Agua Mansa Commerce Center Colton, California Addendum to

Document Sample
Agua Mansa Commerce Center Colton, California Addendum to Powered By Docstoc
					                                   Agua Mansa Commerce Center
                                            Colton, California


                           Addendum to Environmental Impact Report

I.      Introduction
        The City of Colton (the “City”) has prepared this Addendum pursuant to the
California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.)
( “CEQA”) in response to the Superior Court of San Bernardino County’s ( “Court”)
May 21, 2009 Ruling on Petition for Writ of Mandate ( “Ruling”). The City previously
certified an approximately 317-page (plus Appendices and Exhibits) Environmental
Impact Report (State Clearinghouse # 2007-071010) ( “EIR”) for the development of an
industrial business park on approximately 94.18 acres located north of the Santa Ana
River at the southeast intersection of Riverside Avenue and Agua Mansa Road
(“Property”) with approximately 1,365,450 square feet of industrial development, a
truck/trailer parking lot and a detention basin, all as more particularly described in the
EIR Project Description, specifically page A.R., 1 1916-1918 ( “Project”).

        On May 13, 2008, the Colton Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. R-
03-08 that (i) certified the final EIR for the Project, (ii) adopted environmental findings
pursuant to CEQA, a Statement of Overriding Considerations and the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Plan (“MMRP”), and (iii) approved the Project. The Notice of
Determination (“NOD”) was filed on May 13, 2008. On May 21, 2008, the City of Rialto
(“Rialto”) drafted a letter seeking an appeal to the May 13, 2008 Planning Commission
approval of the Project. On June 17, 2008, by Resolution No. R-58-08, the Colton City
Council denied Rialto’s appeal, certified the final EIR prepared for the Project, adopted
environmental findings pursuant to CEQA, adopted a Statement of Overriding
Considerations, adopted the MMRP, adopted tentative map findings, and approved the
Project. The NOD was filed on June 17, 2008, and was received and properly posted by
the clerk of the Board of the County of San Bernardino on June 18, 2008. On July 18,
2008, Rialto filed its Petition for Writ of Mandate and Complaint for Declaratory and
Injunctive Relief. Trial was held before Judge Alvarez on April 24, 2009. On May 21,
2009, Judge Alvarez ruled on the Petition for Writ on Mandate. On September 1, 2009,
Judge Alvarez entered the City’s Proposed Judgment and Proposed Peremptory Writ of
Mandate, consistent with the ruling, as the Judgment on Petition for Writ of Mandate and
the Peremptory Writ of Mandate.

        This Addendum will respond to Judge Alvarez’s concerns regarding traffic issues
raised in the Ruling and will provide clarification and details necessary to address the
deficiencies in the EIR identified by Judge Alvarez.




1
    Administrative Record (“A.R.”); page (“p.”); pages (“pp.”) lodged in these Court proceedings.

                                                      1
wc-141612
II.     Purpose of Addendum
        CEQA authorizes a lead or responsible agency to prepare an Addendum to a
previously certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary but none of the
conditions described in CEQA Guidelines 2 § 15162 requiring the preparation of a
Subsequent EIR or CEQA Guidelines § 15163 requiring the preparation of a supplement
to an EIR have occurred.

        A subsequent EIR is not required unless (i) substantial changes are proposed in
the project that will require major revisions of the previous EIR, (ii) substantial changes
occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is being undertaken that
will require major revisions in the EIR, or (iii) new information of substantial importance
to the project, which was not known and could not have been known at the time the EIR
was certified as complete becomes available that shows (a) one or more significant
effects not discussed in the EIR, (b) significant effects previously examined that will be
substantially more severe, (c) mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to
be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce significant effects,
but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measures or alternatives, or
(d) mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those
analyzed in the EIR would substantially reduce significant effects, but the project
proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measures or alternatives. Pub. Res. Code
§ 21166; CEQA Guidelines § 15162.

        The lead or responsible agency may choose to prepare a supplement to an EIR
rather than a Subsequent EIR if: (1) any of the conditions described in Section 15162
(Subsequent EIRs) would require the preparation of a Subsequent EIR, and (2) only
minor additions or changes would be necessary to make the previous EIR adequately
apply to the project in the changed situation. Pub. Res. Code § 21166; CEQA Guidelines
§ 15163.

       Given that none of the conditions requiring preparation of a Subsequent EIR or a
supplement to an EIR are present and only minor changes to the previous EIR are
necessary, an Addendum to the EIR is proper. CEQA Guidelines § 15164.

        CEQA requires that the decision making body consider the Addendum with the
final EIR prior to making a decision on the project. A brief explanation of the decision
not to prepare a Subsequent EIR pursuant to Section 15162 should be included in an
Addendum or elsewhere in the record and must be supported by substantial evidence.
CEQA Guidelines § 15164.

        In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, the City, as the lead agency,
has prepared this Addendum to the previously certified EIR. As further described below,
the City has determined that the clarifications provided herein will result in none of the
conditions described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 or Section 15163 requiring the
preparation of a Subsequent EIR or a Supplement to an EIR.

2
 The CEQA Guidelines consist of sections 15000-15387 of Title 14, Chapter 3 of the California Code of
Regulations.

                                                   2
wc-141612
III.   Project Background
       The Property contains approximately 94.18 acres of real property, and is located
north of the Santa Ana River at the southeast intersection of Riverside Avenue and Agua
Mansa Road. The Property is also located within the Agua Mansa Industrial Corridor
Specific Plan (“Specific Plan”) area. The Specific Plan is a multi-jurisdictional land use
and economic development plan encompassing approximately 4,285 acres within
portions of the City, Rialto and unincorporated areas of San Bernardino and Riverside
Counties.

IV.    Summary of Judge Alvarez’s Ruling
        On May 21, 2009, Judge Alvarez issued a written ruling on the Petition for Writ
of Mandate ( “Ruling”). In the Ruling, Judge Alvarez found that all of Rialto’s
arguments failed except for four areas requiring clarification related to traffic. The four
areas for clarification are as follows.

       First, the Court stated that the administrative record did not support the EIR’s
designation of 1,081,782 square feet of High Cube warehouse distribution use.

            •   “The traffic analysis is deficient since substantial evidence does not
                support the assumption in the traffic analysis that 1,081,782 square feet of
                the project is to be used as a High Cube Warehouse (A.R., pp. 1916-1918)
                when only ‘895,520 square feet consist of High-Cube warehouse
                distribution center uses’ (A.R., p. 2689), the rest being office,
                manufacturing, landscaping and parking.” (Ruling, p. 17, lines 17-22)

      Second, the Court found that the EIR was deficient in its explanation of the
methodology used to calculate traffic growth in the vicinity of the Project.

            •   “The traffic analysis is also deficient since there is no evidence in the
                administrative record explaining how traffic from the Project was
                incorporated into the traffic growth projections.” (Ruling, p. 17, lines 23-
                25)

         Third, the Court found that certain assumptions related to completion by another
agency of traffic signal synchronization were uncertain and therefore could not be relied
upon in determining the baseline for the Project. The Court found that, because the
traffic signal synchronization could not be counted upon to establish the baseline traffic
conditions, the EIR’s description of the level of service at the affected intersections was
inaccurate.

            •   “The traffic analysis was further deficient for relying on completion of the
                Valley Signal Synchronization Program when funding and scheduling for
                Tier 4 has not been completed (A.R., p. 2688a).” (Ruling, p. 17, lines 26-
                28)




                                              3
wc-141612
         Finally, the Court found that, because of the above deficiencies in the EIR’s
traffic analysis, the estimate of the traffic generated by the Project was inaccurate, and as
a result the mitigation measures proposed for the Project, particularly those requiring the
payment of “fair share fees,” were insufficient.

            •   “The description of the traffic levels of service in the EIR, are inaccurate,
                and the sufficiency of the mitigation measures as to traffic inadequate, for
                these same reasons.” (Ruling, p. 18, lines 1-3)

        As a result of these deficiencies, Judge Alvarez ordered Respondents “to suspend
all Project activities related to traffic impacts until appropriate corrective measures are
taken consistent with this decision.” (Ruling, p. 18, lines 23-24) (emphasis added) This
Addendum documents the corrective measures to provide the Court and the City with the
details and clarifications regarding the Project’s traffic impacts.

V.     Scope of Addendum
        The Court’s Ruling, Judgment on Petition for Writ of Mandate and the
Peremptory Writ of Mandate all conclude that the entire EIR is sufficient except for the
four areas discussed above. Thus, the scope of this Addendum is limited to clarifying
those areas for the Court:

      (i)     Clarification of Project square footage designated as High Cube
warehouse distribution use;

        (ii)    Explanation of the methodology used to calculate traffic growth in the
vicinity of the Project and the incorporation of Project traffic into the traffic growth
projections;

       (iii) Update and clarification of the baseline concerning the traffic signal
synchronization and related level of service description; and

        (iv)  Clarification of the sufficiency of the traffic mitigation measures in light
of the Addendum’s additional analysis of traffic related impacts.

       Any public comment on this Addendum shall be limited to these four areas.

VI.    Revised Traffic Analysis Pursuant to Court Ruling
       1.       Square Footage Allocated for High-Cube Warehouse
       The Court found the EIR to be deficient in part because it found a discrepancy in
the Project’s square footage allocation for High-Cube Warehouse and the absence of a
discussion of the basis for the square footage to be allocated to that use.

                A.     1,086,782 Square Feet are Designated High-Cube Warehouse
      The Court cited the discrepancy between the 1,081,782 square feet of High-Cube
Warehouse identified in the traffic impact analysis performed by the traffic consultant,


                                              4
wc-141612
Kunzman Associates, (“Traffic Impact Analysis”) (A.R., pp. 323-399) and the 895,520
square feet of High-Cube Warehouse identified in the City’s response to Rialto’s
comment in the City’s April 22, 2008 response to comments incorporated into the Final
EIR. (A.R., p. 2689)

        It is unclear where the Court obtained the 1,081,782 square footage number to be
allocated for High-Cube Warehouse uses. It may be a typographical error. The number
used consistently throughout the Project’s Traffic Impact Analysis and the EIR’s traffic
analysis is 1,086,782. This number is used in Table 4.11-3 of the EIR, which is the basis
for the Project impact analysis in the EIR. (A.R., p. 2144) (Table 4.11-3 of the EIR,
Exhibit A) This number is also used on pages 1, 19, and 21 (Table 2) of the Traffic
Impact Analysis. (A.R., pp. 329, 347, 349)

         There is one consistent set of square footage numbers used in the Project’s Traffic
Impact Analysis and the EIR’s traffic analysis. These numbers are: 1,086,782 square feet
of High-Cube Warehouse uses, and 278,666 square feet for Industrial Park uses, for a
total of 1,365,448 square feet. These square footage numbers are the basis for the
Project’s traffic calculations. 3 The designation of Industrial Park for the 278,666 square
feet of non High-Cube uses was specifically chosen because it assumes the highest, and
thus most conservative, trip generation rate (6.96 trips per 1,000 square feet) (A.R., 2144)
among the uses permitted on the Property. Therefore, the EIR analyzed a worst case
scenario of the trip generation and resulting traffic impacts from Industrial Park uses.

        A conceptual site plan was prepared for the project. The site plan contained a
related legend, and was included in the introduction section of the EIR to show the
expected layout of the site. (A.R., 1904) This site plan was prepared eight months before
the EIR was submitted and, although the expected building placement is accurate, it
contains an outdated conceptual use plan prepared by project architects. The breakdown
of uses within the interior of each building shown on the conceptual site plan was never
intended to be, and in fact was never used as, the basis of any traffic analysis.

        When responding to Rialto’s EIR comment letter, the City mistakenly referred to
the 895,520-square foot warehouse area line item in the legend of the conceptual site plan
rather than citing the correct High-Cube Warehouse number of 1,086,782 used as the
basis of all traffic analysis. The consultants also incorrectly cited the conceptual site plan
for the total square footage of the Project. The total square footage for the Project
consistently used in the Traffic Impact Analysis and the EIR’s traffic analysis is
1,365,448 square feet, not 1,365,450 square feet as stated in the conceptual site plan.

       Both the Traffic Impact Analysis and the EIR’s traffic analysis consistently used
1,086,782 as the square footage allocated to High-Cube Warehouse. (A.R., pp. 2144,
329, 347, 349) Thus, although the incorrect number was used in the response to


3
 The Traffic Impact Analysis and traffic analysis of the EIR also accounted for the traffic generated by the
Truck Parking Facility based on the number of truck parking stalls rather than square footage. (A.R., p.
349, A.R., p. 2144)

                                                     5
wc-141612
comments, it did not change the fact that the correct number was used in the Project’s
Traffic Impact Analysis and the EIR.

                 B.       All Buildings Over 100,000 Square Feet are Designated High-
                          Cube Warehouse
       The Court also expressed concern about how the High-Cube Warehouse square
footage for the Project was determined. This number was based on the anticipated
warehouse use of all buildings over 100,000 square feet. Accordingly, consistent with
industry standards and the definition of High-Cube Warehouse, the Traffic Impact
Analysis and EIR’s traffic analysis for the Project applied the High-Cube Warehouse trip
generation rate to all buildings on the Property greater than 100,000 square feet. As
described in Rialto’s own Request for Judicial Notice, the County of San Bernardino
Department of Public Works defines High-Cube Warehouses as generally “greater than
100,000 square feet.”

       The 100,000 square foot threshold for a High-Cube Warehouse use has also been
adopted by the San Bernardino Associated Governments (“SANBAG”). 4 SANBAG has
determined that a High-Cube Warehouse trip generation rate can be used in traffic impact
analysis reports for warehouses that are greater than 100,000 square feet in size.

        Following is a table illustrating the Project buildings assumed to be used as High-
Cube Warehouses in the Traffic Impact Analysis and EIR’s traffic analysis. The data
used in this table corresponds to the square footage data in the Conceptual Site Plan set
forth in Figure 1-3 of the EIR. (A.R., p. 1904)

                  Project Buildings Counted as High-Cube Warehouse
        Building Number Based on Site Plan            Building Square Footage
                    Building 4                                100,128
                    Building 6                                101,354
                    Building 7                                122,810
                    Building 9                                462,907
                    Building 10                               174,995
                    Building 11                               124,588
    Total High-Cube Warehouse Square Footage                 1,086,782

        The conceptual site plan contained hypothetical breakdowns of each building to
gain a preliminary understanding of parking. The breakdowns between office,
manufacturing and warehouse square footage allocated within each building were
hypothetical portrayals of the intended land uses for the site.

       Under the guidelines promulgated by the National Association of Industrial and
Office Properties and the Institution of Transportation Engineers, the traffic generation

4
  The April 19, 2005 SANBAG memorandum, attached as Appendix F to the Traffic Impact Analysis, cites
a trip generation study sponsored by the National Association of Industrial Office Properties and endorsed
by the Comprehensive Transportation Plan Technical Advisory Committee.

                                                    6
wc-141612
rates for High-Cube Warehouses generally include accessory office uses within these
warehouses. Thus, the traffic generated by accessory office uses in this project’s High-
Cube Warehouses has been accounted for in the traffic generation rates for High-Cube
Warehouse.

       The Traffic Impact Analysis and the EIR both accurately calculated the High-
Cube Warehouse trip generation rate for the Project. The discussion above clarifies the
square footage and methodology used to reach that conclusion.

       2.      Project Traffic Growth

        In the Ruling, the Court stated that there was no evidence explaining how traffic
from the Project was incorporated into the traffic growth projections. The following
explanation details the traffic growth calculation methodology, including how the
projected Project traffic was incorporated. The methodology used is the standard
required by SANBAG.

       As a part of the analysis of traffic impacts resulting from the project, the EIR
analyzed the projected cumulative traffic at the intersections affected by the project
between 2009, the previously anticipated opening year of the project, and 2030.
Therefore, the starting point for the calculation of the projected traffic growth is the
volume of traffic at each of the affected intersections in 2009, the Opening Year Average
Daily Traffic (“ADT”) Volume. Following the determination of Opening Year ADT,
annual growth in traffic volume is estimated in accordance with SANBAG standards to
determine annual traffic volume through the year 2030, the Year 2030 ADT Volume.

        The following methodology is used to calculate Opening Year ADT. An example
of this methodology is illustrated in Exhibit B, which demonstrates the actual calculations
for one of the many intersections studied (Agua Mansa Road immediately North of El
Rivino Road).

       Calculation of Opening Year ADT Volume:

       1)      The first step of the analysis was to identify the baseline 2007 actual
               traffic volumes. These existing traffic volumes were obtained from two
               sources. For State routes and freeways, the California Department of
               Transportation performs twenty-four hour counts that the EIR Traffic
               Consultant, Kunzman Associates, Inc., relied upon. For surface streets,
               Kunzman Associates performed its own counts during peak hours and, as
               is standard in the industry, extrapolated those findings into twenty-four
               hour counts, the estimated volume of traffic during a 24-hour period.

       2)      The second step of the analysis incorporated data from the Year
               2000‐2030 traffic in the East Valley Traffic Model (“EVTM”) into the
               EIR’s traffic growth projections. The EVTM is a focused traffic model
               administered for the entire region by the City of San Bernardino. It begins


                                             7
wc-141612
                 with a baseline of the traffic volume in Year 2000 and projects Year 2030
                 traffic volumes based on certain growth projections, which assume that
                 property in the region will gradually be developed according to the
                 applicable General Plan designations, and that this development will add
                 to the existing traffic volume. 5 The exact timing of the annual growth
                 between Years 2000 and 2030 is not specified in the EVTM. Rather, it
                 simply contains a starting count (2000) and an ending count (2030).
                 Therefore, the SANBAG methodology requires the assumption of equal
                 growth each year, which is calculated by dividing the total growth in
                 traffic volume by 30, the total number of years in the study period
                 (“Annual Growth”). 6

        3)       Third, the Annual Growth (determined in step two) for both 2008 and
                 2009 (326 ADT plus 326 ADT) is added to the baseline Year 2007
                 existing ADT volumes (determined in step one) to equal the Opening Year
                 2009 traffic volumes without the Project.

        4)       Fourth, for purposes of calculating the Opening Year ADT only, the
                 SANBAG methodology requires that regardless of what traffic growth
                 actually occurs during Years 2000‐2030, the assumption for any Opening
                 Year’s traffic count shall be no less than 10% above the last known
                 existing traffic count for that roadway. The purpose of this requirement is
                 to provide a conservative minimum growth rate for the calculation of
                 Opening Year project impacts. This test is not required for any
                 subsequent year after the Opening Year, including the Year 2030 ADTs.

        5)       Fifth, the projected traffic volumes for the Project are added to the
                 forecasted Opening Year ADT Without Project (the larger of the volume
                 calculated in Step 3 and Step 4). The projected traffic volumes for the
                 Project were calculated using the High-Cube Warehouse, Industrial Park
                 and Truck Parking Facility trip generation rates and the square footage of
                 each use set forth in Figure 1-3 of the EIR. As noted in Step 2 above, the
                 EVTM already accounts for traffic generated by proposed and existing
                 land uses in the San Bernardino County East Valley region. The Court
                 raised a concern about calculating the traffic volumes in the region before
                 the Project traffic volumes were added into the calculation. (Ruling, p. 9,
                 footnote 2) However, this methodology is correct. The traffic generated
                 by future High-Cube Warehouse, Industrial Park and Truck Parking
                 Facility land uses (such as the Project) is already incorporated into the
                 EVTM traffic volumes. However, to be conservative, Kunzman
5
  Samples of the Year 2000 and Year 2030 EVTM plots describing total traffic volume at Agua Mansa
Road immediately North of El Rivino Road are attached as Exhibit C (Year 2000) and Exhibit D (Year
2030).
6
  For instance, the Year 2000 total eastbound and westbound traffic volume per the EVTM is 5,482
Average Daily Traffic (“ADT”) (see Exhibit C), and the Year 2030 projected traffic volume per the EVTM
is 15,266 ADT (see Exhibit D). The City assumed that traffic at that location increases by 326 ADT
[(15,266 – 5,482)/30] in each of the thirty years between 2000 and 2030.

                                                  8
wc-141612
               Associates added the calculated Project traffic to the EVTM traffic counts,
               effectively counting the Project traffic twice. Additionally, 100% of the
               Project traffic volumes are added to the traffic calculation beginning in the
               Opening Year. However, it is anticipated that the Project will be built out
               over several years, currently estimated to extend into Year 2011.
               Therefore, assuming that 100% of the volume of the Project traffic will
               begin in year one, rather than gradually increasing over several years,
               represents a worst case scenario.

        Calculation of Year 2030 ADT Volume: (See Exhibit B for a numerical
calculation of the steps described below.)

       1-3)    The first three steps for calculating Year 2030 ADTs are the same as those
               above for calculating Opening Year ADTs.

       4)      This is not a required step for calculating Year 2030 estimated ADTs
               because the 10% minimum increase only applies to the Opening Year
               ADTs.

       5)      The fifth step for calculating Year 2030 ADTs is the same as step 5 above
               for calculating Opening Year ADTs.

       6)      Sixth, Annual Growth is added per the EVTM to future years to arrive at
               the projected Year 2030 ADT volume.

      Exhibit B illustrates the methodology above using figures (both eastbound and
westbound) from Agua Mansa Road immediately north of El Rivino Rd.

      In summary, the methodology used begins with existing traffic in 2007, adds
Annual Growth per the EVTM and finally adds Project traffic starting in Opening Year
2009. The combination of these three components results in the estimated 2030 traffic
volume.

       3.      SANBAG’s Valley Signal Synchronization Program

        SANBAG’s Valley Signal Synchronization Program (also known as the SB
Valley Coordinated Traffic Signal System Plan) is a strategic plan for interconnecting
and coordinating traffic signals on major streets in the San Bernardino Valley area across
several jurisdictional boundaries. Four phases, or tiers, were recommended for
implementation of the program. Tiers 1 and 2 have been completed. Tiers 3 and 4 are
completely funded and scheduled. The funding source for Tiers 3 and 4 is the
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) funds. (SANBAG website
(http://www.sanbag.ca.gov /planning/subr_traffic-signal.html); May 20, 2009 SANBAG
Minute Action, Agenda Item 3; and 2008 Traffic Light Synchronization Program Project
Scope, Cost, Schedule and Benefit Baseline Agreement between SANBAG and
California Department of Transportation.) Attached as Exhibit E is the May 20, 2009


                                             9
wc-141612
SANBAG Minute Action. Attached as Exhibit F is the 2008 Traffic Light
Synchronization Program Project Scope, Cost, Schedule and Benefit Baseline Agreement
between SANBAG and California Department of Transportation.

        The Court expressed concern that, based on the City’s response to comments, it
appeared that SANBAG was still only preparing a Request for Proposal for Tier 4 of
SANBAG’s Valley Signal Synchronization Program, which would mean that Tier 4 was
not funded or scheduled. However, since the April 2008 date of the response to
comments letter, Tier 4 has been fully funded and scheduled. The design contract for
Tier 4 has been awarded, and the 11-month design stage is in process. The Tier 4
construction will begin immediately after the design process and is slated for completion
by December 2011. (May 20, 2009 SANBAG Minute Action, Agenda Item 3; 2008
Traffic Light Synchronization Program Project Scope, Cost, Schedule and Benefit
Baseline Agreement between SANBAG and California Department of Transportation.)

         Consequently, the SANBAG Valley Signal Synchronization Program, Tier 4, as a
funded and scheduled project, can be relied on in determining the Project’s traffic
baseline. Additionally, as the Court stated in the Ruling on page 11, lines 5-7, if the City
could rely on future traffic projects, such as Tier 4, in determining the Project baseline,
the description of the level of service at the intersections would be accurate. As
illustrated above, the City can rely on the Tier 4 projects and, thus, the description of
level of service is accurate.

        4.      Sufficiency of Traffic Impact Mitigation Measures
        The Court stated in its Ruling that Rialto’s claim of insufficient mitigation
measures 7 is a derivative of the claim that the estimate of the traffic generated by the
Project was deficient. (These apparent deficiencies were a result of the High-Cube
Warehouse square footage, traffic growth and signal synchronization issues discussed
above.) The Court previously stated that since these traffic estimates are not supported
by the administrative record, the mitigation measures were insufficient. However, the
additional information and analysis above now supports a finding that the traffic
estimates are sufficient.

         Specifically, the confirmation above regarding the basis for the square footage
(with respect to the High-Cube Warehouse square footage) ensures that the estimate of
traffic generated by the Project was accurate. Similarly, the analysis in this Addendum
clarifies how traffic from the Project was incorporated into the traffic growth projections.
Finally, confirmation of the status of the SANBAG Valley Signal Synchronization
Program, Tier 4, as being funded and scheduled, supports the inclusion of these
improvements in the environmental baseline for the Project.

       Accordingly, based on the above analysis, the City determines that the traffic
estimates and conclusions forming the basis for the determination of mitigation measures
is now sufficient, and therefore the mitigation measures described in the EIR and the
MMRP are likewise sufficient.
7
    Rialto claims that the City failed to allocate adequate monetary contributions/fair share fees to Rialto.

                                                        10
wc-141612
VII.   An EIR Addendum is the Proper Method to Address the Court’s Concerns
       The City finds that none of the conditions described in CEQA Guidelines
Section 15162 or Section 15163 requiring the preparation of a Subsequent or a
supplement to an EIR have occurred. Specifically, the City has determined the
following:

        No Substantial Change in the Project. There are no substantial changes in the
Project. Rather, there are simple clarifications of the Project’s traffic impacts. There are
no new significant environmental effects or any substantial increases in the severity of
previously identified significant effects. No major revisions to the EIR are required. The
EIR’s mitigation measures will continue to be more than adequate to mitigate the
Project’s traffic impacts.

        No Substantial Changes in Circumstances. There are no substantial changes with
respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken which will require
major revisions to the EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental
effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects.
The clarifications provided herein will not result in new or substantially increased
environmental effects resulting from the Project.

         No New Information of Substantial Importance. There is no new information of
substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the
exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the EIR was certified as complete which
shows that the Project will have one or more significant effects or substantially more
severe effects not discussed in the EIR. Except for the new information regarding the
status of Tier 4 of the SANBAG Valley Signal Synchronization Program, the Project and
its traffic impacts all remain the same as contemplated in the EIR. There are no
mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible that would now in
fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the
Project. Additionally, there are no mitigation measures or alternatives which are
considerably different from those analyzed in the EIR which would substantially reduce
the environmental effects related the Project’s traffic. Consequently, there is no new
information indicating that new significant or substantially more severe environmental
effects would result from the Project’s traffic.

        No Conditions Requiring a Supplement to an EIR. A supplement to an EIR may
be prepared if a Subsequent EIR is required and only minor additions or changes would
be necessary. Given that none of the conditions requiring a Subsequent EIR are
triggered, a supplement to an EIR is not appropriate.




                                              11
wc-141612
VIII. Conclusion

        This Addendum responds to the concerns regarding traffic raised in the Ruling
with the clarifications and details necessary to address the deficiencies in the EIR
identified by the Court. Based upon the analysis above, the City concludes that the
clarifications set forth in this Addendum in response to the Ruling address the EIR’s
deficiencies and will not require major revisions of the EIR warranting preparation of a
Subsequent EIR or a supplement to an EIR. The traffic analysis clarification will not
result in new significant or substantially more severe environmental effects. The City
also concludes that there are no new feasible alternatives or mitigation measures within
the City’s powers that would substantially lessen or avoid any significant environmental
effect resulting from the Project’s traffic.




                                           12
wc-141612
                                                                        Exhibit A
                                                                       Table 4.11-3

                                                                                                     1
                                                    Total Project Traffic Generation in PCE's


                                                                                               Peak Hour
                                                                                   Morning                        Evening
                                                                      2
                      Land Use                         Quantity Units     Inbound Outbound   Total       Inbound Outbound   Total    Daily
    High-Cube Warehouse Distribution Center 1,086.782 TSF                        77    68       145           56      83       139    2,076
Industrial Park                                          278.666 TSF          350      75       425           91     349       440    3,535
Truck Parking Facility                                        81 TPS            4      22        37           22       4        37      180
Total                                                                         431     165       596          169     436       605    5,791




1
    PCE's = Passenger Car Equivalent's


2
    TSF = Thousand Square Feet; TPS = Truck Parking Stalls




                                                                            21
                                                                                                                                                                                             Exhibit B

                                                    San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG) Procedure for Calculating Traffic Volumes on Agua Mansa Road North of El Rivino Road


 2009 Opening Year With Project
 Agua Mansa Road immediately North of El Rivino
 Note        Step               Description                2007           2008               2009
               1     Baseline 2007 Existing Average         14,400 
 *                   Daily Traffic Volume

              2      Annual Growth based on XYZ                                    326                326 
                     2000‐2030 Growth Model

              3      Opening year expected ADTs               14,400         14,726          15,052 
                     without Project
                     Take greater of the two                                                  > of 
              4    2007 Existing ADT Baseline                                                   15,840 
 **                grown by 10%
             Opening Year Traffic without Project                                               15,840 
 ***                 Add Project traffic                                                              700 
 ****          Opening Year Traffic with Project                                                16,540 

* See figure 4.11-2 of Traffic Study
** See figure 4.11-9 of Traffic Study
*** See figure 4.11-8 of Traffic Study
**** See figure 4.11-10 of Traffic Study



 Year 2030 Average Daily Traffic With Project
 Agua Mansa Road immediately North of El Rivino
 Note        Step               Description
                                                                 7




                                                                                 8




                                                                                                    9



                                                                                                                       0



                                                                                                                                     1



                                                                                                                                                    2



                                                                                                                                                                  3


                                                                                                                                                                                4


                                                                                                                                                                                             5




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         9



                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       0



                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      1



                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     2



                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    3



                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   4



                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   5
                                                                                                                                                                                                            6



                                                                                                                                                                                                                           7



                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          8




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  6



                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 7



                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               8



                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               9



                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              0
                                                              200




                                                                              200




                                                                                                 200



                                                                                                                    201



                                                                                                                                  201



                                                                                                                                                 201



                                                                                                                                                               201


                                                                                                                                                                             201


                                                                                                                                                                                          201




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      201



                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    202



                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   202



                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  202



                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 202



                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                202



                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                202
                                                                                                                                                                                                         201



                                                                                                                                                                                                                        201



                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       201




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               202



                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              202



                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            202



                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            202



                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           203
              1      Baseline 2007 Existing Average         14,400 
 *                   Daily Traffic Volume

              2      Annual Growth based on XYZ                                    326                326 
                     2000‐2030 Growth Model

              3      Opening year expected ADTs               14,400         14,726          15,052 
                     without Project
              4      Not Required
              5      Project Begins (assumes 100%                                                     700 
 **                  of project impacts in 2009)

               Opening Year Traffic with Project                                                15,752 
              6      Annual Growth based on XYZ                                                                       326           326           326           326         326           326            326            326            326            326            326            326            326            326             326             326            326            326            326             326             326 
                     2000‐2030 Growth Model

 ***                 Projected 2030 ADT Volume                                                  15,752      16,078      16,404      16,730      17,056    17,382      17,708      18,034      18,360      18,686      19,012      19,338      19,664      19,990      20,316       20,642       20,968      21,294      21,620      21,946       22,272       22,598 

* See Figure 4.11-2 of Traffic Study
** See Figure 4.11-8 of Traffic Study
*** See figure 4.11-12 of Traffic Study
                                         Exhibit C
              East Valley Traffic Model (EVTM) Year 2000 Traffic Model Plot




                                                                       Site




                                                              d
                                                              a
                                                           Ro
                                                         sa
                                                      an
                                                     M
                                                 ua
                                                Ag




                      El Rivino Road
                                                                          River
                                                                           side
                                                                              Aven
                                                                                  ue




                                                                  Legend
                                                                  2492 = Westbound Traffic Volume
                                                                  2990 = Eastbound Traffic Volume




NTS                                                                                        3758e/C
      Kunzman Associates, Inc.
      Over 30 Years of Excellent Service
                                         Exhibit D
              East Valley Traffic Model (EVTM) Year 2030 Traffic Model Plot




                                                                          Site




                                                              ad
                                                            Ro
                                                       sa
                                                       an
                                                  M
                                                  ua
                                                Ag




                  El Rivino Road                                              River
                                                                               side A
                                                                                  venu
                                                                                       e




                                                                   Legend
                                                                   7270 = Westbound Traffic Volume
                                                                   7996 = Eastbound Traffic Volume




NTS                                                                                         3758e/D
      Kunzman Associates, Inc.
      Over 30 Years of Excellent Service
                                             Exhibit E




                                        Minute Action
                                        AGENDA ITEM: 3

Date:                May 20, 2009

Subject:             Contract No. 09-179 with Advantec Consulting Engineers for Design and
                     Implementation for the San Bernardino Valley Coordinated Traffic Signal System
                     Program – Tier 3 & 4

Recommendation: *    Award Contract No. 09-179 with Advantec Consulting Engineers for Design and
                     Implementation for the San Bernardino Valley Coordinated Traffic Signal System
                     Program – Tier 3 & 4. Total cost for Contract No. 09-179 is $2,587,878 as
                     detailed in the Financial Impact Section. TN 701000.

Background:          In November 2008 the SANBAG Board authorized the circulation of a Request
                     for Proposals (RFP) for qualified firms to perform design and implementation for
                     the San Bernardino Valley Coordinated Traffic Signal System – Tier 3 & 4. Four
                     firms responded to the RFP: Advantec Consulting Engineers; DKS Associates;
                     Katz, Okitsu & Associates; and Albert Grover & Associates.

                     In accordance with SANBAG’s consultant selection policy, the selection team
                     consisted of one representative from SANBAG (Philip Chu), Mauricio Diaz from
                     the City of Ontario, Jose Loera from the City of Chino Hills, Alex Qishta from
                     City of Upland, Jacob Babico from the County of San Bernardino, Jon Gillespie
                     from the City of Rancho Cucamonga, and Daniel Porras from the City of Colton.
                     No Caltrans representatives were included on the selection team because of
                     scheduling conflicts.

*

                                                                             Approved
                                                                         Board of Directors

                                                                         Date: May 20, 2009

                                                             Moved: Yates             Second: Nuaimi

                                                          In Favor: 15      Opposed: 0        Abstained: 0

                                                      Witnessed: _______________________________________

brd0905bspecial-pc
Attachment: C09179
7010900
Board Agenda Item
May 20, 2009
Page 2 of 2


                     Based on review of the proposals, two firms were shortlisted for interviews:
                     Albert Grover & Associates and Advantec Consulting Engineers. The selection
                     committee judged the firm of Advantec Consulting Engineers to be the most
                     qualified, and recommended the firm for selection. Satisfactory costs have been
                     negotiated with the consultant and a Caltrans pre-award audit had been completed
                     based on draft contract and cost proposal.

Financial Impact:    The total cost for Contract No. 09-179 is $2,587,878. The amount is consistent
                     with the FY 09/10 budget. Funding source is Congestion Mitigation and Air
                     Quality (CMAQ) funds under TN 701000

Reviewed By:         This item is scheduled for review by the Board of Directors at the May 20, 2009,
                     Special Board of Directors meeting. The agreement was reviewed as to form by
                     SANBAG Counsel.

Responsible Staff:   Philip Chu, Transportation Programming Analyst
                     Ty Schuiling, Director of Planning and Programming




brd0905bspecial-pc
Attachment: C09179
7010900
Exhibit F