Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/22/2000City of Diamond Bar IT 21660 E. Copley Drive, Suite, 100 • Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4177 Deborah H. O'Connor Mayor Eileen R. Ansari Mayor Pro Tem Wen Chang Council Member Carol Herrera Council Member Robert S. Huff Council Member Recycled paper (909) 860-2489 • Fax (909) 861-3117 www.CityofDiamondBar.com DIAMOND BAR CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION Conference Room A 1. CALL TO ORDER: 9:00 a.m., May 22, 2000 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor 2. ROLL CALL: Council Members Chang, Herrera, Huff, Mayor Pro Tem Ansari, Mayor O'Connor 3. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE CITY OF INDUSTRY FOR THE PROPOSED INDUSTRY EAST PROJECT Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City Council direct staff as necessary. Requested by City Council 4. ADJOURNMENT: CITY OF DIAMOND BAR NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING AND AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES) SS. CITY OF DIAMOND BAR The Diamond Bar City Council will hold a Study Session at 9:00 a.m., in Conference Room A, of Diamond Bar City Hall, located at 21660 E. Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California on May 22, 2000, I, Tommye Cribbins, declare as follows: I am the Assistant City Clerk in the City of Diamond Bar; that a copy of the agenda for the Study Session, to be held on May 22, 2000 was posted at the proper locations: I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct and that this Notice and Affidavit was executed this 18th day of May, 2000, at Diamond Bar, California. /s Tommye Cribbins Tommye Cribbins, Asst. City Clerk City of Diamond Bar 9 i gam• —7/5 17— ��.��� lel f Z i -- CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION MAY 22, 2000 Conference Room A DeStefano - Introduced Peter Lewendowski, Environmental Impact Systems and Steve Sasaki, WPA Traffic Engineers. Industry East Project also known as the Majestic Project, since they are the development company that will be constructing the proposed effort. Purpose is to give a broader understanding of that project as well as the impact the project will create on the environment; specifically the City of Diamond Bar. Showed the proposed development on the map. 425 acre site which is basically to the north of the City of D.B. on both sides of Grand Ave. The site consists of basically the flat portion of the almost 1000 acre vacant area that exists just to the north of us. 3 million sq. ft. of the project that is south of a railroad track and the remainder is up near Valley Blvd. on both sides of Grand Ave. What is not shown is the 1.6 million sq. ft. Plantation Project that Koll has developed and is currently being occupied. It's all of the new buildings that you can see on the east side of Grand Ave. Also there is a 600,000 sq_ ft. Wohl Project that has been completed but is. currently vacant, awaiting occupancy. The Majestic Project, the Industry East Project is about 6 % million sq. ft. of space combined with the other two projects in this immediate area. We are looking at about 8 % to 9 million sq. ft. of development in this immediate area. That does not take into account the obvious trend for additional manufacturing space along Brea Canyon Rd. where you saw NewSonic and others have recently located in the last couple of years. This is a site plan prepared by the City of Industry consultants. It is about 6:months old,. but it shows the buildings that have been proposed for the project. The colors indicate the two different major categories of buildings. The pinkish color illustrates the buildings that will be serviced by rail and the balance are the buildings that will not be railed served. Almost half of the projects total square footage includes rail served buildings and the blue indicates the rail line. The project is immediately adjacent to D. B. in the area of Hampton Ct., Washington St., Mobile Home area, D.B.'s boundaries ends at the end of the rail road tracks. The Metro Link Station is in the City of Industry. Everything south of that Shea and others is in the City of D.B. Just to give you an example of scale of this project: It's 6'/ million sq. ft. of buildings but its 18'/ million sq. ft. of land. Again it's about 425 acres ofproperty. 425 acres of property, 6'/z million sq. ft. of buildings, that's 151 acres of buildings. To give you some other examples of scale, the Brea Mall is about a million'/ sq. ft. so this project is about 4 times the size of the Brea Mall. Disneyland is about 100 acres. This project is about 4 times the size of Disneyland. The City of D.B.'s entire industrial space, and industrial is along Lycoming and Walnut Rd., in that general area. D.B.'s entire industrial space is about 100 acres. The buildings will range in size as proposed from about 10,000 sq. ft. to about 800,000 sq. ft. The developer over the past 10 years has developed the Spectrum Project in the City of Chino, for those familiar with the industrial project that is east of the 71, Grand, Edison interchange. So in, terms of the scale of the project, that would likely be equivalent in terms of the type of product this developer does. Large scale products for housing and manufacturing. A component of the project up at Valley and Grand Ave. is more designed for retail purposes than anything else and it is showing what might be considered typ'ical'grocery, drug, shopping center at the corner of the industrial buildings up in that immediate area. Its estimated in the EIR that there is going to be about 7, 600 jobs created as a result of this project. The project is designed to be serviced by rail, it is designed to be servicedby truck. These are primarily warehouse type buildings based upon the site plan that has been presented to us It should be pointed out that we don't know what the specific land uses might be, we don't know if there will be warehousing of a benign use or whether it will be manufacturing of a use thatfias odor vibration, noise associated- with ssociatedwith it, there is a wide range of uses permitted within the City of Industry's industrial zone. They can't tell us cause they don't know, we can't tell you cause we don't know. The development itself and the market conditions and the market demand will determine ultimately what goes there. We have been pursuing the analysis of the EIR. It is approximately 2000 pages. We asked for a separate analysis,of that traffic study. And we are most concerned about the impacts to D. B. related to traffic and land use compatibility. The £lR itself, that Peter and Steve will get into, has ant analysis of a variety of identified impacts the ones that`D.B., from the staff prospective are most concerned with are the land use compatibility and the traffic impacts_ In terms. of land use compatibility. It is a concern that this project, which is located (showing Ariel) creating buildings immediately adjacent to the Mobil Home Park and the Hampton Ct. condominiums. And there are buildings, some of which will be rail served that will create some impacts to the these residential properties, The project itself' is indicating a, connection to Washington St That is of concern, cause Washington St. is listed in D.B.'s General Phan document as a residential collector to be cul-de-sac: To remain as a cul-de-sac, along with some other streets in the community to remain as a cul- de-sac. There showing utilities connected to Washington St. which in of itself may not be all that much of a concern, but the staff is concerned about the traffic that is proposed to use the street. That is the immediately land use impact, the concern about the interface between the residential and industrial and the need to ensure that there are the appropriate safeguards, that there are not conflicts or that those conflicts, that may exist, are reduced down to a very small level. That can occur though setbacks, through design standards, through performance standards and some other things that are not talked about in the EIR. Beyond the immediate area of land use concern is the broader area, of what the anticipated truck and vehicular trips will do to the intersection, primarily at Brea Canyon Rd., and the 60 fwy, but secondarily, Grand Ave. and 57160 fwy, where the Honda dealership is on the area up above. This is a project that is utilizing the increased capacity that is being developed at our ports, Long Beach and L.A ports. More and more cargo is coming in off of those ships that dock at those parts, the cargo is going to L.A. and headed east, towards the .rest of the U.S. That truck traffic is coming through the San GabrielValley and that's why in a separate effort, the Alameda Corridor East Project, which you may have read about is being proposed': to upgrade railroad crossings at 55 different intersections in the San Gabriel' Valley. One of those intersections, that is being idpntifled for improvement is, the Brea Canyon Rd. railroad, and Santa Fe railroad crossing. In D.B., that is being proposed as an undero-ossi ig. The red outline indicates the limits of the project. The area at Brea Canyon: Rd, that the project wound require modification to is about :% mile long, about 1400 ft and it's proposed that an undercrossing be constructed to go underneath the rail line, in back of, in order to provide the capacity needed for the rail lines if the "????pulls through and to do so without conflict which now exists between the rail crossing and the vehicular, automobile/truck traffic. There are also improvements in other areas of the San Gabriel Valley, but that is the one in the immediate area. Regarding the traffic impacts to D.B., the staff concern is that this is obviously a very large project, it wilt generate a significant number of truck trips, because it is a truck oriented development, and the concern is that the remaining capacity in the roadway, particularly at the freeway intersection is, will be occupied by a project of this scale. What that will require is that physical improvements be made to the existing roadways within the City of D.B. Some of those physical improvements have an impact upon residential or business properties. That is an overview of the project, City staff with the consultants are preparing comments back to the City of Industry. Those comments are due by June 5. The direction that staff is seeking upon the conclusion of the presentation by Peter and Steve is for the City Council to indicate to the City Staff a pathway you would' like us to take towards that response to the City of Industry. And there are a variety of different ways that can be undertaken. We will get into that in a little bit. At this point, I.would like to tum this over to Steve and Peter to talk a little bit about the EIR itself, its impacts and some recommendations. Peter Lewandowski -- Principal with Environmental Impact Sciences, introduced Steve Susaki with WPA Engineering. Steve Susaki - Basically the review of the environmental document was to take information that they provided in the document and try and filter it down and make a brief presentation,; as far as what the document as they are presenting it is saying. They looked at intersections in the area, a lot of those included intersections in D.B. Those are the ones we focused on in our review. They identify mitigations or intersection improvements to the level where they identify all of the project and other impacts being mitigated or brought back to a level of service D. What that translates to though are some very significant road widenings. What we did is within staff, report we provided some quick sketches as far as what those improvements are as far as D. B. intersections, what types of improvements they are talking about, that are needed in order to provide those acceptable operating conditions. As you can see, what we did was we showed the existing links closest to the intersection and then put boxes around what's being added to each of those intersection approaches. Just as a brief example, the bridge that goes_ over the freeway at Grand Ave., there is a proposal for 5 additional lanes. So' as you can -see, it's not simple restriping or trying to squeeze things in, it is a major undertaking as far as the widenings that are proposed. If you go closer to the Gity of D.B.just east of the freeway ramps coming towards the City of D.B., the number of added lanes are a total of 6 Some other examples, you getdown to .the intersection of Diamond Bar and Grand, going towards Chino Hills, just on the one side, there is a proposal for three added lanes. That obviously would impact the development along there. They did indicate that buildings will need to be demolished.. So there are those types of improvements that are identified as being needed. What does that mean as far as this project and the City of D. B., essentially there weren't specific costs or designs for these improvements included in the ER. Based on our experience, it would be safe to say that the cost of the improvements would translate to 10's to millions of dollars. What they did provide in the document was whose share, or what are the percentage shares for these improvements. The project does make up a significant percentage of the share, but they also identify other agencies as providing their share of the costs and D.B. is one of them. ClHerrera asked what was their percentage. Steve S - Table 25 of their document. DeStefano -. Wanted to point out that the analysis in terms of this identified impacts at some of these intersections and this share in allocation of resources -needed to improve those intersections are based upon the forecast of the year 2020 conditions. And that takes into account the current situation, the proposed project and any known proposed projects in the immediate area that may have a similar impact upon those intersections; So as an example, it would incorporate a building within the Gateway Corporate Center that D.B. has inplay, that would be occupied by the year 2020. So A is a cumulative analysis of all of those impacts. Steve S. The impact is cumulative of their project as well as other projects. What happens as you reach certain thresholds within the defined roadway or existing right of way, the costs are more minimized if you already own the right of way. Once you get.into expanding beyond that, say take the building, acquiring right of way, where you have to take the property or re -locate businesses, there the call can go, up expedentually, So., adding a little more tra;l iccould translate to a disproportionate increase in costs. One of the other important factors that were found was while it is identified that these number of lanes and what sort of widenings are required, there was not a specific requirement_ There were indications that there share may be ;provided by the project, towards these improvements, but there was not a specific requirement that was stated, that this be done. So at this point, the way that we read the document, there is not a speck requirement to actually provide these fair shares that are identified in Table 25, there is just an indication that this is what the share would be if they choose to provide funding toward that. Peter L - Since the improvements are in D.B., Industry has no ability to ascertain whether D.B. would effectuate those improvements, if the document concludes those significant, indicating Industry assumes the impiovernents will not be implemented because D. B. doesn't have the interest in implementing them, therefore the document was structured so as, absent any contributions from the City for these improvements. Steve S - So in simple terms, the document does identify that there are very significant improvements and very extensive mitigation's or roadway widenings that are needed, in part due to the project, it doesn't say that those improvements will be done- DeStefano - Following some discussion, Jim stated that because it is primarily a truck oriented project, that they believe the greater percentage of traffic is going to immanent, arrive and depart from the Brea Canyon Rd., 60 Fay interchange. Although you can obviously get to the site from Grand Ave., based on the proposal, we just think that since everything is coming from the west ports, that its going to stop at Brea Canyon Rd. and use that to get in and out of the site. Steve S. - From a traffic perspective, if these become the mitigations that are identified for these improvements, it may be that a project of a large size may be able to provide contributions. And that's again with a caveat that they actually provide their fair share funding towards these improvements. But it is also recognized on the table, that the City of D.B. will be providing a share, a proportionate share as well. That could affect particular projects that when they try to provide their fair share, the cost could be prohibitive as far as the type of project that their trying to implement and the traffic improvement needs, so it could serve to make a project infeasible just because the improvement costs to improve these type of improvements would be too great for say a smaller project (future projects in D. B.). In simple terms, a "Mom and Pop" type place, if they had to provide - a share of this scale of traffic improvements probably wouldn't be able to absorb those types of costs. Mayor Steve When l read through the EIR, I got the impressionthat they kept emphasing that the traffic was going to come off Grand; was it how you perceived it, that they kept thinking it was coming off Grand and not Brea Canyon? They assigned about 20% of the industrial related traffic to, Washington, specifically, so they did have a fair amount of traffic projected to use Brea Canyon as well. Peter - Huff Steve Herrera Steve In the EIR they projected approximately 2,000 trips per day, in the Year 2020 they will increase to 16,000 trips per day. On Washington and Brea Canyon Rd. Page 5339 EIR to answer question re: Grand = at the ramps, -ranges from 32 to 35,000 vehicles per day existing, increasing to 59 to 69,000 in 2020 cumulatively. How much would happen without this project Without the project they show the increase from 32 to 35,000 to 43, to 47,000. With the project it increases to 46 to 51,000. With all the projects combined the increase goes to 52, to 57,000. The question for the 5 additional lanes on the bridge that crosses the 57160 fwy. Is it only a suggestion that the additional lanes be on the side where D.B. Honda is, is there no analysis or looking at the lanes going on the. other side. the EIR doesn't specify how it will be done, so in all of these improvements it doesn't necessarily say if it is going to one side or the other side or half on both, that's one of the details we would like to see, DeStefano We should add that in some cases it hints at the impact, ;but it's just not specific enough. When it tajks about the widening of Grand Ave. bridge, it talks about the necessary removal of parking from the Burger Ding and the Honda dealership, but it doesn't say if it is 3 ft. of parking or whether it is more than that I and it doesn't indicate what -impact it might have on the operation of business. You could take 3 or 30 ft. from the hamburger stand, but it would be difficult to do that to the dealership that has outdoor displays. That is an issue staff has, because it isn't articulated in enough detail for us to know, and the same thing occurs at Brea Canyon area, where there is a discussion of a need to take right-of-way, or increase right-of-way, but similarly it doesn't get; into enough detail to sufficiently understand what it does to business. Herrera Steve Peter The additional 3 lanes on''D.B. Blvd. and Grand, does it talk about taking business in order to make room for 3 additional lanes. In their comments they talk about the taking of business but they don't say which ones, they talk in general terms as far as commercial: At that location they do indicate that they don't know, but they hint that there is a strong probability that Bank of America and PFF bank would lose their drive through, and by losing their drive through, the viability of those uses may be diminished that the banks no longer are functional; Steve Gave his phone number 948460-0910. Peter He went through the staff report that was handed out. He stated that in accordance with CEQA, the City of Industry has released a document and established a 45 day comment period which ends on June 5:. Comments which are submitted to the City of Industry within that comment period require a written response of some type. The importance of comments are: ensure that the document addresses the impacts and that there is a formal decision making that takes place. That may or may not be the consequence here. The second importance of the comment period is that in the event litigation takes place, the only issues that can be raised in that litigation are any comments that may have been raised .during that comment period. Comments may be made after the time period, however, the City of Industry does not have any obligation to prepare a written statement to those comments. This is a 6 million sq. ft. industrial use. The document is represented to be a "program EIR" what it really says, is that we don't really know a lot about this project, we're going to create a large or general analysis and hope we have covered everything about it, until the parties come along, which we didn't quite consider, then we will conduct a further environmental review. Those same statements were made about the Wohl and Plantation project, and it is my understanding that the City, of Industry has not provided D.B. with notice as future projects come along. Says the City of Industry will conduct further environmental review, if that occurs, it may occur outside the public forum, in which there might be opportunities to'submit additional comments. Although it is a program EiR'the indication is that starting in June, 2000, the City intends to commence with the applicant; Majestic Realty; to start construction of a 776,000 sq. ft Phase I located generally at the intersection of Cheryl and Brea Canyon R& rail accessible. The document is not specific, the document says we reserve the right to pick and choose and move and shift and somewhere on the site, we have the authority to construction 6 million sq. ft. The process starts with the 45 day review period which ends on June 5. The City is obligated to provide written responses, once the responses are formulated, the City of Industry City Council can certify the EIR, approve any other discretionary actions, such as the tentative map or whatever,, any conditional use permits and then construction can commence at that time. June is a bit optimistic, since the comment period extends into the beginning of June. But it does point out the immediacy within which the first phase will commence. The document points out that Industry will mass grade the entire 400 acre site at one time over a 12 month period again starting in June. And then all the associated infrastructure, including the extension of Washington St. all the way to Grana Ave. called Street A in theEI.R will be part of the initial phased` . infrastructure improvements. And the infrastructure improvements might take 2 years to complete: DeStefano Other than the upfront costs, it wouldn't be unusual for a developer to grade the entire property, because that affords them the opportunity to quickly build buildings based upon the market conditions. That in itself is not unusual: Peter Went over the Land Use Indicating that 2 major industrial buildings ranging 4 to 500,000 sq. ft., closest to Alder Ln., DeStefano The building that is proposed to start first is building 18 and the building closest to Washington are 22 and 23. The EIR says that in accordance with existing requirement established by the Uniform Building Code, there has to be a 60 ft. setback from this 400,000 sq. ft. industrial building to the property line:, So 60 ft. from the property line for Hampton Ct. or the Mobile Horne Park there can be large 400,000 sq, ft, buildings which one of the two are designed for rail access,. Central raid plans have the rail lines following the existing track and ending at an unspecified location again theoretically it could and at the property line with the adjoining homes. DeStefano Stated that the set back is less in our city. That is has to do with the height of the buildings, O'Connor Asked how high the buildings are? DeStefano Stated that these building are probably between the 30 to 45 ft. high range. Most of them are going to look like 2 story buildings. And most are going to look like what you see already off Brea Canyon Rd., off of Grand Ave. The document does not specify. Peter Belanger Peter I think those are logical assumptions, however, the document does not have reasonable limitations relative to the height of the buildings, so theoretically they could be taller, but practicality would suggest they will be similar in appearance to what is there already. 60 ft references the building location, it does not specifically indicate out door activities such as storage, loading, unloading, spraying activities anything that could occur in outdoor locations. Those activities could vary theoretically to the property lines separating the two adjoining pieces. Again, there is no notice of reference as to how far the rail line is set back from those existing homes. and theoretically they could abut up to the existing property line. Who determines the environmental document that would be undertaken on specific points? It would all depend on what the entitlement being requested was? If the entitlement was a use permit or a conditionaluse permit to be issued by the City of Industry, the City of Industry would be responsible for that. If the discretionary action had to do with initiation ???? major activities MacDonald's or La Petite Pre -School they would be the responsibility of D.B. which might have commence their own environmental report. I would say that in certain intersections they tried,to do a reasonable representations as to what the impacts were, on some of the other ones, it does not provide any detail. The documents tries to do a fair job relative to assessing off site impacts. It acknowledges that it hasn't done any studies and doesn't know what the outcome is, doesn't know if merely stripping and arrowing specific lanes could serve as a solution or whether a right of way is required. Those decisions would occur at some point. They did point out certain thi=ngs, like!parkIing lot A. Relative to Grand Ave., and SR freeway westbound ramps, it mentions in the E1R that additional feet of frontage would be required on the D.B. side. , Burger King and D.B. Honda. Think about losing 15 ft, of frontage, as Jim points out, Burger King could probably accommodate that, however, the first 15 ft at D.B. Honda is display and customer parking. The building iis not set back not more than 30 ft. or so from the existing right of way. A loss of 15 ft. would be a loss of all display area in that project. It makes some reference to relocation STAFF REPORT I, Draft Industry East Environmental Impact Report` City of Industry May22, 2000 Presented herein are the preliminary findings of the Community and Development Services '. Department (Department) conceming the potential impacts upon Diamond Bar (City or Diamond Bar) resulting from the implementation of the proposed Industry East project, located in"the City of Industry (Industry or Lead Agency) and described in the "Draft. Industry EastEnvironmental Impact Report (DEIR).' The information presented herein is intended to provide the City Council with a brief overview of that project and a summary of certain relevant information as presented by the Lead Agency. Since no independent studies have been initiated by the City to validate or refute the statements presented in the DEIR, this summary merely reports upon the information presented and makes no representation concerning the accuracy or adequacy with which the project and the resulting impacts are described. Based on the Department's "cursory review of the DEIR, there is reason to believe that the project's. actual impacts,may exceed those represented by the Lead Agency. Similarly, based on a review of the'recommended mitigation measures, in many instances, there is no supporting evidence 'ddmonsttatingr that the proposed measures will have their desired 'effect. 'As a result, notwithstanding declarations to the contrary in the DEIR, both the actual and post -mitigated impacts of the project may be substantially greater than now disclosed by the Lead Agency. This reportis divided into the following five sections: (1) California' Environmental Quality Act; (2) Project Description; (3) Environmental Impacts; (4)' City of Diamond Bar General Plan; and (5) Recommendations. 1.0 California Environmental Quality Act The California` Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) establishes the requirements for and statutory basis upon with the DEIR has been prepared.' In accordance therewith,- public agencies are required to prepare an environmental impact report (EIR) for those activities, subject to'CEQA, that have the potential to produce a direct, indirect, or cumulative impact upon the environment. The release of an EIR' commences a 45 -day review period during which public agencies and the general public can submit comments to the Lead Agency for consideration in the agency's deliberations concerning the proposed project. Written responses from the Lead Agency are required for any comments submitted during that public review period. Although late comments can be provided, the Lead Agency has no obligation to prepare written responses to those comments. The 45=day comment period established for the DEIR commenced on April 20, 2000 and concludes on June 5, 2000. Written comments provide an opportunity to seek clarification regarding information presented and request further analysis on those issues that may need further explanation. Additionally, should a legal' challenge be raised asserting an agency's failure to fully comply with its CEQA obligation, the resulting challenge may be limited to only those issues that have been previously raised in comments submitted on the EIR. i F„M Land Use • The nearest industrial building to existing residential units in Diamond Bar, which are located off of Washington Street, is indicated to be appro imately 60 feet. Outdoor activities (e.g., material and equipment storage, loading and unloading) associated with those uses could be conducted up to the edge of the property, line. Rail improvements will be constructedalong'' the existing LIPRR line and will support undisclosed industrial activities conducted in a 409,500 square foot facility to be developed directly` adjacent to Aider Lane. The separation distance between. proposed rail facilities and adjoining` residential receptors.is not disclosed in the DEIR but could ; potentially occur up to the property limits. Since no performance standards are specified for any future industrial use, (i.e. noise, odor, vibration) the precise nature of any impacts generated by those uses cannot be ascertained at this time. It is, however, evident that hazardous, flammable, corrosive, and explosive materials will be transported, stored, and/or processed on the project site. Similarly, all authorized land uses could operate 24 -hours per day. Traffic and Circulation Intersection improvements are identified in the DEIR which....are intended to mitigate for additional traffic and which produce a Level of Service (LOS) "D or better operations, which is defined in the 'DEIR as the maximum "accept ble” level. Some of the improvements with Diamond Bar include extensive road widening, freeway bridge improvements, acquisition of additional right-of-way, isplacement of existing businesses, loss of existing parking, and reduction. in privte property (including the corresponding uses thereupon) along affected street frontage . • Figure 1 and Figure 2, prepared for the Department by WPA Traffic Engineering, provides separate sketches of existing and ultimate lane geometrics at those intersections 'located in .Diamond Bar that the DEIR indicates will be impacted. The sketches illustrate the number of approach lanes that n ed , to be added and are intended to provide an overview of the. needed traffic improvements in the City. ■ In spite of the identification of these improvements, the`.DEIR concludes that traffic' impacts outside Industry will remain `cumulatively significant after mitigation" due to the uncertainty concerning whether or haw these improvements are; to be undertaken, if undertaken at all. ■ Specific improvements to the affected intersections in Diamond Bar are not presented. The DEIR appears to suggest that a "fair, share" could be prvided by the Lead Agency toward the cost of each improvement, however, no firm corr"mitme,nt to the payment of that contribution exists therein, no detailed plans are presented, no performance schedule for implementation is provided, and no estimated. improvement costs or "fair share" contribution disclosed. The DEIR indicates that there is an "uncertainty" whether these improvements will be built in the future and the document is structured to allow the Lead Agency to adopt ' a "Statement of Overriding Considerations accepting the deterioration of local traffic conditions as, an acceptable consequence of the project. ♦ SR -60 Eastbound Ramp at Golden Springs Road. Additional right-of-way would involve undisclosed impacts to some commercial uses (e.g., fast-food restaurant and retail shops), including the potential removal of those existing - uses. Brea Canyon Road at Washington Street. Undisclosed impacts to existing residential and commerciaUndustrial uses associated with the widening of Brea Canyon Road by approximately six feet along each side of Brea Canyon Road. s Brea Canyon; Road at Pathfinder Road. Undisclosed impacts upon parking, driveways, landscaping, medians, and sidewalks but no building removal As indicated in the DEER as a result of the unspecified right-of-way widening. • Based on the lack of; specificity regarding those street `improvements in Diamond Bar, a substantial effort would still be required to determine the precise 'nature of those improvements. Since extensive right-of-way will be needed and 'since a full or partial taking will be required for a number of adjoining land uses, real property appraisals would be necessary to determine the actual costs for mitigation. ■ Table 25 from the DEIR traffic study (attached) provides the"Lead Agency's preliminary, calculation of the project's,' percentage share of the required mitigation costs. The improvements are indicated to be °extensive, and the associated costs are expected to total tens of millions of dollars. Since only a "fair share" is suggested, the DEIR appears to indicate that "others" (e.g., City of Diamond Bar) will be required to contribute the remaining funds in order for the improvements to'be constructed. • The proposedproject results in potentially significant mitigation "burdens" being imposed on "other" agencies and on future projects within the City. Because of the anticipated high costs associated with mitigation, the need for eminent domain action to acquire additional right-of-way, and the obligation to pay relocation expenses -to affected' property owners and tenants, it may be difficult for Diamond Bar to finance the cost of the recommended street improvements. Future projects in Diamond Bar would be required to bear a 'disproportionate share of the mitigation costs. For some future Diamond Bar projects, these' mitigation costs could render those projects infeasible. ■ Since insufficient analysis is provided to determine the actual impacts associated with identified street improvements in Diamontl Bar, further CEQA documentation (e.g., supplemental EA) would be required by City in order to initiate those improvements, further increasing the cost and delaying the time for commencementofthose actions. ■ Given the extent of the improvements identified in the DEIR and the potential need to reclassify a number of arterial highways in the City, it is possible that an update of the "City of Diamond Bar General Plan" (Circulation Element) could be required in order to implement the proposed improvements and ensure consistent. • It is reasonable to assume that the proposed project will continue and obtain local approval independent of any actions by the City or independent of the initiation of any' traffic improvements in Diamond Bar, either now in the future. Industry Fast LLC 7rafPc Impact Analysis, 03/0$/2000 TABLE 25' 2020 MITIGATION FAIRSHARE CALCULATIONS Critical, Lane V/C' Agana, (that has Critical I jurisdict Pak W/ Base Vol Project Other Other over Cum. Over Traffic Project Project Project location) Intersection Traffic Base W/Proj Cum. LO&D Vol Vol Share Shan Share Grand Aveand SX -60 Frwy WB " Rumps AM 0.891 1.080 1-,W 0 " ' 302 512 37.13% ' 62.870/a 0.00% Grand Ave and SR -60 Frwy E8 Ramps AM ' 1.105 1:393 1:830 328 461 699 30.97°h 46.99% 22.04% Grand Ave and Golden Springs Rd PM 1.029 1.092 1.440 206 101 557 11.670/a' 64.44% 23:890/0 Grand Ave and Valley Blvd PM 0.691 0.849 0.965 0 253 196 57.66% 42.345e. 0.00% Grand Ave and La Puente Ave AM 0.803 0.846 0.918. 0 69 115 37.39°4 62.61% " 0.00% Grand Ave and Snowcreek Dr'' PM 0.801 0.862 1 0.959 0 98 154 38.85% 61.15% 0.00°/a Grand Ave and Amar Rd/Ternplt Ave P%4 ' L106 1,161 1.260 330 88 158' 1528% 27.500/a 57.22% Grand Ave and Mount SAC Entrance AM 0.923 0.942 1.019 37 30 123 15.97%' 64.71% 19.33% Grand Ave and Diamond Bar Blvd PM 1.268 1.311 1,422 589 69 178 8.24% ' 21.26% 70.50% Brea Cyn Rd and Valley Blvd PM 0.718 0:936 1.204 0 349 429 44.86a/a ' 55.14% 0.00% Brea Cyn Rd and Cheryl Lane PM 0.392 0.682 0,979 0 464 475 49.40% 50.60% ; 0.00°h` Brea Cyn Rd and Lyeoming Rd PM 0.972 1.313 1:598 115 546 456 48,85% 40.$3% 10.320% Brea Cyn Rd and SR -60 Frwy WB Ramps PM 1.083 1.271 1.460 1293 301 302 33:57% 33.754A 32.68% Brea Cyn Rd and Golder Spring' Dr PM 1.176 1.325 1.504 442 238 286 24.67% :29.64% 45.70% SR -60 Frwy EB Ramps and Golden Springs Dr PM 1.086 1.311 1.516 298 360 328 36.53% , 33.28% 30.190A' Temple Ave and Valley Blvd PM 0.740 0.765 0.9$7 0 40 355 10."12%a . 89.88% '' 0.00% Temple Ave and Porton Blvd PM 0.827 0.839 1.052 0 I9 34E 5.33% 94.67% 0.00% Lemon Ave and Valley Blvd : PM0.883 0.991 1' ' 0 173 179` 49.09% 1 5091% 0.00°h' Fairway Dr and Valley Blvd PM 0.893 0.946 0.991 0 85 72 54.08% 45.92% 0.00% Nogales Stand Valley Blvd AM 1.175 1.201 1.225 440 42 38 8.00% .-1.38% 84.62% Grand Ave and Cameron Ave AM 0.874 0.894 0.963 0 32 UO 22.47% 77.53% 0.00% " Brea Cyn Rd and Washington St PM 0.563 1.059 A.159 0 794 160 83.22% 16.78% 0.00%' Brea Cyn Rd and Currier Rd PM' 0.934 1.157 1.178 54 357 34 80.22% 7.55% 12.23% Brea Cyn Rd and Pathfinder Rd ; AM 1.058 1.086 1.086 253 45 0 15.05% 0.00% 84.95% GAve and Strrand eetA PM ' 0.408 0.757 L129 0 558 595 48.41% -`51.60% `' 0.00% 108 �v r TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF CITY COUNCIL FROM: JAMES DESTEFANO, ACTING CITY MANA RE: STUDY SESSION DISCUSSION OF CITY OF INDUSTRY DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE EAST END DEVELOPMENT PROJECT DATE: MAY 22, 2000 The City Council has scheduled a Study Session for 9:00 AM, Monday, May22, 2000 to discuss the City of Industry Draft Environmental Impact Report prepared for the East End Development Project. The City of Industry has negotiated a Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) with Majestic Realty to development approximately 425 acres of property, owned by the City of Industry Urban Development Agency, located adjacent to the City of Diamond Bar. The proposed project, known as the East End Development, will consist of approximately 6.6 million square feet of industrial and commercial buildings. It is estimated that fifty (50) percent of the project will be served by rail. Diamond Bar streets serve as the primary ingress and egress to the site. Industry proposes to utilize Washington Street, a local residentialstreet, to access the development. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Industry has caused the preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR). The purpose of the DEIR is to serve as an informational document designed to inform public agency decision -makers and the public of the environmental effects of the proposed 425 -acre project. Comments upon the DEIR must be submitted to Industry by June 5, 2000. The study session provides the opportunity for the City staff and consultant to describe the proposed project and its impacts upon Diamond Bar. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council receive a presentation from the City staff and consultant and direct staff regarding the appropriate response to the City of Industry. Attachment — Memorandum to City Council from City Manager dated May 15, 2000 I 7 O� INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM Z Z 0L TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF CITY COUNCIL FROM: TERRENCE L. BELANGER CITY MANAGd RE: CITY OF INDUSTRY EAST END DEVELOPMENT PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENRTAL'IMPACT REPORT COMMENTS/CRITIQUES DATE: MAY 15, 2000 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council review the five-page overview of the proposed Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the East End Development Project, which is located in the City of Industry.Following said review, it recommended that the City Council either 1) assign a sub -committee of the Council to review the entire DEIR and make recommendations, as to comments which should be made to the DEIR; or, 2) hold a special Council meeting to discuss the DEIR at length and direct staff as to the depth and breadth of comments, which should be made to the DEIR DISCUSSION: The City of Industry has circulated a DEIR related to the proposed 6.6 million square foot industrial and commercial development project known as the East End Development Project. Taken in combination with the Koll and Wohl projects (already constructed), there will be '8.8 million square feet of new industrial uses on Grand Avenue and Brea Canyon Road. There are no commitments, by the City of Industry, for traffic mitigation related to the Wohl''project or the proposed East End Development Project. The East End Development Project proposes the opening of Washington Street through to Grand Avenue (this is contrary to the City of Diamond Bar General Plan). Of the 4.335 million square feet of the new proposed industrial development, 49.0 % of the new square footage would be served by new rail access. It is important to note that there has been a concerted effort to establish and maintain positive relations with the 'City of Industry. The context in which those positive relations can or should' be maintained is an important aspect of the East End Development discussion. Time is of the essence, as a response to the DEIN must be completed, on or before June 5 2000. Peter Lewandowski prepared the attached document. Mr. Lewandowski has been at, work preparing a more comprehensive response to the DEIR.. He is prepared to provide a presentation of his conclusions and recommendations at your ` convenience. The City of Diamond Bar has received an environmental impact report (EIR) for a proposed 6.6 million square foot industrial and commercial development project in the City of Industry (industry or Lead Agency). The "Draft Industry East Project Environmental Impact Report; SCH No. 991010172" (DEIR), prepared in accordancewith the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)-addresses the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts resulting from the construction and operation of the proposed Industry East project in Industry. The project comprises two non-contiguous areas. The first of these areas, which is designed to accommodate 250,000 square feet of commercial use and includes` approximately 68 acres, spans both sides of Grand Avenue and is framed on the north and west by Valley Boulevard and on the south and east by theUnion Pacific Railroad (UPRR) tracks. The second project' component, which has <a greater potential for impacting Diamond Bar, is comprised of about 276 acres and included 4,335,000 square feet of industrial' development.' The DEIR states that 49 percent of those industrial uses "would be served by new rail access. This project, in combination with the recently approved The Plantation and Wohi Industrial projects on Grand Avenue, total about 8.8 million square feet of new, industrial uses for which no firm commitments for traffic mitigation within the City has yet to occur. Although the DEIR does not clearly state that Diamond Bar is a "Responsible Agency," as defined in CEQA, a number of street' improvements have been identified in the City that serve as mitigation for project -related and cumulative impacts. The precise nature and extent ofthose street improvements are, however, not clearly defined but suggest the need for additional road right-of-way (e.g, Grand Avenue at the SR -60 Westbound Ramps) impacting adjoining businesses. Additional, the proposed circulation plan funnels industrial traffic through an existing residential neighborhood (i.e., Washington Street), thus significantly changing the traffic patterns and volume along an existing residential street. The Community Development Department (Department) has initiated a detailed review of the DEIR and intends to submit comments to the Lead Agency within the 45 -day review period established for the DEIR. The Department seeks to provide the City Council with general information about the project and to act upon any comments that are received. Project Description The City of Industry has executed a "Disposition and Development Agreement" with Majestic Realty (industry East Land LLC)for the conveyance of a 400 -acre area in Industry to a private developer. The Industry Urban Development Agency plans to ' invest $156.4 million in infrastructure and related actions to accommodate the proposed project, will execute a 68 -year ground lease, and will share in the revenues generated by the proposed uses (Los Angeles Business Journal; August 2, 1999). Although the DEIR states that no industrial uses or improvements are precisely known, the document presents a development plan specify the size and location of approximately 27 industrial and commercial buildings, ranging in size of up to 870,000 square feet. An "initial occupancy' phase" is identified' and involves the construction of a single 775;000 square foot industrial building commencing in August 2000. The entire site will be mass graded and all infrastructure required to support the proposed uses constructed during a two-year period commencing in June 2000. Although a majority of project traffic will be routed. along Grand Avenue and Valley Boulevard, the project assumes a through connection to Washington Street: The development plan also includes the construction of separate 409,500 and 411.000 square foot concrete tilt -up industrial buildings within 60 feet of existing residential property lines in Diamond Bar. Need for General Plan Amendment The "City of Diamond Bar General Plan" (DBGP) contains a number of policy statements that are directly applicable to the proposed project. Those include, but are not limited to: • Maintain the integrity of residential neighborhoods by discouraging :through traffic and preventing the creation of new major roadway connections through existing residential neighborhoods (DBGP, Strategy 1.2,2, p. 1-13); • Require that new development be compatible with surrounding land uses (DBGP;` Strategy 2.2.1, p. 1-19); • Monitor and evaluate potential impacts upon the City of Diamond Bar, of major proposed adjacent, focal, and regional developments, in order to anticipate land use, circulation, and economic impacts and related development patterns (DBGP, Strategy 4.1.5, p. I- 22). The DBGP identifies Washington Street as a "local residential street" (DBGP, Table V-1, P. V-6). As indicated therein, "local residential streets are designed to serve adjacent residential land uses only. ..they are not intended to serve through traffic traveling from one street to another" (DBGP, p.V-5). Relative to Washington Street, it is the declared policy of the City to "maintain the cul-de-sacs of Sunset Crossing Road, Beaverhead Drive, Washington Street and Lycoming Street at the City's boundaries" (DBGP, p. V-21). Since the project's design involves a connection with Washington Street, any improvements to Washington Street within the ;City, as required to accommodated the proposed project, would necessitate an amendment to the DBGP. Since an amendment to the DBGP is a. discretionary action subject to CEQA, the City would be required to utilize Industry's EIR as the environmental basis for that action or to prepare a supplemental EIR to address the impacts of that -action. Since the DEIR is identified as a "program EIR," it does not presently appear to present a sufficient environmental basis to adequately inform the City's advisory and decision-making bodies of the impacts of that potential impacts ofthataction (e.g., the need for a general plan amendment (GPA) is not even acknowledged in the DEIR). Similarly, since the DEIR does not contain a project -level assessment of the impacts resulting from the implementation of the traffic improvements identified in Diamond Bar, those improvements would also need to be addressed as part of a separate CEQA process.'. If it is apparent to the City Council that insufficient support exists for a GPA converting Washington Street from a "local residential street' to a through connector into Industry, the Department would so notify Industry in its comments on the DEIR. Since, from a traffic engineering perspective, there may not be a definitive need for that connection, it is reasonable to assume that the proposed project would continue to move forward through the entitlement process either with or without that street improvement. As a result, independent of the proposed connection, the project could (and in all likelihood will) be approved by Industry. With the project's approval, those existing residences along Alder Lane and Washington ° Street will directly abut major industrial uses with rail connections an undisclosed distance from those homes. i Preliminary Review of the DEIR Although the Department has not completed its review of the DEIR„ certain information has been gleamed from that document and address, potential impacts upon Diamond Bar, its residents, and business community.In general, the 'Department believes that the DEiR significantly underestimates the magnitude of project -related and cumulative impacts upon this community. By failing to accurate characterize the severity of those effects, the DEIR fails to formulate appropriate mitigation and 'fails to examine other alternatives that, if implemented, could reduce or avoid those environmental consequences. The following information is, however, presented in the ;DEIR and provides some insights into the nature of the resulting, effects: • Although numerous street improvements would be required in Diamond Bar, the precise nature of those improvements are never presented and the impacts therefrom never- disclosed. ` No implementation plans for the initiation of those improvements are presented and no commitments are made relative to the Leadl Agency's contributions to those improvements within the City. • Traffic volumes along Washington Street would more than double with the introduction of industrial 'traffic utilizing that existing neighborhood as a through connection to the proposed industrial park. No assessment of neighborhood impacts or public safety is, however, presented therein. • Additional right-of-way would be. required to accommodate improvements to the Grand Avenue and SR -60 Freeway ramps, including the loss of lot frontage, landscape, parking, and display areas affecting the existing automobile dealership and restaurant.' The impacts associated' with the loss of real property to those established uses is never addressed. • Future undisclosed industrial uses, potentially operating 24 -hours per day, would be located 60 fleet from existing residential property lines. Rail access is proposed to those , uses. The ' 60 -foot building setback does not apply to outdoor storage, work, or assembly areas and no restrictions are stated concerning the separation distance between rail operations and adjoining homes. No architectural plans or definitive design guidelines are presented and no limitations are stated concerning the height of future industrial buildings. Although construction of the initial 775,000 square foot building is scheduled to commence in August 2000, no site-specific or use -specific information is provided concerning that land use. • Although the DEiR fails to commit to any precise parcelization of the property, size or placement of buildings, impose limitations on the types of industrial land uses that could be permitted, or present definitive rail improvement plans, there is little likelihood that any further CEQA review or public notification will be undertaken by the Lead Agency as development applications are submitted and individual uses permitted. • Inadequate mitigation appears to now presented addressing ;the significant land use compatibility conflicts that would inevitably result from the proximity of industrial uses to existing dwellings. • No definitive commitments are provided concerning the precise performance standards that the industrial uses will be held to and no commitments are made as to the precise nature of any buffering that will be constructed to minimize impacts -upon nearby residences. • Issues of noise,, air quality, noise,` traffic, and land use compatibility appear to be significantly underestimated. • Since the precise nature of street improvements within the City are never disclosed, insufficient information is now presented: to allow for a detailed assessment of the potential impacts that may result therefrom. The City would need to commence its own CEQA process to fully address those impacts, to determine'' the availability of other alternative means to accommodate the projected traffic growth, and to provide an environmental basis to allow those or alternative improvements to proceed. It Is not known whether Industry has provided written notice of the proposed project to adjoining property owners. No notice was provided directly to the City, necessitating that the Department initiate efforts to obtain a copy of the DEIR. In lieu of fully assessing and mitigating project -related and cumulative impacts on the City, the Lead Agency seeks to defer that analysis to a future, undisclosed date.` There exists no benefit to the City to defer critical environmental analyses,` including the formulation of mitigation plans with clearly defined' obligations and implementation schedules, until after the project is approved and the impacts produced by the project already evident. No statements are contained in the'DEIR that would lead the City to believe that Industry commits to the avoidance of impacts upon Diamond Bar, will fully compensate the City for the impacts upon this community that are attributable to development and redevelopment activities that occurring in "Industry, or will delay project approval or commencement of project construction pending resolution and mitigation of impacts upon the City. Traffic and Circulation Several traffic studies, for similar projects, have been conducted in the. general project area. Based on the City's review of those analyses, the need for specific traffic improvements within the City has been identified. Although regional growth is a component of any traffic investigations, the identified improvements result primarily from the development activities that have occurred and are planned in the City of Industry. Based on a,preliminary review of the DER, in order to determine if the traffic study conducted for the proposed project contains proper analyses, provides a supportable assessment of traffic impacts, and adequately addresses mitigation in Diamond Bar, :the following are some of the items that warrant further detailed examination. The trip generation analyses will need' to be further reviewed to determine if appropriate rates and assumptions have been utilized. The trip generation rates need to address the range of potential land uses that could occur on the project site. The rates that have been utilized in the DER appear to be too low., and, therefore, result in an underestimation of potential traffic impacts. • The traffic study indicates use of the County's analytical procedures; however, the traffic study does not appear to comply with all applicable County requirements. Variance of the study from these procedures need to be identified and the traffic implications examined. The assumed distribution of project -related traffic is an important factor in determining potential impacts and mitigation. When compared to previous traffic studies, the distribution of traffic assumed to travel through Diamond Bar has decreased even though the land uses are similar. In addition, the "conservative truck percentage assumption - Ali applied to the project traffic actual results in an assumption of reduced impacts to Diamond Bar, since the project's truck traffic cannot legally utilize Grand Avenue. • The DEIR is unclear as to what traffic mitigationwill actually ,be required of the project. This is, of course, the "bottom line" issue in determining if the potential impacts will be mitigated_ • Given the other recent projects approved in Industry and the potential additional' development describe in the DEIR, there is a need to verify that the assumed traffic can be reasonably accommodated by the surrounding roadway on a "real world traffic operational basis. • The impacts and potential costs to Diamond Bar can also translate to limitations and/or additional costs imposed on future development within the City. For example if any excess roadway capacity is "taken" by the current project, it may restrict the potential options for,future projects in Diamond Bar. • It appears that some of the traffic impact relating to the proposed project have not been fully identified. Recommendations • Determine the need for a GPA to connect Washington Street with proposed Street "A, as identified as a project component in the DEIR. • Determine whether there exists political support `for the extension of Washington Street in a manner that appears inconsistent with the existing policies of the DBGP. • Authorize the Department to submit written comments to Industry on the DEIR. • Encourage community residents, particularly those most impactedby the project, to submit written comments to Industry within the comment period. • Obtain legal representation to examine the range of options available to the City under CEQA should Industry elect to move forward with the proposed project in the manner now proposed. 4• Project Description Local Vicinity Sheriff's Sub -Station/ Corporate Yard 1071° afj,%.`� • CITY OF �„� r% POMOMA � s ,y to^�° !� jf' o Little Kr Id San Jose 'r Creek ChannelPis ✓/ ,f ��:� INN ca n�a QOO°�ivo(/� 1 IRdYhiil \� = t� t r ,IRVnwucmo 8 f ,r J / 1 air;\% ON IRM� : t •�,f r ,F,a � , , i s. t .� �: . i jam-.. , f;_�� J , -• ` ,;: ,� � � / L J7 Metroli Station it II Lri�%j ,'1 ����1 X11 i �i,. .�1, �%� �•-\�j��`� \ ),1�1 0 • f , �- is ` � �/r�' ! \,`�� ���/ �f� ' — � % ' � i•l�\ JLL LEGEND / Project Area Boundary Site Area WTTOSCALE i T&'PI ..i -g Geittn • Figure 4.172 4. Project Description Conceptual Site Plan CRY OF Sheriff sSub-StatloN �✓ s, �,`�"! POMONA ' Corporate Yard A oo , , San Jose �i \`, : / i,, r L�., Creek Channel Or humbn z hi Industria r,! e r n\ j/f ri —yp� mawr Project(Under r t' Censtrucwl. r , i? / 1% s /� � • LBBEY i Ir1l("" '— \ 19 rig, '` \/� . •� vv' , Ili - _ �- •''%� f'`� ='Z\�i 1t l S� metro! , t o /�. t t t\t t i Statio,.4f i � f 4y* � �\J { n�\L r: ��/•r/ f1/.: }�� Ike'. r 21 n r LEGEND i R t--;�k,t � � +a -�•..��'" Project Area Boundary AW Site Area NUr,O& x Source: IVDA; Majestic Realty, 2/2000' } The PAmning Ower O • R 4.3-2 t. 8� 4. 'Project Description MINNOW TABLE 4.3-1 BUILDING SQUARE FOOTAGE AND TOTAL ACREAGE Building Number Pad I use usre Footage Net Site Acres Commercial.— 4,000 12.7 Mar 2 Commercial 4 15.4 Industrial 36 -OW Industria 5 7 Industria 2.8 Industrial I 45 000 -8 . Industrial I 80 000 ` 3.88 9 Industrial 45 000 2.64 10 Industrial 50,000 " 302 11 Industrial367 000 20.48 Pad 4 78 29 30 Commercial 4,000 5.0 Industrial "Mo ItArMal 22-500 "'llstrial 22.5w 31 subtotals - Area A Industrial 6,000 67A 1.009,000 13 42 Industrial 90,500! 14 Industrial 70,000 3.33 15 Irxiustrial 75,000 3.55 16` Industrial 350,0W 16:85 17 Industrial 425.000 20:8 18 Industrial 775,000 35.6 Subtotals - Area 8 1,876,000. 88.93 19 20 industrial 409-500 20.52 31.03 Industrial 675 800 21 InKlustrial 870,00D 39.98 22 Industrial 415 000 21.94 _ 23 Industrial 141,500 10.10 24 Industrial 411000 22.94 25 Industrial 330,00D 16.5 26 Industrial 230 000 13.22 . 27 industrial 135,000 10.36 Subtotals - Area C 3 617 800 186.59 Proect Total - Building Use Square Footage Net Site.Acres Commercial - 116 500 12.71 Industrial 6,386,300 323.01 Project Totals 6.502.800 336.71 Does not include site coverage from Pad 4located in Area A Source: Industry East Land LLC EIRVNsj dry EIR dur Indwtry FGzt Draft EIR Age 4-9 P.1Ttd-IOV)rijt ...* " !» °'� � iu� "s' �'~�`" %` '< �;-. yid( � _.•_ � -.: <<•'. g., yZi- tt - :S''���� r'�'Cir �'a �`�r" e,?r '� r �2- �-t6 y�'��^�` �,y"� ¢. t •+-'�� -!� ,. p -L' ....."Y��p��s .f .�i'° � '' � F� J �yg, ~i5$•lT', 1�`t�py _'T.A����.� � F'.z- �/ �'�" �� �.. L'A4 (� J �, . arm /,J/�'/ ; y�-�e•�� d*= . �►$a � 'y� � �` �j � :r-4 •^� i - � ' jJ. '�, J.,,/ , 9 �` �l;,ia'p`rtd' -t-�t "z'u.,,� - 4 . S � �� �; ..Kr`. "+� -h. � � � -vwF� w � �. �r`l �u _ • 't- =z..� .c � � . ��``-4r`" �,.�cYy.:,�ar'"rRa'a�'f y'?Sy •''.]"�3.z r �z ^r�..p ,(` � -r -' '�v F � ` '® '� Vis... $ : 'Y�' f�J ''` �„ .�. `t 4n� � -� G •+ � �j`j - "� s��v^-.•; > w-- �R.-g-.h ! r� ` Loc. if:; �, f'w.��``,�, y,ia � v�..� � �r�. _ aaf�� s�(i 4:`,,.r.i'-�• fi��'• /Y°" w.+ i` ->v as ` ,a 31L .t*A1. �� _. r-�:7 • '�h f� '.7^� > --3•_. �� '�--', `ya.�4 s � �aFt i� . J . � pH- s.4`^. „�•,4� �... y. dna' � '�` +` �'•P � 9' ' ) �, v3 j �. 1�� �,�•!. •Cie; f� r , pf`". � `�'�'�� - `".:'�'�` '�e:•� J':' r} �" t�. 'f�f��, ' �V.� ry _ r _ - � `r l Yt y �. P3• Id.V.. a"�'°SC. C � f1 � {� 4 ib � f •�i .^tL .. .: �„d �. -- +...1 '4 �+*' ,�, ' x' � gip t„ ,T g Ea,._ .4�` .�, ✓ r . "4Pooy ,& �• ,l "'.- � __.. `": ..,ate y'. • =g zt /- r v®D ?. _ .a� ` -ti- i$1'a-"` � t 6r ,.meq � pg �..! Y;.. `�•� � -fig-w. �V+� =+"r.. ��ye �~ s�`"--��` '- � 6'� K��.�'",� `" � �a�s ! =g. /,fj^ R"�a '1a w�rl.'p' ,• '!,`, f-°� "'° �O'°Y'm""" )-�' sr ¢ �-,rr�+��.�€ r`�'s���°y �;. __��,f 4"`i `rt yqa. -p}`. a�• �.$ �.. :,.:jam`' y' t ��" C '��y�-,-,/�� r a q,�`w d �"' ;.a{"' ,�. �--w � '°` •J''it+'6. .t Q _ ;F