Agricultural Resources Assessment

Home , Storie index

2017

CHINO PARCEL DELIVERY FACILITY PROJECT PREPARED BY: T&B PLANNING, INC.

Agricultural Resources Assessment for the Chino Parcel Delivery Facility Project

City of Chino, California

Prepared For: Scannell Properties 800 East 96th Street, Suite 175 Indianapolis, IN 46077

Prepared By:

T&B Planning, Inc. 17542 East 17th Street, Suite 100 Tustin, CA 92780

October 4, 2017

Abstract The Chino Parcel Delivery Facility Project site is located in the City of Chino, San Bernardino County, California. The Project proposes the construction of industrial land uses on a 74.4-acre property, and is subject to review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). In this report, the California Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA) Model is used as an evaluation tool to determine if the subject property qualifies as an important agricultural resource. Based on the methodology established by the California LESA Model, this report concludes that the Project site is an important agricultural resource. Agricultural Resources Assessment Chino Parcel Delivery Facility City of Chino

TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Number/Title Page 1.0 Introduction ...... 1 1.1 Document Purpose ...... 1 1.2 Project Location ...... 1 1.3 Existing Physical Site Conditions ...... 1 1.4 Project Summary ...... 2 2.0 Agriculture in California...... 6 2.1 Williamson Act ...... 6 2.2 Farmland Classification ...... 6 2.3 Farmland Conversion ...... 8 3.0 Methodology...... 9 3.1 LESA Model ...... 9 3.2 California LESA Model Scoring System...... 9 3.2.1 Land Evaluation (LE) ...... 9 3.2.2 Site Assessment (SA) ...... 10 4.0 Project Site Evaluation...... 15 4.1 Land Evaluation (LE)...... 15 4.1.1 Land Capability Classification ...... 15 4.1.2 Storie Index ...... 15 4.2 Site Assessment (SA) ...... 17 4.2.1 Project Size ...... 17 4.2.2 Water Resource Availability ...... 17 4.2.3 Surrounding Agricultural Land ...... 18 4.2.4 Surrounding Protected Resource Land ...... 18 4.3 Total LESA Score ...... 21 5.0 Conclusion ...... 22 6.0 References ...... 23

i Agricultural Resources Assessment Chino Parcel Delivery Facility City of Chino

FIGURES Figure Number/Title Page Figure 1-1 Regional Map ...... 3 Figure 1-2 Vicinity Map ...... 4 Figure 1-3 Aerial Photograph ...... 5 Figure 2-1 FMMP Map...... 7 Figure 3-1 Zone of Influence ...... 13 Figure 4-1 Soils Map ...... 16 Figure 4-2 Surrounding Agricultural Land ...... 19 Figure 4-3 Surrounding Protected Resource Land ...... 20

TABLES Table Number/Title Page Table 3-1 Numeric Conversion of Land Capability Classification Units...... 10 Table 3-2 Project Size Scoring ...... 11 Table 3-3 Water Resource Availability Scoring ...... 11 Table 3-4 Surrounding Agricultural Land Rating...... 12 Table 3-5 Surrounding Protected Resource Land Rating...... 14 Table 4-1 Land Capability Classification Score ...... 15 Table 4-2 Storie Index Score ...... 15 Table 4-3 Project Size Score ...... 17 Table 4-4 Water Resources Availability Score ...... 17 Table 4-5 Surrounding Agricultural Land Score...... 18 Table 4-6 Surrounding Protected Resource Land Score...... 18 Table 4-7 Total LESA Score Sheet ...... 21 Table 5-1 California LESA Model Scoring Thresholds ...... 22

ii Agricultural Resources Assessment Chino Parcel Delivery Facility City of Chino 1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Document Purpose The Chino Parcel Delivery Facility Project (hereafter, “Project”) proposes to develop an approximately 74.4-acre property that is primarily used for dairy and agricultural land uses. The purpose of this assessment is threefold, to: 1) determine the presence or absence of important agricultural resources on the Project site, 2) assess potential effects to important agricultural resources on the Project site associated with development of the subject property with non- agricultural land uses, and, if important agricultural resources are found to be present, 3) determine the significance of impacts under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

CEQA Guidelines § 15126.2(a) requires that environmental documentation “identify and focus on the significant environmental effects” of a proposed project. The CEQA Guidelines definition of environment “means the physical conditions which exist within the area which will be affected by a proposed project” including, but not limited to, effects to land (CEQA Guidelines § 15360). Per the CEQA Guidelines, the Project would result in a significant effect on the environment if the site contains important agricultural resources that would be converted to a non-agricultural use.

1.2 Project Location The Project site is located in the City of Chino, which is located in the southwestern portion of San Bernardino County, California. Figure 1-1, Regional Map, depicts the location of the Project site in its regional setting.

The Project site is located in the southern portion of the City of Chino, approximately 4.0 miles west of Interstate 15 (I-15), approximately 3.3 miles south of State Route 60 (SR-60), and approximately 3.5 miles northeast of State Route 71 (SR-71). The Project site is located south of Merrill Avenue, and west of Flight Avenue (refer to Figure 1-2, Vicinity Map). The entire Project site is located within the geographical limits of The Preserve Specific Plan, which is an approximately 5,435-acre area that was historically used as farm and dairy land.

1.3 Existing Physical Site Conditions The 74.4-acre Project site is relatively flat with elevations ranging from approximately 655 feet above mean sea level (amsl) in the northern portion of the site to approximately 640 feet amsl in the southern portion of the site. As shown on Figure 1-3, Aerial Photograph, the property is heavily disturbed by dairy farm operations with two dairy farm enclosures, two existing residential structures, and several ancillary canopies and storage structures. The Project site contains an active dairy with approximately 700 cows/heifers/bulls. The dairy produces about 6,000 gallons of milk per day which is carried by a single truck to the Alta Dena Dairy in the City of Industry (Vauden Heusel, 2017)

Property located to the north of the Project site (north of Merrill Avenue) is within the City of Ontario and is occupied by agricultural dairy operations and fields. This area is designated by the Ontario General Plan as “Business Park” and is expected to be developed with business park uses in the future. Immediately south and west of the Project site include vacant land, and the Chino

Page 1 Agricultural Resources Assessment Chino Parcel Delivery Facility City of Chino

Airport. Immediately east of the Project site (east of Flight Avenue) are three warehouse buildings. The property located farther east of the three warehouse buildings is approved for the development of eight warehouse buildings as part of the Watson Industrial Park project, which was under construction at the time this report was prepared.

1.4 Project Summary The Project proposes to construct industrial land uses that would cover the entire Project site. Primary approvals requested from the City of Chino include a General Plan Amendment (PL16- 0638), a Specific Plan Amendment (PL16-0639), a Master Site Approval (PL16-0719), a Site Approval, and a Special Conditional Use Permit.

Page 2 Agricultural Resources Assessment Chino Parcel Delivery Facility City of Chino

YY YY TT T T NN N N UU UU OO O CLAREMONT O CC CLAREMONT 210 CC

OO |þ} S · S NN I EE I LL DD RANCHO FONTANA EE RR GG AA UPLAND N UPLAND NN No CUCAMONGA AA RR Cable EE SS Airport BB

LL NN

AA SS %&'(10

MONTCLAIR POMONA o Ontario International Airport

S A N B E R N A R D II NO COUNTY ·|þ}60 R II V E R S II D E COUNTY

ONTARIO %&'(15 JURUPA VALLEY CHINO o o Chino ^_ 71 Airport CHINO HILLS ·|þ} EASTVALE Riverside Municipal Airport o PROJJECT SIITE PRADO PARK RIVERSIDE CHINO HILLS rr NORCO STATE PARK ee iivv R aa nn A ttaa nn o aa Corona Municipal 91 S Airport ·|þ} YORBA LINDA

L O S S A N B E R N ARDINO CORONA A N G E LES %&'(15 C O U NTY

·|}þ330 R %&'(210 ·|}þ210 R 215 I %&'( 62 O V %&'(10 %&'(10 ·|}þ 60 R E 605 ·|}þ %&'( 60 R ·|}þ ·|}þ71 A R N S 60 ^_ 91 ·|}þ G I ·|}þ 10 G %&'( D 91 E ·|}þ 215 E %&'(5 %&'( ·|}þ55 ·|}þ241 15 ·|}þ79 ·|}þ243 C C %&'( C O ·|}þ22 ·|}þ22 O O O U 74 ·|}þ74 U N ·|}þ R I V E R SIDE N N ·|}þ1 %&'(405 O R A NGE N T T Y 79 Y ·|}þ241 ·|}þ KEY MAP ·|}þ74 KEY MAP ·|}þ371 Source(s): ESRI, RCTLMA (2016), SANBAG (2016) CHINO PARCEL DELIVERY FACILITY Figure 1-1 T&B PLANNING, INC. 17542 East 17th Street, Suite 100 Tustin, CA 92780 p. 714.505.6360 f. 714.505.6361 0 0.75 1.5 3 REGIONAL MAP

www.tbplanning.com Miles

Page 3 Agricultural Resources Assessment Chino Parcel Delivery Facility City of Chino þ6}·|0

RIVERSIDE DR

N R

O C

I C

CHINO AVE E

N D

F D E E

SCHAEFER AV V

C I

A ONTARIO

ONTARIO R

O L

B EDISON AVE A

E G V PROJECT SITE

A EUCALYPTUS AVE

T # N LL AVE E

MERRI P

V A A YY TT

C N

T N OOUU H CC NOO G II N TYY I DD NNT L RR OOUU CHINO F NNAA E CC RR I DD E o REMINGTON AVE BBEE SS I RR LIMONITE AVE CHINO AIRPORT AANN VVEE SS RRII

KIMBALL AVE

65TH ST

N EASTVALE

I EASTVALE

V A

T E

U R BICKMORE AVE

E SCHLEISMAN RD O

M L A H VE A E

Y PINE

E D

B I

E N

V H

V O

C A

I R

A V

O A R A

M L

L L

A E

O H JOHNSON AVE H J CHINO CORONA RD CHANDLER ST

M PRADO

C PARK

Source(s): ESRI, RCTLMA (2016), SB County (2016) C CHINO PARCEL DELIVERY FACILITY RIVER RD Figure 1-2 T&B PLANNING, INC. 17542 East 17th Street, Suite 100 Tustin, CA 92780 p. 714.505.6360 f. 714.505.6361 0 1,000 2,000 4,000 VICINITY MAP

www.tbplanning.com Feet

Page 4 Agricultural Resources Assessment Chino Parcel Delivery Facility City of Chino

EUCALYPTUS AVE E V A

E V O R G PROJECT SITE (74.4 AC)

MERRILL AVE E V E A

V R A

E T K H A B G I L F

REMINGTON AVE

KIMBALL AVE Source(s): Google Earth (2016), SB County (2016) CHINO PARCEL DELIVERY FACILITY Figure 1-3 T&B PLANNING, INC. 17542 East 17th Street, Suite 100 Tustin, CA 92780 p. 714.505.6360 f. 714.505.6361 0 250 500 1,000 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH

www.tbplanning.com Feet

Page 5 Agricultural Resources Assessment Chino Parcel Delivery Facility City of Chino

2.0 AGRICULTURE IN CALIFORNIA

2.1 Williamson Act In 1965, the California Assembly established the California Land Conservation Act, also known as the Williamson Act, in response to the increasing pressure occurring throughout California during the post-World War II period to convert agricultural lands to urban development. The Williamson Act allows local governments to enter into contracts with landowners to restrict property to agricultural or related open space uses for a minimum of 10 years in exchange for a lower property tax assessment to the landowner. After the initial 10-year contract term, the contract remains in effect until canceled by the landowner or the local government. Once canceled, a contract winds down over a period of 10 years (CDC, 2016).

The Project site does not contain Williamson Act contracted lands (Chino, 2017).

2.2 Farmland Classification As part of the State’s efforts to protect agricultural resources, the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) was established in 1982, to provide data to public, academia, and government entities for the purposes of making informed decisions regarding the use of California’s agricultural land resources. The FMMP is required by California Government Code § 65570 to report on the conversion of agricultural lands every two years in the California Farmland Conversion Report and maintain the Important Farmland Maps database system to record changes in the use of agricultural lands over time. To identify the agricultural importance of different farmland types, the FMMP created four main categories based on soil quality and irrigation status, including (CDC, 2004):

• Prime Farmland: “Farmland with the best combination of physical and chemical features able to sustain long term agricultural production. Land must have been used for irrigated agricultural production at some time during the four years prior to the mapping date.”

• Farmland of Statewide Importance: “Farmland similar to Prime Farmland but with minor shortcomings, such as greater slopes or less ability to store soil moisture. Land must have been used for irrigated agricultural production at some time during the four years prior to the mapping date.”

• Unique Farmland: “Farmland of less quality soils used for the production of the state’s leading agricultural crops. This land is usually irrigated. Land must have been cropped at some time during the four years prior to the mapping date.”

• Farmland of Local Importance: “Land of importance to the local agricultural economy as determined by each county’s board of supervisors and local advisory committee.”

As shown on Figure 2-1, FMMP Map, the Project site contains “Prime Farmland,” and “Other Land” (CDC, n.d.). Because the Project site contains land designated as Prime Farmland, the Project has potential to impact important farmland.

Page 6 Agricultural Resources Assessment Chino Parcel Delivery Facility City of Chino

Legend ALYPTUS AVE EUC Prime Farmland Grazing Land Urban Built-Up Land Other Land

MERRILL AVE

E PROJECT SITE A

G (74.4 AC) I

REMINGTON AVE

Source(s): CA Dept. of Conservation (2014), Google Earth (2016) KIMBALL AVE CHINO PARCEL DELIVERY FACILITY Figure 2-1 T&B PLANNING, INC. 17542 East 17th Street, Suite 100 Tustin, CA 92780 0 200 400 800 FARMLAND MONITORING AND p. 714.505.6360 f. 714.505.6361

Feet www.tbplanning.com MAPPING PROGRAM MAP

Page 7 Agricultural Resources Assessment Chino Parcel Delivery Facility City of Chino

2.3 Farmland Conversion Since the FMMP was established in 1982, nearly 1.4 million acres of agricultural land in California were converted to non-agricultural land uses. During the most recent reporting period for which data is available (2010-2012), irrigated farmland in California decreased by more than 91 square miles (58,587 acres). The San Joaquin Valley region had the largest proportion of direct irrigated land to urban land conversion (33% of its total urban increase) (CDC, 2015, p. 1).

As described in the City of Chino General Plan, land under agricultural production in San Bernardino County decreased by 1.2 million acres between 1987 and 2002, to 500,000 acres. Additionally, the City’s General Plan indicates that there is an increasing demand for urban uses and decreasing demand for agricultural uses; thus predicting that conversion pressures will continue throughout San Bernardino County (Chino, 2010a, OSC-8).

Page 8 Agricultural Resources Assessment Chino Parcel Delivery Facility City of Chino

3.0 METHODOLOGY

3.1 LESA Model The LESA Model is a point-based approach that uses measurable factors to quantify the relative value of agricultural land resources to ultimately determine the significance of agricultural land conversions. Many states have developed LESA Models specific to their local contexts. The California LESA Model was created as a result of Senate Bill 850 (Chapter 812/1993), and provides lead agencies with an optional methodology to ensure that potentially significant effects on the environment associated with agricultural land conversions are quantitatively and consistently considered in the environmental review process (CDC, 1997, p. 4) The California LESA Model is the methodology used by the City of Chino to determine whether or not important agricultural resources are present on a property.

3.2 California LESA Model Scoring System The California LESA Model is made up of two sets of factors, referred to as the “Land Evaluation” (LE) and “Site Assessment” (SA) factors, which are scored and weighted separately to yield a total LE subscore and SA subscore. The Final LESA Score is the sum of the LE and SA subscores and has a maximum possible score of 100 points. Based on the Final LESA Score, a threshold system is used to determine the significance of a project’s impacts on agricultural resources (CDC, 1997, p. 31)

3.2.1 Land Evaluation (LE) The LE subscore consists of two factors, including the Land Capability Classification (LCC) rating and the Storie Index rating, which were devised to measure the inherent soil-based qualities of land as they relate to agricultural production. The LCC Rating and Storie Index rating scores are based upon the soil map unit(s) identified on a property and the acreage of each soil mapping unit relative to the property’s total acreage. Data for the soil map unit(s), LCC, and Storie Index are obtained from soil survey data provided by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). (CDC, 1997, pp. 7-9)

A. LCC Rating There are eight (8) classes of LCC (I through VIII). Soils designated “I” have the fewest limitations for agricultural production and soils designated “VIII” are least suitable for farmland. The LCC is further divided into subclasses (designated by lowercase letters e, w, s, or c) to describe limitations, including a soil’s susceptibility to erosion (“e”), limitations due to water in or on the soil (“w”), shallow or stony soils (“s”), or climate (“c”). (USDA, n.d.)

Once the LCC for each soil mapping unit is obtained from the USDA NRCS soil survey, the LCC classification is converted into a numeric score established by the California LESA Model. Table 3-1, Numeric Conversion of Land Capability Classification Units, summarizes the LCC numeric conversion scores used by the LESA model.

The LCC Score used in the LESA Model is determined by multiplying the LCC Rating for each map unit identified on a property by the corresponding map unit’s proportion of the property’s total

Page 9 Agricultural Resources Assessment Chino Parcel Delivery Facility City of Chino

Table 3-1 Numeric Conversion of Land Capability Classification Units LCC I IIe IIs, w IIIe IIIs, w IVe IVs, w V VI VII VIII Rating 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Source: (CDC, 1997, Table 2) acreage. The individual LCC Score(s) for each map unit are summed together for a total, single LCC Score for the property. The LCC Score accounts for 25% of the total California LESA Model Score. (CDC, 1997, p. 7)

B. Storie Index Rating The Storie Index is a quantitative method of rating the agricultural capability of soils. The Storie Index has been used in California for over 50 years, with the most recent version of the Storie Index being published in 1978. The Storie Index is based on four factors: 1) degree of soil profile development; 2) surface texture; 3) slope; 4) other soil and landscape conditions including drainage, alkalinity, nutrient level, acidity, erosion, and microrelief. Soils are graded on a 100-point scale that represents the relative value of a given soil when used for intensive agricultural purposes. (University of California, 1978, p. 1)

The Storie Index Score is calculated for each soil map unit identified on a property by multiplying the Storie Index rating by the map unit’s proportion of the property’s total acreage. The individual Storie Index Score(s) for each map unit are added together to provide a single Storie Index Score for the property. The Storie Index Score accounts for 25% of the total California LESA Model Score. (CDC, 1997, p. 12)

3.2.2 Site Assessment (SA) The SA subscore consists of four factors that measure social, economic, and geographic features that contribute to the overall value of agricultural land. The SA factors include Project Size Rating, Water Resource Availability Rating, Surrounding Agricultural Land Rating, and Protected Resource Land Rating (CDC, 1997, p. 13).

A. Project Size Rating The Project Size Rating evaluates the potential viability of potential agricultural productivity on a property. Generally, high quality soils (high rate of economic return per acre planted) only need to be present in relatively small quantities on a property to be considered important, whereas lower quality soils (low or moderate rate of economic return per acre planted) need to be present in larger quantities to be considered important.

The Project Size Rating corresponds with the acreage of each LCC Class identified on a property. The LCC Classes are grouped together to form three categories, with numeric scores assigned based on the quality and quantity of soils. Table 3-2, Project Size Scoring, summarizes the California LESA Model scores for all soil and acreage combinations. For properties with different map units within the subject property, the mapping unit that generates the highest Project Size Score is used as the final Project Size Score for the project site. The Project Size Score accounts for 15% of the total California LESA Model Score. (CDC, 1997, pp. 13-15)

Page 10 Agricultural Resources Assessment Chino Parcel Delivery Facility City of Chino

Table 3-2 Project Size Scoring LCC Class I or II soils LCC Class III soils LCC Class IV or lower Acreage Points Acreage Points Acreage Points 80 or above 100 160 or above 100 320 or above 100 60-79 90 120-159 90 240-319 80 40-59 80 80-119 80 160-239 60 20-39 50 60-79 70 100-159 40 10-19 30 40-59 60 40-99 20 Fewer than 0 20-39 30 Fewer than 40 0 10 10-19 10 Fewer than 10 0 Source: (CDC, 1997,Table 3)

B. Water Resources Availability Rating The Water Resources Availability Rating measures the reliability of a property’s water resources that could be used for agricultural production during non-drought and drought years (water availability score) and the proportion of the property served by each water source (weighted availability score). The water availability score established by the California LESA Model is summarized in Table 3-3, Water Resource Availability Scoring. The total Water Resource Score is the sum of the weighted availability score(s). The Water Resources Availability score accounts for 15% of the total California LESA Score. (CDC, 1997, pp. 16, 29)

Table 3-3 Water Resource Availability Scoring Non-Drought Years Drought Years Restrictions Restrictions SCORE Irrigation Physical Economic Irrigation Physical Economic Feasible Restrictions Restrictions Feasible Restrictions Restrictions YES NO NO YES NO NO 100 YES NO NO YES NO YES 95 YES NO YES YES NO YES 90 YES NO NO YES YES NO 85 YES NO NO YES YES YES 80 YES YES NO YES YES NO 75 YES YES YES YES YES YES 65 YES NO NO NO ------50 YES NO YES NO ------45 YES YES NO NO ------35 YES YES YES NO ------30 Irrigated production not feasible, but rainfall adequate for dryland production in both 25 drought and non-drought years Irrigated production not feasible, but rainfall adequate for dryland production in non- 20 drought years (but not in drought years) Neither irrigated nor dry land production feasible 0 Source: (CDC, 1997, Table 5)

Page 11 Agricultural Resources Assessment Chino Parcel Delivery Facility City of Chino

C. Surrounding Agricultural Land Rating The Surrounding Agricultural Land Rating accounts for the potential effect of development on properties containing important agricultural resources that surround a project site. The Surrounding Agricultural Land Rating is dependent on the amount of agricultural land or related open space within a project’s “Zone of Influence” (ZOI). The ZOI is determined by drawing the smallest rectangle that will completely contain the project site on a map (Rectangle A) and creating a second rectangle that extends 0.25-mile beyond Rectangle A on all sides (Rectangle B). All parcels that are within or intersected by Rectangle B are included within the project’s ZOI. (CDC, 1997, pp. 23-25) The ZOI for the Project site is illustrated on Figure 3-1, Zone of Influence.

The Surrounding Agricultural Land Rating is determined by the proportion of land within a project’s ZOI that is currently being used for agricultural production. The Surrounding Agricultural Land Rating score established by the California LESA Model is summarized in Table 3-4, Surrounding Agricultural Land Rating. Data for surrounding agricultural land can be obtained from the Department of Conservation’s Important Farmland Map Series, the Department of Water Resources’ Land Use Map Series, locally derived maps, and/or inspection of the site. The surrounding agricultural land score accounts for 15% of the total California LESA Model Score. (CDC, 1997, pp. 26, 29)

Table 3-4 Surrounding Agricultural Land Rating

Percent of Project’s ZOI in Surrounding Agricultural Agricultural Use Land Score 90 – 100% 100 Points 80 – 89 90 75 – 79 80 70 – 74 70 65 - 69 60 60 - 64 50 55 - 59 40 50 - 54 30 45 - 49 20 40 - 44 10 40 < 0 Source: (CDC, 1997, Table 6)

Page 12 Agricultural Resources Assessment Chino Parcel Delivery Facility City of Chino E V A

LEGEND R E K

L 74.4 AC

A Project Boundary EUCALYPTUS AVE W 74.4 AC Rectangle A

A 548.6 AC

E Rectangle B

MERRILL AVE E E V V A A

T R H E G K I A L F B

REMINGTON AVE

K E KIMBALL AVE

S A

C N

L H

I G M LI M F

Source(s): County of San Bernardino (2016), ESRI, Google Earth Aerial (2016), SANBAG (2016) CHINO PARCEL DELIVERY FACILITY Figure 3-1 T&B PLANNING, INC. 17542 East 17th Street, Suite 100 Tustin, CA 92780 0 0.0625 0.125 0.25 p. 714.505.6360 f. 714.505.6361 ZONE OF INFLUENCE Miles www.tbplanning.com

Page 13 Agricultural Resources Assessment Chino Parcel Delivery Facility City of Chino

D. Surrounding Protected Resource Land Rating Similar to the Surrounding Agricultural Land Rating, the California LESA Model considers the potential effect of development on protected resource lands surrounding a project site. Protected resource lands include Williamson Act contracted lands, publicly owned lands maintained as park, forest, or watershed resources, and lands with natural resource easements (e.g. agricultural, wildlife habitat, open space).

The Surrounding Protected Resource Land Rating is determined by the proportion of protected resource lands within a project’s ZOI. The Surrounding Protected Resource Land Rating scoring system established by the California LESA Model is summarized in Table 3-5, Surrounding Protected Resource Land. The Surrounding Protected Resource Land Score accounts for 5% of the total California LESA Score. (CDC, 1997, pp. 28-29)

Table 3-5 Surrounding Protected Resource Land Rating

Percent of Project’s ZOI Surrounding Protected Defined as Protected Resource Land Score 90 – 100% 100 Points 80 – 89 90 75 – 79 80 70 – 74 70 65 - 69 60 60 - 64 50 55 - 59 40 50 - 54 30 45 - 49 20 10 - 44 10 40 < 0 Source: (CDC, 1997, Table 7)

Page 14 Agricultural Resources Assessment Chino Parcel Delivery Facility City of Chino

4.0 PROJECT SITE EVALUATION

In this section, the California LESA Model is applied to the Project site to evaluate whether or not the Project site contains important agricultural resources.

4.1 Land Evaluation (LE) As discussed in Subsection 3.2.1, the LE subscore measures the agricultural suitability of soils identified on a property by using the LCC Rating and Storie Index for each soil map unit. The Project site contains three (3) soil map units including: Chino Silt Loam (Cb), Delhi Fine Sand (Db), and Hilmar Loamy Fine Sand (Hr) (USDA, n.d.). Figure 4-1, Soils Map, indicates the size and location of each soil map unit within the Project site.

4.1.1 Land Capability Classification As shown in Table 4-1, Land Capability Classification Score, the total LCC score for the Project site is 67.49.

Table 4-1 Land Capability Classification Score Project Site Proportion of Soil Map Unit LCC1 LCC Rating LCC Score Acres Project Site Cb 58.0 0.780 IIIe 70 54.6 Db 2.3 0.031 IVe 50 1.55 Hr 14.1 0.189 IIIs 60 11.34 Totals 74.4 1.000 67.49 1Source: (USDA, n.d.)

4.1.2 Storie Index As shown in Table 4-2, Storie Index Score, the total Storie Index Score for the Project site is 62.05

Table 4-2 Storie Index Score Project Site Proportion of Storie Storie Index Soil Map Unit Acres Project Site Index1 Score Cb 58.0 0.780 69.7 54.37 Db 2.3 0.031 55.2 1.71 Hr 14.1 0.189 31.6 5.97 Totals 74.4 1.000 62.05 1Source: (UC Davis, n.d.)

Page 15 Agricultural Resources Assessment Chino Parcel Delivery Facility City of Chino

LEGEND

74.4 AC Project Boundary SOILS

58.0 AC Cb, Chino Silt Loam

V 2.3 AC A Db, Dehli Fine Sand

O 14.1 AC

R Hr, Hilmar Loamy Fine Sand

MERRILL AVE Db

H E

I Cb A

REMINGTON AVE

Source(s): Google Earth (2016), SANBAG (2016), NRCS (2003) CHINO PARCEL DELIVERY FACILITY Figure 4-1 T&B PLANNING, INC. 17542 East 17th Street, Suite 100 Tustin, CA 92780 0 175 350 700 p. 714.505.6360 f. 714.505.6361 SOILS MAP Feet www.tbplanning.com

Page 16 Agricultural Resources Assessment Chino Parcel Delivery Facility City of Chino

4.2 Site Assessment (SA) As previously noted, the SA subscore measures the agricultural suitability of the Project site based on the subject property’s size, water resources availability, surrounding agricultural lands, and surrounding protected resource lands.

4.2.1 Project Size As mentioned in Subsection 3.2.2, the Project Size Rating corresponds with the acreage of each soil type’s LLC Class identified on a property. According to Table 4-3, Project Size Score, the Project site has a Project Size Score of 70.

Table 4-3 Project Size Score Project Site Acreage Soil Type LCC Class I-II1 LCC Class III1 LCC Class IV-VIII1 Cb 0.0 58.0 0.0 Db 0.0 0.0 2.3 Hr 0.0 14.1 0.0 Total Acres 0.0 72.1 2.3 Project Size Scores2 0 70 0 Highest Project Size Score 70 1Source: (USDA, n.d.) 2Refer to Table 3-2 for Project Size Scoring, which is based on LCC Class and acreage.

4.2.2 Water Resource Availability Under existing conditions, water is available to the Project site from domestic water lines installed beneath Merrill Avenue. Therefore, water is considered to be readily available to the entire Project site under non-drought and drought-conditions. As shown in Table 4-4, Water Resources Availability Score, the Water Resources Availability score for the Project site is 100.

Table 4-4 Water Resources Availability Score Water Proportion of Water Weighted Source Project Site Availability Score Availability Score City of Chino 100% 100 100 Water Utility Totals 100% 100

Page 17 Agricultural Resources Assessment Chino Parcel Delivery Facility City of Chino

4.2.3 Surrounding Agricultural Land The Surrounding Agricultural Land Rating is dependent on the Project site’s ZOI. As shown on Figure 4-2, Surrounding Agricultural Land, approximately 278.2 acres of land under active agricultural production, including dairies, are located within the Project site’s approximately 548.6- acre ZOI (50.7%). Because the percentage of active agricultural land in the Project site’s ZOI is between 50-54%, the Project’s Surrounding Agricultural Land score is 30 (refer to Table 4-5, Surrounding Agricultural Land Score).

Table 4-5 Surrounding Agricultural Land Score Zone of Influence Total Acres Acres in Percent in Surrounding Agriculture Agriculture Agricultural Land Score 548.6 278.2 50.7 30

4.2.4 Surrounding Protected Resource Land Approximately 38.0 acres of protected resource land is located in the Project site’s ZOI (refer to Figure 4-3, Surrounding Protected Resource Land). Based on numeric conversion factors contained in the California LESA Model, the Project’s Surrounding Protected Resources Land score is zero because the percentage of surrounding protected land is less than 40%, as summarized in Table 4- 6, Surrounding Protected Resource Land Score.

Table 4-6 Surrounding Protected Resource Land Score Zone of Influence Total Acres Acres of Protected Percent Protected Surrounding Protected Resource Land Resource Land Resource Land Score 548.6 38.0 6.9% 0

Page 18 C A h g C S r i o n i u c r o H c u e

P ( l s t ) a : u I w p 1 T

. 7

E r w 7 5 & 1 4 N r w S 4 2 c B . . 5 E R t a a 0 b

s e 5 t P p

I . 6 1 l l , 3 7 L a l

6 t n

h A G 0

n R S

D i t N

r n f . e o

g 7 e e N . t 1 c o ,

e 4 S o . u I 5 m g s i 0 N t l e 5 l

o . e 1 6 i G MILL CREEK AVE 0 3 0

v M 6 P

E u 1 ,

u a e I s t N r i E r n , r t

A C C c h R A y

. 9

e 2 A R 7

8 s F 0 e R I r L

a i A a L c l C

( i 0 A 0 s l 2 V i e - t E E 2 s y 0 . 0 0 s 6 1 L 2 m 5 6 ) ,

0 S

. GRO D VE AVE n 1 A 2 5 N t B A E G E

L ( U 2 0 C I 0 1 . 2 M A 6 V 5 i ) l e L s Y E P T U R

MAIN ST S

Y A V P

E a F g S e A

U 1 9 C

R F L R I I G O L H T AV I E

U WALKER AVE K

T FLIGHT AVE I

N M

Y B

A L

I L

A G

L V

E E 2 5

7 4 A G 8 8 . . 2 6

A A R E C C

E BAKER AVE R

N M P

A Z

I I D r C

o N c o n

t G j e U i e

v T c e

O o L t

A f

B N T

g I o

U A r u f i c

l V n u R

u E d e l A t a n u c r C r L y e e F i

i L L g y a u

A o n r f d e N

s 4 h D - 2 i n o C A h g C r i n i c o H u

P S l o t a u u I w p 1 T . 7

r w 7 5 & r 1 4 N r w c 4 2 c B . . 5 E e t a a 0 b

s e 5 ( t P p

. s 6 1 l l 3 7 L a ) l 6 t n

h A : 0

n R S

D i t N

C r n f . e

g 7 e e N . t i 1 c ,

t e 4 S o . y u I 5 m s i 0 N t

l e 5

o . 1 6 i G

0 MILL 3 CREEK AVE f 0 v 6 M P

u 1 ,

T C

u e I s t N r i h n E , r

A C C i c A n R y

. 9 e o 2 7 R

s F 0 - R I

W L a A L c i C s l

l i 0 A i s a l i m e V t E s s E y 0 o . 0 s n 6 L 2 m

5 A c

e t 0

. D n

1 GRO M VE AVE 2 5 t a p

E ( 2 0 E L 1 U 5 C ) I 0 , .

2 C M V 5 A i l a e L s l i Y f o E P r n T i R U a

D MAIN ST S

e Y A p a V P r

t E m a F g e n e A t

2 o f 0

C C

o F

n L s

I I

e G r L

v H a T

t A I V

i E L o WALKER AVE

T K n FLIGHT AVE 1 E

5 I ( 3 l I

4 M 2 a n 8 G Y 8 . 0 S c n . 0 6

1 B d l A

u A U C 4 s

C A d E ) ,

e L

G R s

N L

m o

W Z P

o A o r i o x g D i

l V n e l l O e j i d e

a E e

c e m

a U o n r t t

r h s f o B

R o

N l I ( l o n m

2 E

BAKER AVE n 0 u f

e M

D R l 1 u A n n 6

t I e d c E )

N a , I

n a t S n N S

G A c d A r y N O

e T g n G

B O o

r A ( n i c Z

U N - G r O u e P

( n R l

2 A I t e ) R 0

u V w 1 C r

a O E e 6 l )

E a L g T C a S r i F i c n E t

u i d y L g l C t u s

u A r o a 1 r T f l e N

C E

4 h D D - i 3 n o Agricultural Resources Assessment Chino Parcel Delivery Facility City of Chino

4.3 Total LESA Score The total LESA Score is calculated by summing the Project site’s LE and SA subscores. As summarized in Table 4-7, Total LESA Score Sheet, the Project site has a total LESA Score of 62.38.

Table 4-7 Total LESA Score Sheet Factor Scores Factor Weight Weighted Factor Scores LE Factors LCC 67.49 0.25 16.87 Storie Index 62.05 0.25 15.51 LE Subtotal 0.50 32.38 SA Factors Project Size 70 0.15 10.50 Water Resource Availability 100 0.15 15.00 Surrounding Agricultural Land 30 0.15 4.5 Protected Resource Land 0 0.05 0 SA Subtotal 0.50 30.00 Final LESA Score 62.38

Page 21 Agricultural Resources Assessment Chino Parcel Delivery Facility City of Chino

5.0 CONCLUSION

The Project site received a total LESA Score of 62.38. The Project site’s LE subscore equals 32.38 points and its SA subscore equals 30.00 points. As summarized in Table 5-1, California LESA Model Scoring Thresholds, because the Project site’s LESA Score is between 60 and 79 and its LE and SA subscores are both greater than 20 points, the Project site is determined to be an important agricultural resource. Thus, conversion of the Project site from an agricultural to non-agricultural land use would be a significant impact under CEQA.

Table 5-1 California LESA Model Scoring Thresholds

Total LESA Scoring Decision Score

0 to 39 Not Considered Significant 40 to 59 Considered Significant only if LE and SA subscores are each greater than or equal to 20 points 60 to 79 Considered Significant unless either LE or SA subscore is less than 20 points 80 to 100 Considered Significant Source: (CDC, 1997, Table 9)

Page 22 Agricultural Resources Assessment Chino Parcel Delivery Facility City of Chino

6.0 REFERENCES Cited As Reference CDC, 1997 California Department of Conservation, 1997. California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model Instruction Manual. 1997. Available on-line at: http://www.consrv.ca.gov/dlrp/LESA/Documents/lesamodl.pdf

CDC, 2004 California Department of Conservation, 2004. A Guide to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. 2004. Available on-line at: http://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp/Documents/fmmp_guide_2004.pdf

CDC, 2016 California Department of Conservation, 2016. Land Conservation (Williamson) Act Program Overview. 2016. Available on-line at: http://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/lca/basic_contract_provisions/Pages/wa_overvie w.aspx

CDC, 2015 California Department of Conservation, 2015. California Farmland Conversion Report 2015. Available on-line at: http://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp/Documents/fmmp/pubs/2010- 2012/FCR/FCR%202015_complete.pdf

CDC, n.d. California Department of Conservation. California Important Farmland Finder. Available on-line at: http://maps.conservation.ca.gov/ciff/ciff.html

Chino, 2010a City of Chino, 2010a. Open Space and Conservation Element, Envision Chino: City of Chino General Plan 2025. July 2010. Available on-line at: http://www.cityofchino.org/home/showdocument?id=3433

Chino, 2017 City of Chino, 2017. City of Chino Williamson Act Map. January 1, 2017. Available on-line at: http://www.cityofchino.org/home/showdocument?id=13970

UC Davis, n.d. University of California, Davis. Soil Web Earth. Available on-line at: http://casoilresource.lawr.ucdavis.edu/soilweb/

University of University of California, Division of Agricultural Sciences, 1978. Storie Index Soil Rating, California, Special Publication 3203. Available on-line at: 1978 http://anrcatalog.ucdavis.edu/pdf/3203.pdf

USDA, n.d. United States Department of Agriculture. Web Soil Survey. Available on-line at: http://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/HomePage.htm

Vauden Heusel, Vauden Heusel, Geoff. Comment letter on the Chino Parcel Delivery Facility 2017 Environmental Impact Report Notice of Preparation (NOP), and oral communication at the January 12, 2017 EIR Scoping Meeting. January 23, 2017.

Page 23