Water Heating would create an incentive program to encourage the installation of solar water heating systems that offset natural gas use in homes and businesses throughout the state.

• Measure State-5: Industrial Boiler Efficiency, requires either annual tuning of all boilers, the installation of an oxygen trim system, and/or a noncondensing economizer to maximum boiler efficiency within facilities.

• Measure State-6a, 6b, and 8: AB 1493 (Pavley), requires the state to develop and adopt regulations that achieve the maximum feasible and cost-effective reduction of climate change emissions emitted by passenger vehicles and light duty trucks. Executive Order S-1-07 Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) mandates that a statewide goal be established to reduce the carbon intensity of California’s transportation fuels by at least 10% by 2020, and that a LCFS for transportation fuels be established in California.

• Measure State-7: AB 32 Transportation Reduction Strategies includes vehicle efficiency measures (in addition to Pavley and LCFS) that focus on maintenance practices.

• Measure State-9: AB 32 Methane Capture requires gas collection and control systems on landfills with greater than 450,000 tons of waste-in-place and establishes statewide performance standards to maximize methane capture efficiencies.



• Measure County-1: San Bernardino County GHG Reduction Plan Landfill Controls would require San Bernardino County to install landfill gas controls on five County-owned and operated landfills.

The project would not conflict with any of these regional regulations intended to reduce GHG emissions. The project would be required to comply with SCAQMD’s Healthy Hearths Program and current Title 24 Green Building Standards. The proposed project is an industrial development consistent with the zoning for the site, and surrounding the project site are other urban uses. The proposed project would be generally consistent with applicable regulations or plans addressing greenhouse gas reductions including AB 32, SB 375 and SCAG’s RTP/SCS. As indicated above, the CAT published the Climate Action Team Report to Governor Schwarzenegger and the Legislature (the “2006 CAT Report”) in March 2006 (California EPA, 2006). The CAT Report identifies a recommended list of strategies that the State could pursue to reduce climate change greenhouse gas emissions. The CAT strategies are recommended to reduce GHG emissions at a statewide level to meet the goals of the Executive Order S-3-05. These are strategies that could be implemented by various State agencies to ensure that the Governor’s targets are met and can be met with existing authority of the State agencies. Table 10 lists how the proposed project would be consistent with the CAT strategies. In addition, the SCAG RTP/SCS also contains a number of strategies to reduce GHG emissions as they relate to the operations of SCAG and regional land use planning. As demonstrated in Table 10 below, the proposed project would be consistent with multiple strategies contained in SCAG’s SCS.

Table 10 Project Consistency with 2006 CAT Report



California Air Resources Board

Vehicle Climate Change Standards AB 143 (Pavley) required the state to develop and adopt regulations that achieve the maximum feasible and cost-effective reduction of climate change emissions emitted by passenger vehicles and light duty trucks. Regulations were adopted by the ARB I September 2004.

Consistent The vehicles that travel to and from the project site on public roadways would be in compliance with ARB vehicle standards that are in effect at the time of vehicle purchase.

Diesel Anti-Idling In July 2004, the ARB adopted a measure to limit diesel-fueled commercial motor vehicle idling

Consistent Current state law restricts diesel truck idling to five minutes or less. Diesel trucks operating on the project site during construction are subject to this statewide law.

Alternative Fuels: Biodiesel Blends ARB would develop regulations to require the use of 1 to 4 percent biodiesel displacement of California diesel fuel.

Consistent The ARB is in the process of developing regulations that would increase the use of biodiesel for transportation uses. Currently, it is unknown when such regulations would be implemented; however, it is expected that upon implementation of such a regulation that would require increase biodiesel blends, the diesel fueled vehicles that travel to and from the project site would be replaced by vehicles using biodiesel.






Alternative Fuels: Ethanol Increased use of E-85 fuel.

Consistent As data becomes available on the impacts of fuel specifications on the current and future vehicle fleets, the ARB will review and update motor vehicle fuel specifications as appropriate. In reviewing the specifications, the ARB will consider the emissions performance, fuel supply consequences, potential greenhouse gas reduction benefits, and cost issues surrounding E85. Future tenants of the project could purchase flex-fuel vehicles and utilize this fuel, once it is commercially available.

Heavy-Duty Vehicle Emission Reduction Measures Increased efficiency in the design of heavy duty vehicles and an education program for the heavy-duty vehicle sector.

Consistent The heavy-duty vehicles that travel to and from the project site on public roadways would be subject to all applicable ARB efficiency standards that are in effect at the time of vehicle manufacture.

Achieving 50% Statewide Recycling Goal Achieving the State’s 50% waste reduction mandate as established by the Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989, (AB 939, Sher, Chapter 1095, Statutes of 1989), will reduce climate change emissions associated with energy intensive material extraction and production, as well as methane emission from landfills. A per-capita diversion rate of 65% has been achieved on a statewide basis, consistent with AB 939.

Consistent The City of Chino Hills has enacted numerous programs to achieve the mandated 50% diversion. It is anticipated that the proposed project would participate in the City’s waste diversion programs and would similarly divert at least 50% of its solid waste. The project would also be subject to all applicable State and City requirements for solid waste reduction as they change in the future.

Department of Forestry

Urban Forestry A new statewide goal of planning 5 million trees in urban areas by 2020 would be achieved through the expansion of local urban forestry programs.

Consistent The landscaping proposed for the project would include planting trees to help move toward this statewide goal.

Department of Water Resources

Water Use Efficiency Approximately 19 percent of all electricity, 30 percent of all natural gas, and 88 million gallons of diesel are used to convey, treat, distribute and use water and wastewater. Increasing the efficiency of water transport and reducing water use would reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Consistent The proposed project would need to meet the water use efficiency for the industrial building.

Energy Commission (CEC)

Building Energy Efficiency Standards in Place and in Progress Public Resources Code 25402 authorizes the CEC to adopt and periodically update its building energy efficiency standards (that apply to newly constructed buildings and alterations to existing buildings).

Consistent The project would be required to meet or exceed the standards of Title 24 that are in effect at the time of development.

Appliance Energy Efficiency Standards in Place and in Progress Public Resources Code 25402 authorizes the Energy Commission to adopt and periodically update its appliance energy efficiency standards (that apply to devices and equipment using energy that are sold or offered for sale in California).

Consistent Under State law, appliances that are purchased for the project – both pre- and post-development – would be required to be consistent with energy efficiency standards that are in effect at the time of the appliance manufacture date.

Public Utilities Commission (PUC)

Accelerated Renewable Portfolio Standard The Governor has set a goal of achieving 33 percent renewable in the State’s resource mix by 2020. The joint PUC/Energy

Consistent The project would be encouraged to take advantage of the Emerging Renewable Program , which provides incentives for






Commission September 2005 Energy Action Plan II (EAP II) adopts the 33 percent goal.

purchasing and installing small wind systems and fuel cells using renewable fuel.

California Solar Initiative The solar initiative includes installation of 1 million solar roofs or an equivalent 3,000 MW by 2017 on homes and businesses, increased use of solar thermal systems to offset the increasing demand for natural gas, use of advanced metering in solar applications, and creation of a funding source that can provide rebates over 10 years through a declining incentive schedule.

Consistent The project would be encouraged to install solar roofs on the building to meet the solar initiative.



Table 11 Project Consistency with Applicable SCAG SCS Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Strategies


Land Use Actions and Strategies

Encourage the use of range-limited battery electric and other alternative fueled vehicles through policies and programs, such as, but not limited to, neighborhood oriented development, complete streets, and Electric (and other alternative fuel) Vehicle Supply Equipment in public parking lots.

Consistent Employees of the project site could choose to purchase electric vehicles and other alternative fuel vehicles and utilize these types of alternative fuels once available. Further, the project could include Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment in the parking lot for use by employees if feasible.

Support projects, programs, policies and regulations that encourage the development of complete communities, which includes a diversity of housing choices and educational opportunities, jobs for a variety of skills and education, recreation and culture, and a full-range of shopping, entertainment and services all within a relatively short distance.

Consistent The proposed project is an industrial facility in an urbanized area that is in close proximity to existing residential and commercial development. Existing public transit facilities are located approximately ½ mile southeast of the project site (bus stop on Central at Fairfield Ranch). The proposed project would be generally consistent with efforts to provide employment opportunities in Chino Hills. Various recreational, commercial (shopping, entertainment), and cultural services are located within walking distance of the proposed project site.

Transportation Network Actions and Strategies

Prioritize transportation investments to support compact infill development that includes a mix of land uses, housing options, and open/park space, where appropriate, to maximize the benefits for existing communities, especially vulnerable populations, and to minimize any negative impacts.

Consistent The proposed project is located in an area surrounded by existing development, and by developing the site with an industrial use, the project would provide further employment opportunities for the City. Further, the project in close proximity to existing transit stops (within ½ mile southeast of the site).

Explore and implement innovative strategies and projects that enhance mobility and air quality, including those that increase the walkability of communities and accessibility to transit via non-auto modes, including walking, bicycling, and neighborhood electric vehicles (NEVs) or other alternative fueled vehicles.

Consistent The proposed project is located in an urbanized area and in close proximity to existing residential and commercial development. Existing public transit facilities are located ½ mile southeast of the project site which would promote transit use by employees of the project. The project site would be walkable and pedestrian access to the existing transit would be provided.

Collaborate with local jurisdictions to plan and develop residential and employment development around current and planned transit stations and neighborhood commercial centers.

Consistent The proposed project is located in an urbanized area and in close proximity to existing public transit facilities. The proposed project would be consistent with efforts to support the use of public transportation.



Table 11 Project Consistency with Applicable SCAG SCS Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Strategies


Develop first-mile/last-mile strategies on a local level to provide an incentive for making trips by transit, bicycling, walking, or neighborhood electric vehicle or other ZEV options.

Consistent The proposed project is located in an urbanized area and in close proximity to existing residential and commercial development which would be walkable or could be reached by employees bicycling to/from the site. Existing public transit facilities are also located within ½ mile southeast of the site

Transportation Demand Management Actions and Strategies

Support work-based programs that encourage emission reduction strategies and incentivize active transportation commuting or ride-share modes.

Not applicable; however, employees of the industrial project could participate in ridesharing or other commuting programs intended to reduce emissions from motor vehicles.

Clean Vehicle Technology Actions and Strategies

Develop a Regional PEV Readiness Plan with a focus on charge port infrastructure plans to support and promote the introduction of electric and other alternative fuel vehicles in Southern California.

Not applicable, but project development would not preclude implementation of this strategy.

Development facilitated by the proposed project would result in an incremental increase in GHG emissions (as discussed further below). However, the project would be consistent with the zoning and surrounding land uses and would be consistent with CAT strategies and SCAG’S SCS GHG emission reduction strategies. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with the objectives of AB 32, and SB 375, and its contribution to cumulative GHG emissions and climate change would not be significant. For informational purposes GHG emissions associated with construction emissions and operational emissions from the proposed project were quantified and are discussed below. Construction Emissions

As shown in Table 12, emissions of CO2e units generated by construction of the proposed project are estimated at 510.8 metric tons. Air districts such as the SCAQMD (2010) have recommended amortizing construction-related emissions over a 30-year period in conjunction with the proposed project’s operational emissions. When amortized over a 30-year period (the assumed life of the project), CO2e construction emissions would be approximately 17.0 metric tons of CO2e per year.



Table 12 Estimated Construction Emissions of Greenhouse

Gases with Mitigation

Annual Emissions (Carbon Dioxide Equivalent [CO2e])

Total 510.8 metric tons

Amortized over 30 years 17.0 metric tons per year

Source: Calculations were made in CalEEMod, see Appendix A for full model output.

Operational Indirect and Stationary Direct Emissions

Operational emissions include area sources (consumer products, landscape maintenance equipment, and painting), energy use (electricity and natural gas), solid waste, electricity to deliver water, and transportation emissions. Operational emissions were calculated using CalEEMod (see Appendix A). In accordance with AB 939, it was assumed that the proposed project would achieve at least a 50% waste diversion rate. CalEEMod does not calculate N2O emissions related to mobile sources. As such, N2O emissions were calculated based on the proposed project’s VMT using calculation methods provided by the California Climate Action Registry General Reporting Protocol (CCAR, 2009). Table 13 indicates that the project would generate approximately 2,080 metric tons CO2e per year from operational and mobile emissions.

Table 13 Operational Emissions of Greenhouse Gases

Emission Source Annual Emissions (CO2E)

Project Operational

Area

Energy

Solid Waste

Water

<0.1 metric tons

510.3 metric tons

56.6 metric tons

115.6 metric tons

Project Mobile

CO2 and CH4

N2O

1,329.5 metric tons

67.6 metric tons

Operational Emissions Total 2,079.6 metric tons




As shown in Table 14, the combined annual GHG emissions (including construction, operation, and mobile emissions) associated with the proposed project would be approximately 2,097 metric tons metric tons of CO2e per year.

Table 14 Combined Annual Emissions of Greenhouse Gases

Emission Source Annual Emissions (CO2E)

Project Construction 17.0 metric tons

Project Operational 682.5 metric tons

Project Mobile 1,397.1 metric tons

Project Total 2,096.6 metric tons


As discussed above, the project would be consistent with the City’s GHG reduction measures included in the San Bernardino County Regional Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan and objectives of the RTP/SCS, AB 32, and SB 375. Therefore, impacts of the proposed project would be less than significant. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT


Impact


Unless Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No

Impact

VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS

MATERIALS


a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? □ □ ■ □

b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? □ □ ■ □




Impact


Unless Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No

Impact VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS

MATERIALS


c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within ¼ mile of an existing or proposed school? □ □ ■ □

d) 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? □ □ □ ■

e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? □ □ □ ■

f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? □ □ □ ■

g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? □ □ □ ■

h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? □ □ □ ■

A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) was performed by Arcadis U.S., Inc. (Arcadis, 2015). The findings and conclusions, reported in a document dated January 9, 2015, are based on the results of a reconnaissance-level site visit conducted at the project site and reviews of available and pertinent background information. The Phase I ESA is included in Appendix E. a) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?



The project is a “spec” building, as the Applicant and property owner have not yet identified a tenant for the proposed building. Therefore, it is currently unknown if hazardous materials would be handled on-site, although the potential remains due to the industrial nature of the project. However, under the City of Chino Hills General Plan Safety Element, any business in Chino that handles, uses, generates, or stores hazardous materials is required to submit a “Business Emergency/Contingency Plan” to the Hazardous Materials Division of the San Bernardino County Fire Department, notify the San Bernardino County Department of Environmental Health Services or appropriate County agency, and to comply with applicable regulations. In addition, review and approval of any hazardous material use or storage would be required by the City and Chino Valley Independent Fire District (CVIFD) to ensure that activity meets all Uniform Fire Code requirements. If the identified tenant were to generate hazardous waste, adherence to City policies under the General Plan Safety Element and any submitted and approved emergency response plans would reduce impacts related to transport, handling, or disposal of hazardous materials to a less than significant level.


b) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?

According to the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, the prior use of the project site for agriculture indicates the potential for residual persistent pesticides to be present in the soil. However, if the materials were applied in an approved manner at the time of application, their presence would be unlikely to trigger regulatory intervention. In addition, no evidence of structures, tanks or pesticide mixing areas was visible on historic aerial photographs of the site. Therefore, under the current and proposed use of the site, the historical presence of agriculture on site would not represent an environmental concern (Arcadis, 2015).

The project site’s use as pasture land indicates the potential for manure accumulation; however, this was not observed during the site inspection (Arcadis, 2015). According to the Chino Hills Planning Department, there are no development guidelines for properties formerly used as pasture land.

Finally, grading would consist of approximately 20,000 cubic yards of removal and re-compaction, with no import or export of earth material. Any potentially hazardous materials on-site that could occur would not be transported off-site. Therefore, the release of hazardous materials into the environment during construction of the proposed project would be unlikely. Impacts would be less than significant.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT c) 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? There are no schools within a ¼ of the project site that would be exposed to emissions of hazardous materials or substances. The nearest school is Chino Hills High School, located approximately ¾ of a mile southeast of the project site. Therefore, potential impacts would be less than significant.



LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT d) 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? The following databases compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 were checked in January 2015 for known hazardous materials contamination at the project site:

• Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System (CERCLIS) database

• Geotracker search for leaking underground storage tanks (LUSTs) • Cortese list of Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites • Department of Toxic Substances Control’s Site Mitigation and Brownfields Database

According to the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, no obvious environmental concerns were observed on-site and there was no evidence of underground storage tanks (USTs), aboveground storage tanks (ASTs), surface staining, or the disposal of hazardous waste on-site. The project site does not appear on any of the above lists, and there are no LUST sites within 1,000 feet of the project site. Therefore, there would be no impact related to hazardous material sites. NO IMPACT e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? The project site is not located within two miles of a public airport. The nearest airport to the project site is the Chino Airport in the City of Chino, which is located approximately 2.5 miles east of the project site. The project site is not located within an Airport Safety Impact Area or Referral Area designated by the City of Chino’s Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan (ACLUP) for the Chino Airport. The ACLUP identifies three Referral Areas (A, B and C) which are designated areas consisting of various noise, safety and height restriction impacts, grouped together by the level of intensity of the associated impacts (San Bernardino County, 1991). As the project site is not within the boundaries of the Referral Areas, these restrictions do not apply. Therefore, the project would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. No impact would occur. NO IMPACT f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? There are no private airstrips in the vicinity of the project site and the site is not located within a designated airport hazard area. Therefore, the project would not result in safety hazards related to airports for people living or working at the project site and its vicinity. No impact would occur.



NO IMPACT g) Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? The project would include four driveways (two driveways via Fairfield Ranch Road and two driveways via Red Barn Court) that would provide sufficient ingress/egress for the standard vehicles and trucks that would frequent the project site. Implementation of the proposed project would not interfere with existing emergency evacuation plans or emergency response plans in the area. As discussed above, the project applicant would be required to submit a “Business Emergency/Contingency Plan” to the Hazardous Materials Division of the San Bernardino County Fire Department, and also subject to approval by City and Chino Valley Independent Fire District (CVIFD) to ensure that activity meets all Uniform Fire Code requirements. Adherence to requirements set forth by any submitted and approved emergency response plan and City, CVIFD, and Uniform Fire Code requirements would ensure implementation of the proposed project would not interfere with existing emergency evacuation plans or emergency response plans in the area. Therefore, no impact would occur. NO IMPACT h) Would the project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? The project site is within a Non-Very High Fire Severity Zone as designated by CalFIRE, and within a No Hazard Zone for wildfires as designated by the City of Chino Hills General Plan Safety Element. The proposed project would not expose persons or structures to wildfire hazard risks. There would be no impact. NO IMPACT


Impact


Unless Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No

Impact

IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY


a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? □ □ ■ □

b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering or the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level □ □ ■ □




Impact


Unless Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No

Impact IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY


which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)?

c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? □ □ ■ □

d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? □ □ ■ □

e) 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? □ □ ■ □

f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? □ □ ■ □

g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? □ □ ■ □

h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? □ □ ■ □

i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? □ □ ■ □

j) Result in inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? □ □ □ ■

a) Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?



e) Would the project 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? f) Would the project otherwise substantially degrade water quality? The proposed project would involve the development of a 100,330 square foot warehouse building, consisting of 92,830 square feet of warehouse space and 7,500 square feet of office space. The proposed project would include 10 loading docks along the eastern side of the building adjacent to Red Barn Court, and a total of 118 parking spaces would be provided throughout the property. The project would include four ingress/egress driveways, two driveways via Fairfield Ranch Road and two driveways via Red Barn Court. Due to the construction of an industrial building and parking areas, the proposed project would result in impervious surfaces on over approximately 67% of the site (see Table 1). The applicant would be responsible for implementing a set of Best Management Practices (BMPs) to reduce water quality impacts, as listed in the Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan prepared and most recently revised in July 23, 2015 (see Appendix F). This plan is intended to bring the project into compliance with San Bernardino County’s Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System Ordinance and the Statewide National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). BMPs include, but are not limited to, educating renters about actions to reduce storm water pollution, vacuum-sweeping parking lots on a bi-weekly basis, and complying with the City Landscape Ordinance. The Landscape Ordinance, listed in Title 16, Chapter 7, of the CHMC, applies to any new construction for discretionary private development projects with a net landscape area of at least 2,500 sf. Pursuant to CHMC Section 16.07.050, “[a]ll irrigation systems shall be designed to prevent runoff, over-spray, low head drainage and other similar conditions.” In addition, CHMC Section 16.07.100, recommends on-site storm water management practices “to minimize runoff and water waste to recharge groundwater, and to improve water quality.” Landscaping makes up approximately 15% of the project site and is scattered throughout. The remaining 85% of the project site would be newly introduced impervious surface. According to the Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan, surface runoff produced by the impervious areas would be collected by a proposed storm drain system that would consist of catch basins and a detention basin at the south end of the site. An infiltration basin and chambers would be utilized for onsite water quality treatment, and would then drain to an unlined channel in Chino Creek (Reach 1B), which qualifies as a Hydrologic Condition of Concern (HCOC). To meet HCOC requirements, a mitigation volume of 23,630 cu-ft must be achieved by using Low Impact Development and/or hydromodofication mitigation BMPs. The total volume being infiltrated by underground chambers and the infiltration basin has a capacity of 23,737 cu-ft. Therefore, the proposed project would meet water quality standards and waste discharge requirements, not create runoff water that exceeds the capacity of stormwater drainage systems, or otherwise degrade water quality. See Appendix F for the Water Quality Management Plan. The Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan would be reviewed by the City’s Engineer and would be added as a Condition of Approval for the project. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT



b) Would the project substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering or the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? As discussed in Section XVII, Utilities and Service Systems, the City’s water supply is derived from imported water, local wells, local surface water, and recycled water. The project would result in a net increase in water demand estimated at approximately 3,577 gpd, or 4.0 acre feet per year (AFY). The project would be served by an available water supply and would be consistent with the Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP). Therefore, the proposed project would not result in an exceedance of safe yield or a significant depletion of groundwater supplies. In addition, although the project would increase the amount of impervious surface onsite by 85% compared to existing conditions, the proposed project would not significantly reduce groundwater recharge since it would include infiltration chambers and a basin, which would aid in groundwater recharge downstream. Impacts related to groundwater would be less than significant. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT c) 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, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? d) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? The project would not alter the course of any stream or other drainage and would not increase the potential for flooding. The proposed project would require connections to the City’s storm drain system to provide adequate drainage. Treated runoff from the proposed storm drain system for the project would drain to an unlined channel in Chino Creek. As discussed above, adherence to the City’s urban runoff programs would reduce the quantity and level of pollutants within runoff leaving the site. In addition, the project would maintain consistency with CHMC Section 16.54.060. The project would involve construction of surface flow containment facilities for runoff control as discussed above in item a). The proposed underground infiltration chambers and basin would retain on-site runoff in excess of pre-development levels. The infiltration basin’s slopes would be vegetated and maintained to prevent erosion and transport of sediment. Ripraps are provided at the outlets into the basin to further prevent erosion. Therefore, impacts related to erosion, siltation, and flooding would be less than significant. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT g) Would the project place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Would the project place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows?



According to Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood hazard Boundary of Flood Insurance Rate Map and Figure 5-7 (Flooding and Inundation Zones) in the City’s Safety Element of the General Plan, the project site is not located within a 100-year flood zone. The project site is located in Zone D, an area in which flood hazards are undetermined, but possible (FEMA, 2008; Chino Hills, 2015b). Because the project would not be located within a 100-year flood hazard area, development of the proposed project would not expose people or structures to significant flood hazards and would not impede or redirect flood flows. The potential impact would be less than significant. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT i) Would the project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? There is one provisionally accredited levee (PAL), the Chino Creek 1 Levee system, located 0.5 mile southeast of the project site that is owned and operated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). As defined by FEMA, a provisionally accredited levee is a levee shown on the Digital Flood Insurance Rate Maps (“DFIRMS) as providing protection from a 100-year storm event, but all the documentation necessary to gain full accreditation is not yet readily available. To assist owners who cannot provide FEMA with the documentation, including the required professional engineer-certified data and/or documentation to show the levee continues to provide protection from at least the base flood (100-year), FEMA established the PAL designation to facilitate the levee accreditation process (FEMA, 2012). The PAL levee is across SR-71, north of the project site. The levee allows road transportation across the Chino Creek, connecting the City of Chino Hills and the City of Chino. This PAL provides protection from the 1-percent-annual-chance flood. To maintain accreditation, the levee owner (i.e., the USACE) is required to submit documentation necessary to comply with 44 CFR Section 65.10. Due to this accreditation, the potential for flooding due to dam failure is low and, therefore, the project would not expose people or structures to a significant level of risk. The potential impact would be less than significant. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT j) Would the project result in inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? A seiche is a standing wave in an enclosed or partially enclosed body of water. The project site is not located near any lakes or other major bodies of surface water; therefore, impacts from seiches are not expected. The project site is located approximately 28 miles from the Pacific Ocean and would not be inundated by a tsunami (CEMA, 2009). Lastly, the project site is flat and is not subject to mudflows. No impact would occur. NO IMPACT




Impact


Unless Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No

Impact X. LAND USE AND PLANNING


a) Physically divide an established community? □ □ □ ■

b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? □ □ ■ □

c) Conflict with an applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? □ □ □ ■

a) Would the project physically divide an established community? The project site is located in a commercial/industrial area in Chino Hills. The project is consistent with the existing surrounding land uses which consist of the Los Serranos Lake Channel adjacent to the northern boundary of the project site and separates the project site from a vacant 39.4-acre site that will be developed with an industrial business park and multi-family residential development. Red Barn Court is adjacent to the southern and eastern boundaries of the project site. An existing self-storage, residence, and water well are located along the south side of Red Barn Court, across from the project site. Various commercial and industrial developments are located to the east of the site, beyond Chino Creek. The lot directly west of the site is vacant, and there is existing business park development southwest of the site. The existing religious facility, the BAPS Shri Swaminarayan Mandir, is located northwest of the site. Figure 6 shows the existing lands uses in the project site vicinity. No new through streets are proposed and all of the project components (building, office uses and parking) would be located within the parcel. Therefore, the project would not divide an established community and there would be no impact. NO IMPACT b) Would the project conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? The project site is currently designated as a Business Park land use by the City’s General Plan, and is designated as Light Industrial (L1) by the Zoning Map. The proposed project includes construction of a new 100,330 square foot warehouse building, consisting of 92,830 square feet



of warehouse space and 7,500 square feet of office space, which are allowable uses under the land use and zoning designations. No General Plan Amendments and Zone Changes would be required for the approval of the proposed project. In addition, the project would comply with the following development standards set forth by the L1 Zoning District: as required, 118 parking stalls would be provided; the proposed 42,076 square feet of landscaping would exceed the landscaping requirement of 32,842 square feet; and as required, the front building setback would be 25 feet, the front parking setback would be 15 feet, the street side setback would be 20 feet from Red Barn Court, the interior yard setback would be 10 feet from the Los Serranos Lake Channel, and there is no rear yard. Therefore, the project would not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy or regulation. Impacts would be less than significant. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT c) Would the project conflict with an applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? As discussed in Section IV, Biological Resources, the project site is not located within the jurisdiction of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. No impact would occur. NO IMPACT


Impact


Unless Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No

Impact XI. MINERAL RESOURCES -- Would the project:

a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? □ □ □ ■

b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? □ □ □ ■

a) 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? b) 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? No significant mineral deposits are known to be present in the City of Chino Hills (Chino Hills, 2015b). Although minor oil production occurs in the Chino-Soquel Oil Field and the Mahala Oil Field, the existing oil fields are within undeveloped land designated at “Agricultural/Ranches” in the southeastern portion of the city. The “Agricultural/Ranches” zoning conditionally permits oil exploration and drilling. There are no active wells in proximity to the project site. In



addition, the project site is not suited for resource extraction given that it is adjacent to residential, industrial/warehouse and commercial development. The project would have no impact related to the loss of availability of a known regional or local mineral resources. NO IMPACT

Potentially Significant Impact

Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated

Less than Significant Impact

No Impact

XII. NOISE

-- Would the project result in:

a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? □ □ ■ □

b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? □ □ ■ □

c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels above levels existing without the project? □ □ ■ □

d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? □ □ ■ □

e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? □ □ □ ■

f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise? □ □ □ ■

Noise level (or volume) is generally measured in decibels (dB) using the A-weighted sound pressure level (dBA). The A-weighting scale is an adjustment to the actual sound pressure levels to be consistent with that of human hearing response, which is most sensitive to frequencies



around 4,000 Hertz (about the highest note on a piano) and less sensitive to low frequencies (below 100 Hertz). Sound pressure level is measured on a logarithmic scale with the 0 dBA level based on the lowest detectable sound pressure level that people can perceive (an audible sound that is not zero sound pressure level). Based on the logarithmic scale, a doubling of sound energy is equivalent to an increase of 3 dBA, and a sound that is 10 dBA less than the ambient sound level has no effect on ambient noise. Because of the nature of the human ear, a sound must be about 10 dBA greater than the reference sound to be judged as twice as loud. In general, a 3 dBA change in community noise levels is noticeable, while 1-2 dBA changes generally are not perceived. Quiet suburban areas typically have noise levels in the range of 40-50 dBA, while arterial streets are in the 50-60+ dBA range. Normal conversational levels are in the 60-65 dBA range, and ambient noise levels greater than 65 dBA can interrupt conversations. Noise levels typically attenuate (or drop off) at a rate of 6 dBA per doubling of distance from point sources (such as industrial machinery). Noise from lightly traveled roads typically attenuates at a rate of about 4.5 dBA per doubling of distance. Noise from heavily traveled roads typically attenuates at about 3 dBA per doubling of distance. Noise levels may also be reduced by intervening structures; generally, a single row of buildings between the receptor and the noise source reduces the noise level by about 5 dBA, while a solid wall or berm reduces noise levels by 5 to 10 dBA. The manner in which older homes in California were constructed (approximately 30 years old or older) generally provides a reduction of exterior-to-interior noise levels of about 20 to 25 dBA with closed windows. The exterior-to-interior reduction of newer residential units and office buildings is generally 30 dBA or more (FTA, 2006). In addition to the instantaneous measurement of sound levels, the duration of sound is important since sounds that occur over a long period of time are more likely to be an annoyance or cause direct physical damage or environmental stress. One of the most frequently used noise metrics that considers both duration and sound power level is the equivalent noise level (Leq). The Leq is defined as the single steady A-weighted level that is equivalent to the same amount of energy as that contained in the actual fluctuating levels over a period of time (essentially, the average noise level). Typically, Leq is summed over a one-hour period. Lmax is the highest RMS (root mean squared) sound pressure level within the measuring period, and Lmin is the lowest RMS sound pressure level within the measuring period. The time period in which noise occurs is also important since noise that occurs at night tends to be more disturbing than that which occurs during the day. Two commonly used noise metrics – the Day-Night average level (Ldn) and the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) – recognize this fact by weighting hourly Leqs over a 24-hour period. The Ldn is a 24-hour average noise level that adds 10 dBA to actual nighttime (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.) noise levels to account for the greater sensitivity to noise during that time period. The CNEL is identical to the Ldn, except it also adds a 5 dBA penalty for noise occurring during the evening (7 p.m. to 10 a.m.). The CNEL value will usually be about 1 dBA higher than the Ldn value (California State Water Resources Control Board, 1999). In practice, CNEL and Ldn are often used interchangeably. The relationship between peak hourly Leq values and associated Ldn values depends on the



distribution of traffic over the entire day. There is no precise way to convert a peak hourly Leq value to an Ldn value. However, in urban areas near heavy traffic, the peak hourly Leq value is typically 2-4 dBA lower than the daily Ldn value. In less heavily developed areas, such as suburban areas, the peak hourly Leq is often equal to the daily Ldn value. For rural areas with little nighttime traffic, the peak hourly Leq value will often be 3-4 dBA greater than the daily Ldn value. In order to determine existing ambient noise levels on the project site, four peak hour weekday morning 15-minute noise measurements (Leq[15] dBA) were taken on and near the project site on October 27, 2015 (refer to Appendix G for noise measurement data sheets). Figure 7 shows the location of noise measurements. These noise measurements provide existing sound levels, which are primarily due to roadway noise from Fairfield Ranch Road. The noise monitoring results are summarized in Table 15.

Table 15 Measured Noise Levels

# Measurement Location Primary Noise Source Sample Time

Approximate Distance

from centerline of nearby roadway

Leq[15] (dBA)1

1 Fairfield Ranch Road at Corporate Park

Traffic on Fairfield Ranch Road

7:45 a.m. – 8:00 a.m. 20 feet 65.0

2 Fairfield Ranch Road at Monte Vista


8:11 a.m. – 8:26 a.m.

30 feet 60.9

3 Project Site at Fairfield Ranch Road


8:32 a.m. – 8:47 a.m. 700 feet 63.4

4 Middle of Project Site Traffic on Fairfield Ranch Road and Red Barn Court

8:50 a.m. – 9:05 a.m.

1,000 59.3

Source: Rincon Consultants, field measurements on October 27, 2015 field. See Appendix G for noise measurement data sheets. 1 The equivalent noise level (Leq) is defined as the single steady A-weighted level that is equivalent to the same amount of energy as that contained in the actual fluctuating levels over a period of time (essentially, the average noise level). For this measurement the Leq was over a 15-minute period (Leq[15]).



The Chino Hills General Plan, adopted in February 2015, provides standards for exterior and interior ambient noise levels. In accordance with mandatory guidelines from the State Department of Housing and Community Development, the General Plan states that residential land uses cannot be exposed to outdoor ambient noise levels in excess of 65 dBA CNEL and sufficient insulation must be provided to reduce exterior ambient noise levels to 45 dBA CNEL within interior spaces. Section 16.48.020 of the CHMC restates that the noise standards contained in Table N-1 “Noise/Land Use Compatibility Matrix” in the Noise Element of the General Plan apply to land uses Citywide and are to be used to define acceptable and unacceptable noise levels. The proposed project would have a significant impact if it would expose proposed sensitive receptors to noise levels in excess of these standards. Construction noise estimates are based upon noise levels reported by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), Office of Planning and Environment (FTA, 2006), and the distance to nearby sensitive receptors. Reference noise levels from that document were then used to estimate noise levels at nearby sensitive receptors based on a standard noise attenuation rate of 6 dB per doubling of distance (line-of-sight method of sound attenuation for point sources of noise). Ground absorption adds to the attenuation from distance alone. Excess ground attenuation may vary from zero to ten dBA per doubling of distance, depending on the complexity of terrain (Caltrans, 2013). Generally, hard, reflective surfaces like parking lots or smooth bodies of water will not substantially increase the attenuation rate from distance alone; whereas, soft, absorptive surfaces like soft dirt, grass, or scattered bushes and trees would increase attenuate from distance alone by 1.5 dBA per doubling of distance. Noise generated by a mobile source will decrease by approximately 3 dBA over hard surfaces and 4.5 dBA over soft surfaces for each doubling of distance. Construction noise level estimates do not account for the presence of intervening structures or topography, which could reduce noise levels at receptor locations. Therefore, the noise levels presented herein represent a conservative estimate of actual construction noise. The vibration velocity level threshold of perception for humans is approximately 65 VdB. A vibration velocity of 75 VdB is the approximate dividing line between barely perceptible and distinctly perceptible levels for many people. The vibration thresholds established by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) are 65 VdB for buildings where low ambient vibration is essential for interior operations (such as hospitals and recording studios), 72 VdB for residences and buildings where people normally sleep, including hotels, and 75 VdB for institutional land uses with primary daytime use (such as churches and schools). The closest sensitive receptor is a single-family home located at the southeast corner of the intersection of Fairfield Ranch Road and Red Barn Court, approximately 50 feet south of the southwest boundary of the project site (200 feet from the proposed building). As such, the thresholds for the proposed project are 72 VdB for residences, as this is the primary sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the site. In terms of ground-borne vibration impacts on structures, the FTA states that ground-borne vibration levels in excess of 100 VdB could damage fragile buildings and levels in excess of 95 VdB could damage extremely fragile historic buildings.

!>

!>

!>

!>

!>

!>

Religious Site

Single Family Residence

Noise Measurement andSensitive Receptor Locations Figure 8

Rincon Consultants, Inc.


Imagery provided by Google and its licensors © 2015.±0 400200

Scale in Feet ±

Subject Property!> Noise Measurement Location!> Sensitive Receptors

71



The City does not have specific standards or limits related to construction noise or vibration. The City’s noise ordinance (CHMC Section 8.08.020) provides an exception to City noise and vibrations standards for construction provided that such activities take place between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. on weekdays, and between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays, excluding federal holidays, unless such activity is necessary for the immediate preservation of life, health, or property (Chino Hills, 2015a).

As noted above, the closest sensitive receptor is the single-family structure at the corner of Fairfield Ranch Road and Red Barn Court that is a caretaker’s unit for the existing self storage use. To the northwest, the BAPS Shri Swaminarayan Mandir (private institutional use) is set back from Fairfield Ranch Road and is approximately 300 feet from the project site. There is also a mobile home park 400 feet to the southeast of the project site. Hourly exterior noise levels at the existing residence and religious site near the project site and State Route 71 were modeled using the Federal Highway Administration’s Traffic Noise Model (TNM), version 2.5. TNM 2.5 calculates the average noise level at specific locations based on traffic volumes, average speeds, roadway geometry, and site environmental conditions. Traffic volumes for peak hours (7 a.m. to 9 a.m. and 4 p.m. to 6 p.m.) were derived from the traffic impact analysis prepared by LLG (LLG, 2015). Hourly exterior noise levels at existing sensitive receptors closest to the project site were also modeled using TNM 2.5. The following scenarios were modeled:

• Existing traffic volumes;• Existing plus project traffic volumes;• 2035 cumulative traffic volumes;• 2035 cumulative plus project traffic volumes;

Table 16 provides a comparison of measured and modeled noise levels at four locations on and near the project site where the primary noise source is motor vehicles on Fairfield Ranch Road. A close correspondence between measured ambient noise levels and modeled traffic noise levels at a given location is expected when motor vehicles are the primary noise source during the on-site measurement. If measured noise levels primarily reflect another source, such as human conversations, barking dogs, or industrial equipment, then it is not appropriate to compare measured and modeled noise levels.



Table 16 Comparison Between Measured Ambient Noise and

Modeled Traffic Noise Levels

# Measurement Location Existing Noise Level (dBA Leq) Difference In

Noise Level (2 minus 1) Measured Ambient

Noise (1) Modeled Traffic

Noise (2)

1 Fairfield Ranch Road at Corporate Park

65.0 62.4 -2.6

2 Fairfield Ranch Road at Monte Vista 60.9 61.9 -1.0

3 Project Site at Fairfield Ranch Road

63.4 62.6 -1.2

4 Middle of Project Site 59.3 56.1 -2.8

Source: Rincon Consultants, field measurements on October 27, 2015 field. See Appendix G for noise measurement data sheets. Federal Highway Administration, Traffic Noise Model Version 2.5.

As shown in Table 16, modeled noise is slightly less than measured noise at Noise Measurement locations. The difference of up to 2.8 dBA between modeled and measured noise levels is less than 3 dBA, which is generally when a change in noise level becomes noticeable. The measured ambient noise is anticipated to be slightly higher than the modeled noise results due to noise from other noise sources observed during noise measurements, such as airplanes flying overhead or a train horn in the distance in addition to traffic noise. The modeled traffic noise would simulate traffic noise alone and does not factor in other noise sources. Nevertheless, because the noise levels calculated by the noise model are generally similar to the measured noise levels shown in Table 17, this analysis relies on the noise model to estimate noise experienced by existing sensitive receptors in the area of the project site and the project’s proposed receptors. While the modeled noise levels are slightly lower than measured noise levels, the model is demonstrated above to generate reasonable projections of noise. The locations of the sensitive receptors most likely to be affected by traffic noise on Fairfield Ranch Road were modeled based on the project site plan. Elevations of all receptors, buildings, and roadways were based on Google Earth elevations. It was assumed that a person at receptors would hear traffic noise at a height of six feet above ground level and 16 feet above ground level (if the receptor location was a two story residence). For traffic-related noise, impacts are considered significant if project-generated traffic results in exposure of sensitive receptors to an unacceptable increase in noise levels. Recommendations contained in the FTA’s Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment were used to determine whether or not increases in roadway noise would be significant (FTA, 2006). The allowable noise exposure increase changes with increasing noise exposure, such that lower ambient noise levels have a higher allowable noise exposure increase. Table 17 shows the significance thresholds for increases in traffic-related noise levels caused either by the project alone or by cumulative development.



Table 17 Significance of Changes in Operational

Roadway Noise Exposure Ldn or Leq in dBA

Existing Noise Exposure

Allowable Noise Exposure Increase

45-50 7

50-55 5

55-60 3

60-65 2

65-75 1

75+ 0

Source: FTA, 2006

a) Would the project result in exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? The main source of noise on the project site is traffic noise from adjacent roadways and Chino Valley Freeway (SR-71). Secondary noise sources included biplanes from Chino Airport. Generally speaking, residential, education and medical uses are more sensitive to noise than are commercial and industrial activities. According to the Land Use Element of the City of Chino Hills General Plan, land uses that are sensitive to noise, such as residential and school uses, form the basis for Noise Element policies that avoid or buffer excessive noise sources. The Noise Element of the General Plan identifies noise levels up to 65 dbA Ldn as generally acceptable for noise sensitive uses. The single-family residence and mobile home park are considered noise sensitive uses or sensitive receptors. Four noise measurements were taken from 7:45 a.m. to 9:05 a.m. The Leq for point 1, measured at Fairfield Ranch Road at Corporate Park, is 65.0. The Leq for point 2, measured at Fairfield Ranch Road at Monte Vista, is 60.9. The Leq for point 3, measured on the project site at Fairfield Ranch Road, is 63.4. The Leq for point 4, measured on the middle of the project site, is 59.3. The primary noise during the study for all four locations is traffic. The Leq at all four locations is within the 65 dbA Ldn standard for residential uses. The proposed project would generate noise typical of light manufacturing uses, such as commercial traffic and forklifts. These types of noise would be similar to ambient noise in the project area. During the construction period, the proposed project would comply with construction hour restrictions established by CHMC Section 8.08.020 of the City’s noise ordinance. The proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable increase in ambient noise levels in the project site vicinity from long-term onsite operational noise or traffic noise. Furthermore, given that approximately 93 percent of the proposed building would be used as warehouse space, which typically generates interior noise, development of the proposed project would not expose residential land uses to levels exceeding 45 dBA CNEL within interior spaces. Therefore,



impacts related to exposure of persons to noise levels in excess of local standards established in the City’s General Plan and noise ordinance would be less than significant. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT b) Would the project result in exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Project construction would intermittently generate high noise levels on and adjacent to the project site during the construction period. Temporary noise impacts associated with construction may adversely affect noise sensitive uses, particularly the single-family residence located across Red Barn Court at the southwest boundary of the project site. The main sources of noise during construction activities would be the heavy machinery used in grading and clearing the site. As shown in Table 18, average noise levels associated with the use of heavy equipment at construction sites can range from about 70 to 89 dBA at 50 feet from the source, depending upon the types of equipment in operation at any given time and phase of construction (FTA, 2006). Construction of the proposed project would occur approximately 50 feet from the nearest sensitive receptor: a single-family adjacent residence southwest across Red Barn Court; and approximately 300 feet to an existing religious facility to the northwest. At 50 feet, construction equipment on the project site would generate noise ranging up to 89 dBA to the single-family residence, and range from 60 to 73 dBA at the existing religious facility.

Table 18 Typical Noise Levels Generated by Construction Equipment

Equipment Typical Lmax (dBA) 50 Feet from the Source

Typical Lmax (dBA) 300 Feet from the Source

Air Compressor 81 65

Backhoe 80 64

Compactor (ground) 83 67

Concrete Mixer 85 69

Dump Truck 76 60

Excavator 81 65

Flat Bed Truck 74 58

Front End Loader 79 63

Generator 81 65

Paver 89 73

Pickup Truck 75 59

Pneumatic Tools 85 69

Roller 80 64

Saw 70 54

Warning Horn 83 67

Welder/Torch 74 58

Source: FTA, 2006.



Construction of the proposed project could potentially increase groundborne vibration on the project site, but construction effects would be temporary. The nearest sensitive receptors are a single-family residence approximately 50 feet southeast and an existing religious facility 300 feet northwest of the project site. There is also a mobile home park 400 feet to the southeast of the project site. Based on the information presented in Table 19, during construction, the single-family residence would be exposed to maximum vibration levels of approximately 80 Vdb from construction of the proposed project. The existing religious facility would be exposed to vibration levels up to 64 VdB from construction of the proposed project because vibration, like noise, attenuates over distance.

Table 19 Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment

Equipment Approximate VdB

25 Feet 50 Feet 60 Feet 75 Feet 100 Feet 300 Feet

Loaded Trucks 86 80 78 76 74 64

Jackhammer 79 73 71 69 67 63

Small Bulldozer 58 52 50 48 46 36

Source: USDOT, 1998

As discussed above, 100 VdB is the general threshold where minor damage can occur in fragile buildings. Because vibration levels would not reach 100 VdB, structural damage would not be expected to occur as a result of construction activities. As a result of construction of the proposed project, vibration levels at the existing residence would exceed the groundborne velocity threshold level of 72 VdB established by the FTA for residences and buildings where people normally sleep; whereas, construction of the proposed project would not exceed the 72 VdB threshold for the existing residence located across Red Barn Court from the southwest boundary of the project site. It is important to note, that the City of Chino Hills exempts noise and vibration associated with construction activities between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. during weekdays and 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays (CHMC, Section 8.08.020)(Chino Hills, 2015a). Based on these hours, construction would not occur during recognized sleep hours for residences. Since construction of the proposed project would occur during allowable hours for construction, vibration and noise impacts from proposed project construction would be less than significant. c) Would the project result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels above levels existing without the project? The proposed project would not introduce new residences on the project site. Existing sensitive uses near the project site may periodically be subject to noise associated with operation of the proposed project, including delivery trucks and other general activities associated with the proposed uses.



Manufacturing Operational Noise The project is a “spec” building, as the Applicant and property owner have not yet identified a tenant for the proposed building. Due to the industrial nature of the project site, there is potential for operational noise impacts from assembly or manufacturing of products. It is currently unknown what type of manufacturing or assembly would occur, and therefore impossible to quantify. Nevertheless, manufacturing or assembly activity would be confined to within the proposed building, and therefore unlikely to cause a substantial increase to exterior ambient noise levels.

Parking Lot

Typical noise sources associated with parking lots include tire squealing, doors slamming, car alarms, horns, and engine start-ups. Noise from typical parking lot activities such as car alarms can reach up to 66 dBA at 50 feet; door slams up to 72 dBA at 50 feet; vehicle tire squeals up to 72 dBA at 50 feet; and vehicle start-ups up to 73 dBA at 50 feet. Noise levels within the parking area would fluctuate with the amount of automobile and human activity. More generally, noise levels would be highest during the day, when the largest number of employees and visitors would enter and exit the parking lot. Noise from parking lot activities would be a periodic source of operational noise and would not result in a substantial increase in the CNEL (24-hour average) or generate noise approaching the City’s 65 dBA CNEL residential standard. Therefore, noise impacts from the parking lot would be less than significant. Delivery and Trash Trucks

On-site activities would include the use of delivery trucks and trash hauling. The California Motor Vehicle Code establishes maximum sound levels for trucks operating at speeds less than 35 miles per hour (Section 23130) of 86 dBA at 50 feet. In addition, Chapter 13.20.170 of the CHMC states that the noise level for trash collection vehicles during the stationary compaction process shall not exceed 75 dBA at a distance of 25 feet from the vehicle. Delivery and trash truck trips to the site would be a periodic source of operational noise and would not result in a substantial increase in CNEL (24-hour average). Therefore, noise impacts from delivery and trash trucks would be less than significant. Long-Term Traffic Noise Impacts

Table 20 compares pre- and post-project noise levels at existing and proposed sensitive receptor locations near the project site. As shown in Table 20, the greatest increase in project-generated traffic noise would be along Fairfield Ranch Road at the project site due to both project-traffic and cumulative traffic growth. The project cumulative plus project-generated traffic noise would not exceed the 1 dBA threshold established by the FTA for roadways with an existing noise exposure of 65 to 75 dBA. Therefore, the project’s contribution to traffic noise would be less than significant (no more than 0.5 dBA). In addition, as discussed above, a 3 dBA change in community noise levels is noticeable, while 1 to 2 dBA changes generally are not perceived. Therefore, an increase of up to 0.5 dBA would not result in an audible change in ambient noise at sensitive receptor locations along area roadways. As such, the proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable increase in ambient noise levels in the project site vicinity and impacts would be less than significant.



Table 20 Comparison of Pre-Project and Post-Project Traffic Noise

On Local Roadways

Location

Projected Noise Level (dBA Ldn)

Change In Noise Level (dBA Ldn)

Existing (1)

Existing + Project

(2) Cumulative

(3) Cumulative

+ Project (4)

Due to Project Traffic (2-1)

Due to Cumulative

Traffic Growth (4-3)

Significant?

Project Site at Fairfield Ranch

Road 65.8 66.3 68.1 68.4 0.5 0.4 No

Middle of Project Site 61.7 61.8 63.4 63.6 0.1 0.2 No

Religious Site 61.4 61.7 63.4 63.7 0.3 0.3 No

Single Family Residence

(Caretaker unit) 63.8 64.1 65.8 66.0 0.3 0.2 No

Mobile Home Park 65.6 65.6 66.9 67.0 0.0 0.1 No

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT d) Would the project result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? As discussed above, project construction would intermittently generate high noise levels on and adjacent to the project site during the construction period. Temporary noise impacts associated with construction may adversely affect noise sensitive uses, particularly the single-family residence located across Red Barn Court at the southwest boundary of the project site. The main sources of noise during construction activities would be the heavy machinery used in grading and clearing the site. However, City of Chino Hills exempts noise and vibration associated with construction activities between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. during weekdays and 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays (CHMC, Section 8.08.020)(Chino Hills, 2015a). Based on these hours, construction would not occur during recognized sleep hours for residences, and construction of the proposed project would comply with these construction hour restrictions; therefore, temporary vibration and noise impacts would be less than significant. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? The project site is not located within an airport land use plan or area subject to excessive noise levels generated by airport operations. The airport nearest to the project site is Chino Airport,



located approximately 2.5 miles east of the site. Therefore project would not be subject to excessive noise levels associated with airport operations. f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise? There is no private air strip within or adjacent to Chino Hills. Consequently, the project site location is not within the vicinity of any private air strip and would not be subject to excessive noise levels associated with private air strip operations. NO IMPACT


Impact


Unless Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No

Impact XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING


a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? □ □ ■ □

b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? □ □ □ ■

c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? □ □ □ ■

a) Would the project induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? In November of 1999, the community of Chino Hills voted in favor of Measure U. Measure U prohibits an increase in residential density except under the following circumstances: (1) approval by a majority vote of Chino Hills residents; (2) as necessary to meet the City’s minimum mandated Housing Element requirements as set forth in California Government Code §65580, et seq.; or (3) through a simultaneous transfer of zoning designations provided that the net effect of the transfer does not increase the total number of residential units allowed on the properties in the transfer, including, without limitation, the City’s share of regional housing needs. Any proposal to add residential on the project site would need to follow one of the three Measure U circumstances outlined above. However the project does not propose any residential development , and therefore would not introduce new permanent residences on the project site. Due to the industrial nature of the proposed project and lack of residences proposed



as part of the project, the proposed project would not induce substantial population growth. Therefore, impacts relating to population growth would be less than significant. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT b) Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Would the project displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? The proposed project would not involve the demolition of any existing residential units, nor the construction of any new residential units since the proposed project involves construction of an industrial building on a vacant lot. There are no residences located north, east or west of the project site, and only one single-family residence across the street from the southwest boundary of the site. However, since the project site is vacant and has not been used for housing, the project would not displace housing units or people, or necessitate the construction of replacement housing. Therefore, no impact related to the displacement of people and housing would occur. NO IMPACT




Impact


Unless Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No

Impact XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES

a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or the 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:

i) Fire protection? □ □ ■ □ ii) Police protection? □ □ ■ □ iii) Schools? □ □ ■ iv) Parks? □ □ ■ □ v) Other public facilities? □ □ ■ □

a (i) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or the 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 fire protection? The Chino Valley Independent Fire District (CVIFD) provides fire protection services in the City of Chino Hills. The closest fire station to the project site is fire Station 62, which is located approximately 2.2 miles away at 5551 Butterfield Ranch Road (CVIFD, 2015). Station 62 houses a paramedic engine company with four firefighters. Other stations would respond to emergencies at the project site as needed. According to SCAG’s Employee Density Study, light manufacturing typically generate one employee per 1,538 sf of building area (SCAG, 2001). Based on this rate, the project would generate an estimated 65 employees. Nonetheless, development of the proposed project would not change the service ratio within the City of Chino Hills since potential growth in population would be nominal. The Fire Department would review site plans, site construction, and the actual structure prior to occupancy to ensure that required fire protection safety features, including building sprinklers and emergency access, are implemented. The project site is within a developed area currently served by the CVIFD and the development would not create the need for new or expanded fire facilities. According to the EIR for City’s



General Plan Update, business park and light industrial uses are concentrated on the eastern side of SR-71. Thus, light industrial development was anticipated for the project area and was accounted for in build-out in the General Plan (Chino Hills, 2015c). The adopted General Plan Land Use Map identifies the project site for Business Park use and the adopted Zoning Map identifies the project site for Light Industrial use. Details of the proposed project were sent to the CVIFD for review through the City of Chino Hills Project Review Committee process on 3/16/2015, 5/12/2015, and 7/30/2015. The CVIFD expressed no need for expanded or new facilities resulting from project construction (Schonborn, 2015). In addition, the project area’s close proximity to fire station 62 would help ensure an adequate response time by the Fire Department in emergency situations. As such, impacts related to fire protection would be less than significant. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT a (ii) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or the 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 police protection? The City of Chino Hills contracts with the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department to receive law enforcement services (SBC Sheriff, 2015). The Chino Hills Police Station is located in the Chino Hills Government Center at 14077 Peyton Drive, located approximately 4 miles northwest of the project site. The Chino Hills Police Station is staffed with 52 sworn personnel and 15 civilian personnel, as well as a large volunteer unit consisting of citizens on patrol, Explorer Pose and reserve Deputy Sheriffs (SBC Sheriff, 2015). The project would incrementally increase the demand for police protection services compared to existing conditions due to the addition of an estimated 65 employees. However, the project would increase the number of residents in the project area and is not expected to adversely affect police services. As noted above, the proposed use is consistent with the adopted General Plan Land Use Map. Furthermore, the SBCSD has sufficient resources to accommodate the proposed project, and the proposed project would not result in the need to construct new or physically alter existing police protection facilities. Details of the proposed project were sent to the Chino Hills Police Department for review through the City of Chino Hills Project Review Committee process on 3/16/2015, 5/12/2015, and 7/30/2015. The Chino Hills Police Department had no comments during any circulation and expressed no need for expanded or new facilities resulting from project construction (Schonborn, 2015). Therefore, impacts related to police services would be less than significant. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT a (iii) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or the 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 schools? The proposed project involves the construction of a new 100,330 square foot warehouse building consisting of 92,830 square feet of warehouse space and 7,500 square feet of office



space. While development of this project would incrementally increase employment opportunities in the area, it would not directly cause population growth or directly increase the number of students at local public schools. In addition, as stated in the EIR for the City’s General Plan Update, the development of business park and light industrial uses were anticipated in the project area, and no residential or institutional development uses were identified or anticipated in this area. As such, non-residential development in this area of the City would not result in impacts to local schools. Therefore, since the proposed project is a non-residential development, the project would not cause any detrimental impacts that would lead to the need for new or physically altered facilities. Therefore, there would be no impact. NO IMPACT a (iv) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or the 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 parks? As identified in the City of Chino Hills Park, Recreation and Open Space Element (Chino Hills, 2008), the City’s parks system consists of 307.97 acres of land designated as parks. The City owns and operates 44 parks, pocket parks, open space areas, and recreational facilities (Chino Hills, 2015b). Danbury Park is the City recreational facility closest to the project site and includes a gazebo area, full basketball court, BBQ’s, picnic tables and restrooms. The total area of the park is 5.7 acres and is located 0.7 mile east of the project site. The other recreational facility close to the project site is Fairfield Ranch Park, a 5.5 acre park that includes a gazebo area, full basketball court, BBQ’s picnic tables and restrooms. It is located 1.4 miles east of the project site. The City’s current population is estimated at 77,596 people (California Department of Finance, 2015). Based on this population and the 307.97 acres of parkland within the City limits, there are 3.97 acres of parkland for every 1,000 residents. The Quimby Act uses the standard ratio of 3 acres of parkland for every 1,000 residents. The City currently meets the standard ratio for parkland in the Quimby Act. However, the City’s General Plan goal for parkland acreage is 5 acres per 1000 residents. The proposed project involves the development of 100,330 square feet of new warehouse and office space and would not directly lead to an increase in population. Therefore, the parkland to resident ratio would not be altered. Further, since the proposed project is a non-residential development, there will not be an increase in the City’s population, and thusthe project would not create the need for new or expanded park facilities. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT a (v) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or the 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 other public facilities?



The proposed project would incrementally add to impacts to the City’s public services and facilities such as storm drain usage (discussed in Section IX, Hydrology and Water Quality), public parks (discussed above in this section), solid waste disposal (discussed in Section XVII, Utilities and Service Systems), water usage and wastewater disposal (discussed in more detail in Section XVII, Utilities and Service Systems). However, development of business park and light industrial uses were accounted for in buildout in the General Plan and analyzed in the EIR for the City’s General Plan Update. As such, the project and the associated need for public services was anticipated by the City. Therefore, the project’s contribution, taking into account existing capacities and assuming compliance with existing ordinances, would be less than significant. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT


Impact


Unless Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No

Impact XV. RECREATION

a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? □ □ ■ □

b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? □ □ ■ □

a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? The proposed project is the development of 100,330 square feet of warehouse building, consisting of 92,830 square feet of warehouse space and 7,500 square feet of office space. The project does not include recreational facilities that would require construction or expansion. In addition, the project is not expected to cause a significant growth in population. Development of the proposed project would create an estimated 65 additional employment opportunities in the project area, which could increase use of recreational facilities by daily employees. However, as described above in Section XIV, Public Facilities, the project area is adequately served by recreational facilities and the construction of the proposed project would not cause substantial physical deterioration of these existing recreational facilities. As such, the impacts relating to recreation from the proposed project would be less than significant. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT




Impact


Unless Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No

Impact XVI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC


a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing a measure of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation, including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways, and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? □ ■ □ □

b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? □ □ ■ □

c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? □ □ □ ■

d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible use (e.g., farm equipment)? □ □ ■ □

e) Result in inadequate emergency access? □ □ ■ □ f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or

programs regarding public transit, bikeways, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise substantially decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? □ □ ■ □

a) Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing a measure of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation, including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways, and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? Linscott, Law, and Greenspan, Engineers prepared a traffic impact analysis for the proposed project (LLG, 2016; see Appendix H). Trip generation estimates were developed utilizing trip generation rates and equations from Trip Generation, 9th Edition (Institute of Transportation



Engineers [ITE], 2012). Since the developer and property owner have not yet identified a tenant for the proposed building, land use assumptions were made based on the allowable uses within the Light Industrial zoning classification. Based on the potential land uses for the project, the average trip rates for the following land uses were used to forecast the range of the project’s trip generation potential:

• ITE Land Use 110: General Light Industrial; • ITE Land Use 140: Manufacturing; and, • ITE Land Use 150: Warehousing

A summary of the trip generation potential of the project, assuming three development options/land uses for the proposed building, is summarized in Table 21. The trip generation potential of the project is presented in passenger car equivalents (PCE’s). Consistent with standard traffic engineering practice, PCE factors have been utilized due to the expected heavy truck component of the Project uses. PCE factors are applied to large truck two-axles, three-axles, 4+-axles. A PCE factor of 1.5 has been applied to large 2-axle trucks, a factor of 3.0 for 3-axle trucks and a factor of 4.0 for 4+-axle trucks. These PCE factors are consistent with the values recommended in the San Bernardino County Congestion Management Program (CMP). As shown in Table 21, the proposed project’s trip generation potential could be as few as 453 weekday daily trips assuming the ITE Land Use 150: Warehousing. However, to be conservative and provide the flexibility for the proposed Project, the potential traffic impact associated with the trip generation potential of the ITE Land Use: 110 General Light Industrial was used to prepare the traffic study (Appendix H) since this land use results in the greatest trip generation and results in a “worse case” scenario. Thus, the proposed project has a total trip forecast potential of 887 daily trips, with 140 trips produced in the AM peak hour and 127 trips produced in the PM peak hour on a typical weekday.

Table 21 Estimated Project Traffic Trip Generation

with PCE Conversion

ITE Land Use* Weekday Peak Hour Total Daily

Trips AM PM

110: General Light Industrial 140 127 887

140: Manufacturing 121 113 597

150: Warehousing 38 43 453

Source: LLG, 2016; See Appendix H for full traffic analysis. *Each land use is based on 100,330 square feet

Fourteen key study intersections were selected for evaluation utilizing San Bernardino County CMP analysis criteria and requirements of the City of Chino Hills and the City of Chino. The intersections listed below provide both local and regional access to the project area and define the extent of the boundaries for this traffic impact investigation. The City of Chino Hills, as well



as the City of Chino, adheres to the SANBAG CMP TIA guidelines, which require analysis of arterial intersection locations in which the proposed Project is anticipated to contribute 50 or more peak hour trips. City staff also included several locations where the Project contributes less than 50 peak hour trips, or is nearby and in close proximity to the Project site. The jurisdictions where the study intersections are located are identified as well.

1. SR-71 SB Ramp at Chino Hills Parkway (Chino Hills/Caltrans) 2. SR-71 NB Ramp at Chino Hills Parkway (Chino Hills/Caltrans) 3. Ramona Avenue at Chino Hills Parkway (Chino Hills/Chino) 4. Monte Vista Avenue (S) at Chino Hills Parkway (Chino Hills/Chino) 5. Monte Vista Avenue (N) at Chino Hills Parkway (Chino) 6. Central Avenue at Chino Hills Parkway/Manuel Gonzalez Drive (City of Chino) 7. SR-71 NB Ramp at Ramona Avenue (Chino Hills/Caltrans) 8. SR-71 SB Ramp at Ramona Avenue (Chino Hills/Caltrans) 9. Central Avenue at El Prado Road (City of Chino) 10. Central Avenue/Soquel Canyon Parkway at Fairfield Ranch Road (City of Chino Hills) 11. Soquel Canyon Parkway at SR-71 NB Ramps (City of Chino Hills/Caltrans) 12. Soquel Canyon Parkway at SR-71 SB Ramps (City of Chino Hills/Caltrans) 13. Soquel Canyon Parkway at Pomona Rincon Road (City of Chino Hills) 14. Soquel Canyon Parkway at Los Serranos Country Club Drive/Butterfield Ranch Road (City of

Chino Hills) The following scenarios were evaluated for near-term (Year 2018) and long-term (Post 2035) conditions:

(a) Existing traffic counts, (b) Estimated project traffic generation/distribution/assignment, (c) Estimated cumulative project traffic generation/distribution/assignment, (d) AM and PM peak hour capacity analyses for existing conditions, (e) AM and PM peak hour capacity analyses for existing plus project conditions, (f) AM and PM peak hour capacity analyses for near-term (Year 2018) conditions without and with

project traffic, (g) AM and PM peak hour capacity analyses for long-term (Post-2035) conditions without and with

project traffic, (h) Area Traffic Improvements and Mitigations, (i) Improvement Costs Estimates, (j) Project-Related Fair-Share Contributions, (k) Freeway off-ramp queuing analysis, (l) Site Access and Internal Circulation Evaluation, and (m) Parking Analysis.

According to the City of Chino Hills guidelines, a significant traffic impact occurs when the intersections or roadway projected to operate at LOS D or better without the project would exceed LOS D with the project. A significant traffic impact would also occur if the project results in an increase of 0.01 or more in the volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratio at a location that is projected to operate at LOS E or F without the project.



According to the City of Chino (General Plan Transportation Element Objective TRA-1.2, Policy 1), LOS D is the minimum acceptable condition that should be maintained during the peak commute hours. Hence, any intersection operating at LOS E or F is considered deficient/unsatisfactory. For purposes of analyzing CEQA impacts, the City of Chino utilizes the following thresholds of significance. First, when the pre-project condition is at or above LOS D, and project traffic causes deterioration below LOS D, a significant impact is deemed to occur. However, when the pre-project condition is already below LOS D (i.e., LOS E or F), the project is responsible for fully mitigating its impacts to a level of service equal to or better than it was without the project. This is a standard protocol in many urban jurisdictions because to require a project to mitigate to LOS D would in effect force the project to mitigate beyond its impacts. Thus, for intersections currently operating at LOS E or F during either the a.m. and/or p.m. peak hours under existing conditions, improvements have been identified to mitigate the impacts of the project to an intersection LOS that is equal to better than pre-project conditions. It is noted that the 50 peak hour trip criterion that is utilized by the City of Chino generally represents a threshold of trips at which an intersection within this jurisdiction would have the potential to be significantly impacted. Mitigation in the form of fair share contributions towards needed improvements at locations within the City of Chino where a project contributes less than 50 peak hour trips is considered appropriate to help ensure funding of locally needed improvements. Caltrans District 8 has established that LOS D as the operating standard for all Caltrans facilities. Caltrans has determined that all state owned facilities that operate below LOS D should be identified and improved to an acceptable LOS. The Caltrans Traffic Impact Study Guidelines (2002) states that if an existing state owned facility operates at less than LOS D, the existing service level should be maintained. The CMP definition of deficiency is based on maintaining a level of service standard of LOS E or better, except where an existing LOS F condition is identified in the CMP document. Further, per the CMP, an intersection must be designated as operating at LOS F when the volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratio of the critical movements is equal to or greater than 1.0. Any V/C ratio of 1.0 or greater is an indication of actual or potential breakdown, thereby requiring improvements in the overall intersection geometrics and signal operations. In the event that an intersection is operating at or is forecast to operate at a deficient LOS, the City’s guidelines as well as the CMP guidelines have defined a series of steps to be completed to determine the project’s contribution to the deficiency of intersections. The steps are as follows:

1. Determine the mitigation measures necessary to achieve an acceptable service level. 2. Calculate the Project’s share in the future traffic volume projections for the peak hours. 3. Estimate the cost to implement recommended mitigation measures. 4. Calculate the Project’s fair-share contribution to offset the Project’s traffic impacts.

Table 22 summarizes the peak hour level of service results at the fourteen key study intersections for existing plus project traffic conditions. Table 22 indicates that the traffic associated with the proposed project would not directly impact any of the 14 key study intersections, when compared to the LOS standards and significant impact criteria specified in this report. One intersection, Central Avenue at El Prado Road (in the City of Chino), currently



operates at an unacceptable LOS under existing traffic conditions and is forecast to continue to operate at unacceptable conditions under existing plus project traffic conditions. However, the project-related traffic volumes at this location would not increase the existing intersection delay or v/c ratio. The intersection operating condition for the existing plus project traffic conditions is the same as existing traffic conditions, since the contribution is less than 50 peak hour trips at this location. Based on the CMP, the 50 peak hour trip threshold is used by local agencies (including the City of Chino) to establish the study area, determine if an intersection would warrant evaluation, and determine the significance level of an impact. The proposed project would add 19 trips in the AM peak hour and 16 trips in the PM peak hour, which would not exceed the 50 peak hour trip threshold. Therefore, the impact is considered less than significant.



Table 22 Existing Plus Project Peak Hour Intersection Capacity Analysis

No. Intersection Peak Hour

Existing Existing + Project Significant Impact?

Existing + Project w/ Improvements Significant

Impact? Delay (s/v) V/C LOS Delay (s/v) V/C LOS Delay

(s/v) V/C LOS

1 SR-71 SB Ramp at Chino Hills Parkway

AM 16.6 0.480 B 16.3 0.490 B No -- -- -- No PM 16.4 0.540 B 16.4 0.550 B No -- -- -- No

2 SR-71 NB Ramp at Chino Hills Parkway

AM 23.1 0.570 C 23.0 0.570 C No -- -- -- No PM 22.0 0.590 C 22.6 0.590 C No -- -- -- No

3 Ramona Avenue at Chino Hills Parkway

AM 34.6 0.682 C 35.0 0.683 C No -- -- -- No PM 36.2 0.653 D 36.6 0.666 D No -- -- -- No

4 Monte Vista Avenue (S) at Chino Hills Parkway

AM 18.8 0.312 C 19.7 0.337 C No -- -- -- No PM 24.6 0.352 C 34.9 0.524 D No -- -- -- No

5 Monte Vista Avenue (N) at Chino Hills Parkway

AM 18.4 0.380 B 18.4 0.384 B No -- -- -- No PM 22.3 0.386 C 22.2 0.391 C No -- -- -- No

6 Central Avenue at Chino Hills Parkway/Manuel Gonzalez Drive

AM 47.0 0.627 D 47.3 0.628 D No -- -- -- No

PM 50.1 0.684 D 50.1 0.684 D No -- -- -- No

7 SR-71 NB Ramp at Ramona Avenue


8 SR-71 SB Ramp at Ramona Avenue


9 Central Avenue at El Prado Road

AM 57.0 0.968 E 58.0 0.974 E No 42.5 0.888 D No PM 77.7 1.028 F 79.7 1.037 F No 40.3 0.819 D No

10 Central Avenue/Soquel Canyon Parkway at Fairfield Ranch Road

AM 51.2 0.799 D 54.1 0.833 D No -- -- -- No

PM 38.5 0.678 D 39.2 0.714 D No -- -- -- No

11 Soquel Canyon Parkway at SR-71 NB Ramps

AM 16.5 0.540 B 21.3 0.560 C No -- -- -- No PM 10.4 0.500 B 10.5 0.500 B No -- -- -- No

12 Soquel Canyon Parkway at SR-71 SB Ramps


13 Soquel Canyon Parkway at Pomona Rincon Road

AM 29.6 0.977 C 29.8 0.978 C No -- -- -- No PM 8.7 0.253 A 8.7 0.253 A No -- -- -- No

14

Soquel Canyon Parkway at Los Serranos Country Club Drive/Butterfield Ranch Road

AM 45.6 0.770 D 49.0 0.776 D No -- -- -- No

PM 38.0 0.383 D 38.0 0.384 D No -- -- -- No

Source: LLG, 2016; See Appendix H for full traffic analysis. Note: Bold LOS values indicate adverse service levels based on City LOS standards; s/v = seconds per vehicle (delay).



Background traffic growth estimates have been calculated using an ambient growth factor. The ambient traffic growth factor is intended to include unknown and future related projects in the study area, and to account for regular growth in traffic volumes due to the development of projects outside the study area in other jurisdictions. The future growth in traffic volumes has been calculated at 2% per year. Applied to the Year 2015 existing traffic volumes, this factor results in a cumulative growth of 6.0% growth in existing volumes to the near-term horizon year 2018. In order to make a realistic estimate of future on-street conditions prior to implementation of the proposed project, the status of other known development projects (cumulative projects) in the vicinity of the proposed project has been researched at the cities of Chino Hills, Chino and Brea. With this information, the potential impact of the proposed project can be evaluated within the context of the cumulative impact of all ongoing development. There are 20 cumulative projects in Chino Hills, 28 cumulative projects in Chino and eight cumulative projects in Brea within the vicinity of the project site. These 56 cumulative projects have been included as part of the cumulative background setting. The cumulative projects are described in the traffic impact analysis (see Appendix H). The improvements listed below have been identified by the City of Chino Hills and are required to be implemented by approved development as those projects’ Conditions of Approval. The planned improvements are expected to be implemented prior to or by Year 2018. Therefore, these planned improvements are included as part of the cumulative setting for Year 2018 and Year 2035 traffic conditions. Per the City’s requirements, the Project will be required to pay their proportional fair-share of the cost of improvements and reimburse the development project responsible for implementation of these planned improvements. The planned improvements expected to be implemented by Year 2018 consist of the following:

• No. 4 – Monte Vista Avenue (S) at Chino Hills Parkway: Install a traffic signal and design for three-phase operation with protected westbound left-turn phasing on Chino Hills Parkway. Provide crosswalks on the south and west legs. Widen Monte Vista Avenue and restripe the northbound approach to provide a separate right-turn lane. Modify existing striping accordingly and install all necessary striping, pavement markings and signs per the City of Chino Hills Standard Design Guidelines and/or CA MUTCD. The construction of this improvement is required of the Fairfield Ranch Commons project.

• No. 6 – Central Avenue at Chino Hills Parkway/Manuel Gonzalez Drive: Remove the existing crosswalk along the north leg of the intersection on Central Avenue and install a crosswalk along the south leg of the intersection on Central Avenue. Modify the existing traffic signal and existing striping accordingly and install all necessary striping, pavement markings and signs per the City of Chino Standard Design Guidelines and/or CA MUTCD. The construction of this improvement is required of the Fairfield Ranch Commons project.

• No. 9 – Central Avenue at El Prado Road: Modify existing traffic signal and install a northbound right-turn overlap phase on Central Avenue. Install “No U-turn” signs for westbound traffic on El Prado Road. The construction of this improvement is required of the Fairfield Ranch Commons project.



• No. 10 – Central Avenue/Soquel Canyon Parkway at Fairfield Ranch Road: Remove the existing crosswalk across the south leg of intersection on Central Avenue and install a crosswalk across the west leg of the intersection on Fairfield Ranch Road. Modify the existing traffic signal and existing striping accordingly and install all necessary striping, pavement markings and signs per the City of Chino Hills Standard Design Guidelines and/or CA MUTCD. The construction of this improvement is required of the Fairfield Ranch Commons project.

• No. 13 – Soquel Canyon Parkway at Pomona Rincon Road: Modify existing median along Soquel Canyon Parkway to provide a dedicated northbound left-turn lane. Restripe the westbound approach to provide an exclusive left-turn lane, a shared through/right-turn lane and an exclusive right-turn lane. Construct an eastbound leg to provide an eastbound left-turn lane a shared through/right-turn lane. Modify the existing traffic signal to operate as a five-phase signal. Modify existing striping accordingly and install all necessary striping, pavement markings and signs per the City of Chino Hills Standard Design Guidelines and/or CA MUTCD. The construction of this improvement is a project design feature associated with the Higgins Ranch Mixed-Use project to provide access to the subject property.

Per the City of Chino Hills’ requirements, the project would be conditioned to pay a fair-share for these planned improvements and reimburse the developer responsible for implementation of the improvements identified at the intersections of Monte Vista Avenue (S)/Chino Hills Parkway, Central Avenue/Chino Hills Parkway-Manual Gonzalez Drive, Central Avenue/El Prado Raod, and Central Avenue-Soquel Canyon Parkway/Fairfield Ranch Road. Table 23 summarizes the weekday a.m. peak hour and p.m. peak LOS results at the key study intersections for the Year 2018. An analysis of future (Year 2018) cumulative traffic conditions indicates that the addition of ambient traffic growth and cumulative project traffic would cumulatively impact two of the fourteen key study intersections. The intersections forecast to operate at an adverse level of service in the Year 2018 Cumulative Traffic Conditions during the a.m. peak hour and/or p.m. peak hour are Central Avenue at El Prado Road in the City of Chino as this intersection currently operates and is forecast to continually operate at an unacceptable service level without and with Project traffic. In addition, further review of Table 23 shows the Project-related traffic is forecast to directly impact the intersection of Central Avenue/Soquel Canyon Parkway at Fairfield Ranch Road in the City of Chino Hills the addition of Project traffic is forecast to deteriorate the AM peak hour service level from LOS D to LOS F. The remaining 12 key study intersections are forecast to continue to operate at LOS D or better during the weekday a.m. peak hour and p.m. peak hour with the addition of ambient traffic growth and cumulative project traffic. Table 23 indicates that 12 key study intersections are forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS or remain the same with the addition of project generated traffic, based on LOS standards and impact criteria discussed above. However, traffic associated with the proposed project would cumulatively impact Central Avenue/Soquel Canyon Parkway at Fairfield Ranch Road in the City of Chino Hills. The traffic generation forecasts are based on the 56 cumulative projects listed in Tables 6-3 of Appendix H. Therefore, with implementation of Mitigation Measure T-1 for the proposed light industrial project, along with the improvements required of other developments listed above, traffic impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level.



T-1 Traffic Improvements. The applicant shall pay fair share fees for construction

and implementation of, or construct and implement as required below, the necessary improvements identified below for the intersection Central Avenue/Soquel Canyon Parkway at Fairfield Ranch Road in the City of Chino Hills to offset the impact of their project.

Central Avenue/Soquel Canyon Parkway at Fairfield Ranch Road in the City of Chino Hills: Provide necessary improvements on the northbound approach on Soquel Canyon Parkway/Central Avenue to provide a second left-turn lane. Modify the existing traffic signal and existing striping accordingly and install all necessary roadwork, striping, pavement markings and signs per the City of Chino Hills Standard Design Guidelines.

This improvement to Central Avenue/Soquel Canyon Parkway at Fairfield Ranch Road in the City of Chino Hills is required to offset the incremental contribution of the project to identified 2018 traffic impacts. The project shall construct these improvements prior to occupancy, or, if the improvements are installed by another developer prior to occupancy of the Project, then the applicant shall pay fair share fees as determined by the City Engineer to the developer that constructs these improvements. A funding mechanism shall be established as a condition of project approval. Installation or fee payment shall occur prior to issuance of any certificate of occupancy for any commercial, warehouse or office structure in the project.

As shown in Table 23, implementation of Mitigation Measure T-1 at the cumulatively impacted intersection would mitigate the cumulative impacts of the proposed project and future background traffic as the impacted intersection is forecasted to operate at LOS D. As a result, both project and cumulative impacts under near-term (Year 2018) traffic conditions would be less than significant with implementation of mitigation. Long-term (Post 2035) traffic volume forecasts for traffic analysis were determined through utilization of the San Bernardino Traffic Analysis Model (SBTAM) developed by SANBAG. The future Year 2035 traffic volumes were post-processed based on the relationship of Year 2008 base year validation model run output to the base year ground traffic counts. The projected volume was reviewed and adjustments were applied as warranted based on local conditions and professional judgment. Copies of the traffic model post-processing worksheets for Year 2035 are contained in the traffic impact analysis in Appendix G. In addition, in response to a request to analyze the potential impacts on state highway facilities for horizon year 2040, LLG prepared an AM and PM Peak Hour Capacity Analysis for Long-Term (Year 2040) Conditions without and with Project Traffic dated January 13, 2016 (Chino Hills, 2016). This analysis was prepared for the Trumark Homes Mixed Use Project located on a 12.10-acre site near the northeast corner of Soquel Canyon Parkway and Los Serranos Country Club Drive in the City of Chino Hills. The analysis found that the intersections of SR-71 on and off-ramps at Soquel Canyon Parkway are forecasted to operate at an acceptable LOS D or better during the weekday AM peak hour and PM peak hour with the addition of traffic associated



with the Trumark Project, which would result in less than significant impacts. Although this analysis was not specifically performed for the proposed project, the daily trips associated with the Trumark Project (an estimated total of 1,975 daily trips) would be more than double the estimated trips under the General Light Industrial land use category (887 total daily trips). Therefore, the potential traffic impacts associated with the proposed project would be less than at the SR-71 on and off-ramps at Soquel Canyon Parkway within a long-term cumulative traffic setting (horizon year 2040). Table 24 summarizes the weekday a.m. peak hour and p.m. peak LOS results at the fourteen key study intersections for the Year 2035 buildout scenario. Table 24 shows that under Year 2035 Buildout Traffic Conditions, the intersection of Central Avenue/Soquel Canyon Parkway at Fairfield Ranch Road in the City of Chino Hills during a.m. peak hours would operate at an adverse level of service. The remaining key study intersections are forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS during the weekday a.m. peak hour and p.m. peak hour under Year 2035 Buildout Traffic Conditions. As shown in Table 24, with implementation of Mitigation Measure T-1, along with the improvements required of other developments listed above, all intersections are forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS of D or better and project and cumulative impacts under long-term (Year 2035) traffic conditions would be less than significant. POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT UNLESS MITIGATION INCORPORATED



Table 23 Year 2018 Peak Hour Intersection Capacity Analysis

# Intersection Peak Hour

Existing Year 2018 Year 2018 Plus Project Significant

Impact?

Year 2018 With Improvements Significant

Impact? Delay (s/v) V/C LOS Delay V/C LOS Delay V/C LOS Delay V/C LOS


AM 16.6 0.480 B 18.4 0.590 B 18.5 0.600 B No -- -- -- No

PM 16.4 0.540 B 20.9 0.690 C 20.9 0.690 C No -- -- -- No


AM 23.1 0.570 C 23.7 0.640 C 23.7 0.640 C No -- -- -- No

PM 22.0 0.590 C 19.9 0.750 B 20.8 0.770 C No -- -- -- No


AM 34.6 0.682 C 39.7 0.767 D 40.1 0.773 D No -- -- -- No

PM 36.2 0.653 D 47.3 0.817 D 48.2 0.829 D No -- -- -- No

4

Monte Vista Avenue (S) at Chino Hills Parkway

AM 18.8 0.312 C 14.0 0.451 B 14.5 0.470 B No -- -- -- No

PM 24.6 0.352 C 14.9 0.524 B 15.6 0.563 B No -- -- -- No

5

Monte Vista Avenue (N) at Chino Hills Parkway

AM 18.4 0.380 B 19.4 0.442 B 19.4 0.445 B No -- -- -- No

PM 22.3 0.386 C 23.5 0.454 C 23.4 0.458 C No -- -- -- No

6

Central Avenue at Chino Hills Parkway/Manuel Gonzalez Drive

AM 47.0 0.627 D 44.5 0.782 D 44.8 0.784 D No -- -- -- No

PM 50.1 0.684 D 50.3 0.946 D 50.3 0.946 D No -- -- -- No

7

SR-71 NB Ramp at Ramona Avenue

AM 27.3 0.440 C 28.2 0.480 C 28.2 0.480 C No -- -- -- No

PM 28.5 0.480 C 30.0 0.550 C 30.0 0.550 C No -- -- -- No


AM 21.1 0.350 C 21.3 0.380 C 21.3 0.380 C No -- -- -- No

PM 26.4 0.480 C 27.8 0.550 C 27.8 0.550 C No -- -- -- No


AM 57.0 0.968 E 73.3 1.064 F 74.4 1.069 F No 45.6 0.919 D No

PM 77.7 1.028 F 77.8 1.078 F 78.6 1.080 F No 38.1 0.844 D No

10

Central Avenue/Soquel Canyon Parkway at Fairfield Ranch Road

AM 51.2 0.799 D 54.3 0.982 D 61.8 1.023 F Yes 44.3 0.671 D No

PM 38.5 0.678 D 45.8 0.670 D 48.7 0.684 D No 41.6 0.604 D No



11 Soquel Canyon Parkway at SR-71 NB Ramps

AM 16.5 16.7 B 16.6 0.660 B 18.8 0.670 B No -- -- -- No

PM 10.4 0.500 B 17.4 0.740 C 17.7 0.740 C No -- -- -- No


AM 20.7 0.710 C 14.4 0.750 B 14.3 0.760 B No -- -- -- No

PM 23.8 0.690 C 23.3 0.790 C 23.0 0.790 C No -- -- -- No

13

Soquel Canyon Parkway at Pomona Rincon Road

AM 29.6 0.977 C 38.2 0.972 D 38.3 0.973 D No -- -- -- No

PM 8.7 0.253 A 21.1 0.597 C 21.1 0.597 C No -- -- -- No

14


AM 45.6 0.770 D 45.9 0.707 D 45.9 0.708 D No -- -- -- No

PM 38.0 0.383 D 49.1 0.559 D 49.4 0.561 D No -- -- -- No

Source: LLG, 2015; See Appendix H for full traffic analysis. Note: Bold LOS values indicate adverse service levels based on City LOS standards; s/v = seconds per vehicle (delay).



Table 24 Year 2035 Peak Hour Intersection Capacity Analysis

# Intersection Peak Hour

Existing Year 2035 Buildout Year 2035 Buildout Plus Project Significant

Impact?

Year 2035 With Improvements Significant Impact? Delay

(s/v) V/C LOS Delay V/C LOS Delay V/C LOS Delay V/C LOS


AM 16.6 0.480 B 20.5 0.710 C 20.8 0.720 C No -- -- -- No

PM 16.4 0.540 B 21.5 0.760 C 21.6 0.760 C No -- -- -- No


AM 23.1 0.570 C 25.9 0.710 C 25.6 0.710 C No -- -- -- No

PM 22.0 0.590 C 23.2 0.770 C 24.8 0.790 C No -- -- -- No


AM 34.6 0.682 C 39.2 0.793 D 39.7 0.799 D No -- -- -- No

PM 36.2 0.653 D 46.5 0.888 D 47.3 0.900 D No -- -- -- No

4

Monte Vista Avenue (S) at Chino Hills Parkway

AM 18.8 0.312 C 17.5 0.514 B 18.1 0.533 B No -- -- -- No

PM 24.6 0.352 C 16.9 0.573 B 17.3 0.612 B No -- -- -- No

5

Monte Vista Avenue (N) at Chino Hills Parkway

AM 18.4 0.380 B 21.0 0.548 C 21.0 0.552 C No -- -- -- No

PM 22.3 0.386 C 28.1 0.860 C 43.1 0.659 D No -- -- -- No

6

Central Avenue at Chino Hills Parkway/Manuel Gonzalez Drive

AM 47.0 0.627 D 43.3 0.803 D 43.6 0.804 D No -- -- -- No

PM 50.1 0.684 D 48.2 0.943 D 48.2 0.943 D No -- -- -- No

7 SR-71 NB Ramp at Ramona Avenue

AM 27.3 0.440 C 30.7 0.590 C 30.7 0.590 C No -- -- -- No

PM 28.5 0.480 C 31.0 0.610 C 31.0 0.610 C No -- -- -- No


AM 21.1 0.350 C 21.8 0.500 C 21.8 0.500 C No -- -- -- No

PM 26.4 0.480 C 28.8 0.640 C 28.8 0.640 C No -- -- -- No


AM 57.0 0.968 E 75.1 1.085 F 76.1 1.089 F No 43.5 0.917 D No

PM 77.7 1.028 F 73.5 1.068 F 73.8 1.070 F No 37.5 0.846 D No

10

Central Avenue/Soquel Canyon Parkway at Fairfield Ranch Road

AM 51.2 0.799 D 49.1 0.730 D 53.7 0.756 D No 41.8 0.665 D No

PM 38.5 0.678 D 46.1 0.682 D 48.1 0.696 D No 42.2 0.616 D No

11 Soquel Canyon AM 16.5 0.540 B 16.7 0.660 B 19.1 0.670 B No -- -- -- No



Parkway at SR-71 NB Ramps PM 10.4 0.500 B 30.1 0.780 C 30.7 0.790 C No -- -- -- No


AM 20.7 0.710 C 22.8 0.910 C 23.2 0.910 C No -- -- -- No

PM 23.8 0.690 C 47.0 0.990 D 47.0 0.990 D No -- -- -- No

13

Soquel Canyon Parkway at Pomona Rincon Road

AM 29.6 0.977 C 31.5 0.925 C 31.6 0.926 C No -- -- -- No

PM 8.7 0.253 A 20.7 0.579 C 20.7 0.579 C No -- -- -- No

14


AM 45.6 0.770 D 43.7 0.681 D 43.7 0.682 D No -- -- -- No

PM 38.0 0.383 D 50.0 0.579 D 50.3 0.580 D No -- -- -- No

Source: LLG, 2015; See Appendix G for full traffic analysis. Note: Bold LOS values indicate adverse service levels based on City LOS standards; s/v = seconds per vehicle (delay).



b) Would the project conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? The San Bernardino County CMP requires that all freeway segments, within five miles of the project site, be analyzed using the Highway Capacity Method (HCM) basic freeway segment analysis where over 100 project-generated trips (two-way) are added to existing and/or future conditions. The proposed project would generate a maximum of 44 peak hour trips on any freeway segment of the State Route-71. Since weekday peak hour project generated trips on the key freeway segments are below the threshold of 100 trips required for a freeway segment analysis, a Freeway Segment (Mainline) CMP Analysis is not required. Project-related traffic impacts to the CMP would be less than significant. c) Would the project result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? As discussed in Section VIII, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, and Section XII, Noise, given the fact that the project site is located approximately 2.5 miles west from the nearest airport (Chino Airport in the City of Chino) and that the building height would be consistent with the surrounding buildings, the project would not present any impediments to air traffic, and would not affect air traffic patterns. Therefore, no impact would occur. NO IMPACT d) Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible use (e.g., farm equipment)? A vehicular stacking analysis for the State Route-71 freeway off-ramps at the Chino Hills Parkway/Ramona Avenue Interchange and the Soquel Canyon Parkway Interchange was performed in the traffic impact analysis (see Appendix H) to ensure that vehicles do not queue beyond the off-ramp causing interruptions to the mainline of the SR-71 Freeway. The results of the queuing analysis indicate that the existing storage on the off-ramps from the SR-71 Freeway at the Soquel Canyon Parkway Interchange would adequately accommodate Year 2018 Cumulative Plus Project and Year 2035 Buildout Plus Project Traffic Conditions. Therefore, no modifications to the freeway off-ramps from the SR-71 are required. As such, motorists utilizing the freeway off-ramps would be able to do so comfortably, safely, and without undue congestion. The traffic impact analysis also included a site access evaluation, which determined that all of the project driveways are forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS during the weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hour in the Existing Plus Project, year 2018 Plus Project, and the Year 2035 Plus Project traffic conditions. As such, motorists entering and exiting the project site would be able to do so comfortably, safely, and without undue congestion. The proposed project would not introduce any design features such as sharp curves or incompatible uses to the project site that would substantially increase hazards at the site. The proposed project would be subject to evaluation for consistency with City standards for



provision of access and the impact with respect to traffic safety (CHMC Title 16, Chapter 34). In addition, the project includes the following design features:

• Construct Red Barn Court along Project frontage to ultimate half-section width per the City of Chino Hills “Collector” street standards with a 44-foot paved width within a 66-foot right-of-way, to include sidewalk and/or landscaping, per the City of Chino Hills standards/requirements.

• Construct Fairfield Ranch Road along the Project frontage to ultimate half-section width per the City of Chino Hills “Secondary Highway” street standards with a 64-foot paved width within a 88-foot right-of-way, to include sidewalk and/or landscaping, per the City of Chino Hills standards/requirements.

• Maintain adequate sight distance to all Project driveways by minimizing obstructions (i.e. landscaping and/or hardscape/walls/monument signs) within “limited use areas” on either side of the driveways. Landscaping and/or hardscapes should be designed such that a driver’s clear line of sight is not obstructed and does not threaten vehicular or pedestrian safety, as determined by the City Traffic Engineer.

• Install “STOP” signs and stop bars at the proposed Project driveways on Fairfield Ranch Road and Red Barn Court. Install all appropriate striping, signage and/or pavement legends per City of Chino Hills standards/requirements.

These project-sponsored improvements would ensure that the project provides adequate access and egress to the site.


e) Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? The project would not result in inadequate emergency access because it would be subject to Fire Department review of site plans, site construction, and the actual structures prior to occupancy to ensure that required fire protection safety features, including building sprinklers and emergency access, are implemented. The impact would be less than significant. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bikeways, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise substantially decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? The proposed project would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bikeways, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise substantially decrease the performance or safety of such facilities. Conversely, the proposed project would improve the quality of the pedestrian environment with landscaping and sidewalks along Red Barn Court and Fairfield Ranch Road per the City of Chino Hills standards/requirements. The project site is within walking distance of OmniGo Route 365, which provides transit access to downtown Chino Hills and the Chino Transit Center, and within the service area of OmniLink, a curb-to-curb bus that serves Chino Hills on weekdays. Sidewalks are provided along all key roadways in the project vicinity, and pedestrian crosswalks with walk lights are provided at signalized intersections in the project area. The project would have a less than significant impact on adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bikeways, or pedestrian facilities, and would not otherwise substantially decrease the performance or safety of such facilities. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT




Impact


Unless Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No

Impact XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS


a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? □ □ ■ □

b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? □ □ ■ □

c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? □ □ ■ □

d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? □ □ ■ □

e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? □ □ ■ □

f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? □ □ ■ □

g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? □ □ ■ □

a) Would the project exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Would the project require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? e) Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?



The Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA) operates sewer collection systems and wastewater treatment for seven cities in San Bernardino County, including Chino Hills (IEUA, 2010). Through the Regional Sewer System, the IEUA conveys primarily domestic wastewater to four water recycling facilities, while wastewater containing high levels of dissolved salts is collected by the Non-Reclaimable Wastewater System. In Chino Hills, sewer infrastructure includes more than 200 miles of sewer lines and 17 pumps and motors (Chino Hills, 2015d). Preventive maintenance of this system and minor repairs are provided by the City’s Public Works Department. Wastewater from the project site would be conveyed to Regional Water Recycling Plant No. 5 (RP-5), located in the City of Chino (IEUA, 2015). This facility provides primary, secondary, and tertiary treatment, as well as disinfection, after which the recycled water may be reused (IEUA, 2015). The IEUA transfers biosolids that settle out during primary treatment to Regional Solids Plant No. 2, where it is turned into compost for beneficial reuse; this plant also receives biosolids from another IEUA plant, the Carbon Canyon Water Recycling Facility. Recycling Plant No. 5 has a current average daily flow of approximately 9 million gallons per day and a capacity of 16.3 million gallons per day. Thus, the remaining daily capacity is about 7.3 million gallons per day (IEUA, 2015). Regional Solids Plant No. 2 is within the flood zone upstream of the Prado Dam, on land leased from the United States Army Corps of Engineers; the lease will expire in 2035. The maximum operational water level upstream of the dam is anticipated to be raised to increase the available Orange County water storage. Therefore, the lease is not expected to be renewed upon expiration. The Agency plans to relocate the solids treatment to the RP-5 Solids Handling Facility, which is out of the flood zone. As shown in Table 25, the proposed project would generate a net increase of approximately 2,981 gallons of wastewater per day. This increase would be well within the existing unused capacities of Regional Water Recycling Plant No. 5 of approximately 7.3 million gallons per day, accounting for only 0.04% of the available treatment capacity. Therefore, the proposed project would not significantly affect the City’s wastewater conveyance system or create the need for the construction of new treatment facilities. Impacts would be less than significant.

Table 25 Estimated of Wastewater Generation

Type of Use Quantity

(in 1,000 Sq. Ft.) Average Daily Flow Generation Factor Amount (gpd)

Proposed

Warehouse 92.8 20/1000 Gr. Sq. Ft. + Process Flow 1,856

Office 7.5 150/1000 Gr. Sq. Ft. + Process Flow 1,125

Increase in Wastewater Demand 2,981

Source: City of Los Angeles CEQA Thresholds Guidelines (2006) Notes: gpd = gallons per day, Gr. Sq. Ft. = Gross Square Feet




c) Would the project require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? The proposed project would represent a more intense use of the project site as compared to the currently vacant site, and would increase impermeable surface area onsite. As discussed in Section IX, Hydrology and Water Quality, the project site is currently undeveloped and covered with a vegetated, permeable surface. Consequently, the proposed project may incrementally reduce groundwater recharge and increase the amount of surface runoff. Nonetheless, several features of the project are intended to minimize stormwater impacts. The project includes underground storm detention basins with a combined design capture volume of 23,737 cubic feet, which exceeds the required mitigation volume of 23,630 cubic feet. The project would also treat detained runoff in infiltration chambers and a basin to remove pollutants from storm water before draining into Chino Creek. As described in Section IX, Water Quality, the project would also be required to comply with the Chino Hills Landscape Ordinance (CHMC Section 16.07.050), whereby “irrigation systems shall be designed to prevent runoff, over-spray, low head drainage and other similar conditions.” Given these measures to reduce stormwater runoff, impacts to storm water conveyance facilities would be less than significant. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT d) Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? California is facing one of the most severe droughts on record. On January, 17, 2014, the governor proclaimed a State of Emergency and directed state officials to take all necessary actions to make water immediately available (California Department of Water Resources, 2015). The proclamation included several key measures such as requesting all California residents to reduce their water consumption by 20% and the immediate implementation of local water shortage contingency plans by water suppliers. On April 25, 2014, an executive order was issued by the governor to speed up the previous measures and request that residents redouble their efforts to conserve water. A year later, on April 1, 2015, the governor issued Executive Order B-29-15. Key provisions included ordering the State Water Resources Control Board to impose restrictions to achieve a 25% reduction in potable urban water usage through February 28, 2016; directing the California Department of Water Resources to lead a statewide initiative, in partnership with local agencies, to collectively replace 50 million square feet of lawns and ornamental turf with drought tolerant landscapes; and directing the California Energy Commission to implement a statewide appliance rebate program to provide monetary incentives for the replacement of inefficient household devices. In response to the Governor’s state-wide mandatory water-use reductions and the State Water Resources Control Board’s (WRCB) adopted emergency water regulations that require a 28% reduction in water use in Chino Hills, an Urgency Ordinance was adopted and a Stage III High Conservation Alert was declared on May 26, 2015 (Chino Hills, 2015e). If the City does not meet the new regulations, and the 28% reduction, the WRCB has the authority to fine the City $10,000 per day. The Urgency Ordinance No. 286u and Stage III High Conservation Alert restrict potable water usage of residents and businesses (regulations do not apply to recycled water use). Restrictions include the time, area, frequency, and duration of specified allowable water usages (Chino Hills, 2015e).



The City’s water supply is derived from imported water, local wells, local surface water, and recycled water. From Fiscal Years 2005-06 to 2010-11, the City received an average of 17,692 AFY of water from several agencies (Chino Hills, 2010). Imported water from the Water Facilities Authority and Metropolitan Water District of Southern California comprised 64% of the water supply, in addition to 17% as desalted groundwater from the Chino Basin Desalter Authority, 10% as groundwater from local wells, and approximately 8% as recycled water from the IEUA. The proposed project would receive water through the City’s distribution system, which includes more than 200 miles of water lines and 21,000 individual water connections (Chino Hills, 2015b). Assuming that water demand is approximately 120% of wastewater generation, the proposed project would require approximately 3,577 gpd, or 4.0 acre feet per year (AFY) (based on the estimated wastewater generated as shown in Table 25). Table 26 shows actual and projected water supply and demand in the City through 2035.

Table 26 Normal Year Water Supply and Demand

Past1 2014-15

(Projected)

2019-20

(Projected)

2024-25

(Projected)

2029-30

(Projected)

2034-35

(Projected)

Water Supply (AFY) 17,346 27,250 27,250 27,250 27,250 27,250

Water Demand (AFY) 17,346 17,950 18,450 19,280 20,120 20,950

Remaining Supply (AFY)

(Supply – Demand) 0 9,300 8,800 7,970 7,130 6,300

Sources: City of Chino Hills, 2010 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), Table 5.3. 1 Past water supply and demand represent averages from Fiscal Year (FY) 2005-06 to FY 2010-11.

The proposed project would demand approximately 4.0 AFY. Despite the current drought conditions, the increase in water demand can be accommodated with existing and planned supplies as there is an anticipated remaining supply in future years ranging from 6,300 AFY to 9,300 AFY. In addition, the proposed project would be required to comply with any existing or future restrictions on water use that the City implements. Impacts related to water supply would be less than significant. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT f) Would the project be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? g) Would the project comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Chino Hills Disposal, a division of Republic Services, Inc., is the City's exclusive franchise waste hauler that services all residential and commercial waste and recycling programs (Chino Hills, 2015b). Solid waste from Chino Hills is exported out of San Bernardino County for disposal at



the Olinda Alpha Sanitary Landfill in Brea. Table 27 summarizes the permitted daily throughput, estimated average waste quantities disposed, and remaining capacity for this landfill.

Table 27 Solid Waste Disposal Facilities

Facility Permitted Daily

Throughput (tons/day)

2011 Average Daily Waste Quantities

Disposed (tons/day)

Estimated Remaining Daily

Capacity (tons/day)

Olinda Alpha Sanitary Landfill 8,000 4,355 3,645

Source: Olinda Alpha Landfill, 2014 Landfill Management Excellence Award: http://swana.org/portals/0/awards/2014/Landfill%20Management/Orange%20County%20LandfillManagement.pdf

Chino Hills has substantially reduced its solid waste stream since the passage of State Law AB 939, which required every city in California to divert at least 50% of its annual waste by the year 2000. As tracked by San Bernardino County’s 2007 Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan, the City has implemented a wide range of programs to increase its diversion rate (San Bernardino, 2007). The City’s diversion rate has climbed from 34% in 1995 to 61% in 2004 (the last measured date of diversion), thereby complying with the standards established by AB 939 and is likely higher than 61% currently.

With regard to the proposed project, the handling of all debris and waste generated during construction would be subject to the State’s (AB 939) requirements for salvaging, recycling, and reuse of materials from construction activity on the project site. The proposed project has two components (construction and operation) that would result in the generation of solid waste. For purposes of this analysis, the estimated operational waste is used to determine the net increase in solid waste from the proposed project. Construction of the proposed project would also involve site preparation activities that would generate waste materials, however, construction would be temporary. As shown in Table 28, project operation would generate approximately 581 pounds (0.26 tons) of solid waste per day or 211,684 pounds (96.10 tons) of solid waste per year. Assuming a 50% diversion rate (a conservative estimate, as the City achieved a 61% diversion rate in 2004), an estimated 231 pounds per day (0.13 tons) or 105,842 pounds per year (48.1 tons) would go to a landfill. This would be well within the available remaining daily capacity of the Olinda Alpha Sanitary landfill (approximately 3,645 tons), as shown in Table 28.

Table 28 Estimated Solid Waste Generation

Land Use Size Generation Rate* Total (lbs/day) Total (lbs/year)

Industrial 65 8.93 lb/employee/day 581 211,864

Notes: lbs= pounds; sf = square feet * CalRecycle Waste Generation Rates, available at: http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/wastechar/WasteGenRates/default.htm

The proposed project would be required to comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste, such as AB 939, the County Integrated Waste Management Plan, and the City’s recycling program. Further, the proposed project would be served by landfills with sufficient capacity. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

http://swana.org/portals/0/awards/2014/Landfill%20Management/Orange%20County%20LandfillManagement.pdf

http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/wastechar/WasteGenRates/default.htm




Impact


Unless Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No

Impact XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE

a) Does the project have the potential to substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? □ ■ □ □

b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? □ □ ■ □

c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? □ □ ■ □

a) Does the project have the potential to substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? As noted in Section IV, Biological Resources, impacts to fish and wildlife species, natural communities, and rare or endangered species would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. As described in Section IV, impacts to burrowing owls and nesting birds would be reduced to a less than significant level with implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 and BIO-2. As noted under Section V, Cultural Resources, implementation of the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on known cultural resources with implementation of Mitigation Measures CR-1 and CR-2, which would require adherence to existing local, state and federal regulations related to the discovery of any unanticipated cultural resources and human remains during construction activity. POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT UNLESS MITIGATION INCORPORATED



b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? As described in the discussion of environmental checklist Sections I through XVII, the project would have no impact, or a less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated, with respect to all environmental issues. Cumulative impacts of several resource areas have been addressed in the individual resource sections above: Air Quality, Greenhouse Gases, Noise, and Transportation/Traffic (See CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(h)(3)). Some of the other resource areas (agricultural and mineral) were determined to have no impact in comparison to existing conditions and therefore would not contribute to cumulative impacts. As such, cumulative impacts would be less than significant (not cumulatively considerable). LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? In general, impacts to human beings are associated with air quality, hazards and hazardous materials, and noise impacts. As detailed in the preceding sections, the proposed project would not result, either directly or indirectly, in adverse hazards related to air quality, hazardous materials or noise. Compliance with applicable rules and regulations and recommended mitigation measures would reduce potential impacts on human beings to a less than significant level. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT



REFERENCES Arcadis. 2015. Draft Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report. January 9, 2015. CARB (California Air Resources Board). 2015. 2012, 2013, & 2014 Annual Air Quality Data

Summaries. Accessed November 2015. Accessed at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/topfour/topfour1.php.

CCAR (California Climate Action Registry). 2009. General Reporting Protocol. Reporting Entity-

Wide Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Version 3.1. California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection. California

Important Farmland Finder. Accessed July 2015 at: http://maps.conservation.ca.gov/ciff/ciff.html.

_____. 2001.Division of Mines and Geology. State of California Seismic Hazard Zones, Prado Dam

Quadrangle Official Map. California Department of Finance. 2015. E-5 County/State Population and Housing Estimates.

2015. Accessed November 2015. Accessed at: http://www.dof.ca.gov/research/demographic/reports/estimates/e-5/2011-20/view.php.

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

Mitigation. _____. 2015. Biogeographic Information and Observation System (BIOS). Retrieved from

http://bios.dfg.ca.gov. November 2015. California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). Caltrans Traffic Impact Study Guidelines.

2002. _____. 2012. Eligible (E) and Officially Designated (OD) Routes. Accessed February 2013 at:

http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/scenic/cahisys.htm. _____. Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol. 2013. Accessed at:

http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/env/noise/pub/TeNS_Sept_2013B.pdf. Accessed August 2015.

California Department of Water Resources. Governor’s Drought Declaration. 2015. Accessed

November 2015 at: http://www.water.ca.gov/waterconditions/declaration.cfm. CEMA (California Emergency Management Agency). 2009. Tsunami Inundation Map for

Emergency Planning; produced by California Emergency Management Agency, California Geological Survey, and University of Southern California – Tsunami Research Center.

CEC (California Energy Commission). 2011. Cal-Adapt. Accessed November 2015 at: http://cal-

http://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/topfour/topfour1.php

http://maps.conservation.ca.gov/ciff/ciff.html

http://www.dof.ca.gov/research/demographic/reports/estimates/e-5/2011-20/view.php

http://bios.dfg.ca.gov/

http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/scenic/cahisys.htm

http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/env/noise/pub/TeNS_Sept_2013B.pdf

http://www.water.ca.gov/waterconditions/declaration.cfm

http://cal-adapt.org/



adapt.org/. California EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 2006. Climate Action Team Report to Governor

Schwarzenegger and the Legislature. Accessed at: http://www.climatechange.ca.gov/climate_action_team/reports/2006report/2006-04-03_FINAL_CAT_REPORT.PDFappen.

California Invasive Plant Council (Cal-IPC). 2015. Website. Retrieved from http://www.cal-

ipc.org/ip/inventory/(Accessed November 16, 2015). California Native Plant Society. 2015. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants. (online edition, v8-

02). California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, CA. Retrieved from http://www.rareplants.cnps.org (November 16, 2015).

California Seismic Safety Commission. 2005. Homeowner’s Guide to Earthquake Safety. California State Parks, Office of Historic Preservation. 2012. California Historical Resources.

Accessed November 2015 at: http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/ListedResources/?view=county. California State Water Resources Control Board. 1999. General Waste Discharge Requirements for

Biosolids Land Application Draft Statewide Program EIR – Appendix G. Background Information on Acoustics. Accessed at http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/biosolids/deir/appendices/app_g.pdf. Accessed November 2015.

_____. 2015. GeoTracker database. Accessed November 2015 at:

http://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/. CalRecycle. Industrial Sector: Estimated Solid Waste Generation Rates. Accessed online at:

http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/wastechar/WasteGenRates/default.htm on December 4, 2015. Chino Hills, City of. 2008. Recreation and Open Space Element. Accessed July 2015 at:

http://www.chinohills.org/DocumentCenter/View/11283. _____. 2010. 2010 Urban Water Management Plan. _____. 2011. Environmental Study Guidelines. _____. 2015a. City Municipal Code. 2015a. Accessed November 2015 at:

http://www.chinohills.org/index.aspx?NID=114. _____. 2015b. City of Chino Hills General Plan. Accessed November 2015 at:

http://www.chinohills.org/DocumentCenter/View/11275. _____. 2015c. Final Program Environmental Impact Report General Plan Update. State Clearinghouse

No. 2013051082. 2015c. Accessed July 2015 at: http://www.chinohills.org/DocumentCenter/View/11274.

http://cal-adapt.org/

http://www.climatechange.ca.gov/climate_action_team/reports/2006report/2006-04-03_FINAL_CAT_REPORT.PDF

http://www.climatechange.ca.gov/climate_action_team/reports/2006report/2006-04-03_FINAL_CAT_REPORT.PDF

http://www.cal-ipc.org/ip/inventory/

http://www.cal-ipc.org/ip/inventory/

http://www.rareplants.cnps.org/

http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/ListedResources/?view=county

http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/biosolids/deir/appendices/app_g.pdf

http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/biosolids/deir/appendices/app_g.pdf

http://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/

http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/wastechar/WasteGenRates/default.htm

http://www.chinohills.org/DocumentCenter/View/11283

http://www.chinohills.org/index.aspx?NID=114





_____. 2015d. Sewer Overview. Accessed at: http://www.chinohills.org/index.aspx?nid=1034 on December 4, 2012.

_____. 2015e. Stage III High Water Conservation Alert is Declared. Accessed November 2015 at:

http://www.chinohills.org/DocumentCenter/View/11389. _____. 2016. Chino Hills – Trumark Homes Mixed Use Project Final IS/MND. CVIFD (Chino Valley Independent Fire Department). 2015. Station 62. Accessed at:

http://www.chinovalleyfire.org/Facilities/Facility/Details/Station-62-2. November 2015. FTA (Federal Transit Administration). 2006. Office of Planning and Environment. Transit Noise

and Vibration Impact Assessment. http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/FTA_Noise_and_Vibration_Manual.pdf.

FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). 2008. Flood Insurance Rate Map

#06071C9330H. http://www.fema.gov/flood-insurance-rate-map-firm. _____. 2012. FEMA Provisionally Accredited Levees Brochure. Accessed December 2015 at:

http://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/20130726-1531-20490-1102/provisionally_accredited_levees.pdf.

_____. 2016. FEMA Undergoing a Map Change. Accessed February 2016 at:

https://www.floodsmart.gov/floodsmart/pages/flooding_flood_risks/map_change.jsp. Inland Empire Utilities Agency. Regional Water Recycling Plant #5. Accessed online at

:http://www.ieua.org/facilities/rp-5/ on December 4, 2015.

IEUA (Inland Empire Utilities Agency). 2010. IEUA Sewer System Management Plan. _____. 2015. Facilities – Regional Water Recycling Plant #5. Accessed at:

http://www.ieua.org/facilities/rp-5/. November 2015. Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). 2012.Trip Generation. 9th Edition. Los Angeles, City of. L.A. CEQA Thresholds Guide. 2006. Accessed at:

http://www.environmentla.org/programs/Thresholds/Complete%20Threshold%20Guide%202006.pdf

LLG (Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers Inc). 2015. Traffic Impact Analysis Report: Higgins

Ranch Mixed-Use.. National Park Service. 1983. Archaeology and Historic Preservation: Secretary of the Interior’s

Standards and Guidelines. Accessed July 2015 at: http://www.nps.gov/history/local-law/Arch_Standards.htm.

NorCal Engineering. 2015. Geotechnical Engineering Investigation. Proposed Fairfield Ranch

http://www.chinohills.org/index.aspx?nid=1034


http://www.chinovalleyfire.org/Facilities/Facility/Details/Station-62-2

http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/FTA_Noise_and_Vibration_Manual.pdf

http://www.fema.gov/flood-insurance-rate-map-firm

http://www.ieua.org/facilities/rp-5/

http://www.ieua.org/facilities/rp-5/



http://www.nps.gov/history/local-law/Arch_Standards.htm

http://www.nps.gov/history/local-law/Arch_Standards.htm



Development. January 9, 2015. Olinda Alpha Landfill, 2014 Landfill Management Excellence Award. Accessed online at:

http://swana.org/portals/0/awards/2014/Landfill%20Management/Orange%20County%20LandfillManagement.pdf.

Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission. Riverside County Airport Land Use

Compatibility Plan Policy Document. September 2008. http://www.rcaluc.org/filemanager/plan/new/09-%20Vol.%201%20Chino.pdf

San Bernardino County. 1991. Airport Land Use Commission- Chino Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan. November 1991. Accessed at: http://www.sbcounty.gov/Uploads/lus/Airports/Chino.pdf

_____. Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan. December 2007. SANBAG (San Bernardino Association of Governments). San Bernardino County Regional

Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan. 2014. Website: http://www.sanbag.ca.gov/planning2/greenhousegas/Final_SBCRegionalGHGReduction.pdf. Accessed November 2015.

SBC Sheriff (San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department). 2015. Patrol Stations – Chino Hills.

Accessed at: http://cms.sbcounty.gov/sheriff/PatrolStations/ChinoHills.aspx. November 2015.

SCAG (Southern California Association of Governments). 2001. Employee Density Study

Summary Report. October 21, 2001. Accessed at: https://www.mwcog.org/uploads/committeedocuments/YV5WXFhW20110503134223.pdf.

_____. 2012. Regional Transportation Plan 2012-2035, Growth Forecast Appendix. Accessed July 2015

at: http://rtpscs.scag.ca.gov/Pages/default.aspx. South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 2003. Final Localized Significance

Threshold Methodology. Accessed November 2015 at: http://www.aqmd.gov/CEQA/handbook/LST/Method_final.pdf.

_____. 2009. Appendix C: Mass Rate Look-up Tables. Accessed at

http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/localized-significance-thresholds/appendix-c-mass-rate-lst-look-up-tables.pdf?sfvrsn=2

_____. 2010. Greenhouse Gas CEQA Significance Threshold Stakeholder Working Group

Meeting #15: “Proposed Tier 3 Quantitative Thresholds – Option 1”. Accessed July 2015 at: http://www.aqmd.gov/ceqa/handbook/GHG/2010/sept28mtg/ghgmtg15-web.pdf.



http://www.rcaluc.org/filemanager/plan/new/09-%20Vol.%201%20Chino.pdf

http://www.sbcounty.gov/Uploads/lus/Airports/Chino.pdf

http://www.sanbag.ca.gov/planning2/greenhousegas/Final_SBCRegionalGHGReduction.pdf

http://www.sanbag.ca.gov/planning2/greenhousegas/Final_SBCRegionalGHGReduction.pdf

http://cms.sbcounty.gov/sheriff/PatrolStations/ChinoHills.aspx

https://www.mwcog.org/uploads/committeedocuments/YV5WXFhW20110503134223.pdf

https://www.mwcog.org/uploads/committeedocuments/YV5WXFhW20110503134223.pdf

http://rtpscs.scag.ca.gov/Pages/default.aspx

http://www.aqmd.gov/CEQA/handbook/LST/Method_final.pdf

http://www.aqmd.gov/ceqa/handbook/GHG/2010/sept28mtg/ghgmtg15-web.pdf

http://www.aqmd.gov/ceqa/handbook/GHG/2010/sept28mtg/ghgmtg15-web.pdf



_____. 2013. Air Quality Management Plan. February 2013. Available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/home/library/clean-air-plans/air-quality-mgt-plan/final-2012-air-quality-management-plan.

_____. 2015. Air Quality Significance Thresholds. March 2015. Available at:

http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/scaqmd-air-quality-significance-thresholds.pdf?sfvrsn=2.

Schonborn, Eduardo. Contract Senior Planner, City of Chino Hills. Personal Communication.

December 4, 2015. Theines Engineering, Inc. Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for Fairfield

Ranch – Chino Hills, Fairfield Ranch Road at Redbarn Court, Chino Hills, CA 91709. July 23, 2015.

USACE (United States Army Corps of Engineers). Los Angeles District. Chino Creek 1 Levee

System. Accessed online at : http://www.spl.usace.army.mil/Portals/17/Chino_Creek_1_Levee_System_ES_PIR_No1_U_20150416.pdf. December 4, 2012.

USDA (United States Department of Agriculture). 2015. Natural Resources Conservation

Service (NRCS). Web Soil Survey. Accessed at: http://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/HomePage.htm. November 2015.

USDOT (United States Department of Transportation). 1998. Federal Railroad Administration.

“High Speed Ground Transportation Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment”.

http://www.aqmd.gov/home/library/clean-air-plans/air-quality-mgt-plan/final-2012-air-quality-management-plan

http://www.aqmd.gov/home/library/clean-air-plans/air-quality-mgt-plan/final-2012-air-quality-management-plan

http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/scaqmd-air-quality-significance-thresholds.pdf?sfvrsn=2

http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/scaqmd-air-quality-significance-thresholds.pdf?sfvrsn=2

http://www.spl.usace.army.mil/Portals/17/Chino_Creek_1_Levee_System_ES_PIR_No1_U_20150416.pdf

http://www.spl.usace.army.mil/Portals/17/Chino_Creek_1_Levee_System_ES_PIR_No1_U_20150416.pdf

http://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/HomePage.htm

Documents

Indus Light Industrial Building Project