Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-10-23 - Agenda Packet AMENDED AGENDA: 10/17/2024 2:00 p.m.–Item D1. Corrected Reso. 2024-032 Historic Preservation Commission and Planning Commission Meeting Agenda Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center COUNCIL CHAMBERS October 23, 2024 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 7:00 PM A. CALL TO ORDER AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL: Chairman Morales Vice Chairman Boling Commissioner Dopp Commissioner Daniels Commissioner Diaz B. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS This is the time and place for the general public to address the Planning/Historic Commission (“Planning Commission”) on any Consent Calendar item or any item not listed on the agenda that is within the Commission’s subject matter jurisdiction. The Planning Commission may not discuss any issue not included on the agenda, but may set the matter for discussion during a subsequent meeting. C. CONSENT CALENDAR C1. Consideration to adopt Regular Meeting Minutes of September 11, 2024. (No meetings September 25th and October 9th.) D. PUBLIC HEARINGS D1. TIME EXTENSION – ISLAND VIEW VENTURES, LLC – A request to allow for a two (2) year time extension of a previously approved Design Review (DRC2019-00850), for a mixed-use development comprising 311 residential units and 16,000 square feet of commercial lease area on 7.94 acres of land at the southeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Haven Avenue in the Mixed-Use Urban Corridor (MU-UCT) Zone: APN: 0208-353-02. (Time Extension DRC2024-00325). D2. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DESIGN REVIEW – SC RANCHO DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION - A request for site plan and architectural review of 99 multi-family units located on approximately 4.9 acres of land within Planning Area N-15 in the Village Neighborhood (VN) Placetype of the Resort North Specific Plan, located north of 6th Street, south of the BNSF/Metrolink right of way, and west of Milliken Avenue; APN: 0209-272-20. (Design Review DRC2023-00406). Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City certified an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH No. 2015041083) on May 18, 2016, in connection with the City’s approval of General Plan Amendment DRC2015-00114, Specific Plan Amendment DRC2015-00040, and Development Code Amendment DRC2015-00115. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, no subsequent or supplemental EIR is required in connection with subsequent discretionary approvals of the same project. E. DIRECTOR ANNOUNCEMENTS F. COMMISSION ANNOUNCEMENTS G. ADJOURNMENT TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION The Planning Commission encourages free expression of all points of view. To allow all persons to speak, given the length of the agenda, please keep your remarks brief. If others have already expressed your position, you may simply indicate that you agree with a previous speaker. If appropriate, a spokesperson may present the views of your entire group. To encourage all views and promote courtesy to others, the audience should refrain from clapping, booing or shouts of approval or disagreement from the audience. If you need special assistance or accommodations to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk's office at (909) 477-2700. Notification of 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility. Listening devices are available for the hearing impaired. The public may address the Planning Commission on any agenda item. To address the Planning Commission, please come forward to the podium. State your name for the record and speak into the microphone. After speaking, please complete a speaker card located next to the speaker’s podium. It is important to list your name, address (optional) and the agenda item letter your comments refer to. Comments are generally limited to 3 minutes per individual. If you wish to speak concerning an item not on the agenda, you may do so under “Public Communications.” As an alternative to participating in the meeting you may submit comments in writing to Elizabeth.Thornhill@cityofrc.us by 12:00 PM on the date of the meeting. Written comments will be distributed to the Commissioners and included in the record. AVAILABILITY OF STAFF REPORTS Copies of the staff reports or other documentation to each agenda item are available at www.CityofRC.us. APPEALS Any interested party who disagrees with the City Planning Commission decision may appeal the Commission’s decision to the City Council within 10 calendar days. Any appeal filed must be directed to the City Clerk’s Office and must be accompanied by a fee of $3,526 for all decisions of the Commission. (Fees are established and governed by the City Council). Please turn off all cell phones while the meeting is in session. I, Elizabeth Thornhill, Executive Assistant of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, or my designee, hereby certify that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted Seventy-Two (72) hours prior to the meeting per Government Code 54954.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California and on the City's website. HPC/PC MINUTES – September 11, 2024 Page 1 of 2 Draft 2 8 3 1 Historic Preservation Commission and Planning Commission Agenda September 11, 2024 Draft Minutes Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 7:00 p.m. The regular Joint meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission and Planning Commission was held on September 11, 2024. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Morales at 7:00 p.m. A. Roll Call Planning Commission present: Chairman Morales, Vice Chairman Boling, Commissioner Dopp, Commissioner Daniels and Commissioner Diaz. Staff Present: Katherine Reed, Assistant City Attorney; Matt Burris, Deputy City Manager; Matt Marquez, Director of Planning and Economic Development; Jennifer Nakamura, Deputy Director of Planning; Tanya Spiegel, Manager of Economic Development; Flavio Nunez, Management Analyst; Carina Campos, Management Analyst; Paige Eberle, Management Analyst; Elizabeth Thornhill, Executive Assistant. Vice Chairman led the Pledge of Allegiance and requested a moment of silence in recognition of 9/11. B. Public Communications Chairman Morales opened the public communications. Public Comment by Brandie Arrington, resident, expressed her concerns about a pedestrian crosswalk being hazardous located at Elm Ave and Town Center Drive. She said due to no signs at this crosswalk, drivers have come very close to hitting pedestrians due to it not being clearly marked. She hopes the crosswalk can be made more visible to drivers for the safety of others. Hearing no other comments, Chairman Morales closed the public communications. Chairman Morales recessed the meeting at 7:20 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 7:35 p.m. C. Consent Calendar C1. Consideration to adopt Regular Meeting Minutes of August 28, 2024. Executive Assistant Thornhill requested an amendment to the minutes be corrected to reflect the statement made by Vice Chair Boling. When he asked Fire about specialized chemicals equipment or training, he said does it not make sense to have the applicant pay for those types of specialty equipment. The minutes need to be amended to reflect that correction.    Page 3 HPC/PC MINUTES – September 11, 2024 Page 2 of 2 Draft 2 8 3 1 Motion: Moved by Vice Chairman Boling; seconded by Commissioner Daniels. Motion carried 5-0 approved the minutes as amended. D. Public Hearings D1. Consideration to Receive and File the Economic Development Strategy Annual Progress Report for 2023. Director of Planning and Economic Development Marquez provided a presentation, along with Tanya Spiegel, Manager of Economic Development; Flavio Nunez, Management Analyst; Carina Campos, Management Analyst; and Paige Eberle, Management Analyst presented a PowerPoint presentation (copy on file). The report provided an overview of what was done to implement the Economic Development Strategy in year one. Commissioners expressed their appreciation to staff for their time and efforts putting this report together. Planning Commission received and filed report. E. Director Announcements - None F. Commission Announcements – None G. Adjournment Motion: Moved by Vice Chairman Boling, seconded by Commissioner Dopp to adjoin the meeting. Hearing no objections, Chairman Morales adjourned the meeting at 9:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Elizabeth Thornhill, Executive Assistant Planning and Economic Development Department Approved:    Page 4 DATE:October 23, 2024 TO:Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM:Matt Marquez, Director of Planning and Economic Development INITIATED BY:Tabe van der Zwaag, Associate Planner SUBJECT: TIME EXTENSION – ISLAND VIEW VENTURES LLC – A request to allow for a two (2) year time extension of a previously approved Design Review (DRC2019-00850), for a mixed-use development comprising 311 residential units and 16,000 square feet of commercial lease area on 7.94 acres of land at the southeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Haven Avenue in the Mixed-Use Urban Corridor (MU-UCT) Zone: APN: 0208-353-02. (Time Extension DRC2024-00325). RECOMMENDATION: Approve Time Extension DRC2024-00325 for a two-year time extension of Design Review DRC2019-00850, through the adoption of the attached Resolution of Approval. BACKGROUND: On November 9, 2022, the Planning Commission approved Design Review DRC2019-00850 by unanimous vote (5-0), for the construction of a mixed-use development consisting of 311 residential units and 16,000 square feet of commercial lease area on 7.94 acres of land. That approval was appealed to the City Council, who denied the appeal at the regular City Council meeting on January 18, 2023. The existing Land Use, General Plan and Zoning Designations for the project site and adjacent properties are as follows based on the General Plan Land Use and Zoning designation at the time that the project was deemed complete (April 27, 2022): Land Use General Plan Zoning Site Vacant City Center Mixed Use Urban Corridor (MU-UCT)* North Commercial Center Mixed-Use City Corridor High Community Commercial (CC) South County Court House City Center Industrial Park (IP)* East Existing Office Building City Center Industrial Park (IP)* West Existing Office Building City Center Industrial Park (IP)* *Project Site Redesignated Center 2 (CE2) Zone with Development Code Update (May 2022)    Page 5 Page 2 2 5 6 8 ANALYSIS: The application is a request to extend the approval period of Design Review DRC2019-00850 by two additional years. This request is the first-time extension pursuant to Development Code Section 17.14.090 (Permit time limits, extensions, and expiration). The approval of a time extension extends the expiration date for two years from the original permit date. After this initial permit extension, a final one-year may be requested. Upon initial approval of DRC2019- 00850 on November 9, 2022, the approval period was for a duration of two years and was set to expire on November 9, 2024. The staff reports and related attachments related to this initial approval are included as Exhibit B. The applicant has provided a letter dated September 23, 2024, requesting the time extension primarily due to current macroeconomic challenges and ongoing discussions with City staff regarding the design of street frontage improvements. The applicant anticipates submitting street improvement plans to the City by the end of the 2024 calendar year. At this time, no changes to the project have occurred from what was previously approved, which involves the construction of a mixed-use development comprising 311 residential units and 16,000 square feet of commercial lease area. The scope of this application involves only a request for a time extension for the proposed development. No changes to the project scope or new conditions of approval are proposed relative to the original approval of the project other than those which affect the expiration date. Environmental Analysis At the time that the subject development project was approved at the November 9, 2023, public hearing, the Planning Commission concluded that the project was within the scope of the Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH No. 2021050261) adopted and certified as part of the comprehensive update to the City’s General Plan on December 15, 2021. The project was determined to not have one or more significant effects not discussed in the General Plan EIR, nor have more severe effects than previously analyzed, and that additional or different mitigation measures are not required to reduce the impacts of the project to a level of less than significant. The subject time extension does not raise or create new environmental impacts not already considered in the Program EIR. Correspondence This item was advertised as a public hearing with a regular legal advertisement in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper on October 9, 2024, the property was posted on October 9, 2024, and notices were mailed to owners within a 660-foot radius of the project site on October 8, 2024. To date, Staff has not received any comments related to the project to date. Staff notes that the subject project has been approved and that the application presently before the commission only requests a time extension for the approved design review. Approval Timeline for Design Review DRC2019-00850 Approving Authority Approval/Extension Type Approval Period Approval Date Expiration Date Planning Commission Original Approval 2 Years 11/9/22 11/9/24 Planning Commission Time Extension DRC2024-00325 2 Years 10/23/24*11/9/26 *With Planning Commission Approval    Page 6 Page 3 2 5 6 8 FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact directly related to the request for the time extension. However, as the project is allowed to move forward upon approval of the time extension, the project proponent will be responsible for paying one-time impact fees. These fees are intended to address the increased demand for City services due to the proposed project. The following type of services that these impact fees would support include the following: library services, transportation, infrastructure, drainage infrastructure, animal services, police, parks, and community and recreation services. If the time extension is granted, the approved development will increase the value of the project site and the parcels will be assessed an annual property tax. A percentage of this annual tax is shared with the City. COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / VALUE(S) ADDRESSED: The proposed mixed-use project will meet the City Council core values of providing and nurturing a high quality of life for all, promoting and enhancing a safe and healthy community for all, building and preserving a family-oriented atmosphere, and relentless pursuit of improvement. The proposed project provides residential and commercial/retail uses in a cohesive development, forming a walkable community. Furthermore, it is the City Council’s vision to make Foothill Boulevard the City’s primary mixed- use corridor, featuring a variety of urban developments that will enable a vibrant, walkable neighborhood that residents, workers, and visitors can enjoy. EXHIBITS: Exhibit A – Project Location Map Exhibit B – Planning Commission Staff Report dated November 9, 2022 Exhibit C – Time Extension Request Letter dated September 23, 2024 Exhibit D – Draft Resolution of Approval 2024-032 for Time Extension DRC2024-00325    Page 7 Exhibit A    Page 8 EXHIBIT B Due to file size, this attachment can be accessed through the following link: Planning Commission Staff Report with Exhibits 11-9-2022    Page 9 September 23, 2024 Sean Mc Ph ers on , AICP Ac t i ng Pri n ci p al Pla nn er C ity of Ra n c ho Cu ca monga 1050 0 Civic Center Dri ve Ra nc ho Cuca m o nga , CA 91 730 90 9-774-43 07 Re : 10575 Foothill Blvd (APN 0208-353-02) Dea r Sea n , Th is past Tuesday, I m et w ith Matt Bur ris a nd w e disc usse d th e reasons for the d e lay in starting the Foo t hill Cente r p roject . As he and I di sc usse d , the d el ay i s a combination of (i) the effect on co mmercial real estate res ulting f rom t h e Federal Re se rv e's rate increases to 5.5% from 0% from the t ime of the 51" submittal i n Fe brua ry 2 021 at th e ince ption of the proje ct review and (ii) the delays resulting from the City's c h angi ng direc tion s re lated to the civil en gin e ering design of the Frontage Drive. Hopefully, by t h e end of t he yea r, w e will have approved Improvement Plans (which were o riginally submitted in Apr il 20 23), and a be in position to reque st and obtain a grading permit. In the interim, it is clear th at we ne ed an extension of our project approvals. Spe c ifica lly, w e need to obtain a "time extens i o n" as ref erenc ed in Condition of Approval #11 "Any approval shall expire if Building Perm i ts are not iss ued or approved use has not c ommenced w i thin 2 ye ars from the date of approval ora time extension has bee n granted." By this letter, we respectfully request a time extension from January 18, 2025 to January 18, 2027. It i s i mportant that we have that extension on or before October 31, 2024 to satisfy o ur fin a ncing covenants. Jeff Warmoth Island View Ventures 120 E. De La Guerra Stree t Suite 4 Santa Barbara, CA 93 101 (650) 4 00-6293 jeffwarmoth@sb is l andview.co m Exhibit C    Page 10 RESOLUTION NO. 2024-032 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVE TIME EXTENSION DRC2024-00325, A REQUEST TO ALLOW FOR A TWO (2) YEAR TIME EXTENSION OF DESIGN REVIEW DRC2019-00850 FOR A MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT COMPRISING 311 RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND 16,000 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL LEASE AREA ON 7.94 ACRES OF LAND AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD AND HAVEN AVENUE IN THE MIXED-USE URBAN CORRIDOR (MU-UCT) ZONE; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 0208- 353-02. A.Recitals. 1.The applicant, representing Island View Ventures LLC, filed an application for the extension of the approval of Design Review DRC2019-00850, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Design Review approval Time Extension request is referred to as "the application." 2. On November 9, 2022, this Commission adopted Resolution No. 22-29, thereby approving the application subject to specific conditions and time limits. 3.On January 18, 2023, the City Council denied an appeal and upheld the November 9, 2022 Planning Commission approval of the project. 4.On September 23, 2024, a Time Extension application was received requesting a two (2) year time extension of the original November 9, 2024, expiration date. 5.On October 23, 2024, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing on that date. 6.All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B.Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1.This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2.Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public hearing on October 23, 2024, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a.The application applies to a vacant site located near the southeast corner of Haven Avenue and Foothill Boulevard containing a site area of approximately 7.94 acres; and Exhibit D    Page 11 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2024-032 TIME EXTENSION DRC2024-00325– ISLAND VIEW VENTURES LLC October 23, 2024 Page 2 b. The existing Land Use, General Plan and Zoning Designations for the project site and adjacent properties are as follows based on the General Plan Land Use and Zoning designation at the time that the project was deemed complete (April 27, 2022): Land Use General Plan Zoning Site Vacant City Center Mixed Use Urban Corridor (MU-UCT)* North Commercial Center Mixed-Use City Corridor High Community Commercial (CC) South County Court House City Center Industrial Park (IP)* East Existing Office Building City Center Industrial Park (IP)* West Existing Office Building City Center Industrial Park (IP)* *Project Site Redesignated Center 2 (CE2) Zone with Development Code Update (May 2022) c.This application is a request to extend the approval period of Design Review DRC2019-00850 by two (2) additional years. The time extension is being requested due to current macroeconomic challenges; and d.The scope of this application involves only a request for a time extension for the proposed development. No changes to the project scope or new conditions of approval are proposed relative to the original approval of the project other than those which affect the expiration date. 3.Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in Paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: a.The previously approved design review remains consistent with the General Plan. The General Plan Designation for the project site is City Center, which envisions medium to high density residential and a range of commercial uses that are designed for mix of uses. The project proposes a total of 311 apartments and 16,000 square feet of commercial space, providing a density of 40 dwelling units per acre which is consistent with the intent of the General Plan; and b.The previously approved design review remains consistent with the objectives of the Development Code and the purposes of the zone in which the site is located. The project was vested to the Mixed-Use Urban Corridor zone which was in place at the time the project was deemed complete and which has since been redesignated as the Center 2 (CE2) zone. Both the prior zoning and current zoning designations establish standards envisioning the area as a mix of residential and nonresidential uses of medium to high intensity in a vibrant pedestrian environment. The project provides for a proper mix of residential and commercial uses, concentrating pedestrian activity and intensity along Foothill Boulevard; and c.The previously approved development continues to comply with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code. The previously approved development meets all standards outlined in the Development Code at the time it was deemed complete, as well as the design, development standards, and policies of the Planning Commission and the City; and    Page 12 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2024-032 TIME EXTENSION DRC2024-00325– ISLAND VIEW VENTURES LLC October 23, 2024 Page 3 d. The cirmumstances around the previously approved development have not changed and, together with the original conditions applicable thereto, it has been determined that the project will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The project site is vacant; the proposed land use is consistent with the General Plan’s vision for Foothill Boulevard and the expectations of the community; and e. The extension is within the time limits established by State law and local ordinance which allow for an additional two (2) year time extension. 4. CEQA Determination: At the time that the subject development project was approved at the November 9, 2023, public hearing, the Planning Commission concluded that the project is within the scope of the Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH No. 2021050261) adopted and certified as part of the comprehensive update to the City’s General Plan on December 15, 2021. The project was determined to not have one or more significant effects not discussed in the General Plan EIR, nor have more severe effects than previously analyzed, and that additional or different mitigation measures are not required to reduce the impacts of the project to a level of less than significant. The subject time extension does not raise or create new environmental impacts not already considered in the Program EIR. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby grants a two (2) year time extension for Design Review DRC2019-00850 for a new expiration date of November 9, 2026. All applicable Conditions of Approval in Resolution No. 22-29 and incorporated Standard Conditions in Resolution 22-29 for Design Review DRC2019-00850 and the attached Standard Conditions incorporated herein by this reference shall apply to Time Extension DRC2024-00325. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER 2024. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Tony Morales, Chairman ATTEST: Matt Marquez, Secretary I, Matt Marquez, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 23rd day of October 2024, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS:    Page 13 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2024-032 TIME EXTENSION DRC2024-00325– ISLAND VIEW VENTURES LLC October 23, 2024 Page 4 NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS:    Page 14 DATE: October 23, 2024 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Matt Marquez, Director of Planning and Economic Development INITIATED BY:Tabe van der Zwaag, Associate Planner SUBJECT:ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DESIGN REVIEW – SC RANCHO DEVELOPMENT CORP. - A request for site plan and architectural review of 99 multi-family units located on approximately 4.9 acres of land within Planning Area N-15 in the Village Neighborhood (VN) Placetype of the Resort Specific Plan, Planning Area 1B, located north of 6th Street, south of the BNSF/Metrolink right of way, and west of Milliken Avenue; APN: 0209- 272-20. (Design Review DRC2023-00406). Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City certified an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH No. 2015041083) on May 18, 2016, in connection with the City’s approval of General Plan Amendment DRC2015-00114, Specific Plan Amendment DRC2015-00040, and Development Code Amendment DRC2015-00115. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, no subsequent or supplemental EIR is required in connection with subsequent discretionary approvals of the same project. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution 2024-031, approving Design Review DRC2023-00406 for a proposed 99-unit multi-family project in Planning Area N-15 of the Resort Specific Plan, Planning Area 1B, subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. BACKGROUND: The project site is part of a 160-acre property that was formerly developed with the privately owned and operated Empire Lakes Golf Course. The golf course was closed in mid-2016 following City Council approval to develop a new mixed-use, transit-oriented neighborhood regulated by the Resort Specific Plan and divided into two planning areas, Planning Area 1A (PA1A) and Planning Area 1B (PA1B). The project site is within PA1B which is located north of 6th Street and south of the BNSF/Metrolink right of way and has been rough graded with a combined area of approximately 91 acres of land. The subject project site has an area of approximately 4.9 acres of land within PA1B and is Parcel 12 of Tract Map 20440.    Page 15 Page 2 2 5 6 6 Land Uses The existing Land Use, General Plan, and Zoning Designations for, the project site and the surrounding properties are as follows: Land Use General Plan Zoning Site Vacant Land City Center Village Neighborhood (Planning Area N15) North Vacant Land City Center Village Neighborhood (Planning Areas N18 and N19) South Vacant Land City Center Village Neighborhood (Planning Areas N14) East Apartments City Center Center 2 (CE2) West Vacant Land City Center Village Neighborhood (Planning Area 12) ANALYSIS: The project is for the development of 99 for sale multi-family townhouse units. The Resort Specific Plan, Planning Area 1B is divided into nineteen (19) planning areas broken into 4 placetypes. The project site is within Planning Area N-15 and the Village Neighborhood (VN) placetype. The site is also partially within the Mixed-Use Overlay along the 7th Street alignment. The specific plan provides flexibility in location of the non-residential land uses as long as the target square footage of non-residential land use is met (a minimum 50,000 and Maximum 85,000 combined square feet of non-residential is required between Planning Areas 1A and 1B).    Page 16 Page 3 2 5 6 6 Architecture, Building Plotting, and Site Layout The Specific Plan encourages the use of multiple architectural design themes throughout the plan area. The Specific Plan provides standard characteristics that should be incorporated into the architecture to ensure that the proposed design is consistent with the selected design theme. The applicant has chosen three architectural design themes: Heritage, Prairie, and Spanish. Design elements include concrete tile roofs, lap siding, stone veneer, and stucco to reinforce the specific architectural style. The materials are carried to each elevation to emphasize the chosen architectural theme and building articulation. In turn, each architectural theme is distributed throughout the plan area to create a varied street scene. Heritage Prairie    Page 17 Page 4 2 5 6 6 Spanish    Page 18 Page 5 2 5 6 6 Architectural Theme Distribution The Specific Plan has a stated goal that building massing and design should reinforce the pedestrian scale of the adjacent street. The proposed three-story buildings are all below 40 feet in height and are of a size and scale that does not overwhelm the adjacent public streets, pedestrian pathways, or paseos. The building massing includes extensive wall and roof plane articulation, creating visual interest. The front entrances to the individual units and the second story balconies face either the public street or a paseo, helping to activate the adjacent common spaces providing an extra level of security (i.e., eyes on the street). The project consists of 32 three-bedroom units and 67 four-bedroom units ranging in size from 1,893 to 2,244 square feet and are within 3, 4, 5 and 6-unit buildings with optional flex ground floor spaces that can be used as a bedroom, home office or workspace. Each unit includes a private balcony with the minimum required depth of 5 feet and are located either on the front, side or rear elevations of the buildings. The units are generally plotted with the front entrances either facing a public street or a paseo interior to the project. Trash collection will take place in individual trash bins in fixed locations throughout the project site. The project will be an open community, with all streets within the project area ungated and maintained by a homeowner’s association. Consistent with The Resort Specific Plan for PA 1B, vehicular access to Parcel N-15 will be provided from 7th Street (“D” Street), which forms the northern parcel boundary, and the street along the western parcel boundary that intersects with 7th Street (“B” Street) and 6th Street and will adhere to applicable standards for fire access. Pedestrian pathways and sidewalks will be provided throughout the proposed development. The pedestrian and bicycle facilities provide connectivity to other parcels within PA 1A and PA 1B and to the adjacent land uses. UNIT SUMMARY Residential Unit Type Unit Size (SF - Net)Number of Units 3 Bedroom 1,893 32 4 Bedroom 2,000 to 2,244 SF 67 Total Number of Units 99    Page 19 Page 6 2 5 6 6 Conceptual Streel Alignment The center spine of the project site will include a “woonerf” designed for both vehicular and non- vehicular traffic. Pedestrians and cyclists will use this space for circulation, social gathering, and recreation. The woonerf includes traffic calming measures to ensure safe co-existence of vehicular and non-vehicular users. Landscaping features, including enhanced paving, planters, trees, bike racks and benches. or bollards, may improve pedestrian safety and use. Decorative paving is provided at each of the main pedestrian crossings throughout the project site.    Page 20 Page 7 2 5 6 6 Woonerf Perspective Rendering Compliance with Development Standards The project was designed in compliance with Resort Specific Plan Planning Area 1B for projects within the Village Neighborhood (VN) placetype and shown in the following table: COMPLIANCE TABLE Development Standard Required Proposed Complies Residential Density 16 to 28 DU/AC 20 DU/AC YES Street Setback 0 to 10 Feet 0 Feet YES Building Separation Across Drive Aisles 26 Feet Minimum 28 Feet YES Interior/Rear Yard Setback 10 Feet 10 Feet YES Building Height 70 Feet Maximum 39 Feet YES Open Space 150 SF/Unit Minimum 358 SF/Unit YES    Page 21 Page 8 2 5 6 6 Parking Section 9.3.5 (Parking Requirements) of the Specific Plan states that residential development with a density of 30 units/acre or less are required to provide parking consistent with the requirements described in Table 17.64.050-1 of the Development Code. The project has a proposed density of 20 dwelling units per acre and is made up of 99 units. The project is required to provide 232 resident parking spaces and 20 guest parking spaces, for a total of 252 overall parking spaces. The project provides 252 resident parking spaces. The Specific Plan allows for street parking spaces to be counted towards required parking spaces. The following table summarizes the required and provided parking spaces: PARKING ANALYSIS Number of Units Square Footage Parking Ratio Required Parking Multi-family Unit (Three Bedrooms)32 N/A 2 Per Unit (2 in Garage or Carport)64 Multi-family Unit (Four Bedroom)67 N/A 2.5 Per Unit (2 in Garage or Carport)168 Guest parking 99 N/A 1 Per 5 Units 20 Total Garage Parking Required (Covered)198 Total Garage Parking Provided (Covered)198 Street Parking Spaces 35 Total Parking Spaces Required 252 Total Parking Spaces Provided 252 Open Space and Recreational Amenities Individual projects within the Specific Plan area are required to provide 150 square feet of a combination of private and common open space. The project meets the open space requirements by providing private decks, common seating areas, a woonerf and 4 pocket parks (activity lawn, dining, play and dog run) totaling approximately 358 square feet per unit. In addition to the project-specific open space amenities, the larger Specific Plan area will include common recreation facilities including pools/spas, fitness centers, parks, walking paths, and common gathering areas that are designed to meet the recreational amenity requirements that are generally required of multi-family projects within the City. These common recreational facilities areas are generally designed to be within close proximity to each of the residential developments throughout the larger project site.    Page 22 Page 9 2 5 6 6 Landscape Plan Walls/Fences Onsite walls include street facing 36-inch-tall patio walls/fences along Streets “B” and “D”, 6-foot- high fences around the dog park, and a combination freestanding/retaining wall along a portion of the south property line due to onsite grades. A stairway is provided along the south property line creating a direct connection to Planning Area 14 and the larger pedestrian network connecting the Resort Master Plan to the City’s existing pedestrian infrastructure. Design Review Committee The project was reviewed by the Design Review Committee (DRC – Daniels, and Boling) on August 20, 2024. The Design Review Committee received staff’s report followed by general questions and comments. Both Committee Members asked for details on the woonerf and how this feature would function (e.g., use of bollards, direction of traffic). Additional questions regarding the woonerf included whether this space could be programmed for community events. Committee Member Boling questioned the use of Olive Trees, noting these could represent maintenance issues. The applicant responded that all landscaping is professionally maintained as part of the HOA. Committee Member Boling raised a question of blank wall space in illustrations identified as “Right Elevation” for the various architectural themes. The applicant explained these areas would be covered by landscaping and mechanical equipment. Discussion was then held between the applicant team and both Committee Members regarding certain architectural details such as depth and location of patios and front doors. Staff Coordinator Sean McPherson asked the applicant to explain why this project does not include mixed-use, to which the applicant explained that this is only a portion of the broader Resort Specific Plan.    Page 23 Page 10 2 5 6 6 Public Art This project is required to comply with the public art ordinance as outlined in Chapter 17.124 of the Development Code. Based on the number of residential units the total art value required per Section 17.124.020.C. is $74,250. A condition has been included pursuant to the Development Code that requires the public art requirement to be fulfilled prior to occupancy. Environmental Analysis Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and the City's local CEQA Guidelines, the City certified an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) on May 18, 2016 (SCH No. 2015041083) in connection with the City's approval of General Plan Amendment DRC2015- 00114, Specific Plan Amendment DRC2015-00040, and Development Code Amendment DRC2015-00115. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, no subsequent or supplemental EIR or Negative Declaration is required in connection with subsequent discretionary approvals of the same project unless: (i) substantial changes are proposed to the project that indicate new or more severe impacts on the environment; (ii) substantial changes have occurred in the circumstances under which the project was previously reviewed that indicates new or more severe environmental impacts; or (iii) new important information shows the project will have new or more severe impacts than previously considered; or (iv) additional mitigation measures are now feasible to reduce impacts or different mitigation measures can be imposed to substantially reduce impacts. To demonstrate that no subsequent EIR is required, the City’s environmental consultant, T&B Planning, prepared an Environmental Technical Analysis Memorandum (Exhibit D - dated September 9, 2024). The memorandum concluded that the project is within the scope of the approved overall project and analysis included in the Final EIR identified above and no additional environmental review is required in connection with the City's consideration of Design Review DRC2023-00406. Substantial changes to the project or the circumstances surrounding the project have not occurred which would create new or more severe impacts than those evaluated in the previous EIR. The previous environmental review analyzed the effects of the proposed project. Staff further finds that the project will not have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR, nor have more severe effects than previously analyzed, and that additional or different mitigation measures are not required to reduce the impacts of the project to a level of less than significant. Correspondence This item was advertised as a public hearing with a regular legal advertisement in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper on October 9, 2024, the property was posted on October 9, 2024, and notices were mailed to owners within a 660-foot radius of the project site on October 8, 2024. To date, staff has not received any comments related to the project to date. FISCAL IMPACT: The proposed development is consistent with the intent of the Resort Specific Plan and will contribute to achieving the fiscal benefits that were discussed in the Staff Report for the associated amendments to the General Plan, Specific Plan, and Development Code that were approved by the City Council in 2016. This includes revenue generated from property tax, fees, and assessments, and the costs for government services including, police, animal care, community development, public works, and other general government functions. In the original staff report, the annual revenues/costs in the calculations in the analysis were based on the overall project when it was fully constructed and completed. The benefits include the    Page 24 Page 11 2 5 6 6 project’s contribution to Park District 85 (PD85), Landscape Maintenance District 1 (LMD1), and Street Lighting District 1 (SLD1). This additional revenue from the proposed project would reduce the need for General Fund contributions to these assessment districts. COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / GOAL(S) ADDRESSED: The project supports several City Council core values by providing and nurturing a high quality of life for all, building and preserving a family-oriented atmosphere, and promoting and enhancing a safe and healthy community for all. The General Plan anticipates the Resort becoming a vibrant, walkable community that provides a variety of uses and activities for all to enjoy. EXHIBITS: Exhibit A – Project Location Exhibit B – Project Plans Exhibit C – DRC Comments and Action Agenda Dated August 20, 2024 Exhibit D – CEQA Section 15162 Compliance Memorandum Exhibit E – Draft Resolution of Approval 2024-031 DRC2023-00406 with Conditions of Approval    Page 25 Exhibit A    Page 26 EXHIBIT B Due to file size, this attachment can be accessed through the following link: Project Plans    Page 27 DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS August 20, 2024 7:00 p.m. Tabe van der Zwaag, Associate Planner ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DESIGN REVIEW – LEWIS MANGEMENT CORP - A request for site plan and architectural review of 99 multi-family units located on approximately 4.9 acres of land within Planning Area N-15 in the Village Neighborhood (VN) Placetype of the Resort North Specific Plan, located north of 6th Street, south of the BNSF/Metrolink right of way, and west of Milliken Avenue; APN: 0209-272-20. (Design Review DRC2023-00406). Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City certified an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH No. 2015041083) on May 18, 2016, in connection with the City’s approval of General Plan Amendment DRC2015-00114, Specific Plan Amendment DRC2015-00040, and Development Code Amendment DRC2015-00115. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, no subsequent or supplemental EIR is required in connection with subsequent discretionary approvals of the same project. Site Characteristics and Background: The project site is part of a 160-acre property that was formerly developed with the privately owned and operated Empire Lakes Golf Course and within the Empire Lakes Specific Plan (the “Specific Plan”). The golf course was closed in mid-2016 following City Council approval to develop a new mixed-use, transit-oriented Development (The Resort) regulated by two separate specific plans, Resort South Specific Plan and Resort North Specific Plan. The Resort North Specific Plan is located north of 6th Street and south of the BNSF/Metrolink right of way and has been rough graded with a combined area of approximately 91 acres of land. The subject project site has an area of approximately 4.9 acres of land with the Resort North Specific Plan and is Parcel 12 of Tract 20440. Land Uses: The existing Land Use, General Plan, and Zoning Designations for, the project site and the surrounding properties are as follows: Land Use General Plan Zoning Site Vacant Land City Center Village Neighborhood (Planning Area N15) North Vacant Land City Center Village Neighborhood (Planning Areas N18 and N19) South Vacant Land City Center Village Neighborhood (Planning Areas N14) East Apartments City Center Center 2 (CE2) West Vacant Land City Center Village Neighborhood (Planning Area 12) Project Overview: The project is for the development of 99 for sale multi-family townhouse units. The Resort North Specific Plan is divided into nineteen (19) planning areas broken into 4 Placetypes. The project site is within the planning area N-15 and the Village Neighborhood (VN) Placetype. The site is also partially within the Mixed-Use Overlay along the 7th Street alignment. The specific plan provides flexibility in location of the non-residential land uses as long as the target square footage of non-residential land use is met. Architecture, Building Plotting, and Site Layout: The Specific Plan encourages the use of multiple architectural design themes throughout the Specific Plan area. The Specific Plan provides standard characteristics that should be incorporated into the architecture to ensure that the proposed design is consistent with the selected design theme. The applicant has chosen three architectural design themes: Heritage, Prairie, and Spanish. Design elements include tile roofs, lap siding, stone veneer, and stucco to reinforce the specific architectural style. The materials are carried to each elevation to emphasize the chosen architectural theme and building articulation. Exhibit C    Page 28 DRC COMMENTS DR DRC2023-00406 – LEWIS MANAGEMENT CORP August 20, 2024 Page 2 In turn, each architectural theme is distributed throughout the plan area to create a varied street scene. Heritage    Page 29 DRC COMMENTS DR DRC2023-00406 – LEWIS MANAGEMENT CORP August 20, 2024 Page 3 Prairie    Page 30 DRC COMMENTS DR DRC2023-00406 – LEWIS MANAGEMENT CORP August 20, 2024 Page 4 Spanish    Page 31 DRC COMMENTS DR DRC2023-00406 – LEWIS MANAGEMENT CORP August 20, 2024 Page 5 Architectural Theme Distribution The Specific Plan has a stated goal that building massing and design should reinforce the pedestrian scale of the adjacent street. The proposed three-story buildings are all below 40 feet in height and are of a size and scale that does not overwhelm the adjacent public streets, pedestrian pathways, or paseos. The building massing includes extensive wall and roof plane articulation, creating visual interest to each building elevation. The front entrances to the individual units and the second story balconies face either the public street or a paseo, helping to activate the adjacent public spaces and providing an extra level of security (i.e., eyes on the street). The project consists of 32 three-bedroom units and 67 four-bedroom units that range in size from 1,893 to 2,244 square feet and are within 3, 4, 5 and 6-unit buildings with optional flex ground floor spaces that can be used as a bedroom, home office or workspace. Each unit includes a private balcony with the minimum required depth of 5 feet. The units are generally plotted with the front entrances either facing a public street or a paseo interior to the project. Trash collection will take place in individual trash bins in fixed locations throughout the project site.    Page 32 DRC COMMENTS DR DRC2023-00406 – LEWIS MANAGEMENT CORP August 20, 2024 Page 6 UNIT SUMMARY Residential Unit Type Unit Size (SF - Net) Number of Units 3 Bedroom 1,893 32 4 Bedroom 2,000 to 2,244 SF 67 Total Number of Units 99 Consistent with the requirements of the Specific Plan, the project will be an “open community.” All streets within the interior of the project will be private and maintained by a homeowner’s association. These streets, however, will be open to the public. Access into the project will be provided by private street connections from two adjacent streets (Streets B and D) and from non- gated pedestrian access points. The center spine of the project will include a “Woonerf” designed for both vehicular and non-vehicular traffic. Pedestrians and cyclists use this space for circulation, social gathering, and recreation. The Woonerf includes traffic calming measures to ensure safe co-existence of vehicular and non-vehicular users. Landscaping features, including enhanced paving, planters, trees, bike racks and benches. or bollards, may improve pedestrian safety and use. Decorative paving is provided at each of the main pedestrian crossings throughout the project site. Woonerf Layout    Page 33 DRC COMMENTS DR DRC2023-00406 – LEWIS MANAGEMENT CORP August 20, 2024 Page 7 Compliance with Development Standards: The project was designed in compliance with Resort North Specific Plan for projects within the Village Neighborhood (VN) Placetype and shown in the following table: COMPLIANCE TABLE Development Standard Required Proposed Complies Residential Density 16 to 28 DU/AC 20 DU/AC YES Street Setback 0 to 10 Feet 10 Feet or Less YES Building Separation Across Drive Aisles 26 Feet Minimum 28 Feet YES Interior/Rear Yard Setback 10 Feet 10 Feet or Greater YES Building Height 70 Feet Maximum Less than 40 Feet YES Open Space 150 SF/Unit Minimum 358 SF/Unit YES Parking: Section 9.3.5 (Parking Requirements) of the Specific Plan states that residential development with a density of 30 units/acre or less are required to provide parking consistent with the requirements described in Table 17.64.050-1 of the Development Code. The project has a proposed density of 20 dwelling units per acre and is made up of 99 units. The project is required to provide 232 resident parking spaces and 20 guest parking spaces, for a total of 252 overall parking spaces. The project provides 252 resident parking spaces. The Specific Plan allows for street parking spaces to be counted towards required parking spaces. The following table summarizes the required and provided parking spaces:    Page 34 DRC COMMENTS DR DRC2023-00406 – LEWIS MANAGEMENT CORP August 20, 2024 Page 8 PARKING ANALYSIS Number of Units Square Footage Parking Ratio Required Parking Multi-family Unit (Three Bedrooms) 32 N/A 2 Per Unit (2 in Garage or Carport) 64 Multi-family Unit (Four Bedroom) 67 N/A 2.5 Per Unit (2 in Garage or Carport) 168 Guest parking 99 N/A 1 Per 5 Units 20 Total Garage Parking Required (Covered) 198 Total Garage Parking Provided (Covered) 198 Street Parking Spaces 35 Total Parking Spaces Required 252 Total Parking Spaces Provided 252 Open Space and Recreational Amenities: Individual projects within the Specific Plan area are required to provide 150 square feet of a combination of private and common open space area per unit. The project provides private decks along with common seating and recreation areas that when averaged across the project total approximately 358 square feet per unit. Common open space areas include the Woonerf and 4 pocket parks (activity lawn, dining, play and dog run) totaling approximately 35,431 square feet. In addition to the project-specific open space amenities, the larger Specific Plan area will include common recreation facilities including pools/spas, fitness centers, parks, walking paths, and common gathering areas that are designed to meet the recreational amenity requirements that are generally required of multi-family projects within the City. These common recreational facilities areas are generally designed to be within close proximity to each of the residential developments throughout the larger project site.    Page 35 DRC COMMENTS DR DRC2023-00406 – LEWIS MANAGEMENT CORP August 20, 2024 Page 9 Landscape Plan Walls/Fences: Onsite walls include street facing 36-inch-tall patio walls/fences along Streets B and D, 6-foot-high fences around the dog park, and a combination freestanding/retaining wall along a portion of the south property line due to onsite grades. A stairway is provided along the south property line creating a link in the larger pedestrian network that will connect the project site to the larger Resort North Specific Plan area. Staff Recommendation: The project complies with the intent and development requirements of the Resort North Specific Plan and the Village Neighborhood (VN) Placetype. The buildings are placed close to the street, creating an urban street scene consistent with the standards set forth in the Specific Plan, pedestrian connections are provided throughout the project and the Woonerf creates public space shared by pedestrians, bicycles, and low speed motor vehicles. Open space areas are dispersed throughout the project area and low-walled patios are provided along the adjacent streets. The buildings are well designed and varied in architecture including carrying materials to each elevation creating a varied street scene. Staff requests that the Design Review Committee consider the design (building architecture, site planning, etc.) of the proposed project and recommend the selected action below: ☒Recommend Approval of the design of the project as proposed by the applicant. ☐Recommend Approval with Modifications to the design of the project by incorporating revisions requested by the Committee. Follow-up review by the Committee is not required. The revisions shall be verified by staff prior to review and action by the Planning Director / Planning Commission.    Page 36 DRC COMMENTS DR DRC2023-00406 – LEWIS MANAGEMENT CORP August 20, 2024 Page 10 ☐Recommend Conditional Approval of the design of the project by incorporating revisions requested by the Committee. Follow-up review by the Committee is not required. The revisions shall be Conditions of Approval and verified by staff during plan check after review and action by the Planning Director / Planning Commission. ☐Recommend Denial of the design of the project as proposed by the applicant. Design Review Committee Action: Staff Planner: Tabe van der Zwaag, Associate Planner Members Present: Staff Coordinator: Sean McPherson, Principal Planner Exhibit A – Project Plans    Page 37 Design Review Committee Meeting Agenda August 20, 2024 FINAL MINUTES Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 New Time: 6:00 p.m. A. Call to Order The meeting of the Design Review Committee held on August 20, 2024. The meeting was called to order by Sean McPherson, Staff Coordinator, at 6:00 p.m. Design Review Committee members present: Vice Chairman Boling and Commissioner Daniels Staff Present: Tabe van der Zwaag, Associate Planner. B. Public Communications Staff Coordinator opened the public communication and after noting there were no public comments, closed public communications. C. Consent Calendar C1. Consideration to adopt Meeting Minutes of July 2, 2024. Item C1. Motion carried 2-0 vote. D. Project Review Items D1. DESIGN REVIEW – LEWIS MANAGEMENT CORP - A request for site plan and architectural review of 99 multi-family units located on approximately 4.9 acres of land within Planning Area N-15 in the Village Neighborhood (VN) Placetype of the Resort North Specific Plan, located north of 6th Street, south of the BNSF/Metrolink right of way, and west of Milliken Avenue; APN: 0209-272-20. (Design Review DRC2023-00406). Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City certified an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH No. 2015041083) on May 18, 2016, in connection with the City’s approval of General Plan Amendment DRC2015-00114, Specific Plan Amendment DRC2015-00040, and Development Code Amendment DRC2015-00115. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, no subsequent or supplemental EIR is required in connection with subsequent discretionary approvals of the same project. Staff gave the presentation, followed by a brief presentation by the project architect and additional comments made by the project landscape architect. Notably, the presentation included a brief video to explain the concept of a Woonerf, which is a feature incorporated into this project. Following the presentation, Committee Members had general comments on the project. Both Committee Members asked for details of the woonerf and how this feature would function (i.e. use of bollards, direction of traffic). Additional questions regarding the woonerf included whether this space could be programmed for community events. Committee Member Boling questioned the use of Olive Trees, noting these could represent maintenance issues. The applicant responded that all landscaping is professionally maintained as part of the HOA. Committee Member Boling raised a question of blank wall space in illustrations identified as “Right Elevation” for the various architectural themes. The applicant explained these areas would be covered by landscaping and mechanical equipment.    Page 38 Discussion was then held between the applicant team and both Committee Members regarding certain architectural details such as depth and location of patios and front doors. Staff Coordinator Sean McPherson then asked the applicant to explain why this project does not include mixed-use, to which the applicant explained that this is only a portion of the broader Resort North Specific Plan wherein certain areas are designated for commercial non-residential uses. The Committee took the following action: Recommend approval to PC. 2-0 Vote. E. Adjournment Principal Planner Sean McPherson adjourned the meeting at 6:58 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ___________________________ Elizabeth Thornhill, Executive Assistant    Page 39 JN 1266-003 MEMORANDUM TO:Bond Mendez, Associate Planner Tabe Van der Zwaag, Associate Planner City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department FROM: DATE: RE: Tina Andersen, Principal September 9, 2024 The Resort Specific Plan Planning Area 1B Parcels N-12 (DRC2023-00360), N-14 (DRC2023-00331), and N-15 (DRC2023-00406) 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND Lewis Management Group is requesting design review approval for the three proposed residential development projects within The Resort Specific Plan Planning Area (PA) 1B Mixed Use Infill Area Parcels N- 12 (DRC2023-00360), N-14 (DRC2023-00331), and N-15 (DRC2023-00406) (proposed Projects). Specifically, the proposed Projects include Lot 7 of Tract 20440 (Parcel N-12); Lot 1 of Tract 20440 (Parcel N-14); and Lot 12 of Tract 20440 (Parcel N-15). The proposed Projects will implement a portion of the approved Rancho Cucamonga Industrial Area Specific Plan (IASP) (Empire Lakes) Sub-Area 18 Specific Plan Amendment Project (Approved Project). The Empire Lakes Specific Plan is now referred to as The Resort Specific Plan (also referred to herein as the Specific Plan). The City of Rancho Cucamonga approved the Empire Lakes/IASP Sub-Area 18 Specific Plan Amendment Project and certified the associated Final Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) in May 2016 (Empire Lakes Specific Plan Amendment Final EIR or Final EIR), State Clearinghouse [SCH] No. 2015041083). The Empire Lakes Specific Plan Final EIR was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, California Public Resources Code, Sections 21000, et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Sections 15000, et seq.). The Empire Lakes Specific Plan Amendment Final EIR is intended to serve as the primary environmental document for all entitlements associated with implementation of The Resort Specific Plan, including all discretionary approvals requested or required to implement the Specific Plan. On July 20, 2022, the Rancho Cucamonga City Council adopted Ordinance 1007 (DRC2020-00164), which included a reformatting of the IASP Sub-Area 18 Specific Plan (Section 7) to split the approved Specific Plan into two sections (PA 1A and PA 1B, which includes the areas south and north of 6th Street, respectively). Pursuant to Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines, no subsequent EIR may be required for a project unless the City determines, on the basis of substantial evidence, that one or more of the following conditions are met: Exhibit D    Page 40 THE RESORT SPECIFIC PLAN PLANNING AREA 1B PARCEL N-12 (DRC2023-00360), PARCEL N-14 (DRC2023-00331), AND PARCEL N-15 (DRC2023-00406) September 9, 2024 Page 2 of 9 A. When an EIR has been certified or a negative declaration adopted for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for that project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, one or more of the following: (1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; (2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or (3) 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 previous EIR was certified as complete or the negative declaration was adopted, shows any of the following: (a) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration; (b) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR; (c) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or (d) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. Consistent with this requirement, individual projects implementing the previously approved The Resort Specific Plan PA 1B, including the proposed Projects, will be reviewed to determine if they are within the scope of the development anticipated and evaluated in the Final EIR. Pursuant to Section 15168(c)(2) of the State CEQA Guidelines, if the agency finds that pursuant to Section 15162 no subsequent EIR would be required, the agency can approve the activity as being within the scope of the project covered by the program EIR (Approved Project), and no new environmental document is required. Pursuant to Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the analysis presented in Attachment A to this document evaluates the proposed Projects in comparison to the Approved Project and the analysis for each environmental impact category in the Empire Lakes Specific Plan Amendment Final EIR to determine if the previous analysis adequately addresses the potential impacts of the proposed Projects. The proposed Projects addressed in this document may be considered at the same time or separately by the decisionmakers.    Page 41 THE RESORT SPECIFIC PLAN PLANNING AREA 1B PARCEL N-12 (DRC2023-00360), PARCEL N-14 (DRC2023-00331), AND PARCEL N-15 (DRC2023-00406) September 9, 2024 Page 3 of 9 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Empire Lakes Specific Plan Amendment Final EIR addressed the construction-related and operational environmental impacts that would result from redevelopment of the 160-acre Empire Lakes Golf Course with a proposed mixed-use, high-density residential/commercial development. A maximum of 3,450 residential units and 220,000 square feet (sf) of non-residential uses is allowed by The Resort Specific Plan, including 2,000 residential units and 120,000 sf of non-residential uses in the area north of 6th Street (PA 1B). To date, the previous golf course uses have been removed and partial mass grading was completed in PA 1B conjunction with grading in PA 1A; however, no development has occurred within PA 1B. As further described below, the currently proposed Projects collectively involve construction and operation of 258 townhomes in The Resort Specific Plan PA 1B and specifically within Parcels N-12, N-14 and N-15 (also referred to herein as the “Project sites”); no non-residential uses are currently proposed: x x x 75 units in Parcel N-12 (Lot 7 of Tract 20440); 84 units and a 0.14-acre park in Parcel N-14 (Lot 1 of Tract 20440); and 99 units in Parcel N-15 (Lot 12 of Tract 20440). 1)Location and Setting The Project sites encompass a total of approximately 11.43 gross acres (Parcel N-12 is 3.18 acres, Parcel N-14 is 3.36 acres, and Parcel N-15 is 4.89 acres) and are generally located south of 7 th Street, north of 6th Street and east of The Resort Parkway (partially constructed north of 6th Street). As shown on the attached Conceptual Development Plan by Placetype from The Resort Specific Plan PA 1B Mixed Use Infill Area, Parcel N-12 is designated with the Core Living (CL) Placetype, with a Mixed Use (MU) Overlay on the northern and western portions of the Parcel. Parcel N-14 is designated with the Village Neighborhood (VN) Placetype, with a Mixed Use (MU) Overlay in the southern portion of the Parcel. Parcel N-15 is designated with the Village Neighborhood (VN), with a MU Overlay on the northern portion of the Parcel. The Core Living (CL) Placetype allows for medium-high density residential uses with a density of 18-35 dwelling units per acre (du/ac), the Village Neighborhood (VN) Placetype allows for medium density residential uses with a density of 16-28 du/ac, and the MU Overlay allows for flexible development, including residential and commercial uses. As shown on the attached aerial photograph, under existing conditions, the Project sites as well as surrounding areas to the west and north are disturbed from previous development associated with the former Empire Lakes Golf Course and grading operations (PA 1B was partially mass graded in conjunction with grading activities in PA 1A). The area east of Parcels N-14 and N-15 is developed with multi-family residential uses (AMLI at Empire Lakes), which also existed when the Empire Lakes Specific Plan EIR was prepared. Parcel N-12 is west of Parcels N-14 and N-15. Undeveloped areas within PA 1B are located north and south of Parcel N-12, and north of Parcel N-15. 6th Street forms the southern border of Parcel N-14, and existing development within The Resort Specific Plan PA 1A is located south of 6th Street. The existing land use, and General Plan and Zoning designations for the Project sites and adjacent properties are as follows:    Page 42 THE RESORT SPECIFIC PLAN PLANNING AREA 1B PARCEL N-12 (DRC2023-00360), PARCEL N-14 (DRC2023-00331), AND PARCEL N-15 (DRC2023-00406) September 9, 2024 Page 4 of 9 Existing Land Use General Plan Zoning Parcel N-12 Site Vacant Vacant Vacant Vacant Vacant City Center City Center The Resort Specific Plan PA 1B The Resort Specific Plan PA 1B The Resort Specific Plan PA 1B The Resort Specific Plan PA 1B The Resort Specific Plan PA 1B North South East City Center City Center West Open Space and Mixed Use Parcel N-14 Site Vacant Vacant City Center City Center The Resort Specific Plan PA 1B The Resort Specific Plan PA 1BNorth 6th Street and Multi- family ResidentialSouth Urban Neighborhood The Resort Specific Plan PA 1A East Multi-family Residential Vacant City Center City Center CE2 Center 2 Zone West The Resort Specific Plan PA 1B Parcel N-15 Site Vacant Vacant City Center City Center City Center City Center City Center The Resort Specific Plan PA 1B The Resort Specific Plan PA 1B The Resort Specific Plan PA 1B CE2 Center 2 Zone North South East Vacant Multi-Family Residential VacantWest The Resort Specific Plan PA 1B 2) Proposed Site Plans and Development Characteristics Parcel N-12 (Lot 7 of Tract 20440) The proposed site plan, building elevations, conceptual renderings, landscape plan, and wall and fence plan for the proposed development at Parcel N-12 are attached. The complete application submittal is available for review at the City. The proposed development involves the construction of 75 town homes within the 3.18-acre site, resulting in a density of 23.58 du/ac consistent with that required within the Core Living (CL) Placetype (18 to 35 du/ac). There would be 4- and 5- unit Row Town Buildings, and 5- and 7-unit Carriage Town Buildings. The floor plans for the residential units range from 1,204 sf to 2,201 sf and include 2-, 3- and 4-bedroom units. There is a potential for 15 units within the Mixed Use (MU) Overlay Zone to be live/work units. The buildings within Parcel N-12 would feature two architectural design themes (Adaptive Spanish and Adaptive Craftsman architectural design themes). The Resort Specific Plan for PA 1B identifies a maximum building height of 70 feet for the areas north of 6th Street with the exception of parcels within 20 feet of existing residential uses to the east. The residential buildings within Parcel N-12, which is not within 20 feet of existing residential uses and therefore would have a height limit of 70 feet, would be 3 levels and would have a maximum building height of 37 feet as measured from top of slab to top of roof. Further, the proposed development would comply with the setbacks, landscape design, and other development standards established in the Specific Plan to ensure there is a sufficient buffer between existing and proposed uses. Notably, for the Core Living (CL) Placetype, the minimum required setback is 10 feet from The Resort Parkway right-of-way.    Page 43 THE RESORT SPECIFIC PLAN PLANNING AREA 1B PARCEL N-12 (DRC2023-00360), PARCEL N-14 (DRC2023-00331), AND PARCEL N-15 (DRC2023-00406) September 9, 2024 Page 5 of 9 Consistent with The Resort Specific Plan for PA 1B, vehicular access to Parcel N-12 would be provided from 6th Street and 7th Street and roadways identified in the Specific Plan including The Resort Parkway and the street that borders the eastern side of the Parcel N-12, which both have direct connections to 6th Street. The roadways and driveways associated with the proposed development would adhere to applicable standards for fire access. As required, there would be 185 parking spaces provided (including 150 garage spaces; two garage spaces for each unit). Consistent with The Resort Specific Plan, pedestrian pathways and sidewalks would be provided throughout the proposed development. The roadways that border Parcel N-12 to the east and south would include painted “sharrows” indicating travel lanes are shared by bicycles and vehicles. The pedestrian and bicycle facilities provide connectivity to other parcels within PA 1B and adjacent uses, including but not limited to uses within PA 1B and the Metrolink Station. As shown on the attached conceptual wall and fence plan, various types of walls and fences would be provided. There would be decorative seat walls at the corners of the community, stucco walls between the outdoor patio areas for each unit, combination stucco and steel walls at the entry of each unit, and stucco raised planters in front of the units along the southern and southeastern boundaries of the parcel. The proposed development within Parcel N-12 would include approximately 39,268 sf of open space (5,007 sf of private open space and 34,261 sf of common open space), which would exceed the required 11,100 sf. The common open space areas would include but not be limited to community courtyards and corner open space. Parcel N-14 (Lot 1 of Tract 20440) The proposed site plan, building elevations, conceptual renderings, landscape plan, and wall and fence plan for the proposed development at Parcel N-14 are attached. The complete application submittal is available for review at the City. The proposed development involves the construction of 84 town homes (Tandem Town Units) within the 3.36-gross-acre site (3.22 net acres), resulting in a density of 26.1 du/ac consistent with that required within the Village Neighborhood (VN) Placetype (16 to 28 du/ac). There would be 5-, 6-, 7-, 8- and 9-unit buildings provided. The floor plans for the residential units range from 1,153 sf to 1,701 sf and include 2- and 3-bedroom units. As shown on the attached building elevations, the buildings within Parcel N-14 would feature two architectural design themes (Adaptive Prairie and Contemporary). The Resort Specific Plan for PA 1B sets the maximum allowed height of 45 feet above ground level for buildings to be constructed within 20 feet of existing residential uses to east of PA 1B. The eastern portion of Parcel N-14 is within 20 feet of existing residential uses and therefore would have a height limit of 45 feet; the proposed residential buildings would be 3 levels and would have a maximum building height of 38 feet as measured from top of slab to top of roof. Further, the proposed development would comply with the setbacks, landscape design, and other development standards established in the Specific Plan to ensure there is a sufficient buffer between existing and proposed uses. Notably, for Parcel N-14, minimum 10-foot setbacks have been established from the eastern PA 1B boundary, 6th Street, and “B” Street.    Page 44 THE RESORT SPECIFIC PLAN PLANNING AREA 1B PARCEL N-12 (DRC2023-00360), PARCEL N-14 (DRC2023-00331), AND PARCEL N-15 (DRC2023-00406) September 9, 2024 Page 6 of 9 As shown on the attached conceptual wall and fence plan, the existing tubular fence along the eastern boundary of Parcel N-14 that provides a barrier between Parcel N-14 and existing residential uses to the east would remain in place. Additionally, retaining walls and or retaining walls and guard rails would be constructed along 6th Street (south of Parcel N-14), and in front of the units along “B” Street. Patio fences and gates would be constructed in front of the units along 6th Street and some of the units along “B” Street north and south of the proposed park. Consistent with The Resort Specific Plan for PA 1B, vehicular access to Parcel N-14 would primarily be provided from the roadway that borders the parcel to west and has direct connections to 6 th Street and 7th Street. The roadways and driveways associated with the proposed development would adhere to applicable standards for fire access. There would be 185 parking spaces provided (including 168 tandem garage spaces; two garage spaces for each unit), which would be consistent with the required 185 spaces. The roadway along the eastern boundary of Parcel N-14 would also be painted with “sharrows.” Pedestrian facilities would also be provided through the site. The pedestrian and bicycle facilities provide connectivity to other parcels within PA 1B and adjacent uses, including but not limited to uses within PA 1B and the Metrolink Station. The proposed development within Parcel N-14 would include approximately 48,515 sf of open space (3,565 sf of private open space and 44,950 sf of common open space), which would exceed the required 12,600 sf. Additionally, a 0.14-acre private park would be provided and would include an open lawn area and various amenities. The common open space areas would include but not be limited to community courtyards, dog relief areas, and an additional open lawn area. Parcel N-15 (Lot 12 of Tract 20440) The proposed site plan, building elevations, conceptual renderings, landscape plan, and wall and fence plan for the proposed development at Parcel N-15 are attached. The complete application submittal is available for review at the City. The proposed development involves the construction of 99 town homes within the 4.89-gross-acre site, resulting in a density of 20.2 du/ac consistent with that required within the Village Neighborhood (VN) Placetype (16 to 28 du/ac). There would be 3-, 4-, 5- and 6-plex Row Townhome Buildings. The floor plans for the residential units range from 1,893 sf to 2,244 sf and include 3- and 4-bedroom units. There is a potential for 21 units within the Mixed Use (MU) Overlay Zone to be live/work units. As shown on the proposed building elevations, the buildings within Parcel N-15 would feature three architectural design themes (Prairie Style, Spanish Style and Heritage Style). The 3- and 5-plex buildings would use the Prairie and Spanish styles, the 4-plex buildings would use the Spanish and Heritage styles, and the 6-plex buildings would use the Prairie and Heritage styles. The Resort Specific Plan for PA 1B sets the maximum allowed height of 45 feet above ground level for buildings to be constructed within 20 feet of existing residential uses to east of PA 1B. The eastern portion of Parcel N-15 is within 20 feet of existing residential uses and therefore would have a height limit of 45 feet; the proposed residential buildings would be 3 levels and would have maximum building heights of 38 feet 6 inches and 39 feet at the top of roof, depending on the architectural style. Further, the proposed development would comply with the setbacks, landscape design, and other development standards established in the Specific Plan to ensure there is a sufficient buffer between existing and proposed uses. Notably, for Parcel N-15,    Page 45 THE RESORT SPECIFIC PLAN PLANNING AREA 1B PARCEL N-12 (DRC2023-00360), PARCEL N-14 (DRC2023-00331), AND PARCEL N-15 (DRC2023-00406) September 9, 2024 Page 7 of 9 minimum 10-foot setbacks have been established from the eastern PA 1B boundary, 6th Street, and “B” Street. As shown on the attached conceptual wall and fence plan, the existing tubular fence along the eastern boundary of Parcel N-15 that provides a barrier between Parcel N-15 and existing residential uses to the east would remain in place. Additionally, retaining walls would be provided along the northern and western boundaries of the parcel, and patio stucco walls and pedestrian patio gates would be provided for the units along the northern and western portion of the parcel. The dog park in the northeast corner of the parcel would be fenced and air conditioning units would be screened with fences. Consistent with The Resort Specific Plan for PA 1B, vehicular access to Parcel N-15 would be provided from 7th Street, which forms the northern parcel boundary, and the street along the western parcel boundary that intersects with 7th Street and 6th Street. The roadways and driveways associated with the proposed development would adhere to applicable standards for fire access. Sharrows would be painted along the roadways. There would be 252 parking spaces provided (including 198 garage spaces; two garage spaces for each unit), which would be consistent with the required 252 spaces. Pedestrian pathways and sidewalks would be provided throughout the proposed development. The pedestrian and bicycle facilities provide connectivity to other parcels within PA 1B and adjacent uses, including but not limited to uses within PA 1B and the Metrolink Station. The proposed development within Parcel N-15 would include approximately 35,431 sf of open space (14,219 sf of private open space and 21,212 sf of common open space), which would exceed the required 14,850 sf of open space. The common open space areas would include but not be limited to various pocket parks and landscaped areas. 3)Construction Activities Construction of the proposed Projects is estimated to start in the January 2025 and be completed in late 2027. Consistent with the construction activities evaluated in the Final EIR, construction of the proposed Projects would involve grading, utility installation, building construction, paving and architectural coatings. Construction would start with grading of the PA 1B area between 6th Street and 7th Street (including Parcels N-12, N-14 and N-15) and construction of public improvements. These activities are estimated to last approximately 12 months, with grading lasting approximately 3 months. The construction of the residential units and associated uses is expected to be initiated in the late 2025. As anticipated in the Empire Lakes Specific Plan Final EIR, there would be overlap in the timing of the construction activities for the proposed Projects and construction activities in PA 1A. Relevant to the discussion of construction impacts, construction of the residential uses south of 6 th Street in PA 1A, which are part of the approved Homecoming at the Resort development, are expected to be completed before construction of the proposed Projects are initiated. Construction of the approved Electric Pickle Project1, located in PA 1A at the northwest corner of the intersection of The Resort Parkway and 4th Street, is expected to be completed in early 2026; however, the construction activities requiring use of heavy equipment (e.g., grading) would be complete. 1 The Electric Pickle Project is limited to an approximately 2.7-acre site and the development of an approximately 12,074.50 sf one-story building for a restaurant/bar with outdoor patio dining; nine pickleball courts; two bocce ball courts; and an approximately 1,770.50 sf with a coffee bar, restrooms, and storage.    Page 46 THE RESORT SPECIFIC PLAN PLANNING AREA 1B PARCEL N-12 (DRC2023-00360), PARCEL N-14 (DRC2023-00331), AND PARCEL N-15 (DRC2023-00406) September 9, 2024 Page 8 of 9 PA 1B (including portions of Parcel N-12, N-14 and N-15) were previously partially mass graded in conjunction with the construction activities for PA 1A. Therefore, mass grading and finish grading would still be required for the proposed Projects. Parcel N-12 would require 750 cubic yards (cy) of cut and 3,329 cy of fill, for a net import of 2,579 cy of soil. Parcel N-14 would require 8,070 cubic yards (cy) of cut and 888 cy of fill, for a net export of 7,182 cy of soil. Parcel N-15 would require 38 cubic yards (cy) of cut and 19,500 cy of fill, for a net import of 19,461 cy of soil. However, the overall mass grading for PA 1B, which includes the proposed Projects, would balance with no need for import or export of soil. The construction-related analysis presented in the Empire Lakes Specific Plan Final EIR conservatively assumed that there would be approximately 130 truck trips (65 heavy truck trips) per day during a peak construction day associated with building construction, utility installation, and paving for the northern portion of the Specific Plan area (PA 1B), and that this would overlap with construction activities in the southern portion of the Specific Plan area.2 Therefore, the construction activities for the proposed Projects, which would not require the import of soil to PA 1B or export of soil out of PA 1B, would not generate daily truck trips or require the use of construction equipment in exceedance of that anticipated and evaluated in the Final EIR. 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW CONCLUSION Pursuant to Section 15168(c)(2) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, “If the agency finds that pursuant to Section 15162, no new effects could occur or no new mitigation measures would be required, the agency can approve the activity as being within the scope of the project covered by the program EIR, and no new environmental document would be required.” With regard to Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines and based on the analysis presented in Attachment A: 1. There are no substantial changes associated with the proposed Projects, that require major revisions of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan Amendment Final EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. 2. Substantial changes have not occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the proposed Projects are undertaken that require major revisions of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan Amendment EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. 3. 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 Empire Lakes Specific Plan Amendment EIR was approved, that shows any of the following: a) The proposed Projects will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the Empire Lakes Specific Plan Amendment EIR; b) Significant effects previously examined would be substantially more severe than shown in the Empire Lakes Specific Plan Amendment EIR; 2 The Empire Lakes Specific Plan Amendment Final EIR assumed that construction in the southern portion of the Specific Plan area would generate approximately 76 truck trips per day during demolition and site preparation; 6 truck trips per day during grading; and 50 truck trips per day during building construction, utility installation and paving.    Page 47 THE RESORT SPECIFIC PLAN PLANNING AREA 1B PARCEL N-12 (DRC2023-00360), PARCEL N-14 (DRC2023-00331), AND PARCEL N-15 (DRC2023-00406) September 9, 2024 Page 9 of 9 c) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the proposed Projects, but the Project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; and d) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the Empire Lakes Specific Plan Amendment EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the Project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. Accordingly, none of the criteria requiring preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR have been met (CEQA Guidelines, Sections 15162 and 15163), and it is concluded that construction and operation of the proposed The Resort Specific Plan – PA 1B Parcels N-12, N-14, and N-15 Project, which implements the previously Approved Project, would not result in environmental effects that were not examined in the Empire Lakes Specific Plan Amendment Final Program EIR. Pursuant to Section 15168(c)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines, no additional CEQA documentation is required for the proposed Projects.    Page 48    Page 49    Page 50 The Resort - Planning Area 1B Sub-Planning Area N-12 Lot 7 of Tract 20440 Design Review Checklist Summary Table April 11, 2024 ꢃƵŝůĚŝŶŐꢁ EƵŵďĞƌ ϭ ϭ ϭ ϭ ϭ Ϯ Ϯ Ϯ Ϯ ϯ ϯ ϯ ϯ ϯ ϰ ϰ ϰ ϰ ϱ ϱ ϱ ϱ ϱ ϲ ϲ ϲ ϲ ϳ ϳ ϳ ϳ hŶŝƚꢁ EƵŵďĞƌ ϭ Ϯ ϯ ϰ ϱ ϲ ϳ WůĂŶꢁꢄůĞǀĂƚŝŽŶꢁ ^ƚLJůĞ ^ƉĂŶŝƐŚ ^ƉĂŶŝƐŚ ^ƉĂŶŝƐŚ ꢅŽůŽƌꢁ>Žƚꢁ ꢅŽǀĞƌĂŐĞ Eͬꢂ Eͬꢂ Eͬꢂ Eͬꢂ Eͬꢂ Eͬꢂ Eͬꢂ Eͬꢂ Eͬꢂ Eͬꢂ Eͬꢂ Eͬꢂ Eͬꢂ Eͬꢂ Eͬꢂ Eͬꢂ Eͬꢂ Eͬꢂ Eͬꢂ Eͬꢂ Eͬꢂ Eͬꢂ Eͬꢂ Eͬꢂ Eͬꢂ Eͬꢂ Eͬꢂ Eͬꢂ Eͬꢂ Eͬꢂ Eͬꢂ Eͬꢂ Eͬꢂ Eͬꢂ Eͬꢂ Eͬꢂ Eͬꢂ Eͬꢂ Eͬꢂ Eͬꢂ Eͬꢂ Eͬꢂ Eͬꢂ Eͬꢂ Eͬꢂ Eͬꢂ Eͬꢂ Eͬꢂ Eͬꢂ Eͬꢂ Eͬꢂ Eͬꢂ Eͬꢂ Eͬꢂ Eͬꢂ Eͬꢂ Eͬꢂ Eͬꢂ Eͬꢂ Eͬꢂ Eͬꢂ Eͬꢂ Eͬꢂ Eͬꢂ Eͬꢂ Eͬꢂ Eͬꢂ Eͬꢂ Eͬꢂ Eͬꢂ Eͬꢂ Eͬꢂ Eͬꢂ Eͬꢂ Eͬꢂ ꢀĞŶƐŝƚLJ ηꢁꢂĐƌĞƐ ꢀƵꢁͬꢁꢂĐ 'ƌŽƐƐ ϯ͘ϭϴ Ϯϯ͘ϱϴ EĞƚ ϯ͘ϭϴ Ϯϯ͘ϱϴ EƵŵďĞƌ ϰ ϯ ϯ Ϯ ϰ ϰ ϯ Ϯ ϰ ϰ Ϯ ϯ ϯ ϰ ϰ ϯ Ϯ ϰ ϰ ϯ ϯ Ϯ ϰ ϰ Ϯ ϯ ϰ ϰ Ϯ ϯ ϯ ϰ ϭ ϭ ϯ Ϯ ϯ Ϯ ϰ ϰ Ϯ ϯ ϰ ϰ Ϯ ϯ Ϯ ϯ ϭ ϭ ϰ Ϯ ϯ ϭ ϭ ϭ ϭ ϯ Ϯ ϰ ϰ Ϯ ϯ ϭ ϭ ϭ ϭ ϰ Ϯ ϯ ϰ Ϯ ϯ ϭ ϭ ^ĐŚĞŵĞ ϯ ϯ ϯ ϯ ϯ ϭ ϭ ϭ ϭ Ϯ Ϯ Ϯ Ϯ Ϯ ϰ ϰ ϰ ϰ ϭ ϭ ϭ ϭ ϭ ϯ ϯ ϯ ϯ ϭ ϭ ϭ ϭ ϭ ϯ ϯ ϯ ϯ ϯ ϯ ϯ Ϯ Ϯ Ϯ Ϯ ϭ ϭ ϭ ϭ ϭ ϭ ϭ ϰ ϰ ϰ ϰ ϰ ϭ ϭ ϭ ϭ ϭ ϯ ϯ ϯ ϯ ϯ ϯ ϯ ϯ ϯ ϯ ϯ ϯ ϯ ϯ ϯ ^WꢁꢀĞŶƐŝƚLJ͗ꢁϭϴꢁͲꢁϯϱꢁꢀƵꢁͬꢁꢂĐ ^ƉĂŶŝƐŚ ^ƉĂŶŝƐŚ ZĞƐŝĚĞŶƚꢁ 'ĂƌĂŐĞꢁ ^ƉĂĐĞƐ Ϯ Ϯ Ϯ Ϯ ϭϱϬ ZĞƐŝĚĞŶƚꢁ ZĞƐŝĚĞŶƚꢁ ꢂĚĚŝƚŝŽŶĂůꢁ WĂƌŬŝŶŐꢁ WĂƌŬŝŶŐꢁ WĂƌŬŝŶŐꢁ 'ƵĞƐƚꢁdŽƚĂůꢁꢅƌĂĨƚƐŵĂŶ ꢅƌĂĨƚƐŵĂŶ ꢅƌĂĨƚƐŵĂŶ ꢅƌĂĨƚƐŵĂŶ ꢅƌĂĨƚƐŵĂŶ ꢅƌĂĨƚƐŵĂŶ ꢅƌĂĨƚƐŵĂŶ ꢅƌĂĨƚƐŵĂŶ ꢅƌĂĨƚƐŵĂŶ ^ƉĂŶŝƐŚ ^ƉĂŶŝƐŚ ^ƉĂŶŝƐŚ ^ƉĂŶŝƐŚ ꢅƌĂĨƚƐŵĂŶ ꢅƌĂĨƚƐŵĂŶ ꢅƌĂĨƚƐŵĂŶ ꢅƌĂĨƚƐŵĂŶ ꢅƌĂĨƚƐŵĂŶ ^ƉĂŶŝƐŚ ^ƉĂŶŝƐŚ ^ƉĂŶŝƐŚ ^ƉĂŶŝƐŚ ꢅƌĂĨƚƐŵĂŶ ꢅƌĂĨƚƐŵĂŶ ꢅƌĂĨƚƐŵĂŶ ꢅƌĂĨƚƐŵĂŶ ꢅƌĂĨƚƐŵĂŶ ^ƉĂŶŝƐŚ ^ƉĂŶŝƐŚ ^ƉĂŶŝƐŚ ^ƉĂŶŝƐŚ ^ƉĂŶŝƐŚ ^ƉĂŶŝƐŚ ^ƉĂŶŝƐŚ ꢅƌĂĨƚƐŵĂŶ ꢅƌĂĨƚƐŵĂŶ ꢅƌĂĨƚƐŵĂŶ ꢅƌĂĨƚƐŵĂŶ ꢅƌĂĨƚƐŵĂŶ ꢅƌĂĨƚƐŵĂŶ ꢅƌĂĨƚƐŵĂŶ ꢅƌĂĨƚƐŵĂŶ ꢅƌĂĨƚƐŵĂŶ ꢅƌĂĨƚƐŵĂŶ ꢅƌĂĨƚƐŵĂŶ ^ƉĂŶŝƐŚ ^ƉĂŶŝƐŚ ^ƉĂŶŝƐŚ ^ƉĂŶŝƐŚ ^ƉĂŶŝƐŚ ꢅƌĂĨƚƐŵĂŶ ꢅƌĂĨƚƐŵĂŶ ꢅƌĂĨƚƐŵĂŶ ꢅƌĂĨƚƐŵĂŶ ꢅƌĂĨƚƐŵĂŶ ^ƉĂŶŝƐŚ ^ƉĂŶŝƐŚ ^ƉĂŶŝƐŚ ^ƉĂŶŝƐŚ ^ƉĂŶŝƐŚ ꢅƌĂĨƚƐŵĂŶ ꢅƌĂĨƚƐŵĂŶ ꢅƌĂĨƚƐŵĂŶ ꢅƌĂĨƚƐŵĂŶ ꢅƌĂĨƚƐŵĂŶ ^ƉĂŶŝƐŚ ϴ ϵWůĂŶꢁηꢁhŶŝƚƐ ϭϰ ϭϳ Ϯϭ Ϯϯ йꢁDŝdž ϭϵй hŶŝƚꢁ^Ƌꢁ&ƚ ꢁꢁꢁꢁꢁꢁꢁꢁꢁꢁϭ͕ϮϬϰ ꢁꢁꢁꢁꢁꢁꢁꢁꢁꢁϭ͕ϴϵϳ ꢁꢁꢁꢁꢁꢁꢁꢁꢁꢁϭ͕ϵϯϯ ꢁꢁꢁꢁꢁꢁꢁꢁꢁꢁϮ͕ϮϬϭ ꢁꢁꢁꢁꢁꢁϭϰϬ͕ϯϮϭ ꢃĞĚƌŽŽŵƐ ꢃĂƚŚƌŽŽŵƐ ^ƉĂĐĞƐ Ϭ͘ϱ ZĞƋƵŝƌĞĚ ZĞƋƵŝƌĞĚ ZĞƋƵŝƌĞĚ Ϯϴ ϰϯ ϰϮ ϱϴ WůĂŶꢁϭ WůĂŶꢁϮ WůĂŶꢁϯ WůĂŶꢁϯy dŽƚĂů Ϯ ϰ ϯ Ϯ͘ϱ ϯ͘ϱ ϯ͘ϱ ϯ͘ϱ ϯ ϯ ϰ ϱ ϭϱ ϯϭ ϰϲ ϰϲ ϲϮ ϭϴϱ ϭϬ ϭϭ ϭϮ ϭϯ ϭϰ ϭϱ ϭϲ ϭϳ ϭϴ ϭϵ ϮϬ Ϯϭ ϮϮ Ϯϯ Ϯϰ Ϯϱ Ϯϲ Ϯϳ Ϯϴ Ϯϵ ϯϬ ϯϭ ϯϮ ϯϯ ϯϰ ϯϱ ϯϲ ϯϳ ϯϴ ϯϵ ϰϬ ϰϭ ϰϮ ϰϯ ϰϰ ϰϱ ϰϲ ϰϳ ϰϴ ϰϵ ϱϬ ϱϭ ϱϮ ϱϯ ϱϰ ϱϱ ϱϲ ϱϳ ϱϴ ϱϵ ϲϬ ϲϭ ϲϮ ϲϯ ϲϰ ϲϱ ϲϲ ϲϳ ϲϴ ϲϵ ϳϬ ϳϭ ϳϮ ϳϯ ϳϰ ϳϱ Ϯϯй Ϯϴй ϯϭй ϭϬϬй ϰ Ϭ͘ϱ ϮϬϳϱϮϱϭ ϭϳϬ WĂƌŬŝŶŐꢁ^ƉĂĐĞƐꢁWƌŽǀŝĚĞĚ 'ƵĞƐƚꢁWĂƌŬŝŶŐꢁZĂƚŝŽꢁϭꢁ͗ꢁϱ ϭϴϱ ꢃƵŝůĚŝŶŐꢁ EƵŵďĞƌ ꢄůĞǀĂƚŝŽŶꢁ ^ƚLJůĞ ꢅŽůŽƌꢁ ^ĐŚĞŵĞ ꢅŽůŽƌꢁ ^ĐŚĞŵĞ ϭ Ϯ ϯ ϰ ηꢁŽĨꢁhŶŝƚƐ ZĞƉĞĂƚƐ ϱ ϯ ϰ ϯ ϭ Ϯ ϯ ϰ ϱ ϱ ϰ ϱ ϰ ϱ ^ƉĂŶŝƐŚ ϯ ϭ Ϯ ϰ ϭ ꢅƌĂĨƚƐŵĂŶ ꢅƌĂĨƚƐŵĂŶ ^ƉĂŶŝƐŚ ꢅƌĂĨƚƐŵĂŶ dŽƚĂů ϭϱ ϲ ϳ ϴ ϰ ϱ ϳ ^ƉĂŶŝƐŚ ꢅƌĂĨƚƐŵĂŶ ^ƉĂŶŝƐŚ ϯ ϭ ϯ Ϯ ϭ ϰ ϭ ϯ Ϯ ϰ ϵ ϰ ϳ ϱ ϱ ϱ ϱ ϱ ꢅƌĂĨƚƐŵĂŶ ꢅƌĂĨƚƐŵĂŶ ^ƉĂŶŝƐŚ ꢅƌĂĨƚƐŵĂŶ ^ƉĂŶŝƐŚ ϭϬ ϭϭ ϭϮ ϭϯ ϭϰ ϭϱ ϳ ϴ ϴ ϴ ϴ ϴ ϴ ϴ ϵ ϵ ϵ ϵ ꢅƌĂĨƚƐŵĂŶ ^ƉĂŶŝƐŚ dŽƚĂů ϳϱ ϭϬ ϭϬ ϭϬ ϭϬ ϭϬ ϭϬ ϭϬ ϭϭ ϭϭ ϭϭ ϭϭ ϭϭ ϭϮ ϭϮ ϭϮ ϭϮ ϭϮ ϭϯ ϭϯ ϭϯ ϭϯ ϭϯ ϭϰ ϭϰ ϭϰ ϭϰ ϭϰ ϭϱ ϭϱ ϭϱ ϭϱ ϭϱ ^ƉĂŶŝƐŚ ^ƉĂŶŝƐŚ ^ƉĂŶŝƐŚ ^ƉĂŶŝƐŚ ZRRGOH\architecturalSITE SUMMARY & PLOTTINGꢇꢍꢅꢈꢈꢅꢈꢌJURXSꢀLQF PA N-12 | LEWIS MANAGEMENT COMPANY /0&ꢏꢈꢈꢇꢃcolorado // ꢁꢂꢃꢄVRXWKSDUNꢄGUꢅꢄVXLWHꢄ% ꢄꢄOLWWOHWRQꢀꢄFRꢄꢆꢇꢃꢈꢇꢄꢉꢄꢂꢇꢂꢄꢊꢆꢂꢅꢁꢈꢂꢃ california //ꢄꢈꢋꢌꢂꢄSXOOPDQꢄVWꢅꢄVXLWHꢄ$ ꢄꢄVDQWDꢄDQDꢀꢄFDꢄꢄꢋꢈꢁꢇꢍꢄꢉꢄꢋꢌꢋꢄꢍꢍꢂꢅꢆꢋꢃꢋRANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 127(ꢎꢄ648$5(ꢄ)227$*(ꢄ0$<ꢄ9$5<ꢄ%$6('ꢄ21ꢄ&$/&8/$7,21ꢄ0(7+2'6 7+(6(ꢄ'5$:,1*6ꢄ$5(ꢄ,17(1'('ꢄ)25ꢄ'(6,*1ꢄ'(9(/230(17ꢄ$1'ꢄ35(/,0,1$5<ꢄ678',(6ꢄ21/<ꢄ$1'ꢄ$5(ꢄ127ꢄ72ꢄ%(ꢄ86('ꢄ)25ꢄ$1<ꢄ27+(5ꢄ385326(ꢀꢄ68&+ꢄ$6ꢄ),1$/ꢄ3/277,1*ꢄ25ꢄ),1$/ꢄ(1*,1((5,1*ꢅꢄꢄ&23<5,*+7ꢄ:22'/(<ꢄ$5&+,7(&785$/ꢄ*5283ꢀꢄ,1&ꢅꢄ7+(6(ꢄ'5$:,1*6ꢄ0$<ꢄ127ꢄ%(ꢄ86('ꢄ25ꢄ'83/,&$7('ꢄ:,7+287ꢄ7+(ꢄ(;35(66ꢄ:5,77(1ꢄ3(50,66,21ꢄ2)ꢄ:22'/(<ꢄ$5&+,7(&785$/ꢄ*5283ꢀꢄ,1&ꢅ    Page 51 ꢇꢑꢌꢑꢆꢑ 6&$/(ꢎꢄꢃꢉꢌꢐꢄ ꢄꢃꢑZRRGOH\architectural5 - UNIT CARRIAGE TOWNS | ADAPTIVE CRAFTSMAN A-1ꢇꢍꢅꢈꢈꢅꢈꢌJURXSꢀLQF PA N-12 | LEWIS MANAGEMENT COMPANY /0&ꢏꢈꢈꢇꢃcolorado // ꢁꢂꢃꢄVRXWKSDUNꢄGUꢅꢄVXLWHꢄ% ꢄꢄOLWWOHWRQꢀꢄFRꢄꢆꢇꢃꢈꢇꢄꢉꢄꢂꢇꢂꢄꢊꢆꢂꢅꢁꢈꢂꢃ california //ꢄꢈꢋꢌꢂꢄSXOOPDQꢄVWꢅꢄVXLWHꢄ$ ꢄꢄVDQWDꢄDQDꢀꢄFDꢄꢄꢋꢈꢁꢇꢍꢄꢉꢄꢋꢌꢋꢄꢍꢍꢂꢅꢆꢋꢃꢋRANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 127(ꢎꢄ648$5(ꢄ)227$*(ꢄ0$<ꢄ9$5<ꢄ%$6('ꢄ21ꢄ&$/&8/$7,21ꢄ0(7+2'6 7+(6(ꢄ'5$:,1*6ꢄ$5(ꢄ,17(1'('ꢄ)25ꢄ'(6,*1ꢄ'(9(/230(17ꢄ$1'ꢄ35(/,0,1$5<ꢄ678',(6ꢄ21/<ꢄ$1'ꢄ$5(ꢄ127ꢄ72ꢄ%(ꢄ86('ꢄ)25ꢄ$1<ꢄ27+(5ꢄ385326(ꢀꢄ68&+ꢄ$6ꢄ),1$/ꢄ3/277,1*ꢄ25ꢄ),1$/ꢄ(1*,1((5,1*ꢅꢄꢄ&23<5,*+7ꢄ:22'/(<ꢄ$5&+,7(&785$/ꢄ*5283ꢀꢄ,1&ꢅꢄ7+(6(ꢄ'5$:,1*6ꢄ0$<ꢄ127ꢄ%(ꢄ86('ꢄ25ꢄ'83/,&$7('ꢄ:,7+287ꢄ7+(ꢄ(;35(66ꢄ:5,77(1ꢄ3(50,66,21ꢄ2)ꢄ:22'/(<ꢄ$5&+,7(&785$/ꢄ*5283ꢀꢄ,1&ꢅ    Page 52 ꢇꢑꢆꢑꢃꢊꢑ 6&$/(ꢎꢄꢃꢉꢆꢐꢄ ꢄꢃꢑZRRGOH\architectural5 - UNIT CARRIAGE TOWNS | ADAPTIVE CRAFTSMAN A-2ꢇꢍꢅꢈꢈꢅꢈꢌJURXSꢀLQF PA N-12 | LEWIS MANAGEMENT COMPANY /0&ꢏꢈꢈꢇꢃcolorado // ꢁꢂꢃꢄVRXWKSDUNꢄGUꢅꢄVXLWHꢄ% ꢄꢄOLWWOHWRQꢀꢄFRꢄꢆꢇꢃꢈꢇꢄꢉꢄꢂꢇꢂꢄꢊꢆꢂꢅꢁꢈꢂꢃ california //ꢄꢈꢋꢌꢂꢄSXOOPDQꢄVWꢅꢄVXLWHꢄ$ ꢄꢄVDQWDꢄDQDꢀꢄFDꢄꢄꢋꢈꢁꢇꢍꢄꢉꢄꢋꢌꢋꢄꢍꢍꢂꢅꢆꢋꢃꢋRANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 127(ꢎꢄ648$5(ꢄ)227$*(ꢄ0$<ꢄ9$5<ꢄ%$6('ꢄ21ꢄ&$/&8/$7,21ꢄ0(7+2'6 7+(6(ꢄ'5$:,1*6ꢄ$5(ꢄ,17(1'('ꢄ)25ꢄ'(6,*1ꢄ'(9(/230(17ꢄ$1'ꢄ35(/,0,1$5<ꢄ678',(6ꢄ21/<ꢄ$1'ꢄ$5(ꢄ127ꢄ72ꢄ%(ꢄ86('ꢄ)25ꢄ$1<ꢄ27+(5ꢄ385326(ꢀꢄ68&+ꢄ$6ꢄ),1$/ꢄ3/277,1*ꢄ25ꢄ),1$/ꢄ(1*,1((5,1*ꢅꢄꢄ&23<5,*+7ꢄ:22'/(<ꢄ$5&+,7(&785$/ꢄ*5283ꢀꢄ,1&ꢅꢄ7+(6(ꢄ'5$:,1*6ꢄ0$<ꢄ127ꢄ%(ꢄ86('ꢄ25ꢄ'83/,&$7('ꢄ:,7+287ꢄ7+(ꢄ(;35(66ꢄ:5,77(1ꢄ3(50,66,21ꢄ2)ꢄ:22'/(<ꢄ$5&+,7(&785$/ꢄ*5283ꢀꢄ,1&ꢅ    Page 53 ꢇꢑꢌꢑꢆꢑ 6&$/(ꢎꢄꢃꢉꢌꢐꢄ ꢄꢃꢑZRRGOH\architectural5 - UNIT CARRIAGE TOWNS | ADAPTIVE SPANISH A-3ꢇꢍꢅꢈꢈꢅꢈꢌJURXSꢀLQF PA N-12 | LEWIS MANAGEMENT COMPANY /0&ꢏꢈꢈꢇꢃcolorado // ꢁꢂꢃꢄVRXWKSDUNꢄGUꢅꢄVXLWHꢄ% ꢄꢄOLWWOHWRQꢀꢄFRꢄꢆꢇꢃꢈꢇꢄꢉꢄꢂꢇꢂꢄꢊꢆꢂꢅꢁꢈꢂꢃ california //ꢄꢈꢋꢌꢂꢄSXOOPDQꢄVWꢅꢄVXLWHꢄ$ ꢄꢄVDQWDꢄDQDꢀꢄFDꢄꢄꢋꢈꢁꢇꢍꢄꢉꢄꢋꢌꢋꢄꢍꢍꢂꢅꢆꢋꢃꢋRANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 127(ꢎꢄ648$5(ꢄ)227$*(ꢄ0$<ꢄ9$5<ꢄ%$6('ꢄ21ꢄ&$/&8/$7,21ꢄ0(7+2'6 7+(6(ꢄ'5$:,1*6ꢄ$5(ꢄ,17(1'('ꢄ)25ꢄ'(6,*1ꢄ'(9(/230(17ꢄ$1'ꢄ35(/,0,1$5<ꢄ678',(6ꢄ21/<ꢄ$1'ꢄ$5(ꢄ127ꢄ72ꢄ%(ꢄ86('ꢄ)25ꢄ$1<ꢄ27+(5ꢄ385326(ꢀꢄ68&+ꢄ$6ꢄ),1$/ꢄ3/277,1*ꢄ25ꢄ),1$/ꢄ(1*,1((5,1*ꢅꢄꢄ&23<5,*+7ꢄ:22'/(<ꢄ$5&+,7(&785$/ꢄ*5283ꢀꢄ,1&ꢅꢄ7+(6(ꢄ'5$:,1*6ꢄ0$<ꢄ127ꢄ%(ꢄ86('ꢄ25ꢄ'83/,&$7('ꢄ:,7+287ꢄ7+(ꢄ(;35(66ꢄ:5,77(1ꢄ3(50,66,21ꢄ2)ꢄ:22'/(<ꢄ$5&+,7(&785$/ꢄ*5283ꢀꢄ,1&ꢅ    Page 54 ꢇꢑꢆꢑꢃꢊꢑ 6&$/(ꢎꢄꢃꢉꢆꢐꢄ ꢄꢃꢑZRRGOH\architectural5 - UNIT CARRIAGE TOWNS | ADAPTIVE SPANISH A-4ꢇꢍꢅꢈꢈꢅꢈꢌJURXSꢀLQF PA N-12 | LEWIS MANAGEMENT COMPANY /0&ꢏꢈꢈꢇꢃcolorado // ꢁꢂꢃꢄVRXWKSDUNꢄGUꢅꢄVXLWHꢄ% ꢄꢄOLWWOHWRQꢀꢄFRꢄꢆꢇꢃꢈꢇꢄꢉꢄꢂꢇꢂꢄꢊꢆꢂꢅꢁꢈꢂꢃ california //ꢄꢈꢋꢌꢂꢄSXOOPDQꢄVWꢅꢄVXLWHꢄ$ ꢄꢄVDQWDꢄDQDꢀꢄFDꢄꢄꢋꢈꢁꢇꢍꢄꢉꢄꢋꢌꢋꢄꢍꢍꢂꢅꢆꢋꢃꢋRANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 127(ꢎꢄ648$5(ꢄ)227$*(ꢄ0$<ꢄ9$5<ꢄ%$6('ꢄ21ꢄ&$/&8/$7,21ꢄ0(7+2'6 7+(6(ꢄ'5$:,1*6ꢄ$5(ꢄ,17(1'('ꢄ)25ꢄ'(6,*1ꢄ'(9(/230(17ꢄ$1'ꢄ35(/,0,1$5<ꢄ678',(6ꢄ21/<ꢄ$1'ꢄ$5(ꢄ127ꢄ72ꢄ%(ꢄ86('ꢄ)25ꢄ$1<ꢄ27+(5ꢄ385326(ꢀꢄ68&+ꢄ$6ꢄ),1$/ꢄ3/277,1*ꢄ25ꢄ),1$/ꢄ(1*,1((5,1*ꢅꢄꢄ&23<5,*+7ꢄ:22'/(<ꢄ$5&+,7(&785$/ꢄ*5283ꢀꢄ,1&ꢅꢄ7+(6(ꢄ'5$:,1*6ꢄ0$<ꢄ127ꢄ%(ꢄ86('ꢄ25ꢄ'83/,&$7('ꢄ:,7+287ꢄ7+(ꢄ(;35(66ꢄ:5,77(1ꢄ3(50,66,21ꢄ2)ꢄ:22'/(<ꢄ$5&+,7(&785$/ꢄ*5283ꢀꢄ,1&ꢅ    Page 55 ꢇꢑꢌꢑꢆꢑ 6&$/(ꢎꢄꢃꢉꢌꢐꢄ ꢄꢃꢑZRRGOH\architectural7 - UNIT CARRIAGE TOWNS | ADAPTIVE CRAFTSMAN A-5ꢇꢍꢅꢈꢈꢅꢈꢌJURXSꢀLQF PA N-12 | LEWIS MANAGEMENT COMPANY /0&ꢏꢈꢈꢇꢃcolorado // ꢁꢂꢃꢄVRXWKSDUNꢄGUꢅꢄVXLWHꢄ% ꢄꢄOLWWOHWRQꢀꢄFRꢄꢆꢇꢃꢈꢇꢄꢉꢄꢂꢇꢂꢄꢊꢆꢂꢅꢁꢈꢂꢃ california //ꢄꢈꢋꢌꢂꢄSXOOPDQꢄVWꢅꢄVXLWHꢄ$ ꢄꢄVDQWDꢄDQDꢀꢄFDꢄꢄꢋꢈꢁꢇꢍꢄꢉꢄꢋꢌꢋꢄꢍꢍꢂꢅꢆꢋꢃꢋRANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 127(ꢎꢄ648$5(ꢄ)227$*(ꢄ0$<ꢄ9$5<ꢄ%$6('ꢄ21ꢄ&$/&8/$7,21ꢄ0(7+2'6 7+(6(ꢄ'5$:,1*6ꢄ$5(ꢄ,17(1'('ꢄ)25ꢄ'(6,*1ꢄ'(9(/230(17ꢄ$1'ꢄ35(/,0,1$5<ꢄ678',(6ꢄ21/<ꢄ$1'ꢄ$5(ꢄ127ꢄ72ꢄ%(ꢄ86('ꢄ)25ꢄ$1<ꢄ27+(5ꢄ385326(ꢀꢄ68&+ꢄ$6ꢄ),1$/ꢄ3/277,1*ꢄ25ꢄ),1$/ꢄ(1*,1((5,1*ꢅꢄꢄ&23<5,*+7ꢄ:22'/(<ꢄ$5&+,7(&785$/ꢄ*5283ꢀꢄ,1&ꢅꢄ7+(6(ꢄ'5$:,1*6ꢄ0$<ꢄ127ꢄ%(ꢄ86('ꢄ25ꢄ'83/,&$7('ꢄ:,7+287ꢄ7+(ꢄ(;35(66ꢄ:5,77(1ꢄ3(50,66,21ꢄ2)ꢄ:22'/(<ꢄ$5&+,7(&785$/ꢄ*5283ꢀꢄ,1&ꢅ    Page 56 ꢇꢑꢆꢑꢃꢊꢑ 6&$/(ꢎꢄꢃꢉꢆꢐꢄ ꢄꢃꢑZRRGOH\architectural7 - UNIT CARRIAGE TOWNS | ADAPTIVE CRAFTSMAN A-6ꢇꢍꢅꢈꢈꢅꢈꢌJURXSꢀLQF PA N-12 | LEWIS MANAGEMENT COMPANY /0&ꢏꢈꢈꢇꢃcolorado // ꢁꢂꢃꢄVRXWKSDUNꢄGUꢅꢄVXLWHꢄ% ꢄꢄOLWWOHWRQꢀꢄFRꢄꢆꢇꢃꢈꢇꢄꢉꢄꢂꢇꢂꢄꢊꢆꢂꢅꢁꢈꢂꢃ california //ꢄꢈꢋꢌꢂꢄSXOOPDQꢄVWꢅꢄVXLWHꢄ$ ꢄꢄVDQWDꢄDQDꢀꢄFDꢄꢄꢋꢈꢁꢇꢍꢄꢉꢄꢋꢌꢋꢄꢍꢍꢂꢅꢆꢋꢃꢋRANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 127(ꢎꢄ648$5(ꢄ)227$*(ꢄ0$<ꢄ9$5<ꢄ%$6('ꢄ21ꢄ&$/&8/$7,21ꢄ0(7+2'6 7+(6(ꢄ'5$:,1*6ꢄ$5(ꢄ,17(1'('ꢄ)25ꢄ'(6,*1ꢄ'(9(/230(17ꢄ$1'ꢄ35(/,0,1$5<ꢄ678',(6ꢄ21/<ꢄ$1'ꢄ$5(ꢄ127ꢄ72ꢄ%(ꢄ86('ꢄ)25ꢄ$1<ꢄ27+(5ꢄ385326(ꢀꢄ68&+ꢄ$6ꢄ),1$/ꢄ3/277,1*ꢄ25ꢄ),1$/ꢄ(1*,1((5,1*ꢅꢄꢄ&23<5,*+7ꢄ:22'/(<ꢄ$5&+,7(&785$/ꢄ*5283ꢀꢄ,1&ꢅꢄ7+(6(ꢄ'5$:,1*6ꢄ0$<ꢄ127ꢄ%(ꢄ86('ꢄ25ꢄ'83/,&$7('ꢄ:,7+287ꢄ7+(ꢄ(;35(66ꢄ:5,77(1ꢄ3(50,66,21ꢄ2)ꢄ:22'/(<ꢄ$5&+,7(&785$/ꢄ*5283ꢀꢄ,1&ꢅ    Page 57 ꢇꢑꢌꢑꢆꢑ 6&$/(ꢎꢄꢃꢉꢌꢐꢄ ꢄꢃꢑZRRGOH\architectural7 - UNIT CARRIAGE TOWNS | ADAPTIVE SPANISH A-7ꢇꢍꢅꢈꢈꢅꢈꢌJURXSꢀLQF PA N-12 | LEWIS MANAGEMENT COMPANY /0&ꢏꢈꢈꢇꢃcolorado // ꢁꢂꢃꢄVRXWKSDUNꢄGUꢅꢄVXLWHꢄ% ꢄꢄOLWWOHWRQꢀꢄFRꢄꢆꢇꢃꢈꢇꢄꢉꢄꢂꢇꢂꢄꢊꢆꢂꢅꢁꢈꢂꢃ california //ꢄꢈꢋꢌꢂꢄSXOOPDQꢄVWꢅꢄVXLWHꢄ$ ꢄꢄVDQWDꢄDQDꢀꢄFDꢄꢄꢋꢈꢁꢇꢍꢄꢉꢄꢋꢌꢋꢄꢍꢍꢂꢅꢆꢋꢃꢋRANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 127(ꢎꢄ648$5(ꢄ)227$*(ꢄ0$<ꢄ9$5<ꢄ%$6('ꢄ21ꢄ&$/&8/$7,21ꢄ0(7+2'6 7+(6(ꢄ'5$:,1*6ꢄ$5(ꢄ,17(1'('ꢄ)25ꢄ'(6,*1ꢄ'(9(/230(17ꢄ$1'ꢄ35(/,0,1$5<ꢄ678',(6ꢄ21/<ꢄ$1'ꢄ$5(ꢄ127ꢄ72ꢄ%(ꢄ86('ꢄ)25ꢄ$1<ꢄ27+(5ꢄ385326(ꢀꢄ68&+ꢄ$6ꢄ),1$/ꢄ3/277,1*ꢄ25ꢄ),1$/ꢄ(1*,1((5,1*ꢅꢄꢄ&23<5,*+7ꢄ:22'/(<ꢄ$5&+,7(&785$/ꢄ*5283ꢀꢄ,1&ꢅꢄ7+(6(ꢄ'5$:,1*6ꢄ0$<ꢄ127ꢄ%(ꢄ86('ꢄ25ꢄ'83/,&$7('ꢄ:,7+287ꢄ7+(ꢄ(;35(66ꢄ:5,77(1ꢄ3(50,66,21ꢄ2)ꢄ:22'/(<ꢄ$5&+,7(&785$/ꢄ*5283ꢀꢄ,1&ꢅ    Page 58 ꢇꢑꢆꢑꢃꢊꢑ 6&$/(ꢎꢄꢃꢉꢆꢐꢄ ꢄꢃꢑZRRGOH\architectural7 - UNIT CARRIAGE TOWNS | ADAPTIVE SPANISH A-8ꢇꢍꢅꢈꢈꢅꢈꢌJURXSꢀLQF PA N-12 | LEWIS MANAGEMENT COMPANY /0&ꢏꢈꢈꢇꢃcolorado // ꢁꢂꢃꢄVRXWKSDUNꢄGUꢅꢄVXLWHꢄ% ꢄꢄOLWWOHWRQꢀꢄFRꢄꢆꢇꢃꢈꢇꢄꢉꢄꢂꢇꢂꢄꢊꢆꢂꢅꢁꢈꢂꢃ california //ꢄꢈꢋꢌꢂꢄSXOOPDQꢄVWꢅꢄVXLWHꢄ$ ꢄꢄVDQWDꢄDQDꢀꢄFDꢄꢄꢋꢈꢁꢇꢍꢄꢉꢄꢋꢌꢋꢄꢍꢍꢂꢅꢆꢋꢃꢋRANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 127(ꢎꢄ648$5(ꢄ)227$*(ꢄ0$<ꢄ9$5<ꢄ%$6('ꢄ21ꢄ&$/&8/$7,21ꢄ0(7+2'6 7+(6(ꢄ'5$:,1*6ꢄ$5(ꢄ,17(1'('ꢄ)25ꢄ'(6,*1ꢄ'(9(/230(17ꢄ$1'ꢄ35(/,0,1$5<ꢄ678',(6ꢄ21/<ꢄ$1'ꢄ$5(ꢄ127ꢄ72ꢄ%(ꢄ86('ꢄ)25ꢄ$1<ꢄ27+(5ꢄ385326(ꢀꢄ68&+ꢄ$6ꢄ),1$/ꢄ3/277,1*ꢄ25ꢄ),1$/ꢄ(1*,1((5,1*ꢅꢄꢄ&23<5,*+7ꢄ:22'/(<ꢄ$5&+,7(&785$/ꢄ*5283ꢀꢄ,1&ꢅꢄ7+(6(ꢄ'5$:,1*6ꢄ0$<ꢄ127ꢄ%(ꢄ86('ꢄ25ꢄ'83/,&$7('ꢄ:,7+287ꢄ7+(ꢄ(;35(66ꢄ:5,77(1ꢄ3(50,66,21ꢄ2)ꢄ:22'/(<ꢄ$5&+,7(&785$/ꢄ*5283ꢀꢄ,1&ꢅ    Page 59 ꢇꢑꢌꢑꢆꢑ 6&$/(ꢎꢄꢃꢉꢌꢐꢄ ꢄꢃꢑZRRGOH\architectural4 - UNIT ROWTOWNS | ADAPTIVE CRAFTSMAN A-9ꢇꢍꢅꢈꢈꢅꢈꢌJURXSꢀLQF PA N-12 | LEWIS MANAGEMENT COMPANY /0&ꢏꢈꢈꢇꢃcolorado // ꢁꢂꢃꢄVRXWKSDUNꢄGUꢅꢄVXLWHꢄ% ꢄꢄOLWWOHWRQꢀꢄFRꢄꢆꢇꢃꢈꢇꢄꢉꢄꢂꢇꢂꢄꢊꢆꢂꢅꢁꢈꢂꢃ california //ꢄꢈꢋꢌꢂꢄSXOOPDQꢄVWꢅꢄVXLWHꢄ$ ꢄꢄVDQWDꢄDQDꢀꢄFDꢄꢄꢋꢈꢁꢇꢍꢄꢉꢄꢋꢌꢋꢄꢍꢍꢂꢅꢆꢋꢃꢋRANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 127(ꢎꢄ648$5(ꢄ)227$*(ꢄ0$<ꢄ9$5<ꢄ%$6('ꢄ21ꢄ&$/&8/$7,21ꢄ0(7+2'6 7+(6(ꢄ'5$:,1*6ꢄ$5(ꢄ,17(1'('ꢄ)25ꢄ'(6,*1ꢄ'(9(/230(17ꢄ$1'ꢄ35(/,0,1$5<ꢄ678',(6ꢄ21/<ꢄ$1'ꢄ$5(ꢄ127ꢄ72ꢄ%(ꢄ86('ꢄ)25ꢄ$1<ꢄ27+(5ꢄ385326(ꢀꢄ68&+ꢄ$6ꢄ),1$/ꢄ3/277,1*ꢄ25ꢄ),1$/ꢄ(1*,1((5,1*ꢅꢄꢄ&23<5,*+7ꢄ:22'/(<ꢄ$5&+,7(&785$/ꢄ*5283ꢀꢄ,1&ꢅꢄ7+(6(ꢄ'5$:,1*6ꢄ0$<ꢄ127ꢄ%(ꢄ86('ꢄ25ꢄ'83/,&$7('ꢄ:,7+287ꢄ7+(ꢄ(;35(66ꢄ:5,77(1ꢄ3(50,66,21ꢄ2)ꢄ:22'/(<ꢄ$5&+,7(&785$/ꢄ*5283ꢀꢄ,1&ꢅ    Page 60 ꢇꢑꢆꢑꢃꢊꢑ 6&$/(ꢎꢄꢃꢉꢆꢐꢄ ꢄꢃꢑZRRGOH\architectural4 - UNIT ROWTOWNS | ADAPTIVE CRAFTSMAN A-10ꢇꢍꢅꢈꢈꢅꢈꢌJURXSꢀLQF PA N-12 | LEWIS MANAGEMENT COMPANY /0&ꢏꢈꢈꢇꢃcolorado // ꢁꢂꢃꢄVRXWKSDUNꢄGUꢅꢄVXLWHꢄ% ꢄꢄOLWWOHWRQꢀꢄFRꢄꢆꢇꢃꢈꢇꢄꢉꢄꢂꢇꢂꢄꢊꢆꢂꢅꢁꢈꢂꢃ california //ꢄꢈꢋꢌꢂꢄSXOOPDQꢄVWꢅꢄVXLWHꢄ$ ꢄꢄVDQWDꢄDQDꢀꢄFDꢄꢄꢋꢈꢁꢇꢍꢄꢉꢄꢋꢌꢋꢄꢍꢍꢂꢅꢆꢋꢃꢋRANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 127(ꢎꢄ648$5(ꢄ)227$*(ꢄ0$<ꢄ9$5<ꢄ%$6('ꢄ21ꢄ&$/&8/$7,21ꢄ0(7+2'6 7+(6(ꢄ'5$:,1*6ꢄ$5(ꢄ,17(1'('ꢄ)25ꢄ'(6,*1ꢄ'(9(/230(17ꢄ$1'ꢄ35(/,0,1$5<ꢄ678',(6ꢄ21/<ꢄ$1'ꢄ$5(ꢄ127ꢄ72ꢄ%(ꢄ86('ꢄ)25ꢄ$1<ꢄ27+(5ꢄ385326(ꢀꢄ68&+ꢄ$6ꢄ),1$/ꢄ3/277,1*ꢄ25ꢄ),1$/ꢄ(1*,1((5,1*ꢅꢄꢄ&23<5,*+7ꢄ:22'/(<ꢄ$5&+,7(&785$/ꢄ*5283ꢀꢄ,1&ꢅꢄ7+(6(ꢄ'5$:,1*6ꢄ0$<ꢄ127ꢄ%(ꢄ86('ꢄ25ꢄ'83/,&$7('ꢄ:,7+287ꢄ7+(ꢄ(;35(66ꢄ:5,77(1ꢄ3(50,66,21ꢄ2)ꢄ:22'/(<ꢄ$5&+,7(&785$/ꢄ*5283ꢀꢄ,1&ꢅ    Page 61 ꢇꢑꢌꢑꢆꢑ 6&$/(ꢎꢄꢃꢉꢌꢐꢄ ꢄꢃꢑZRRGOH\architectural4 - UNIT ROWTOWNS | ADAPTIVE SPANISH A-11ꢇꢍꢅꢈꢈꢅꢈꢌJURXSꢀLQF PA N-12 | LEWIS MANAGEMENT COMPANY /0&ꢏꢈꢈꢇꢃcolorado // ꢁꢂꢃꢄVRXWKSDUNꢄGUꢅꢄVXLWHꢄ% ꢄꢄOLWWOHWRQꢀꢄFRꢄꢆꢇꢃꢈꢇꢄꢉꢄꢂꢇꢂꢄꢊꢆꢂꢅꢁꢈꢂꢃ california //ꢄꢈꢋꢌꢂꢄSXOOPDQꢄVWꢅꢄVXLWHꢄ$ ꢄꢄVDQWDꢄDQDꢀꢄFDꢄꢄꢋꢈꢁꢇꢍꢄꢉꢄꢋꢌꢋꢄꢍꢍꢂꢅꢆꢋꢃꢋRANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 127(ꢎꢄ648$5(ꢄ)227$*(ꢄ0$<ꢄ9$5<ꢄ%$6('ꢄ21ꢄ&$/&8/$7,21ꢄ0(7+2'6 7+(6(ꢄ'5$:,1*6ꢄ$5(ꢄ,17(1'('ꢄ)25ꢄ'(6,*1ꢄ'(9(/230(17ꢄ$1'ꢄ35(/,0,1$5<ꢄ678',(6ꢄ21/<ꢄ$1'ꢄ$5(ꢄ127ꢄ72ꢄ%(ꢄ86('ꢄ)25ꢄ$1<ꢄ27+(5ꢄ385326(ꢀꢄ68&+ꢄ$6ꢄ),1$/ꢄ3/277,1*ꢄ25ꢄ),1$/ꢄ(1*,1((5,1*ꢅꢄꢄ&23<5,*+7ꢄ:22'/(<ꢄ$5&+,7(&785$/ꢄ*5283ꢀꢄ,1&ꢅꢄ7+(6(ꢄ'5$:,1*6ꢄ0$<ꢄ127ꢄ%(ꢄ86('ꢄ25ꢄ'83/,&$7('ꢄ:,7+287ꢄ7+(ꢄ(;35(66ꢄ:5,77(1ꢄ3(50,66,21ꢄ2)ꢄ:22'/(<ꢄ$5&+,7(&785$/ꢄ*5283ꢀꢄ,1&ꢅ    Page 62 ꢇꢑꢆꢑꢃꢊꢑ 6&$/(ꢎꢄꢃꢉꢆꢐꢄ ꢄꢃꢑZRRGOH\architectural4 - UNIT ROWTOWNS | ADAPTIVE SPANISH A-12ꢇꢍꢅꢈꢈꢅꢈꢌJURXSꢀLQF PA N-12 | LEWIS MANAGEMENT COMPANY /0&ꢏꢈꢈꢇꢃcolorado // ꢁꢂꢃꢄVRXWKSDUNꢄGUꢅꢄVXLWHꢄ% ꢄꢄOLWWOHWRQꢀꢄFRꢄꢆꢇꢃꢈꢇꢄꢉꢄꢂꢇꢂꢄꢊꢆꢂꢅꢁꢈꢂꢃ california //ꢄꢈꢋꢌꢂꢄSXOOPDQꢄVWꢅꢄVXLWHꢄ$ ꢄꢄVDQWDꢄDQDꢀꢄFDꢄꢄꢋꢈꢁꢇꢍꢄꢉꢄꢋꢌꢋꢄꢍꢍꢂꢅꢆꢋꢃꢋRANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 127(ꢎꢄ648$5(ꢄ)227$*(ꢄ0$<ꢄ9$5<ꢄ%$6('ꢄ21ꢄ&$/&8/$7,21ꢄ0(7+2'6 7+(6(ꢄ'5$:,1*6ꢄ$5(ꢄ,17(1'('ꢄ)25ꢄ'(6,*1ꢄ'(9(/230(17ꢄ$1'ꢄ35(/,0,1$5<ꢄ678',(6ꢄ21/<ꢄ$1'ꢄ$5(ꢄ127ꢄ72ꢄ%(ꢄ86('ꢄ)25ꢄ$1<ꢄ27+(5ꢄ385326(ꢀꢄ68&+ꢄ$6ꢄ),1$/ꢄ3/277,1*ꢄ25ꢄ),1$/ꢄ(1*,1((5,1*ꢅꢄꢄ&23<5,*+7ꢄ:22'/(<ꢄ$5&+,7(&785$/ꢄ*5283ꢀꢄ,1&ꢅꢄ7+(6(ꢄ'5$:,1*6ꢄ0$<ꢄ127ꢄ%(ꢄ86('ꢄ25ꢄ'83/,&$7('ꢄ:,7+287ꢄ7+(ꢄ(;35(66ꢄ:5,77(1ꢄ3(50,66,21ꢄ2)ꢄ:22'/(<ꢄ$5&+,7(&785$/ꢄ*5283ꢀꢄ,1&ꢅ    Page 63 ꢇꢑꢌꢑꢆꢑ 6&$/(ꢎꢄꢃꢉꢌꢐꢄ ꢄꢃꢑZRRGOH\architectural5 - UNIT ROWTOWNS | ADAPTIVE CRAFTSMAN A-13ꢇꢍꢅꢈꢈꢅꢈꢌJURXSꢀLQF PA N-12 | LEWIS MANAGEMENT COMPANY /0&ꢏꢈꢈꢇꢃcolorado // ꢁꢂꢃꢄVRXWKSDUNꢄGUꢅꢄVXLWHꢄ% ꢄꢄOLWWOHWRQꢀꢄFRꢄꢆꢇꢃꢈꢇꢄꢉꢄꢂꢇꢂꢄꢊꢆꢂꢅꢁꢈꢂꢃ california //ꢄꢈꢋꢌꢂꢄSXOOPDQꢄVWꢅꢄVXLWHꢄ$ ꢄꢄVDQWDꢄDQDꢀꢄFDꢄꢄꢋꢈꢁꢇꢍꢄꢉꢄꢋꢌꢋꢄꢍꢍꢂꢅꢆꢋꢃꢋRANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 127(ꢎꢄ648$5(ꢄ)227$*(ꢄ0$<ꢄ9$5<ꢄ%$6('ꢄ21ꢄ&$/&8/$7,21ꢄ0(7+2'6 7+(6(ꢄ'5$:,1*6ꢄ$5(ꢄ,17(1'('ꢄ)25ꢄ'(6,*1ꢄ'(9(/230(17ꢄ$1'ꢄ35(/,0,1$5<ꢄ678',(6ꢄ21/<ꢄ$1'ꢄ$5(ꢄ127ꢄ72ꢄ%(ꢄ86('ꢄ)25ꢄ$1<ꢄ27+(5ꢄ385326(ꢀꢄ68&+ꢄ$6ꢄ),1$/ꢄ3/277,1*ꢄ25ꢄ),1$/ꢄ(1*,1((5,1*ꢅꢄꢄ&23<5,*+7ꢄ:22'/(<ꢄ$5&+,7(&785$/ꢄ*5283ꢀꢄ,1&ꢅꢄ7+(6(ꢄ'5$:,1*6ꢄ0$<ꢄ127ꢄ%(ꢄ86('ꢄ25ꢄ'83/,&$7('ꢄ:,7+287ꢄ7+(ꢄ(;35(66ꢄ:5,77(1ꢄ3(50,66,21ꢄ2)ꢄ:22'/(<ꢄ$5&+,7(&785$/ꢄ*5283ꢀꢄ,1&ꢅ    Page 64 ꢇꢑꢆꢑꢃꢊꢑ 6&$/(ꢎꢄꢃꢉꢆꢐꢄ ꢄꢃꢑZRRGOH\architectural5 - UNIT ROWTOWNS | ADAPTIVE CRAFTSMAN A-14ꢇꢍꢅꢈꢈꢅꢈꢌJURXSꢀLQF PA N-12 | LEWIS MANAGEMENT COMPANY /0&ꢏꢈꢈꢇꢃcolorado // ꢁꢂꢃꢄVRXWKSDUNꢄGUꢅꢄVXLWHꢄ% ꢄꢄOLWWOHWRQꢀꢄFRꢄꢆꢇꢃꢈꢇꢄꢉꢄꢂꢇꢂꢄꢊꢆꢂꢅꢁꢈꢂꢃ california //ꢄꢈꢋꢌꢂꢄSXOOPDQꢄVWꢅꢄVXLWHꢄ$ ꢄꢄVDQWDꢄDQDꢀꢄFDꢄꢄꢋꢈꢁꢇꢍꢄꢉꢄꢋꢌꢋꢄꢍꢍꢂꢅꢆꢋꢃꢋRANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 127(ꢎꢄ648$5(ꢄ)227$*(ꢄ0$<ꢄ9$5<ꢄ%$6('ꢄ21ꢄ&$/&8/$7,21ꢄ0(7+2'6 7+(6(ꢄ'5$:,1*6ꢄ$5(ꢄ,17(1'('ꢄ)25ꢄ'(6,*1ꢄ'(9(/230(17ꢄ$1'ꢄ35(/,0,1$5<ꢄ678',(6ꢄ21/<ꢄ$1'ꢄ$5(ꢄ127ꢄ72ꢄ%(ꢄ86('ꢄ)25ꢄ$1<ꢄ27+(5ꢄ385326(ꢀꢄ68&+ꢄ$6ꢄ),1$/ꢄ3/277,1*ꢄ25ꢄ),1$/ꢄ(1*,1((5,1*ꢅꢄꢄ&23<5,*+7ꢄ:22'/(<ꢄ$5&+,7(&785$/ꢄ*5283ꢀꢄ,1&ꢅꢄ7+(6(ꢄ'5$:,1*6ꢄ0$<ꢄ127ꢄ%(ꢄ86('ꢄ25ꢄ'83/,&$7('ꢄ:,7+287ꢄ7+(ꢄ(;35(66ꢄ:5,77(1ꢄ3(50,66,21ꢄ2)ꢄ:22'/(<ꢄ$5&+,7(&785$/ꢄ*5283ꢀꢄ,1&ꢅ    Page 65 ꢇꢑꢌꢑꢆꢑ 6&$/(ꢎꢄꢃꢉꢌꢐꢄ ꢄꢃꢑZRRGOH\architectural5 - UNIT ROWTOWNS | ADAPTIVE SPANISH A-15ꢇꢍꢅꢈꢈꢅꢈꢌJURXSꢀLQF PA N-12 | LEWIS MANAGEMENT COMPANY /0&ꢏꢈꢈꢇꢃcolorado // ꢁꢂꢃꢄVRXWKSDUNꢄGUꢅꢄVXLWHꢄ% ꢄꢄOLWWOHWRQꢀꢄFRꢄꢆꢇꢃꢈꢇꢄꢉꢄꢂꢇꢂꢄꢊꢆꢂꢅꢁꢈꢂꢃ california //ꢄꢈꢋꢌꢂꢄSXOOPDQꢄVWꢅꢄVXLWHꢄ$ ꢄꢄVDQWDꢄDQDꢀꢄFDꢄꢄꢋꢈꢁꢇꢍꢄꢉꢄꢋꢌꢋꢄꢍꢍꢂꢅꢆꢋꢃꢋRANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 127(ꢎꢄ648$5(ꢄ)227$*(ꢄ0$<ꢄ9$5<ꢄ%$6('ꢄ21ꢄ&$/&8/$7,21ꢄ0(7+2'6 7+(6(ꢄ'5$:,1*6ꢄ$5(ꢄ,17(1'('ꢄ)25ꢄ'(6,*1ꢄ'(9(/230(17ꢄ$1'ꢄ35(/,0,1$5<ꢄ678',(6ꢄ21/<ꢄ$1'ꢄ$5(ꢄ127ꢄ72ꢄ%(ꢄ86('ꢄ)25ꢄ$1<ꢄ27+(5ꢄ385326(ꢀꢄ68&+ꢄ$6ꢄ),1$/ꢄ3/277,1*ꢄ25ꢄ),1$/ꢄ(1*,1((5,1*ꢅꢄꢄ&23<5,*+7ꢄ:22'/(<ꢄ$5&+,7(&785$/ꢄ*5283ꢀꢄ,1&ꢅꢄ7+(6(ꢄ'5$:,1*6ꢄ0$<ꢄ127ꢄ%(ꢄ86('ꢄ25ꢄ'83/,&$7('ꢄ:,7+287ꢄ7+(ꢄ(;35(66ꢄ:5,77(1ꢄ3(50,66,21ꢄ2)ꢄ:22'/(<ꢄ$5&+,7(&785$/ꢄ*5283ꢀꢄ,1&ꢅ    Page 66 ꢇꢑꢆꢑꢃꢊꢑ 6&$/(ꢎꢄꢃꢉꢆꢐꢄ ꢄꢃꢑZRRGOH\architectural5 - UNIT ROWTOWNS | ADAPTIVE SPANISH A-16ꢇꢍꢅꢈꢈꢅꢈꢌJURXSꢀLQF PA N-12 | LEWIS MANAGEMENT COMPANY /0&ꢏꢈꢈꢇꢃcolorado // ꢁꢂꢃꢄVRXWKSDUNꢄGUꢅꢄVXLWHꢄ% ꢄꢄOLWWOHWRQꢀꢄFRꢄꢆꢇꢃꢈꢇꢄꢉꢄꢂꢇꢂꢄꢊꢆꢂꢅꢁꢈꢂꢃ california //ꢄꢈꢋꢌꢂꢄSXOOPDQꢄVWꢅꢄVXLWHꢄ$ ꢄꢄVDQWDꢄDQDꢀꢄFDꢄꢄꢋꢈꢁꢇꢍꢄꢉꢄꢋꢌꢋꢄꢍꢍꢂꢅꢆꢋꢃꢋRANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 127(ꢎꢄ648$5(ꢄ)227$*(ꢄ0$<ꢄ9$5<ꢄ%$6('ꢄ21ꢄ&$/&8/$7,21ꢄ0(7+2'6 7+(6(ꢄ'5$:,1*6ꢄ$5(ꢄ,17(1'('ꢄ)25ꢄ'(6,*1ꢄ'(9(/230(17ꢄ$1'ꢄ35(/,0,1$5<ꢄ678',(6ꢄ21/<ꢄ$1'ꢄ$5(ꢄ127ꢄ72ꢄ%(ꢄ86('ꢄ)25ꢄ$1<ꢄ27+(5ꢄ385326(ꢀꢄ68&+ꢄ$6ꢄ),1$/ꢄ3/277,1*ꢄ25ꢄ),1$/ꢄ(1*,1((5,1*ꢅꢄꢄ&23<5,*+7ꢄ:22'/(<ꢄ$5&+,7(&785$/ꢄ*5283ꢀꢄ,1&ꢅꢄ7+(6(ꢄ'5$:,1*6ꢄ0$<ꢄ127ꢄ%(ꢄ86('ꢄ25ꢄ'83/,&$7('ꢄ:,7+287ꢄ7+(ꢄ(;35(66ꢄ:5,77(1ꢄ3(50,66,21ꢄ2)ꢄ:22'/(<ꢄ$5&+,7(&785$/ꢄ*5283ꢀꢄ,1&ꢅ    Page 67 -.!5ꢃ1ꢂ= -ꢃ2",/= ꢈ.ꢃ'ꢂꢄ= ꢉꢊ= ꢀ,4.27ꢃ.ꢄ= ꢋꢃ%$/= ꢅ2ꢌ-ꢍꢇ=ꢀ,''3(!2ꢁ:= ꢀꢂ(2ꢂ.= ꢀ,4.27ꢃ.ꢄ/=ꢀ,.)ꢂ.= ,-ꢂ)= /-ꢃꢀꢂ= ꢋ#= %,ꢋ= ꢄꢂꢀ,.ꢃ2!5ꢂ= /ꢂꢃ2ꢎꢃ&&= ;= /7(2 ꢂ2"ꢀ= 24.ꢏ= ꢄ,ꢐ= .ꢂ&!ꢂꢏ= ꢃ.ꢂꢃ= ꢅ/ꢂꢂ= ꢂ($ꢃ.ꢆꢂ'ꢂ(0/ꢇ= ꢅ)%%(&l&ꢂ%ꢁl /ꢀ8ꢁl ꢀ'1ꢁ.&ꢂ#l/2-ꢃꢃ2l2-ꢃꢃ/l ꢄ9[[K9lOBT<STIjOO9l ꢆSOAl%BA9OOLSRl2XBBl /ꢁꢇ('ꢈꢂ.7l/3.ꢁꢁ1l4.ꢁꢁ/ꢉl*ꢂ2 )l2.ꢃꢃ/l ꢄCU=K[l=9R9A>R[K[lꢊꢋSUC[_l+9R[jꢌl ꢍSUC[^l*9R[jl.CA;dAl kl ꢄIK]9OT9l^9[INBR^CR[K[lꢎ,KRNlꢈ9gRꢏl ꢄIK_9OT9l #KGc\_WcPM9TSRK?dQl *WKeB`l ꢂU:dad[ꢐ%9UKR9ꢑl 0bU9g:CUUjl1UEl 29jOSUl"cRKTBVl!dRKT@Zd[lfKUHKRK9R9lꢒ29iOSUꢒl ꢅBW?KAKcPlIj;UKAlꢐꢈB[BY]l%c[BdQꢑl ꢓj:UKAl*9OSl5CUACl ꢔSOABRl.9KRl1UBCl ꢕU9T@%jU^O@ꢖ6IK^@ꢗl 0\‚„5mR59unHEˆ7ꢀ™ꢘUK[:9RClꢙShl$STJS[aBPSRl=SRFDU^d[lꢀꢁꢂꢁꢁL5A 5‡ˆBo5†5™ꢗꢘv#‡5UbꢁL5ꢙ—B™ꢁbvBꢂ.vvW^5yyWBꢃ™&WhhXB™.B@™.W@SqL™ vv>ꢁ™ cvB™ $5y5sAƒAꢄvdvw@™ ꢄB|`BcB”/™ B>LB™ ꢄŠ‘ŠƒkU;{wyM”cc5]5zvoW;5™ ꢅ5{B’>WŽ‹bƒ5™ꢅNwp>|vzBꢆ5bŒk†A=†v|Šk™ ꢀꢁꢂꢃꢄꢅꢆꢂ'ꢇꢄ&ꢈꢆ" ꢂ'ꢉꢀꢊꢋꢌꢍꢌꢎ' ꢇ[5qAcc5 ˆ5ƒk5pW:5ꢂ™/WO—A}/ˆ}A5_ꢈ™ ꢉ{BŽWbbB5ꢂ™/‹zB{8ꢈ™ ꢚ5zB™.ŒƒN™&W††bB™.BŽ™ꢛbjf&™ Wb”™ /ScA{/™ ˆ{A5_™ꢓX5e&™ Wb”™ /ŠzB€8ꢉ{BŽWbbB5™ .B>™4;:5™ BƒzB{5bvB y5~ŽSJgv{5™ ꢏꢐꢑ#ꢒ!ꢓ$ꢔ'ꢕꢂꢖꢗꢃꢁꢘ#ꢙ'ꢚꢛꢜ%ꢝ$ꢞꢚ' &UzzT5rv>UKbw{5ꢈ%Œ|5zU6ꢃ™ &vk5o>~5™“&™ vkbvp™ꢈ&WlA™1HIꢊ™ i”vzv{pꢋy5{ŽWJxcUŠk™ )cA5™AŠ{vy5A5ꢂ™'vq‡{5ꢌ™*ꢍ+ꢎꢏꢐꢑꢐꢒ™ +BsoWƒB†kꢈꢓ5W|”25Ucƒꢃ™ ,v>v;5{yƒ BbvqL5ˆŠƒꢃ'vok5bꢔ™ .M5zPVwbAyWƒ Wp>WB5™ 35’&™ B5F™-{WŽB†™%€5zY5™ '5†.™ ƒM™(ꢜꢚꢝ(ꢎ™&W††bB™)bbWB™ꢇ5}G™)bQ˜B™ ꢓ5W€•™15Wbƒ™ꢓwq‡5Wo™ꢉ}5ƒƒ™ aCCꢄ™ bA™4Abbvꢞ3vv@™ "o>W5t™!5†Mv{oB™ /_ •ƒ:5yA~/ApA:Zv™ 'BfWD5sꢓB5ˆPB{ꢉ|5ƒƒ™ ꢄW{>ꢟwFꢟ+5{5>WƒA™ /B;B?v F[;vW><ƒ ꢔ'vŠoꢕꢖAAƒ†ꢔ™ /ˆWy5 ˆAoWƒƒWk5™ /‰{BbW–W5{BLWs5B™ ꢑ9= 99= 'ꢃ!&= ꢒ,6ꢓ= ꢄ".ꢂꢀ2,.7= ꢅꢔꢇ= 1,2ꢃ$= ꢂꢁꢀꢁ ꢂꢁꢀꢁ <ꢕꢖꢗ ꢘ ꢀ,.(ꢂ.= ,-ꢂ*= /-ꢃꢀꢂ= ꢎ#= $,ꢎ= /ꢂꢃ2= ꢎꢃ$$= ;= ꢀ,''4+!18= -ꢃ2",= ꢈ4.(!24.ꢂ= ꢙꢚꢛꢜꢝ ꢗ'ꢃ/2ꢂ.= /2.ꢂꢂ2/ꢀꢃ-ꢂ= &ꢃ(ꢄ/ꢀꢃ-ꢂ= -ꢂ.= /ꢂ-ꢃ.ꢃ1ꢂ= -$ꢃ(= ꢅ2ꢌ-ꢞꢇ= ꢀꢁꢂꢁ ꢀꢁ ꢝ ꢞꢌl ꢃꢁ ꢀꢁꢂꢀꢁꢚꢛꢜlꢀꢁꢂꢃꢄꢅꢆꢇꢈꢆꢉꢊꢋꢇꢆꢀꢁꢂꢀꢃꢄꢅꢆꢇꢈꢉ ꢊꢇꢂꢋꢌꢀꢇꢄꢃꢉ ꢍꢇꢌꢅꢃꢎꢉ ꢄꢈꢇꢂꢉꢀꢁꢂꢃꢄꢅꢆ ꢇꢈꢉꢊꢋꢌꢆ ꢀꢁꢂ    Page 68 )(1&(ꢄꢅꢄ:$//ꢄ/(*(1' ꢉꢊꢇꢋꢆꢂꢇꢄ'(&25$7,9(ꢄ6($7:$// ꢂꢆꢇꢄ+7ꢈꢄ62/,'ꢄ678&&2ꢄ:$// ꢂꢆꢇꢄ+7ꢈꢄ&20%2ꢄ:$// ꢆꢂꢇꢄ+7ꢈꢄ678&&2ꢄ5$,6('ꢄ3/$17(5 ꢀꢁƒꢀꢁƒ ꢀꢁƒꢀꢁƒꢀꢁƒꢀꢁƒꢀꢁƒꢀꢁƒꢀꢁƒ 6723 ꢂꢃƒꢂꢃƒꢀꢁƒꢀꢁƒ ꢂꢃƒ ꢂꢃƒ ꢂꢃƒ ꢂꢃƒ ꢂꢃƒ ꢂꢃƒ ꢀꢁƒ ꢀꢁƒꢀꢁƒ ꢀꢁƒ ꢀꢁƒ (/(9$7,21ꢄꢄ$$ ꢂꢃƒ ꢂꢃƒ ꢂꢃƒ ꢀꢁƒ ꢂꢃƒ ꢀꢁƒꢀꢁƒꢀꢁƒꢂꢃƒ ꢀꢁƒꢀꢁƒꢀꢁƒꢀꢁƒꢂꢃƒꢂꢃƒꢂꢃƒꢀꢁƒ ꢂꢃƒꢂꢃƒꢂꢃƒ ꢀꢁƒꢀꢁƒ ꢀꢁƒ ꢀꢁƒ ꢂꢃƒꢀꢁƒ ꢀꢁƒ ꢀꢁƒꢀꢁƒ ꢂꢃƒꢂꢃƒꢂꢃƒ ꢂꢃƒ ꢂꢃƒ ꢂꢃƒ ꢂꢃƒꢂꢃƒꢂꢃƒ ꢀꢁƒꢀꢁƒ ꢀꢁƒꢂꢃƒ ꢀꢁƒ ꢀꢁƒ ꢀꢁƒ ꢀꢁƒ ꢂꢃƒꢀꢁƒꢀꢁƒꢀꢁƒꢀꢁƒꢀꢁƒꢀꢁƒ ꢀꢁƒ ꢀꢁƒ ꢀꢁƒ (/(9$7,21ꢄꢄ% ꢂꢃƒ ꢀꢁƒꢀꢁƒ ꢂꢃƒ ꢀꢁƒꢀꢁƒ ꢀꢁƒ ꢂꢃƒꢂꢃƒꢂꢃƒ ꢀꢁƒ ꢂꢃƒ ꢂꢃƒ ꢂꢃƒ ꢂꢃƒ ꢂꢃƒ ꢂꢃƒ ꢀꢁƒꢀꢁƒ ꢀꢁƒꢀꢁƒ % RESORT 2, n-12 /ꢀ -2%ꢄ12ꢈꢄꢆꢌꢋꢁꢆꢃ6(37ꢈꢄꢄꢁꢍꢎꢄꢆꢁꢆꢌ    Page 69 ꢃƵŝůĚŝŶŐ EƵŵďĞƌ ϭ ϭ ϭ ϭ ϭ ϭ ϭ Ϯ Ϯ Ϯ Ϯ Ϯ Ϯ ϯ ϯ ϯ ϯ ϯ ϯ ϯ ϰ ϰ ϰ ϰ ϰ ϰ ϱ ϱ ϱ ϱ ϱ ϲ ϲ ϲ ϲ ϲ ϳ ϳ ϳ ϳ ϳ ϴ ϴ ϴ ϴ ϴ ϴ ϴ ϴ ϵ ϵ ϵ ϵ ϵ ϵ hŶŝƚ EƵŵďĞƌ ϭ Ϯ ϯ ϰ ϱ ϲ ϳ WůĂŶ EƵŵďĞƌ ϯy ϭ Ϯ ϭ Ϯ ϭ ϯ ϯ Ϯ ϭ Ϯ ϭ ϯ ϯy ϭ Ϯ ϭ Ϯ ϭ ϯ ϯ ϭ Ϯ ϭ Ϯ ϯ ϯy ϭ Ϯ ϭ ϯ ϯy ϭ Ϯ ϭ ϯ ϯ ϭ Ϯ ϭ ϯy ϯ ϭ Ϯ ϭ Ϯ ϭ Ϯ ϯ ϯy ϭ Ϯ ϭ Ϯ ϭ Ϯ ϭ ϯ ϯy ϭ Ϯ ϭ Ϯ ϭ ϯ ϯy ϭ Ϯ ϭ ϯ ϯ ꢄůĞǀĂƚŝŽŶ ^ƚLJůĞ ꢅŽůŽƌ >Žƚ ꢅŽǀĞƌĂŐĞ Eͬꢂ Eͬꢂ Eͬꢂ Eͬꢂ Eͬꢂ Eͬꢂ Eͬꢂ Eͬꢂ Eͬꢂ Eͬꢂ Eͬꢂ Eͬꢂ Eͬꢂ Eͬꢂ Eͬꢂ Eͬꢂ Eͬꢂ Eͬꢂ Eͬꢂ Eͬꢂ Eͬꢂ Eͬꢂ Eͬꢂ Eͬꢂ Eͬꢂ Eͬꢂ Eͬꢂ Eͬꢂ Eͬꢂ Eͬꢂ Eͬꢂ Eͬꢂ Eͬꢂ Eͬꢂ Eͬꢂ Eͬꢂ Eͬꢂ Eͬꢂ Eͬꢂ Eͬꢂ Eͬꢂ Eͬꢂ Eͬꢂ Eͬꢂ Eͬꢂ Eͬꢂ Eͬꢂ Eͬꢂ Eͬꢂ Eͬꢂ Eͬꢂ Eͬꢂ Eͬꢂ Eͬꢂ Eͬꢂ Eͬꢂ Eͬꢂ Eͬꢂ Eͬꢂ Eͬꢂ Eͬꢂ Eͬꢂ Eͬꢂ Eͬꢂ Eͬꢂ Eͬꢂ Eͬꢂ Eͬꢂ Eͬꢂ Eͬꢂ Eͬꢂ Eͬꢂ Eͬꢂ Eͬꢂ Eͬꢂ Eͬꢂ Eͬꢂ Eͬꢂ Eͬꢂ Eͬꢂ Eͬꢂ Eͬꢂ Eͬꢂ Eͬꢂ The ResortꢀͲꢀPlanning Area 1B SubͲPlanning Area NͲ14 Lot 1 of Tract 20440 Design Review Checklist Summary Table September 21, 2023 ^ĐŚĞŵĞ Ϯ Ϯ Ϯ Ϯ Ϯ Ϯ Ϯ ϰ ϰ ϰ ϰ ϰ ϰ ϭ ϭ ϭ ϭ ϭ ϭ ϭ ϰ ϰ ϰ ϰ ϰ ϰ Ϯ Ϯ Ϯ Ϯ Ϯ ϯ ϯ ϯ ϯ ϯ ϭ ϭ ϭ ϭ ϭ ϯ ϯ ϯ ϯ ϯ ϯ ϯ ϯ ϭ ϭ ϭ ϭ ϭ ϭ ϭ ϭ ϭ Ϯ Ϯ Ϯ Ϯ Ϯ Ϯ Ϯ ϰ ϰ ϰ ϰ ϰ ϭ ϭ ϭ ϭ ϭ ϭ ϯ ϯ ϯ ϯ ϯ ϯ ϯ ϯ WƌĂŝƌŝĞ WƌĂŝƌŝĞ WƌĂŝƌŝĞ WƌĂŝƌŝĞ WƌĂŝƌŝĞ WƌĂŝƌŝĞ WƌĂŝƌŝĞ ^ƉĂŶŝƐŚ ^ƉĂŶŝƐŚ ^ƉĂŶŝƐŚ ^ƉĂŶŝƐŚ ^ƉĂŶŝƐŚ ^ƉĂŶŝƐŚ WƌĂŝƌŝĞ WƌĂŝƌŝĞ WƌĂŝƌŝĞ WƌĂŝƌŝĞ WƌĂŝƌŝĞ WƌĂŝƌŝĞ WƌĂŝƌŝĞ ^ƉĂŶŝƐŚ ^ƉĂŶŝƐŚ ^ƉĂŶŝƐŚ ^ƉĂŶŝƐŚ ^ƉĂŶŝƐŚ ^ƉĂŶŝƐŚ WƌĂŝƌŝĞ WƌĂŝƌŝĞ WƌĂŝƌŝĞ WƌĂŝƌŝĞ WƌĂŝƌŝĞ ^ƉĂŶŝƐŚ ^ƉĂŶŝƐŚ ^ƉĂŶŝƐŚ ^ƉĂŶŝƐŚ ^ƉĂŶŝƐŚ WƌĂŝƌŝĞ WƌĂŝƌŝĞ WƌĂŝƌŝĞ WƌĂŝƌŝĞ WƌĂŝƌŝĞ ^ƉĂŶŝƐŚ ^ƉĂŶŝƐŚ ^ƉĂŶŝƐŚ ^ƉĂŶŝƐŚ ^ƉĂŶŝƐŚ ^ƉĂŶŝƐŚ ^ƉĂŶŝƐŚ ^ƉĂŶŝƐŚ WƌĂŝƌŝĞ WƌĂŝƌŝĞ WƌĂŝƌŝĞ WƌĂŝƌŝĞ WƌĂŝƌŝĞ WƌĂŝƌŝĞ WƌĂŝƌŝĞ WƌĂŝƌŝĞ WƌĂŝƌŝĞ WƌĂŝƌŝĞ WƌĂŝƌŝĞ WƌĂŝƌŝĞ WƌĂŝƌŝĞ WƌĂŝƌŝĞ WƌĂŝƌŝĞ WƌĂŝƌŝĞ ^ƉĂŶŝƐŚ ^ƉĂŶŝƐŚ ^ƉĂŶŝƐŚ ^ƉĂŶŝƐŚ ^ƉĂŶŝƐŚ WƌĂŝƌŝĞ WƌĂŝƌŝĞ WƌĂŝƌŝĞ WƌĂŝƌŝĞ WƌĂŝƌŝĞ WƌĂŝƌŝĞ ^ƉĂŶŝƐŚ ^ƉĂŶŝƐŚ ^ƉĂŶŝƐŚ ^ƉĂŶŝƐŚ ^ƉĂŶŝƐŚ ^ƉĂŶŝƐŚ ^ƉĂŶŝƐŚ ^ƉĂŶŝƐŚ dĂŶĚĞŵ 'ĂƌĂŐĞ ^ƉĂĐĞƐ Ϯ Ϯ Ϯ Ϯ ϭϲϴ ZĞƐŝĚĞŶƚ WĂƌŬŝŶŐ ZĞƋƵŝƌĞĚ ZĞƋƵŝƌĞĚ ZĞƋƵŝƌĞĚ ϲϲ ϱϬ ϯϲ 'ƵĞƐƚ WĂƌŬŝŶŐ dŽƚĂů WĂƌŬŝŶŐ ϴ ϵ ϭϬ ϭϭ ϭϮ ϭϯ ϭϰ ϭϱ ϭϲ ϭϳ ϭϴ ϭϵ ϮϬ Ϯϭ ϮϮ Ϯϯ Ϯϰ Ϯϱ Ϯϲ Ϯϳ Ϯϴ Ϯϵ ϯϬ ϯϭ ϯϮ ϯϯ ϯϰ ϯϱ ϯϲ ϯϳ ϯϴ ϯϵ ϰϬ ϰϭ ϰϮ ϰϯ ϰϰ ϰϱ ϰϲ ϰϳ ϰϴ ϰϵ ϱϬ ϱϭ ϱϮ ϱϯ ϱϰ ϱϱ ϱϲ ϱϳ ϱϴ ϱϵ ϲϬ ϲϭ ϲϮ ϲϯ ϲϰ ϲϱ ϲϲ ϲϳ ϲϴ ϲϵ ϳϬ ϳϭ ϳϮ ϳϯ ϳϰ ϳϱ ϳϲ ϳϳ ϳϴ ϳϵ ϴϬ ϴϭ ϴϮ ϴϯ ϴϰ WůĂŶ η hŶŝƚƐ ϯϯ Ϯϱ ϭϴ ϴ й Dŝdž ϯϵй hŶŝƚ ^Ƌ &ƚ ꢃĞĚƌŽŽŵƐ ꢃĂƚŚƌŽŽŵƐ WůĂŶ ϭ WůĂŶ Ϯ WůĂŶ ϯ WůĂŶ ϯy dŽƚĂů ꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀϭ͕ϭϱϯ ꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀϭ͕ϱϱϯ ꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀϭ͕ϲϴϵ ꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀϭ͕ϳϬϭ ꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀꢀϭϮϬ͕ϴϴϰ Ϯ Ϯ ϯ Ϯ͘ϱ Ϯ͘ϱ Ϯ͘ϱ Ϯ͘ϱ ϳ ϱ ϰ Ϯ ϭϳ ϳϯ ϱϱ ϰϬ ϭϴ ϭϴϱ ϯϬй Ϯϭй ϭϬй ϭϬϬй ϯ ϭϲ ϭϲϴϴϰϭϵϰ WĂƌŬŝŶŐ ^ƉĂĐĞƐ WƌŽǀŝĚĞĚ 'ƵĞƐƚ WĂƌŬŝŶŐ ZĂƚŝŽ ϭ ͗ ϱ ϭϴϱ ꢃƵŝůĚŝŶŐ EƵŵďĞƌ ꢄůĞǀĂƚŝŽŶ ^ƚLJůĞ ꢅŽůŽƌ ^ĐŚĞŵĞ ꢅŽůŽƌ ^ĐŚĞŵĞ ϭ Ϯ ϯ ϰ η ŽĨ hŶŝƚƐ ZĞƉĞĂƚƐ ϰ ϯ ϯ ϯ ϭ Ϯ ϯ ϰ ϱ ϳ ϲ ϳ ϲ ϱ WƌĂŝƌŝĞ ^ƉĂŶŝƐŚ WƌĂŝƌŝĞ ^ƉĂŶŝƐŚ WƌĂŝƌŝĞ Ϯ ϰ ϭ ϰ Ϯ ϯ ϭ ϯ ϭ Ϯ ϰ ϭ ϯ dŽƚĂů ϭϯ ϲ ϳ ϴ ϱ ϱ ϴ ϵ ϳ ϱ ϲ ϴ ^ƉĂŶŝƐŚ WƌĂŝƌŝĞ ^ƉĂŶŝƐŚ WƌĂŝƌŝĞ WƌĂŝƌŝĞ ^ƉĂŶŝƐŚ WƌĂŝƌŝĞ ^ƉĂŶŝƐŚ ϵ ϭϬ ϭϭ ϭϮ ϭϯ dŽƚĂů ϴϰ BUILDING 9 BUILDING 10 BUILDING 11 BUILDING 12 BUILDING 13 BUILDING 1 ϵ ϵ ϵ ϭϬ ϭϬ ϭϬ ϭϬ ϭϬ ϭϬ ϭϬ ϭϭ ϭϭ ϭϭ ϭϭ ϭϭ ϭϮ ϭϮ ϭϮ ϭϮ ϭϮ ϭϮ ϭϯ ϭϯ ϭϯ ϭϯ ϭϯ ϭϯ ϭϯ ϭϯ Ϯ ϭ Ϯ ϭ ϯ ϯ Ϯ ϭ Ϯ ϭ Ϯ ϭBUILDING8 ϯBUILDING 7 BUILDING 6 BUILDING 5 BUILDING 4 BUILDING 3 BUILDING 2    Page 70 0'4'8' SCALE: 1/4" = 1'woodleyarchitectural5 - UNIT | ADAPTIVE PRAIRIE05.22.24 A-1 group,inc PA N-14 | LEWIS MANAGEMENT CORP.LMC-2301 colorado // 731 southpark dr. suite B littleton, co 80120 / 303 683.7231 california // 2943 pullman st. suite A santa ana, ca 92705 / 949 553.8919RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA NOTE: SQUARE FOOTAGE MAY VARY BASED ON CALCULATION METHODS THESE DRAWINGS ARE INTENDED FOR DESIGN DEVELOPMENT AND PRELIMINARY STUDIES ONLY AND ARE NOT TO BE USED FOR ANY OTHER PURPOSE, SUCH AS FINAL PLOTTING OR FINAL ENGINEERING. COPYRIGHT WOODLEY ARCHITECTURAL GROUP, INC. THESE DRAWINGS MAY NOT BE USED OR DUPLICATED WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN PERMISSION OF WOODLEY ARCHITECTURAL GROUP, INC.    Page 71    Page 72 0'8'16' SCALE: 1/8" = 1'woodleyarchitectural5 - UNIT | ADAPTIVE PRAIRIE05.22.24 A-2 group,inc PA N-14 | LEWIS MANAGEMENT CORP.LMC-2301 colorado // 731 southpark dr. suite B littleton, co 80120 / 303 683.7231 california // 2943 pullman st. suite A santa ana, ca 92705 / 949 553.8919RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA NOTE: SQUARE FOOTAGE MAY VARY BASED ON CALCULATION METHODS THESE DRAWINGS ARE INTENDED FOR DESIGN DEVELOPMENT AND PRELIMINARY STUDIES ONLY AND ARE NOT TO BE USED FOR ANY OTHER PURPOSE, SUCH AS FINAL PLOTTING OR FINAL ENGINEERING. COPYRIGHT WOODLEY ARCHITECTURAL GROUP, INC. THESE DRAWINGS MAY NOT BE USED OR DUPLICATED WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN PERMISSION OF WOODLEY ARCHITECTURAL GROUP, INC.    Page 73 05.22.24 A-3    Page 74 05.22.24 A-4    Page 75 0'4'8' SCALE: 1/4" = 1'woodleyarchitectural6 - UNIT | ADAPTIVE PRAIRIE05.22.24 A-5 group,inc PA N-14 | LEWIS MANAGEMENT CORP.LMC-2301 colorado // 731 southpark dr. suite B littleton, co 80120 / 303 683.7231 california // 2943 pullman st. suite A santa ana, ca 92705 / 949 553.8919RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA NOTE: SQUARE FOOTAGE MAY VARY BASED ON CALCULATION METHODS THESE DRAWINGS ARE INTENDED FOR DESIGN DEVELOPMENT AND PRELIMINARY STUDIES ONLY AND ARE NOT TO BE USED FOR ANY OTHER PURPOSE, SUCH AS FINAL PLOTTING OR FINAL ENGINEERING. COPYRIGHT WOODLEY ARCHITECTURAL GROUP, INC. THESE DRAWINGS MAY NOT BE USED OR DUPLICATED WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN PERMISSION OF WOODLEY ARCHITECTURAL GROUP, INC.    Page 76 0'8'16' SCALE: 1/8" = 1'woodleyarchitectural6 - UNIT | ADAPTIVE PRAIRIE05.22.24 A-6 group,inc PA N-14 | LEWIS MANAGEMENT CORP.LMC-2301 colorado // 731 southpark dr. suite B littleton, co 80120 / 303 683.7231 california // 2943 pullman st. suite A santa ana, ca 92705 / 949 553.8919RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA NOTE: SQUARE FOOTAGE MAY VARY BASED ON CALCULATION METHODS THESE DRAWINGS ARE INTENDED FOR DESIGN DEVELOPMENT AND PRELIMINARY STUDIES ONLY AND ARE NOT TO BE USED FOR ANY OTHER PURPOSE, SUCH AS FINAL PLOTTING OR FINAL ENGINEERING. COPYRIGHT WOODLEY ARCHITECTURAL GROUP, INC. THESE DRAWINGS MAY NOT BE USED OR DUPLICATED WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN PERMISSION OF WOODLEY ARCHITECTURAL GROUP, INC.    Page 77 05.22.24 A-7    Page 78 05.22.24 A-8    Page 79 0'4'8' SCALE: 1/4" = 1'woodleyarchitectural7 - UNIT | ADAPTIVE PRAIRIE05.22.24 A-9 group,inc PA N-14 | LEWIS MANAGEMENT CORP.LMC-2301 colorado // 731 southpark dr. suite B littleton, co 80120 / 303 683.7231 california // 2943 pullman st. suite A santa ana, ca 92705 / 949 553.8919RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA NOTE: SQUARE FOOTAGE MAY VARY BASED ON CALCULATION METHODS THESE DRAWINGS ARE INTENDED FOR DESIGN DEVELOPMENT AND PRELIMINARY STUDIES ONLY AND ARE NOT TO BE USED FOR ANY OTHER PURPOSE, SUCH AS FINAL PLOTTING OR FINAL ENGINEERING. COPYRIGHT WOODLEY ARCHITECTURAL GROUP, INC. THESE DRAWINGS MAY NOT BE USED OR DUPLICATED WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN PERMISSION OF WOODLEY ARCHITECTURAL GROUP, INC.    Page 80 0'8'16' SCALE: 1/8" = 1'woodleyarchitectural7 - UNIT | ADAPTIVE PRAIRIE05.22.24 A-10 group,inc PA N-14 | LEWIS MANAGEMENT CORP.LMC-2301 colorado // 731 southpark dr. suite B littleton, co 80120 / 303 683.7231 california // 2943 pullman st. suite A santa ana, ca 92705 / 949 553.8919RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA NOTE: SQUARE FOOTAGE MAY VARY BASED ON CALCULATION METHODS THESE DRAWINGS ARE INTENDED FOR DESIGN DEVELOPMENT AND PRELIMINARY STUDIES ONLY AND ARE NOT TO BE USED FOR ANY OTHER PURPOSE, SUCH AS FINAL PLOTTING OR FINAL ENGINEERING. COPYRIGHT WOODLEY ARCHITECTURAL GROUP, INC. THESE DRAWINGS MAY NOT BE USED OR DUPLICATED WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN PERMISSION OF WOODLEY ARCHITECTURAL GROUP, INC.    Page 81 05.22.24 A-11    Page 82 05.22.24 A-12    Page 83 0'4'8' SCALE: 1/4" = 1'woodleyarchitectural8 - UNIT | ADAPTIVE PRAIRIE05.22.24 A-13 group,inc PA N-14 | LEWIS MANAGEMENT CORP.LMC-2301 colorado // 731 southpark dr. suite B littleton, co 80120 / 303 683.7231 california // 2943 pullman st. suite A santa ana, ca 92705 / 949 553.8919RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA NOTE: SQUARE FOOTAGE MAY VARY BASED ON CALCULATION METHODS THESE DRAWINGS ARE INTENDED FOR DESIGN DEVELOPMENT AND PRELIMINARY STUDIES ONLY AND ARE NOT TO BE USED FOR ANY OTHER PURPOSE, SUCH AS FINAL PLOTTING OR FINAL ENGINEERING. COPYRIGHT WOODLEY ARCHITECTURAL GROUP, INC. THESE DRAWINGS MAY NOT BE USED OR DUPLICATED WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN PERMISSION OF WOODLEY ARCHITECTURAL GROUP, INC.    Page 84 0'8'16' SCALE: 1/8" = 1'woodleyarchitectural8 - UNIT | ADAPTIVE PRAIRIE05.22.24 A-14 group,inc PA N-14 | LEWIS MANAGEMENT CORP.LMC-2301 colorado // 731 southpark dr. suite B littleton, co 80120 / 303 683.7231 california // 2943 pullman st. suite A santa ana, ca 92705 / 949 553.8919RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA NOTE: SQUARE FOOTAGE MAY VARY BASED ON CALCULATION METHODS THESE DRAWINGS ARE INTENDED FOR DESIGN DEVELOPMENT AND PRELIMINARY STUDIES ONLY AND ARE NOT TO BE USED FOR ANY OTHER PURPOSE, SUCH AS FINAL PLOTTING OR FINAL ENGINEERING. COPYRIGHT WOODLEY ARCHITECTURAL GROUP, INC. THESE DRAWINGS MAY NOT BE USED OR DUPLICATED WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN PERMISSION OF WOODLEY ARCHITECTURAL GROUP, INC.    Page 85 05.22.24 A-15    Page 86 05.22.24 A-16    Page 87 0'4'8' SCALE: 1/4" = 1'woodleyarchitectural9 - UNIT | ADAPTIVE PRAIRIE05.22.24 A-17 group,inc PA N-14 | LEWIS MANAGEMENT CORP.LMC-2301 colorado // 731 southpark dr. suite B littleton, co 80120 / 303 683.7231 california // 2943 pullman st. suite A santa ana, ca 92705 / 949 553.8919RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA NOTE: SQUARE FOOTAGE MAY VARY BASED ON CALCULATION METHODS THESE DRAWINGS ARE INTENDED FOR DESIGN DEVELOPMENT AND PRELIMINARY STUDIES ONLY AND ARE NOT TO BE USED FOR ANY OTHER PURPOSE, SUCH AS FINAL PLOTTING OR FINAL ENGINEERING. COPYRIGHT WOODLEY ARCHITECTURAL GROUP, INC. THESE DRAWINGS MAY NOT BE USED OR DUPLICATED WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN PERMISSION OF WOODLEY ARCHITECTURAL GROUP, INC.    Page 88 0'8'16' SCALE: 1/8" = 1'woodleyarchitectural9 - UNIT | ADAPTIVE PRAIRIE05.22.24 A-18 group,inc PA N-14 | LEWIS MANAGEMENT CORP.LMC-2301 colorado // 731 southpark dr. suite B littleton, co 80120 / 303 683.7231 california // 2943 pullman st. suite A santa ana, ca 92705 / 949 553.8919RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA NOTE: SQUARE FOOTAGE MAY VARY BASED ON CALCULATION METHODS THESE DRAWINGS ARE INTENDED FOR DESIGN DEVELOPMENT AND PRELIMINARY STUDIES ONLY AND ARE NOT TO BE USED FOR ANY OTHER PURPOSE, SUCH AS FINAL PLOTTING OR FINAL ENGINEERING. COPYRIGHT WOODLEY ARCHITECTURAL GROUP, INC. THESE DRAWINGS MAY NOT BE USED OR DUPLICATED WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN PERMISSION OF WOODLEY ARCHITECTURAL GROUP, INC.    Page 89 05.22.24 A-19    Page 90 05.22.24 A-20    Page 91    Page 92    Page 93 ꢉꢁꢈꢁꢏ ꢉꢁꢈꢁꢏ ꢉꢁꢈꢁꢏꢉꢁꢈꢁꢏ5ꢃꢈꢁꢏ 5ꢆꢁꢈꢁꢏ ꢆꢂꢈꢁꢏ ꢆꢍꢈꢁꢏꢆꢍꢈꢁꢏ 5ꢉꢐꢈꢁꢏ5ꢆꢁꢈꢁꢏ ꢉꢌꢈꢆꢏꢉꢇꢅꢅ 500A Project Summary =RQH ꢆꢂꢈꢁꢏTotal Site Area: + 4.9 Acresꢉꢁꢈꢁꢏꢉꢁꢈꢃꢏ ꢉꢁꢈꢁꢏTotal Units:99 Homes ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ (32) Plan 1: 1,893 SF | 3 BD | 2.5 BA | Work Space | Opt. Bdrm 4+ ba | 2-Car Garageꢉꢆꢈꢐꢏꢆꢁꢈꢁꢏ(37) Plan 2: 2,000 SF | 4 BD | 3.5 BA | Tech | Opt. Flex | 2-Car Garage (21) Plan 3: 2,244 SF | 4 BD | 3.5 | Opt Flex | 2-Car Garage (09) Plan 3X: 2,244 SF | 4 BD | 3.5 | Opt Flex | 2-Car Garageꢆꢆꢈꢁꢏ ꢍꢈꢃꢏꢆꢊꢈꢁꢏDensity: Parking: 20.2 Homes per Acre ꢉꢁꢈꢁꢏ ꢆꢁꢈꢃꢏ Required: 252 Spaces (2.55 spaces per home) ƒ (32) 3 Bedroom x 2.0 Spaces = 64 Spaces ƒ (67) 4 Bedroom x 2.5 Spaces = 168 Spaces (99) Guest x 0.2 Spaces = 20 Spacesƒꢆꢆꢈꢁꢏ ꢆꢊꢈꢁꢏ ꢉꢁꢈꢁꢏ 5ꢆꢁꢈꢁꢏProvided: 252 Spaces (2.55 spaces per home) ƒ Garage: 198 Spacesꢌꢂꢈꢁꢏ ƒ Head In: 08 Spaces (9' x 18') ƒ Parallel: 11 Spaces (8' x 22') ƒ "B" Street: 15 Spaces ꢉꢆꢈꢁꢏ ꢆꢁꢈꢃꢏ ꢉꢁꢈꢁꢏƒ "D" Street: 20 Spaces ꢆꢊꢈꢁꢏ ꢆꢆꢈꢁꢏ ꢆꢊꢈꢁꢏ Open Space: Required: 14,850 SF Total (150 SF per home) ***May be provided in private, common, or a combination of these spaces. See Table 9.3 in the Resort North Specific Plan Provided: 35,431 SF Total (358 SF per home) ƒ Common: 21,212 SF ƒ Private: 14,219 SF (Private 2nd floor deck space also included) ƒƒ (5' Min. Dimension) Lot Coverage: 86,017 SF (40% of site) Zoning Summary Existing Zoning:Village Neighborhood (VN) per Resort North Specific Plan Max. Density:28 Homes per Acre Building Setbacks:Front Yard: 10' Interior Side Yard: 10' Street Side Yard: 10' Rear Yard: 10' Max. Building Height: 45' height within 20' of PA1B boundary line Max Lot Coverage: No MaximumCONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN THE RESORT - NORTH OF 6TH: PA N-15 SP-1 ꢅꢆꢂꢀꢃꢄ 5$1&+2ꢀ&8&$021*$ꢁꢀ&$DESIGN REVIEW ‹ꢀꢀꢇꢂꢇꢃꢀ:,//,$0ꢀ+(=0$/+$/&+ꢀ$5&+,7(&76ꢁꢀ,1&ꢈꢀ'%$ꢀ:+$ꢈ _ꢀꢇꢂꢇꢉꢂꢊꢃꢀꢀ_ꢀꢀꢂꢆꢋꢂꢉꢋꢇꢃORANGE COUNTY . LOS ANGELES . BAY AREA . SACRAMENTO    Page 94 Right Elevation Rear Elevation Partial Rear Elevation Side Entry Condition at Woonerf Refer to Site Plan for Locations Highest Ridge T.O.P. F.F. T.O.P. F.F. T.O.P. F.F. Finish Grade Varies per Civil Note: Artist’s conception; colors, materials and application may vary.Left Elevation Left Elevation artial Fr nt El vati r nt El vati Side Entry Condition at Woonerf Refer to Site Plan for Locations Side Entry Condition at Woonerf Refer to Site Plan for Locations Color Scheme 1 of 6 Shown (Refer to Color and Materials Sheets) BUILDING MATERIAL: SPANISH STYLE Roof: Exterior: Accents: Concrete “S” Tile Roof Stucco Finish Awnings, Gable Tiles Window & Door Trim: Stucco Over Foam Spanish StyleWindow Accents: Entry Door: Fiber Cement Trims Decorative Front Entry Door Awning with Brackets Sectional Garage Doors Entry Accents: Garage Door:3-PLEX ROW TOWNHOMES| Bldg. 300A Conceptual Elevations THE RESORT - NORTH OF 6TH: PA N-15 A-1 16048 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA DESIGN REVIEW ©2024 WILLIAM HEZMALHALCH ARCHITECTS, INC. DBA WHA. | 2023074 |07-16-24 ORANGE COUNTY . LOS ANGELES . BAY AREA . SACRAMENTO    Page 95 Right Elevation Rear Elevation Highest Ridge T.O.P. F.F. T.O.P. F.F. T.O.P. F.F. Finish Grade Varies per Civil Note: Artist’s conception; colors, materials and application may vary.Left Elevation Partial Left Elevation artial Fr nt El vati r nt El vati Side Entry Condition at Woonerf Refer to Site Plan for Locations Side Entry Condition at Woonerf Refer to Site Plan for Locations Color Scheme 3 of 6 Shown (Refer to Color and Materials Sheets) BUILDING MATERIAL: PRAIRIE STYLE Roof: Exterior: Concrete Flat Tile Roof, Parapet Stucco Finish Accents: Deck Accents: Lap Siding, Stone Veneer Horizontal Decorative Metal Rails Prairie Style Window & Door Trim: Stucco Over Foam, Fiber Cement Entry Door: Garage Door: Decorative Front Entry Door Sectional Garage Doors 3-PLEX ROW TOWNHOMES| Bldg. 300B Conceptual Elevations THE RESORT - NORTH OF 6TH: PA N-15 A-204816 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA DESIGN REVIEW ©2024 WILLIAM HEZMALHALCH ARCHITECTS, INC. DBA WHA. | 2023074 |07-16-24 ORANGE COUNTY . LOS ANGELES . BAY AREA . SACRAMENTO    Page 96 Partial Right Elevation Right Elevation artial R ar El vati Rear Elevation Side Entry Condition at Woonerf Refer to Site Plan for Locations Side Entry Condition at Woonerf Refer to Site Plan for Locations Highest Ridge T.O.P. F.F. T.O.P. F.F. T.O.P. F.F. Finish Grade Varies per Civil Note: Artist’s conception; colors, materials and application may vary.Left Elevation r nt El vati artial Fr nt El vati Color Scheme 2 of 6 Shown (Refer to Color and Materials Sheets) Side Entry Condition at Woonerf Refer to Site Plan for Locations BUILDING MATERIAL: SPANISH STYLE Roof: Exterior: Accents: Concrete “S” Tile Roof Stucco Finish Awnings, Gable Tiles Window & Door Trim: Stucco Over Foam Spanish StyleWindow Accents: Entry Door: Fiber Cement Trims Decorative Front Entry Door Awning with Brackets Sectional Garage Doors Entry Accents: Garage Door:4-PLEX ROW TOWNHOMES| Bldg. 400A Conceptual Elevations THE RESORT - NORTH OF 6TH: PA N-15 A-3 16048 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA DESIGN REVIEW ©2024 WILLIAM HEZMALHALCH ARCHITECTS, INC. DBA WHA. | 2023074 |07-16-24 ORANGE COUNTY . LOS ANGELES . BAY AREA . SACRAMENTO    Page 97 Right Elevation Rear Elevation Highest Ridge T.O.P. F.F. T.O.P. F.F. T.O.P. F.F. Finish Grade Varies per Civil Note: Artist’s conception; colors, materials and application may vary.Left Elevation r nt El vati Color Scheme 6 of 6 Shown (Refer to Color and Materials Sheets) BUILDING MATERIAL: HERITAGE STYLE Roof: Exterior: Accents: Concrete Flat Tile Roof, Parapet Stucco Finish Board and Batten Siding, Brick Veneer Window & Door Trim: Fiber Cement Trims Heritage StyleDeck Accents: Entry Door: Decorative Metal Rails Decorative Front Entry Door Metal Roof Awning with Brackets Sectional Garage Doors Entry Accents: Garage Door:4-PLEX ROW TOWNHOMES| Bldg. 400C Conceptual Elevations THE RESORT - NORTH OF 6TH: PA N-15 A-404816 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA DESIGN REVIEW ©2024 WILLIAM HEZMALHALCH ARCHITECTS, INC. DBA WHA. | 2023074 |07-16-24 ORANGE COUNTY . LOS ANGELES . BAY AREA . SACRAMENTO    Page 98 Right Elevation Rear Elevation Highest Ridge T.O.P. F.F. T.O.P. F.F. T.O.P. F.F. Finish Grade Varies per Civil Note: Artist’s conception; colors, materials and application may vary.Left Elevation r nt El vati Color Scheme 1 of 6 Shown (Refer to Color and Materials Sheets) BUILDING MATERIAL: SPANISH STYLE Roof: Exterior: Accents: Concrete “S” Tile Roof Stucco Finish Awnings, Gable Tiles Window & Door Trim: Stucco Over Foam Spanish StyleWindow Accents: Entry Door: Fiber Cement Trims Decorative Front Entry Door Awning with Brackets Sectional Garage Doors Entry Accents: Garage Door:5-PLEX ROW TOWNHOMES| Bldg. 500A Conceptual Elevations THE RESORT - NORTH OF 6TH: PA N-15 A-504816 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA DESIGN REVIEW ©2024 WILLIAM HEZMALHALCH ARCHITECTS, INC. DBA WHA. | 2023074 |07-16-24 ORANGE COUNTY . LOS ANGELES . BAY AREA . SACRAMENTO    Page 99 Right Elevation Rear Elevation Highest Ridge T.O.P. F.F. T.O.P. F.F. T.O.P. F.F. Finish Grade Varies per Civil Note: Artist’s conception; colors, materials and application may vary.Left Elevation r nt El vati Color Scheme 4 of 6 Shown (Refer to Color and Materials Sheets) BUILDING MATERIAL: PRAIRIE STYLE Roof: Exterior: Concrete Flat Tile Roof, Parapet Stucco Finish Accents: Deck Accents: Lap Siding, Stone Veneer Horizontal Decorative Metal Rails Prairie Style Window & Door Trim: Stucco Over Foam, Fiber Cement Entry Door: Garage Door: Decorative Front Entry Door Sectional Garage Doors 5-PLEX ROW TOWNHOMES| Bldg. 500B Conceptual Elevations THE RESORT - NORTH OF 6TH: PA N-15 A-604816 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA DESIGN REVIEW ©2024 WILLIAM HEZMALHALCH ARCHITECTS, INC. DBA WHA. | 2023074 |07-16-24 ORANGE COUNTY . LOS ANGELES . BAY AREA . SACRAMENTO    Page 100 Right Elevation ar El vati Highest Ridge T.O.P. F.F. T.O.P. F.F. T.O.P. F.F. Finish Grade Varies per Civil Note: Artist’s conception; colors, materials and application may vary.Left Elevation r nt El vati Color Scheme 3 of 6 Shown (Refer to Color and Materials Sheets) BUILDING MATERIAL: PRAIRIE STYLE Roof: Exterior: Concrete Flat Tile Roof, Parapet Stucco Finish Accents: Deck Accents: Lap Siding, Stone Veneer Horizontal Decorative Metal Rails Prairie Style Window & Door Trim: Stucco Over Foam, Fiber Cement Entry Door: Garage Door: Decorative Front Entry Door Sectional Garage Doors 6-PLEX ROW TOWNHOMES| Bldg. 600B Conceptual Elevations THE RESORT - NORTH OF 6TH: PA N-15 A-704816 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA DESIGN REVIEW ©2024 WILLIAM HEZMALHALCH ARCHITECTS, INC. DBA WHA. | 2023074 |07-16-24 ORANGE COUNTY . LOS ANGELES . BAY AREA . SACRAMENTO    Page 101 Right Elevation ar El vati Highest Ridge T.O.P. F.F. T.O.P. F.F. T.O.P. F.F. Finish Grade Varies per Civil Note: Artist’s conception; colors, materials and application may vary.Left Elevation r nt El vati Color Scheme 5 of 6 Shown (Refer to Color and Materials Sheets) BUILDING MATERIAL: HERITAGE STYLE Roof: Exterior: Accents: Concrete Flat Tile Roof, Parapet Stucco Finish Board and Batten Siding, Brick Veneer Window & Door Trim: Fiber Cement Trims Heritage StyleDeck Accents: Entry Door: Decorative Metal Rails Decorative Front Entry Door Metal Roof Awning with Brackets Sectional Garage Doors Entry Accents: Garage Door:6-PLEX ROW TOWNHOMES| Bldg. 600C Conceptual Elevations THE RESORT - NORTH OF 6TH: PA N-15 A-804816 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA DESIGN REVIEW ©2024 WILLIAM HEZMALHALCH ARCHITECTS, INC. DBA WHA. | 2023074 |07-16-24 ORANGE COUNTY . LOS ANGELES . BAY AREA . SACRAMENTO    Page 102    Page 103    Page 104 ATTACHMENT A ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS FOR A PROJECT WITH PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT The following analysis addresses the potential impacts from The Resort Specific Plan – PA 1B Parcels N- 12, N-14, and N-15 Projects (proposed Projects) in relation to the analysis presented in the Empire Lakes/Rancho Cucamonga Industrial Area Specific Plan Sub-Area 18 Specific Plan Amendment Project Final Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) certified in May 2016 (Empire Lakes Specific Plan Amendment Final EIR or Final EIR) (State Clearinghouse [SCH] No. 2015041083). The discussion below is formatted to address each of the thresholds addressed in the Final EIR, and the thresholds that were addressed in the Initial Study prepared for the Empire Lakes Specific Plan Amendment Draft EIR. It should be noted that, consistent with the conclusions in the Initial Study, there are no agricultural, forestry or mineral resources located in Planning Area (PA) 1B of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan area (now referred to as The Resort Specific Plan PA 1B), including at Parcels N-12, N-14 and N-15, and no further discussion of these topical issues is provided. Applicable Project Design Features (PDFs), Regulatory Requirements (RRs), and Mitigation Measures (MMs) from the Empire Lakes Specific Plan Amendment Final EIR are incorporated into the proposed Projects as required by the City, some of which are specifically referenced below. 1.0 AESTHETICS EIR Threshold 1.1 Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? The proposed Projects involve the development of 258 townhomes (75 in Parcel N-12, 84 in Parcel N-14, and 99 in Parcel N-15) within PA 1B, which includes the area south of the railroad tracks, north of 6th Street and east of The Resort Parkway. The proposed development complies with the development standards in The Resort Specific Plan and the Design Concept for view corridors, including along The Resort Parkway (referred to the Final EIR as The Vine). Consistent with the approved Empire Lakes Specific Plan Amendment Project (Approved Project) and the analysis in the Final EIR, due to the location of the proposed Projects in the southern area of the City and the lack of scenic resources in the immediate area, the proposed development will not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic resource. No new or substantially more severe impacts will result from implementation of the proposed Projects. EIR Threshold 1.2 Would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? The Final EIR concluded that changes in the visual character of the Specific Plan area (as seen by those traveling along adjacent roadways, adjacent residents, and adjacent employees) would occur with removal of the former golf course and implementation of development allowed by the Approved Project. However, development of the proposed buildings and the associated uses in compliance with the development standards and design guidelines identified in the Specific Plan, including height restrictions (refer to Final EIR PDF 1-1) and Final EIR PDF 1-2 would create a visually cohesive community that would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. Impacts were determined to be less than significant. 1    Page 105 The types and methods of construction activities for the proposed Projects are consistent with those identified and evaluated in the Final EIR. Construction staging will be located as far as possible from existing residential neighborhoods east of the Specific Plan area, and perimeter screening will be installed around the construction sites, which will obstruct views of ongoing construction activities from adjacent ground level vantage points (Final EIR PDF 1-2). Trees previously located within PA 1B (including within Parcels N-12, N-4 and N-15), which were associated with the former golf course, have been removed and some grading has been completed. The proposed Projects will comply with the development standards and design guidelines (architectural and landscape) identified in the Specific Plan, including height restrictions (refer to Final EIR PDF 1-1), and will create a visually cohesive urban community. Consistent with the conclusions in the Final EIR, the proposed Projects will not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings during construction or operation resulting in a less than significant impact. No new or substantially more severe impacts will result from implementation of the proposed Projects compared to what was analyzed in the Final EIR for the Approved Project. EIR Threshold 1.3 Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? The Final EIR concluded that potentially significant construction-related lighting impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level with incorporation of Final EIR MM 1-1 in the Approved Project. The Final EIR also concluded that new sources of light and glare would be introduced; however, adherence to the development standards and design guidelines (architectural and landscape) outlined in the Specific Plan would ensure that potential impacts related to light and glare are less than significant. The types and methods of construction activities for the proposed Projects are consistent with those identified and evaluated in the Final EIR. Construction staging will be located as far as possible from residential neighborhoods, and temporary nighttime lighting will face downward and be shielded to minimize casting light into the sky and lighting intrusion into adjacent neighborhoods (refer to Final EIR MM 1-1). As required, lighting plan and photometric analyses have been prepared for the proposed Projects to demonstrate compliance with the lighting design requirements outlined in the Specific Plan and to ensure that proposed lighting does not spill over into adjacent uses. Further, as shown on the building elevations, the exterior building facades would primarily feature building materials (e.g., stucco finish, fiber cement siding, metal awnings and railings, stone veneer) that adhere to the architectural and landscape development standards and design guidelines outlined in the Specific Plan and ensure that these materials will not result in potential glare impacts. Consistent with the conclusions in the Final EIR, the proposed Projects will not create a new source of substantial light or glare, which will adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area during construction or operation. No new or substantially more severe impacts will result from implementation of the proposed Projects compared to what was analyzed in the Final EIR for the Approved Project. 2    Page 106 Initial Study Threshold 1b Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? The proposed Projects are located in The Resort Specific Plan PA 1B and, consistent with the analysis presented in the Initial Study of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan Amendment Draft EIR, are not within the viewshed of a State scenic highway. No new or substantially more severe impacts will result from implementation of the proposed Projects compared to what was analyzed in the Final EIR for the Approved Project. 2.0 AIR QUALITY EIR Threshold 2.1 Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? The Final EIR concluded that the Approved Project would result in a significant and unavoidable conflict with the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) 2012 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) due to long-term emissions of nonattainment pollutants exceeding SCAQMD significance thresholds and project trip generation substantially greater than the trip generation anticipated in the City’s General Plan for the Specific Plan area at the time the EIR was prepared. The proposed Projects involve the development of 258 townhomes (75 in Parcel N-12, 84 in Parcel N-14, and 99 in Parcel N-15), with the potential for live-work units within Parcels N-12 and N-15. A maximum of 3,450 residential units were approved for the Specific Plan, with up to 1,450 units in PA 1A and up to 2,000 units in PA 1B. Additionally, up to 120,000 sf of non-residential uses is allowed in PA 1B. To date, no residential or non-residential uses implementing the Specific Plan have been approved by the Planning Commission for development in PA 1B. Therefore, the 258 residential units, including live-work units, proposed by the Project would be well within the maximum of 2,000 units and non-residential building area allowed within PA 1B. Based on the population factors used in the Final EIR (3.04 residents per dwelling unit), the proposed Projects will generate approximately 784 new residents in the City of Rancho Cucamonga (compared to up to 10,488 new residents assumed in the Final EIR). The proposed Projects are consistent with the Approved Project, will not generate new population or vehicular trips beyond those anticipated in the Final EIR, and incorporate applicable Final EIR RRs and MMs discussed in the analysis below. Therefore, no new or substantially more severe impacts will result from implementation of the proposed Projects compared to what was analyzed in the Final EIR. The SCAQMD adopted the 2022 AQMP in December 2022 (after certification of the Final EIR). The 2022 AQMP incorporates the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) regional growth forecasts , which anticipate implementation of The Resort Specific Plan, including the proposed Projects. Thus, no conflict with the 2022 AQMP would occur with the proposed Projects related to growth assumptions No new or substantially more severe impacts will result from implementation of the proposed Projects compared to what was analyzed in the Final EIR for the Approved Project. 3    Page 107 EIR Threshold 2.2 Would the project violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? Construction-Related Impacts Maximum daily construction air pollutant emissions were estimated in the Final EIR to compare with limits (thresholds) established by the SCAQMD. Emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx) were determined to be potentially significant; the maximum average daily NOx emissions were estimated to be 128 pounds per day, compared with the SCAQMD threshold of 100 pounds per day. Emissions of all other pollutants were determined to be below the SCAQMD thresholds. The Final EIR concluded that with incorporation of RRs and MMs, regional and local construction emissions from the Approved Project, including NOx emissions, would be less than significant. The Final EIR analysis concludes that with implementation of Final EIR MM 2-1, which requires that all “off-road diesel-powered construction equipment greater than 50 horsepower (hp) shall meet Tier 3 off- road emissions standards,” the maximum average daily NOx emissions would be 91 pounds per day, compared with the SCAQMD threshold of 100 pounds per day. The proposed Projects incorporate MM 2-1, which will also reduce emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOC), respirable particulate matter with a diameter of 10 microns or less (PM10), and fine particulate matter with a diameter of 2.5 microns or less (PM2.5); Final EIR RR 2-1 and RR 2-2, which will reduce fugitive dust emissions (PM10 and PM2.5); and MM 2-2, which includes construction-related measures to further reduce criteria pollutant emissions. The Final EIR analysis scenario of maximum emissions assumed concurrent activities at various locations within the Specific Plan area (PA 1A and PA 1B), including mass grading and building construction, utility installation, and paving in PA 1B at the same time building construction, utility installation, paving and painting is occurring in Phase 1A . Consistent with this analysis, and as discussed in the Project Description, grading activities for PA 1B will occur concurrently with construction of the Electric Pickle in PA 1A; however, construction activities for the Electric Pickle Project will be limited to an approximately 2.7-acre site, and will only involve post-grading construction activities. Further, the construction of the Electric Pickle Project is expected to be complete in early 2026. As discussed in the Project Description, the mass grading activities for PA 1B are expected to balance within PA 1B; therefore, there will be no heavy truck trips on the local roadways associated with grading activities. There will be heavy truck trips associated with other construction activities for the import of materials, concrete, etc.; however, the number of heavy truck trips for the proposed Projects will be a relatively small portion of the estimated 65 heavy trucks on a daily basis. Further, the concurrent construction activities for Electric Pickle will generate less daily truck trips than anticipated in the Final EIR for PA 1A (100 truck trips [50 heavy truck trips]) during a peak construction day. Therefore, the construction activities for the proposed Projects in conjunction with the Electric Pickle Project will not exceed the estimated number of daily truck trips evaluated in the Final EIR. Further, the type and amount of off-road equipment to be used during construction activities for the proposed Projects in conjunction with the Electric Pickle Project will vary on a daily basis but will be within the average maximums set forth in the Final EIR (refer to Table 3-5, Estimated Daily Construction Equipment, of the Final EIR). Additionally, construction activities will be conducted in compliance with the identified RRs and MMs identified in the Final EIR. Therefore, the equipment and truck emissions from daily construction activities associated with the proposed Projects and the Electric Pickle Project, which will occur concurrently for a period of time, will 4    Page 108 not exceed the peak daily emissions estimated in the air quality analysis presented in the Final EIR. No new or substantially more severe impacts will result from implementation of the proposed Projects compared to what was analyzed in the Final EIR for the Approved Project. Operational Emissions Even with adherence to Final EIR RRs and MMs, long-term operational regional emissions of ozone (O3) precursors (VOC and NOx), carbon monoxide (CO), PM10, and PM2.5 due to mobile and consumer product sources from the Approved Project were determined to be significant and unavoidable. The proposed Projects implement the Approved Project with the development of 258 townhomes, including potential live-work units. The Approved Project evaluated in the Final EIR includes the development of 2,000 residential units and 120,000 sf of non-residential uses in PA 1B; to date, no residential or non-residential uses have been developed in PA 1B. The proposed Projects incorporate or will otherwise comply with Final EIR RR 2-3 (which requires compliance with SCAQMD Rules 201 and 203); RR 2-4 (no wood burning devices will be installed); RR 2-5 (provision of bicycle parking); and RR 2-6 (compliance with odor, particulate matter, and air containment standards); and incorporation of Final EIR MM 2-4 (provision for electric vehicles and alternative-fueled vehicles and bicycle parking). As discussed in Section 13.0, Transportation/Traffic, of this evaluation, the proposed Projects are consistent with the development assumptions contained in the Final EIR and supporting Traffic Impact Analysis for Parcels N-12, N-14, and N-15, which are within the Core Living (CL) and Village Neighborhood (VN) Placetypes. As concluded in the Traffic Memorandum included in Attachment B of this document, the trip generation for the proposed Projects will be consistent with and will not exceed that assumed and analyzed in the Final EIR for the Approved Project. Additionally, the proposed Projects and associated operations will be consistent with that anticipated and evaluated in the Final EIR. Therefore, no new or substantially more severe impacts will result from implementation of the proposed Projects compared to what was analyzed in the Final EIR for the Approved Project. EIR Threshold 2.3 Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? The Final EIR concluded that the Approved Project would result in less than significant cumulative regional and local construction emissions with the incorporation of Final EIR MM 2-1 and MM 2-2. It was also concluded that the Approved Project would result in significant and unavoidable cumulative long- term regional emissions of O3 precursors (VOC and NOx), PM10, and PM2.5, which are all nonattainment pollutants, due to mobile and consumer products sources. As discussed above, the proposed Projects incorporate applicable Final EIR RRs and MMs, is consistent with the construction-related and operational aspects of the Approved Project, and is consistent with the assumptions used for the air quality analyses in the Final EIR. Therefore, no new or substantially more severe cumulative impacts related to construction and operation of the proposed residential and associated uses, including live- work units, will result. 5    Page 109 EIR Threshold 2.4 Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? The Final EIR concluded that the Approved Project would result in a less than significant impact related to (1) off-site CO hotspots, (2) exposure of persons to construction and operational phase criteria pollutants, (3) exposure of persons to construction and operational phase toxic air contaminants (TACs) generated on-site, and (4) TAC on-site impacts from off-site warehouse/distribution center and train operations. Existing sensitive receptors in proximity to the proposed Projects are the existing residential uses to the east of PA 1B and within PA 1A south of 6th Street; these residential uses were identified in the Final EIR and potential exposure of residences to pollutants were addressed. As identified above, the Traffic Memorandum for the proposed Projects concludes that the trip generation for the proposed Projects will be consistent with that assumed in the Final EIR for the Approved Project. The proposed Projects will not increase average vehicle delay at any intersection beyond that anticipated in the Final EIR. Therefore, the proposed Projects will not result in the creation of a CO hot spot, consistent with the conclusions of the Final EIR. As discussed in the Project Description, the construction activities associated with the proposed Projects, and the type of construction activities, will not exceed the construction assumptions that were the basis for the analysis in the Final EIR. Therefore, construction activities for the proposed Projects will not expose off-site receptors to significant criteria pollutant emissions and the impact will be less than significant. Further, TAC emissions during construction will also be less than significant. The proposed residential and associated uses, which are consistent with the uses assumed in the Final EIR for Parcel N-12, N-14 and N-15, will not involve any on-site uses or operations that will generate TACs. As identified in the Final EIR , the uses allowed in the live-work units (anticipated in Parcels N-12 and N-15) may have the potential to emit air pollutants that would include TACs; however, the controls on pollutant emissions provided by Section 17.66.060 of the Development Code (refer to Final EIR RR 2- 6) are supplemented by Final EIR RR 2-3, which is based on SCAQMD Rules 201 and 203, and requires that any facility with the potential to emit substantial amounts of air pollutants must receive permits to construct and operate the facility. As identified in the Final EIR, the permitting process ensures that businesses associated with the proposed Projects will not emit criteria pollutants that would result in a significant impact. No new or substantially more severe impacts will result with implementation of the proposed Projects compared to what was analyzed in the Final EIR for the Approved Project. Initial Study Threshold 3e Would the project create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? The Initial Study prepared for the Empire Lakes Specific Plan Amendment Draft EIR concluded that construction-related odors associated with the Approved Project would be temporary, would not affect a substantial number of people, and would be less than significant. The Initial Study also concluded that odors from operation of proposed uses would be no different than in surrounding development, would not be considered objectionable, and would be less than significant. The proposed residential and associated uses within Parcels N-12, N-14 and N-15 will not involve any construction activities or uses that would generate objectionable odors that were not anticipated for the Approved Project and analyzed in the Final EIR. Further, as required by Final EIR RR 2-6, the proposed use would operate in compliance with established standards in Section 17.66.060, Odor, Particulate Matter, and Air 6    Page 110 Containment Standards, of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Code. These standards address compliance with the rules and regulations of the air pollution control district and the State Health and Safety Code related to noxious odor emissions and location of exhaust air ducts away from abutting residentially zoned properties. Therefore, no new or substantially more severe impacts will result from the proposed Projects compared to what was analyzed in the Final EIR for the Approved Project. 3.0 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES EIR Threshold 3.1 Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modification, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? The Final EIR concluded that the Specific Plan area, including PA 1B, did not support native plant communities and did not provide suitable habitat for sensitive biological resources. The physical impact area for the proposed Projects is entirely within PA 1B and does not include any areas that were not part of the Approved Project development area that was analyzed in the Final EIR. The Project sites have been disturbed, and vegetation previously found at the site (including trees) has been removed in accordance with permits issued by the City. Therefore, the Project sites do not provide habitat for species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). No new or substantially more severe impacts will result with implementation of the proposed Projects compared to what was analyzed in the Final EIR for the Approved Project. EIR Threshold 3.2 Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? EIR Threshold 3.3 Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? The Final EIR concluded that that there were no wetlands, riparian habitat, sensitive natural communities, or areas under the jurisdiction of the CDFW, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), USFWS, or Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) located within the Specific Plan area, including the artificial ponds associated with the former golf course. The physical impact area for the proposed Projects is entirely within PA 1B and does not include any areas that were not part of the Approved Project development area analyzed in the Final EIR. The Project site has been disturbed and there is a temporary basin that is generally located in the southern portion of Parcel N-12 and norther portion of Parcel N-14. The Project site does not include wetlands, riparian habitat, sensitive natural communities, or areas under the jurisdiction of the CDFW, USACE, USFWS or RWQCB. No new or substantially more severe impacts will result with implementation of the proposed Projects compared to what was analyzed in the Final EIR for the Approved Project. 7    Page 111 EIR Threshold 3.4 Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? The Final EIR concluded that redevelopment of the previous Empire Lakes Golf Course would not affect regional wildlife movement throughout the Inland Empire or within the South Coast region and would not disrupt or adversely affect terrestrial wildlife species movement due to the lack of connectivity of the Specific Plan area with other open space areas. It was also concluded that removal of artificial ponds at the golf course would have a less than significant impact on migrating waterfowl and avian species. The Final EIR identified that vegetation and trees throughout the golf course had the potential to provide nesting opportunities for various birds and raptor species but compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Sections 3503, 3503.5, 3511, and 3513 of the California Fish and Game Code, which protect nesting birds and raptors (refer to Final EIR RR 3-1 and RR 3-2) would ensure that impacts to nesting birds and raptors are less than significant. The vegetation and trees previously located at the Project site have been removed; however, the potential for nesting birds to occur within the construction area or in surrounding areas remains. As required by Final EIR RR 3-1 and RR 3-2, construction of the proposed Projects, which are located entirely within the physical impact area for the Approved Project evaluated in the Final EIR, would be conducted in accordance with applicable regulations and required pre-construction surveys will be conducted. No new or substantially more severe impacts will result with implementation of the proposed Projects compared to what was analyzed in the Final EIR for the Approved Project. EIR Threshold 3.5 Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Trees previously located within PA 1B, as identified in the Final EIR, have been removed in accordance with required tree removal permits issued by the City. There are no trees currently located within the Project sites and the proposed Projects will not conflict with the City’s tree protection policies outlined in the City’s Development Code (i.e., Chapter 17.80, Tree Preservation, and Section 17.16.80). No new or substantially more severe impacts will result with implementation of the proposed Projects compared to what was analyzed in the Final EIR for the Approved Project. Initial Study Threshold 4f Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? As identified in the Initial Study prepared for the Empire Lakes Specific Plan Amendment Draft EIR, the City of Rancho Cucamonga is not located within an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP); Natural Communities Conservation Plan (NCCP); or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan area. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Projects will not conflict with the provisions of an adopted plan. No new or substantially more severe impacts will result with implementation of the proposed Projects compared to what was analyzed in the Initial Study. 8    Page 112 4.0 CULTURAL RESOURCES EIR Threshold 4.1 Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource as defined in Section 15064.5? The Final EIR concluded that although not anticipated, there was a potential for discovery of previously unknown archaeological resources during deeper excavation activities in native sediment during construction activities within the Specific Plan area. Potential impacts were determined to be less than significant with implementation of identified mitigation measures. The physical impact area for the proposed Projects is located entirely within the physical impact area for the Approved Project evaluated in the Final EIR and the potential to encounter subsurface archaeological resources remains the same. Mass grading activities for the Approved Project in PA 1A and partial mass grading activities in PA 1B, including the Project sites, have been completed and no archaeological resources have been discovered. Additionally, no cultural resources were observed or collected during excavations up to 30 feet deep during construction of the former golf course. As indicated in the Final EIR, minor to moderate amounts of removal within the native soils present beneath the fill soils are anticipated in most areas during construction. However, deeper removals may be necessary in native soils in limited areas, such as for installation of utility infrastructure. Therefore, there is a potential that previously undiscovered archaeological resources would be encountered during excavation activities in native soils, resulting in a potentially significant impact prior to mitigation. This impact would be less than significant with implementation of Final EIR MM 4-1, which requires training of construction workers regarding the potential to encounter archaeological resources, and MM 4-2, which identifies actions to be taken if resources are discovered. It should be noted that, as with the Approved Project, the provisions of Assembly Bill (AB) 52 are not applicable to the proposed Projects. AB 52 is applicable to projects that have a Notice of Preparation (NOP) or a Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration filed on or after July 1, 2015. The NOP for the Empire Lakes Specific Plan Amendment Draft EIR was distributed in April 2015. AB 52 establishes a consultation process with California Native American tribes and establishes Tribal Cultural Resources as a new class of resources to be considered in the determination of project impacts and mitigation. AB 52 requires lead agencies to provide notice to tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of a proposed Projects, if they have requested such notice in writing. While project notification pursuant to AB 52 is not required for the proposed Projects, it is important to note that coordination with Native American tribes was conducted during preparation of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan Amendment EIR (refer to Section 4.4, Cultural Resources, of the Draft EIR). The required Final EIR mitigation measures will also protect unknown tribal cultural resources should they be present within the Project sites. Construction of the proposed Projects, which are located entirely within the physical impact area for the Approved Project evaluated in the Final EIR, will not impact known archaeological or tribal cultural resources. In the unlikely event subsurface archaeological resources are located within the Project sites, implementation of Final EIR MM 4-1 and MM 4-2 ensure impacts remain less than significant. No new or substantially more severe impacts will result with implementation of the proposed Projects compared to what was analyzed in the Final EIR for the Approved Project. 9    Page 113 EIR Threshold 4.2 Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? The Final EIR concluded that although not anticipated due to the depth of Holocene fan deposits underlying the Specific Plan area, which are too young to contain fossils, no paleontological resources are anticipated to be discovered during excavations up to 23 feet deep. However, similar to archaeological resources, the Final EIR concluded there is a potential for the discovery of previously unknown paleontological resources during deeper excavation activities in native sediment during construction activities within the Specific Plan area, including PA 1B. The Final EIR concluded that potential impacts would be less than significant with implementation of identified mitigation measures. The physical impact area for the proposed Projects is located entirely within the physical impact area for the Approved Project evaluated in the Final EIR and the potential to encounter subsurface paleontological resources remains the same. As with archaeological resources, no paleontological resources have been encountered during previous construction activities within the Specific Plan area. However, as identified in the Final EIR, there is a potential that previously undiscovered paleontological resources will be encountered during excavation activities in native soils, resulting in a potentially significant impact prior to mitigation. This impact would be less than significant with implementation of Final EIR MM 4-1, which requires training of construction workers regarding the potential to encounter paleontological resources, and Final EIR MM 4-3, which identifies actions to be taken if resources are discovered. No new or substantially more severe impacts will result with implementation of the proposed Projects compared to what was analyzed in the Final EIR for the Approved Project. EIR Threshold 4.3 Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? The Final EIR identifies that it is unlikely human remains would be encountered during construction of the Approved Project, and with adherence to State regulations as outlined in Final EIR RR 4-1 (i.e., Sections 7050.5–7055 of the California Health and Safety Code and Section 5097.98 of the California Public Resources Code), impacts would be less than significant in the event human remains are discovered. The physical impact area for the proposed Projects is located entirely within the physical impact area for the Approved Project evaluated in the Final EIR and the potential to encounter subsurface paleontological resources remains the same. No new or substantially more severe impacts will result with implementation of the proposed Projects compared to what was analyzed in the Final EIR for the Approved Project. Initial Study Threshold 5a Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5? As identified in the Initial Study prepared for the Empire Lakes Specific Plan Amendment Draft EIR, no historic resources were identified within the Specific Plan area and no impact to historic resources would result from implementation of the Approved Project. The physical impact area for the proposed Projects is entirely within the physical impact area for the Approved Project evaluated in the Final EIR. No historic resources exist on the Project site, which is undeveloped and previously disturbed. No new or substantially more severe impacts will result with implementation of the proposed Projects compared to what was analyzed in the Initial Study. 10    Page 114 5.0 GEOLOGY AND SOILS EIR Thresholds 5.1 and 5.2 Would the project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: (i) Strong seismic ground shaking, or (ii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction The physical impact area for the proposed Projects is entirely within the impact area addressed in the Final EIR for the Approved Project and there have been no changes related to seismicity or local geologic conditions. Additionally, there are no proposed changes to the type of land use to be developed at the Project site (residential and associated uses). Consistent with the conclusions of the Final EIR, due to site conditions (groundwater depth at 350 feet or more below the ground surface), the potential for seismic- related ground failure from liquefaction will be low, resulting in a less than significant impact. However, as with the Approved Project, the proposed Projects will expose people and structures to geotechnical hazards associated with seismic ground shaking and potential geology and soils impacts will be the same. Grading of the Project sites will be completed in accordance with applicable portions of the California Building Code and/or applicable City ordinances (refer to RRs 5-1 and 5-2). The proposed Projects will also be constructed in accordance with the City’s Development Code resulting in a less than significant impact, consistent with the conclusions of the Final EIR. No new or substantially more severe impacts will result with implementation of the proposed Projects compared to what was analyzed in the Final EIR for the Approved Project. EIR Threshold 5.3 Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? As identified in the Final EIR, the Specific Plan area, which includes PA 1B, is located in a soil erosion hazard area, and there is potential for soil erosion during construction. However, this impact is less than significant with adherence to local and State regulations adopted to limit fugitive dust and erosion into surface waters. Chapter 17.66.060 of the City’s Development Code requires development projects to comply with SCAQMD requirements for control of fugitive dust (refer to RR 2-1 and RR 5-3). Further, construction activities will be conducted in adherence to applicable local and State water quality requirements, including the implementation of erosion-control Best Management Practices (BMPs) and in compliance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting requirements (refer to RR 8-3). As concluded in the Final EIR, once the proposed Projects are operational, the potential for soil erosion via wind and water will be minimized through the introduction of development, including roads, buildings, paved areas, and landscaping. Landscaping will be installed in accordance with requirements in the City’s Development Code to control soil erosion, among other purposes (refer to RR 5-4). No new or substantially more severe impacts will result with implementation of the proposed Projects compared to what was analyzed in the Final EIR for the Approved Project. EIR Threshold 5.4 Would the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in onsite or offsite landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? As identified in the Initial Study prepared for the Empire Lakes Specific Plan Amendment Draft EIR and the Final EIR, the Specific Plan area, which includes PA 1B, is not located in an area subject to landslides 11    Page 115 or liquefaction. The physical impact area for the proposed Projects is entirely within the impact area addressed in the Final EIR for the Approved Project and there have been no changes related to seismicity or local geologic conditions. Additionally, there are no proposed changes to the type of land use to be developed at the Project site (residential and associated uses). The proposed Projects will be exposed to the same geotechnical issues related to unstable soils as the Approved Project. Grading operations will be completed in accordance with applicable regulations, including relevant portions of the California Building Code and the City of Rancho Cucamonga Grading and Development Codes (refer to Final EIR RRs 5-1 through 5-4, and in accordance with recommendations outlined in site-specific geotechnical investigations (refer to Final EIR MM 5-1). Therefore, potential impacts related to unstable soil are less than significant, consistent with the conclusions of the Final EIR. No new or substantially more severe impacts will result with implementation of the proposed Projects compared to what was analyzed in the Final EIR for the Approved Project. EIR Threshold 5.5 Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18 1 B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? The physical impact area for the proposed Projects is entirely within the physical impact area for the Approved Project evaluated in the Final EIR and onsite soils have a very low potential for expansion; however, there is a potential to encounter expansive soils. The Final EIR concluded that this potential impact would be less than significant with implementation of identified Final EIR MMs and RRs. As required by Final EIR MM 5-1, supplemental investigation of the expansion potential of on-site soils during preparation of site-specific geotechnical investigations will be conducted. Additionally, site- specific grading plans have been prepared for review and approval by the City in accordance with applicable requirements (refer to Final MM 5-2 and MM 5-3). With implementation of MM 5-1 through 5-3 and adherence to the City’s Building Regulations, the CBC and Grading Standards (refer to RR 5-1 and RR 5-2), this impact would be less than significant. No new or substantially more severe impacts will result with implementation of the proposed Projects compared to what was analyzed in the Final EIR for the Approved Project. Initial Study Threshold 6a Would the project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? (Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.) iv) Landslides? As identified in the Initial Study prepared for the Empire Lakes Specific Plan Amendment Draft EIR, the Specific Plan area, which included PA 1B, is not within a State of California Earthquake Fault Zone and no active or potentially active faults are known to exist in or near the Project site. Also, the low relief of the site and surrounding area precludes the potential for landslides. The physical impact area for the proposed Projects is entirely within the physical impact area for the Approved Project evaluated in the Final EIR; therefore, no impacts related to rupture of a known earthquake fault will result. No new or substantially more severe impacts will result with implementation of the proposed Projects compared to what was analyzed in the Initial Study. 12    Page 116 Initial Study Threshold 6e Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? Consistent with the conclusions of the Initial Study prepared for the Empire Lakes Specific Plan Amendment Draft EIR, the proposed Projects will connect to existing sewer lines and treatment facilities, and septic tanks or an alternative wastewater disposal system will not be utilized. No new or substantially more severe impacts will result with implementation of the proposed Projects compared to what was analyzed in the Initial Study. 6.0 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS EIR Threshold 6.1 Would the project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? The Final EIR concludes that the GHG emissions resulting from implementation of the Approved Project would be less than significant with mitigation. The proposed Projects implement the Approved Project with the development 258 townhomes within PA 1B. To date, none of the approved 2,000 residential units or non-residential uses within PA 1B have been developed. The proposed Projects incorporate or will otherwise comply with Final EIR MMs and RRs identified previously under air quality, which may also serve to reduce GHG emissions. Final EIR PDF 6-1 (planting of trees); RR 6-1 (adherence to Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards); RRs 6-2 and 6-4 (adherence to applicable California Green Building Standards as designated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga Green Building Compliance Matrices); RR 6-3 (use of reclaimed water for landscaping); and MM 6-1 (use of energy efficient lights and appliances) are also incorporated into the proposed Projects, as required. As discussed in Section 13.0, Transportation/Traffic, of this evaluation, the proposed Projects are consistent with the development assumptions contained in the Final EIR and supporting Traffic Impact Analysis for Parcel N-12, N-14, and N-15. As concluded in the Traffic Memorandum included in Attachment B of this evaluation, it is estimated that the trip generation for the proposed Projects will be consistent with and will not exceed that assumed in the Final EIR for the Approved Project. Further, as discussed in the Project Description, the construction methods and equipment will be similar to that anticipated in the Final EIR. Therefore, the estimated GHG emissions from operation of the proposed Projects and construction activities (amortized over 30 years) would not exceed the GHG emissions assumed for the Approved Project and will be less than significant, consistent with the conclusions of the Final EIR. Accordingly, no new or substantially more severe impacts will result compared to what was analyzed in the Final EIR for the Approved Project. EIR Threshold 6.2 Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gas emissions? The Final EIR concluded that the Approved Project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. The proposed Projects implement the Approved Project and do not involve any changes to the type or amount of allowed land uses, or the amount of GHG emissions that would be generated during construction and operation. Specifically, the proposed Projects involve development of 258 townhomes and associated uses within PA 1B. Consistent with the conclusion of the Final EIR, the proposed Projects, which implement the Approved Project will also not conflict with applicable plans, policies or regulations adopted for the purposes of reducing GHG emissions. No new or substantially more severe impacts will result compared to what was analyzed in the Final EIR for the Approved Project. 13    Page 117 7.0 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS EIR Threshold 7.1 Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? The Final EIR concluded that construction and operation of the Approved Project would involve handling of hazardous materials in limited quantities and typical to urban environments. Through compliance with applicable hazardous materials regulations (refer to Final EIR RRs 7-1 through 7-3), there would be less than significant impacts associated with the transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials during construction or operation. The proposed Projects do not involve any changes to the type of land use or number of residential units to be developed as part of the Approved Project in PA 1B. Therefore, compared to the Approved Project, there will be no change in the types of hazardous materials that will be used during construction and operation of the proposed Projects. As with the Approved Project, through compliance with existing applicable hazardous materials regulations (e.g., Hazardous Material Transportation Act, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act [RCRA], the California Hazardous Waste Control Act, and the California Accidental Release Prevention Program included as Final EIR RR 7-1 and RR 7-2), the proposed Projects will not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, storage, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. This impact will be less than significant, consistent with the conclusions of the Final EIR. No new or substantially more severe impacts will result compared to what was analyzed in the Final EIR for the Approved Project. EIR Threshold 7.2 Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? The Final EIR concluded that existing and past use of the Specific Plan area and existing uses surrounding the Specific Plan area have involved the uses of hazardous materials. However, this use of hazardous materials would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment, resulting in a less than significant impact. The physical impact area for the proposed Projects is entirely within the impact area addressed in the Final EIR for the Approved Project. The previous golf course use and hazardous materials used for golf course operations have been removed. The Project sites are currently undeveloped and there is a temporary basin generally located in the southern portion of Parcel N-12 and northern portion of Parcel N-14. Consistent with the conclusions of the Final EIR, the previous use of hazardous materials within PA 1B or in the vicinity will not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. The proposed Projects implement the Approved Project and short-term construction activities and long-term operations will be consistent with that identified and evaluated in the Final EIR. Also, consistent with the conclusions of the Final EIR, construction and operation of the proposed Projects will involve the use of hazardous materials that are typically associated with an urban environment. These materials will be transported, used, stored, and disposed of in compliance with applicable regulations (refer to Final EIR RR 7-1 and RR 7-2) and will not create a significant hazard to the public or environment through reasonably foreseeable upset or accident conditions. No new or substantially more severe impacts will result compared to what was analyzed in the Final EIR for the Approved Project. 14    Page 118 EIR Threshold 7.3 For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or people residing or working in the project area? The Final EIR concluded that the Specific Plan area is within the Airport Influence Area (AIA) for the Ontario International Airport and with adherence to the requirements of the Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ONT ALUCP) and Specific Plan requirements, the Approved Project would not result in safety hazard to people residing or working on the site or in the area. As identified in the Final EIR, the Specific Plan Area, including PA 1B, is within the Ontario International Airport AIA. The southern boundary of PA 1B, which includes the Project sites, is located approximately 2.0 miles from the nearest runway, and is within the Airspace Protection Zones for the airport. The proposed Projects implement the Approved Project and in accordance with Final EIR PDF 7-1, the proposed Projects comply with the height restrictions outlined in Table 7.4, Development Standards, of The Resort Specific Plan. Specifically, no buildings will exceed the 70-foot height limit for the area north of 6th Street. As described in the Project Description and shown on the building elevations for the proposed Projects, the maximum height of the proposed buildings is 39 feet. Further, construction activities, Project structures, and operations will adhere to applicable requirements outlined in the ONT ALUCP as presented in Final EIR RR 7-4: Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 77, Subpart C, and applicable obstruction clearance standards published by the FAA; avigation easement; and real estate transaction disclosure. Compliance with applicable ONT ALUCP requirements will ensure that potential safety hazards related to airport operations are less than significant, consistent with the conclusions of the Final EIR. No new or substantially more severe impacts will result compared to what was analyzed in the Final EIR for the Approved Project. Initial Study Threshold 7c Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter-mile of an existing or proposed school? As identified in the Initial Study prepared for the Empire Lakes Specific Plan Amendment Draft EIR, the Specific Plan area, including the Project sites, is not within ¼-mile of a school. There have been no changes to the location of the proposed Projects or schools in the area. No new impacts will result with implementation of the proposed Projects compared to what was analyzed in the Initial Study. Initial Study Threshold 7d Would the project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? As identified in the Initial Study prepared for the Empire Lakes Specific Plan Amendment Draft EIR, the Specific Plan area, which includes the Project sites, is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, will not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. The Project sites are currently undeveloped and are also not on a current list of hazardous materials sites. No new impacts will result with implementation of the proposed Projects compared to what was analyzed in the Initial Study. 15    Page 119 Initial Study Threshold 7f For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? As identified in the Initial Study prepared for the Empire Lakes Specific Plan Amendment Draft EIR, there are no private airstrips in the vicinity of the Specific Plan area, which includes the Project sites. There have been no changes to the location of the proposed Projects or private airstrips in the area. No new impacts will result with implementation of the proposed Projects compared to what was analyzed in the Initial Study. Initial Study Threshold 7g Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? As identified in the Initial Study prepared for the Empire Lakes Specific Plan Amendment Draft EIR, the Approved Project does not include any uses that would impede or interfere with implementation of the City’s Emergency Operations Plan and would not exacerbate existing hazard conditions addressed in the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. The proposed Projects implement the Approved Project and do not involve a change in the type or location of uses in PA 1B, or a change in access and planned roadways. Rather, the proposed Projects will involve the construction of planned roadways, which will facilitate emergency response and evacuation. Therefore, consistent with the Approved Project, the proposed Projects will not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. No new impacts will result with implementation of the proposed Projects compared to what was analyzed in the Initial Study. Initial Study Threshold 7h Would the project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? As identified in the Initial Study prepared for the Empire Lakes Specific Plan Amendment Draft EIR, the Specific Plan area, which include the Project sites, is not in an area subject to wildland fires. There have been no changes to the location of the proposed Projects or identification of high fire hazard areas in the vicinity of the Project sites. Further, the Project sites are not located in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ). No new impacts will result with implementation of the proposed Projects compared to what was analyzed in the Initial Study. 8.0 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY EIR Threshold 8.1 Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? EIR Threshold 8.2 Would the project otherwise substantially degrade water quality The Final EIR concluded that short-term construction and long-term operation of development under the proposed Specific Plan Amendment would generate pollutants that may enter storm water. However, compliance with existing regulations, as identified in Final EIR RRs 8-1 through RR 8-4, would prevent the violation of water quality standards and the degradation of storm water quality and impacts would be less than significant. The physical impact area for the proposed Projects is entirely within the impact area addressed in the Final EIR for the Approved Project and the receiving water bodies will be the same. Additionally, there 16    Page 120 are no proposed changes to the type of land use to be developed at the Project sites (residential and associated uses). The type of construction activities and equipment for the proposed Projects will also be the same as identified and analyzed in the Final EIR for the Approved Project. Therefore, the types of pollutants that will be generated by the proposed Projects during construction and operation will be the same as the Approved Project. The proposed Projects incorporate Final EIR RR 8-1, which addresses compliance with the NPDES General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activity (Construction General Permit) and implementation of the Project’s SWPPP during construction. Further, as with the Approved Project, the proposed Projects will comply with the Clean Water Act (CWA) and all applicable City, County, and Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) regulations and water quality standards including compliance with applicable NPDES and municipal separate storm sewer (MS4) permit requirements. Notably, Preliminary Water Quality Management Plans (WQMP) have been prepared for each of the proposed Projects (per Final EIR RR 8-2), which are consistent with the Master Plan of Storm Water Quality prepared for the Approved Project. Additionally, operation of the proposed uses will be conducted in accordance with Chapter 19.20 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code, which is the City’s Storm Water and Urban Runoff Management and Discharge Control Ordinance (per Final EIR RR 8- 3). With respect to water quality, all of the buildings within the Project sites will be equipped with subterranean roof drains that will capture and convey all roof runoff to the underground storm drain system. All patios, open space areas, side yards, and paseos will be equipped with area drains that will convey storm water runoff to the underground storm drain system. All streets and alleys will be equipped with storm drain catch basins that will convey storm water runoff to the underground storm drain system. Storm water quality flows will be diverted through a bi-furcation/diversion structure from the storm drain mainline into the proposed WQMP BMPs, which include Maxwell infiltration wells and settling chambers. Storm water flows exceeding water quality flows will bypass the bi- furcation/diversion structure into the 100-year storm drain public mainline. Compliance with Final EIR RR 8-1 through RR 8-3 and implementation of the Project-specific SWPPP and WQMP will prevent violations of water quality standards and the degradation of storm water quality. Water quality impacts will be less than significant, consistent with the conclusions of the Final EIR. No new or substantially more severe impacts will result compared to what was analyzed in the Final EIR for the Approved Project. EIR Threshold 8.3 Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation onsite or offsite? EIR Threshold 8.4 Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding onsite or offsite? The Final EIR concluded that changes in drainage patterns would occur within the Specific Plan area, but storm water would continue to be discharged into the 4th Street storm drain, and there is capacity at these downstream storm drainage facilities to handle runoff from the Specific Plan area. The Final EIR also concluded that runoff would be conveyed to the Guasti-Cucamonga Regional Park and Turner Basins for ground percolation and would not lead to erosion, siltation, or flooding resulting in a less than significant impact. 17    Page 121 The proposed Projects implement the Approved Project, and the physical impact area for the proposed Projects is entirely within the impact area addressed in the Final EIR for the Approved Project. There are no proposed changes to the type of land use to be developed at the Project site (residential and associated uses), the pattern of development relative to pervious and impervious areas, and the proposed storm drain system. Therefore, the increase in the amount and rate of runoff that will be generated by development of the Project sites will be consistent with the estimated runoff volume and rate as accounted for in the Approved Project, and the required storm drain facilities will be the same. As identified in the Final EIR, the proposed onsite drainage will flow to the underground storm drain system, which would be routed through storm drain lines within the proposed roadways and ultimately to the storm drain line in The Resort Parkway, which will flow in a southerly direction toward the 4th Street storm drain, consistent with the pre-development drainage patterns. As identified in the Final EIR, the Specific Plan area, including PA 1B, is in the County’s defined hydrologic conditions of concern (HCOC)-exempt area. Therefore, additional detention (reduction) in peak runoff flows from storm events is not required. This is because runoff from the Specific Plan area enters the Guasti-Cucamonga Regional Park and Turner Basins. Thus, increases in runoff from development of the proposed Projects will not lead to HCOCs. Changes in drainage patterns at the Project sites will be consistent with that evaluated for the Approved Project in the Final EIR and will not lead to erosion, siltation, or flooding at downstream facilities. Impacts will be less than significant, consistent with the conclusions of the Final EIR. No new or substantially more severe impacts will result compared to what was analyzed in the Final EIR for the Approved Project. EIR Threshold 8.5 Would the project create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of pollutant runoff? EIR Threshold 8.6 Would the project require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? The Final EIR concluded that storm water runoff from the Specific Plan area would increase flows in downstream lines, but would not exceed the capacities of the 66-inch line in Cleveland Avenue and the 4th Street storm drain. Storm water pollutants and storm water runoff quantities would be reduced by onsite best management practices (BMPs), and no expansion of existing off-site storm drain facilities would be needed resulting in a less than significant impact. As identified above, there are no proposed changes to the type of land uses to be developed at the Project site or the pattern of development. Therefore, the estimated increase in the amount and rate of runoff that will be generated by development of the proposed Projects will be consistent with the estimated runoff volume and rate as accounted for in the Approved Project, and the required storm drain facilities will be the same. Storm water runoff from the Project site will increase flows in downstream lines, but will not exceed the capacity of the 4 th Street storm drain. Storm water pollutants and storm water runoff quantities will be reduced by implementation of the project-specific WQMPs required by RR 8-2, which identify required BMPs. Consistent with Final EIR conclusions for the Approved Project, no expansion of existing off-site storm drain facilities is needed for the proposed Projects. Additionally, the physical impacts associated with installation of on-site storm drain facilities will be the same as evaluated for the Approved Project in the Final EIR. No new or substantially more severe impacts will result compared to what was analyzed in the Final EIR for the Approved Project. 18    Page 122 Initial Study Threshold 9b Would the project substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? As identified in the Initial Study prepared for the Empire Lakes Specific Plan Amendment Draft EIR, potable water service is provided to the City of Rancho Cucamonga by the Cucamonga Valley Water District (CVWD), with the largest amount of water supply coming from the Chino Groundwater Basin. The analysis in the Initial Study concluded that although implementation of development in within the Specific Plan area will reduce the pervious areas available for potential natural recharge, the Specific Plan is relatively small (160.4 acres) in relation to the total size of the Chino Groundwater Basin, and the only source of water is from direct precipitation, providing little opportunity to recharge. The Specific Plan area, including PA 1B, is not within a groundwater recharge area and the Approved Project would not deplete groundwater supplies. The physical impact area for the proposed Projects is approximately 11.51 acres and is entirely within the physical impact area for the Approved Project evaluated in the Final EIR, and the proposed Projects implement the Approved Project. Therefore, consistent with the conclusions for the Approved Project, the proposed Projects will not interfere with groundwater recharge or deplete groundwater supplies. No new impacts will result with implementation of the proposed Projects compared to what was analyzed in the Initial Study. Initial Study Threshold 9g Would the project place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? Initial Study Threshold 9h Would the project place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? Initial Study Threshold 9i Would the project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? Initial Study Threshold 9j Would the project result in inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? As identified in the Initial Study prepared for the Empire Lakes Specific Plan Amendment Draft EIR, the Specific Plan area, which includes PA 1B, is (1) not within a flood hazard area, (2) not within a dam inundation area, and (3) not subject to inundation from a seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. The physical impact area for the proposed Projects is approximately 11.51 acres and is entirely within the physical impact area for the Approved Project evaluated in the Final EIR, and the proposed Projects implement the Approved Project. No new impacts will result with implementation of the proposed Projects compared to what was analyzed in the Initial Study. 19    Page 123 9.0 LAND USE AND PLANNING EIR Threshold 9.1 Would the project conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to, the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? With approval of the Empire Lakes/IASP Sub-Area Specific Plan Amendment (now referred to as The Resort Specific Plan) and associated General Plan Amendment and Development Code Amendment, the City of Rancho Cucamonga established new land use regulations and development standards for development within The Resort Specific Plan area, including PA 1B and the Project sites. The Final EIR concluded that these land use changes would not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the Project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. As discussed in Section 1.0, Introduction and Background, of this document, on July 20, 2022, the Rancho Cucamonga City Council adopted Ordinance 1007 (DRC2020- 00164), which included a reformatting of the IASP Sub-Area 18 Specific Plan (Section 7) to split the approved Specific Plan into two sections (PA 1A and PA 1B, which includes the areas south and north of 6th Street, respectively). The Resort Specific Plan for PA 1B Mixed Use Infill Area outlines the land use regulations and development standards for development within PA 1B, which includes the Project sites. As further discussed in Section 2.0, Project Description, of this document, the proposed Projects involve the development of 258 townhomes (including the potential for live-work units within the Mixed-Use overlay areas for Parcels N-12 and N-15), implement the Approved Project (with up to 2,000 units in PA 1B), and comply with applicable development standards and other requirements outlined in The Resort Specific Plan for PA 1B and/or the City’s Development Code, as applicable. As with the Approved Project, the proposed Projects will not conflict with any applicable local or regional land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the Project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. No new or substantially more severe impacts will result with implementation of the proposed Projects compared to what was analyzed in the Final EIR for the Approved Project. Initial Study Threshold 10b Would the project physically divide an established community? The Initial Study prepared for the Empire Lakes Specific Plan Amendment Draft EIR concluded that implementation of the Approved Project, which is surrounded by existing development, would not divide an established community. The proposed Projects are located entirely within PA 1B of the Specific Plan area, implement the Approved Project, and will not divide an established community. No new impacts will result with implementation of the proposed Projects compared to what was analyzed in the Initial Study. Initial Study Threshold 10c Would the project conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? As previously discussed in the Biological Resources section of this document, the Specific Plan area, including PA 1B, is not within an adopted HCP or NCCP. No new impacts will result with implementation of the proposed Projects compared to what was analyzed in the Initial Study. 20    Page 124 10.0 NOISE EIR Threshold 10.1 Would the project result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? The Final EIR concluded that the Approved Project would result in less than significant increases in long- term ambient noise levels from project-generated traffic to off-site sensitive receptors, and at residences adjacent to the Project site from noise generated on-site. Additionally, the Final EIR concluded that potential noise impacts to off-site residential uses from operation of proposed uses would be less than significant with adherence to the noise standards outlined in the City’s Development Code and the California Building Standards Code (refer to Final EIR RR 10-3 and RR 10-4). With respect to traffic-generated noise, as discussed in the Traffic Memorandum included in Attachment B to this document, the trip generation for the proposed Projects, and in conjunction with the existing and previously approved development in PA 1A (development south of 6th Street), will be consistent with that assumed in the Final EIR and associated Traffic Impact Analysis for the Approved Project. The proposed Projects, which include the development of 258 townhomes, would be the first projects to implement any of the approved 2,000 residential units in PA 1B. Therefore, the proposed Projects will not result in additional traffic and would not increase traffic-related noise levels along roadways beyond that anticipated and evaluated in the Final EIR as a result of implementation of the Approved Project. Long-term noise levels from Project-generated traffic to off-site sensitive receptors will be less than significant, consistent with the conclusions of the Final EIR. Existing sensitive receptors closest to the Project sites are the residential uses located east of Parcels N- 14 and N-15, and south of 6th Street within PA 1A. These residential uses were identified and evaluated in the Final EIR and there are no new sensitive receptors in proximity to the Project sites. The proposed uses, operations, and activities associated with the proposed residential development and associated uses, including potential live-work units, will be consistent with that anticipated in the Final EIR. Noise- generating operations/activities will comply with noise standards established in the City’s Development Code (refer to RR 10-3) and impacts will be less than significant, consistent with the conclusions of the Final EIR. No new or substantially more severe impacts will result with implementation of the proposed Projects compared to what was analyzed in the Final EIR for the Approved Project. EIR Threshold 10.2 Would the project expose persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? The Final EIR concluded that the Approved Project would result in potentially significant construction vibration annoyance impacts to occupants of adjacent buildings (from heavy equipment operating close to buildings), and potential structural damage if a vibratory roller would be used within 13 feet of the adjacent structures. These impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level with implementation of Final EIR MM 10-1. The Final EIR also concluded train vibration has the potential to generate perceptible vibration levels at the residential buildings in PA 1B proposed to be constructed as near as 86 feet from the existing rail line. With implementation of Final EIR MM 10-2, which requires a vibration analysis at the time when project improvements within 200 feet of the railroad tracks north of the project site are proposed, this impact was determined to be less than significant. Parcels N-14 and N-15, which are entirely within the physical impact area for the Approved Project, are adjacent to existing residential buildings to the east. Existing uses within PA 1A are located to the south; 21    Page 125 however, these uses are separated from the Project sites by 6th Street. As identified in the Final EIR, grading activities within PA 1B adjacent to existing uses have the potential to result in significant construction vibration impacts at existing adjacent buildings to the east (from heavy equipment operating close to buildings). With implementation of Final EIR MM 10-1, which requires that it be demonstrated that the equipment to be used within 25 feet of an off-site building would not include vibratory rollers, large bulldozers, or similar heavy equipment, would reduce this potential impact to a less than significant level. No significant vibration annoyance or structural vibration impacts will occur with the other construction activities. Additionally, as identified in the Final EIR, the operational activities associated with the proposed residential and associated uses at the Project sites (including the live-work units) would not be a source of vibration. Although the impacts of the environment on a project are not impacts pursuant to CEQA, the Final EIR also identifies that residential uses within PA 1B in proximity the existing rail line could be exposed to vibration from train passbys. The Project sites are not adjacent to the rail line; therefore, as identified in the Final EIR no vibration impacts are anticipated and further evaluation of potential vibration impacts is not required. No new or substantially more severe impacts will result with implementation of the proposed Projects compared to what was analyzed in the Final EIR for the Approved Project. EIR Threshold 10.3 Would the project result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? The Final EIR concluded that even with adherence to the City’s Development Code (Final EIR RR 10-1) and implementation of identified mitigation measures (Final EIR MMs 10-3 through 10-4), construction of the Approved Project would result in temporary potentially significant and unavoidable construction noise impacts from site preparation, demolition, and grading. Construction-related noise impacts resulting from concrete and asphalt crushing and green waste mulching were determined to be less than significant with implementation of Final EIR MM 10-5. The construction activities associated with the proposed Projects, including the type of equipment that will be operated on a daily basis, will not exceed the construction assumptions that were the basis for the analysis in the Final EIR. As previously identified, undeveloped areas within PA 1B are located to the west and north of the Project sites; Parcels N-14 and N-15 are located adjacent to existing residential uses to the east; and Parcel N-14 is located south of Parcel N-15, 6th Street is located south of Parcel N- 14, and undeveloped area within PA 1B is located south of Parcel N-12. Consistent with the conclusions of the Final EIR, even with adherence to Final EIR RR 10-1 (construction day and hourly restrictions outlined the City’s Development Code), and implementation of Final EIR MM 10-3 (installation of a temporary noise barrier between the Specific Plan area and adjacent existing residences) and MM 10-4 (preparation and implementation of a construction noise mitigation plan), the existing receptors east of may be exposed to temporary or periodic increases in noise during site preparation and grading activities for Parcels N-14 and N-15 that exceed 65 dBA (A-weighted decibel scale), resulting in a potentially significant and unavoidable impact. Construction-related noise impacts resulting from concrete and asphalt crushing and green waste mulching, if needed, would be less than significant with implementation of MM 10-5, which requires that the equipment for crushing and mulching be located at least 500 feet from residences and at least 300 feet from commercial or industrial buildings and oriented so that the noisiest side is facing away from the residences. 22    Page 126 Because the construction activities associated with the proposed Projects will be the same that were the basis for the analysis in the Final EIR, no new or substantially more severe impacts will result with implementation of the proposed Projects compared to what was analyzed in the Final EIR for the Approved Project. EIR Threshold 10.4 Would the project expose persons to or generate noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? The Final EIR concluded that construction noise from the Approved Project would potentially exceed the noise level limits established in the City’s Development Code resulting in a potentially significant noise impact. With implementation of RRs and MMs identified in the Final EIR, impacts from construction noise that exceed the City Development Code requirements would be reduced, but not to a less than significant level. This impact is significant and unavoidable for the Approved Project. As described in the Project Description, construction activities associated with the proposed Projects will be the same as construction assumptions that were the basis for the analysis in the Final EIR. The Final EIR also concluded that potential impacts related to operational noise that exceeds the City’s noise standards, including operational noise from proposed residential and associated uses (including potential live-work units), would be reduced to less than significant levels. As discussed above, with adherence to the noise limits established in the Development Code (refer to Final EIR RR 10-3), operational noise, including noise generated by the outdoor activities associated with the proposed uses, will be less than significant, consistent with the conclusions of the Final EIR. Although the impacts of the environment on a project are not impacts pursuant to CEQA, the Final EIR concluded that future noise levels along 6th Street could exceed the established noise standards for interior habitable rooms of residential uses (45 dBA or less, as required by the California Building Code) and exterior noise standards identified in the City’s General Plan (Conditionally Acceptable 70 dBA CNEL noise compatibility limit). Final EIR MM 10-7 requires the preparation of an acoustic study to demonstrate that residential habitable rooms facing 6th Street have interior noise levels of 45 dBA or less, and to demonstrate that exterior noise levels do not exceed 70 dBA CNEL. The required acoustic study has been prepared for residential units within Parcel N-14 adjacent to 6th Street and is provided in Attachment C to this document and demonstrates that required exterior noise levels are met, and required interior noise levels are achieved with adherence to the identified recommendations. Therefore, no new or substantially more severe impacts will result with implementation of the proposed Projects compared to what was analyzed in the Final EIR for the Approved Project. Initial Study Threshold 12e For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Initial Study Threshold 12f For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? The Initial Study prepared for the Empire Lakes Specific Plan Amendment Draft EIR identified that the 60 dBA CNEL contour for the ONT does not lie within the City of Rancho Cucamonga, and the ONT ALUCP identifies that Rancho Cucamonga is not an affected jurisdiction for noise. Additionally, the Specific Plan 23    Page 127 area is not within the vicinity of a private airstrip. Consistent with the conclusion of the Initial Study, the proposed Projects, which are within PA B, are not within the 60 dBA CNEL contour for the Ontario International Airport and will not be exposed to excessive noise levels from airport operations. No new or substantially more severe impacts will result with implementation of the proposed Projects compared to what was analyzed in the Final EIR for the Approved Project. 11.0 POPULATION AND HOUSING EIR Threshold 11.1 Would the project induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through the extension of roads or other infrastructure)? The Final EIR concluded that although the Approved Project would be consistent with local, regional, at State policies that encourage mixed use higher density housing development near employment centers and transit opportunities, the Approved Project would induce substantial housing and population growth in the City and region beyond adopted growth forecasts, resulting in a significant and unavoidable project impact. However, the Approved Project would have a less than significant impact related to employment. The proposed Projects involve the development of 258 townhomes in PA 1B, including potential live- work units within Parcels N-12 and N-15. The proposed development is well within the 2,000 units and non-residential building area allowed to be developed within PA 1B. To date, no other residential units have been developed in PA 1B. Based on the population generation factor used in the Final EIR (3.04 residents per dwelling unit), the proposed Projects will generate approximately 784 new residents in the City of Rancho Cucamonga (compared to up to 10,488 new residents assumed in the Final EIR with buildout of the Specific Plan; 6,080 residents in PA 1B). The proposed Projects implement the Approved Project and will not generate new population beyond that anticipated in the Final EIR. It should also be noted that SCAG’s latest growth forecasts as presented in the SCAG 2024–2050 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS), adopted in April 2024, include the growth that will occur from implementation of the Approved Project, including the proposed Projects. No new or substantially more severe impacts will result from implementation of the proposed Projects compared to what was analyzed in the Final EIR for the Approved Project. Initial Study Threshold 13b Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Initial Study Threshold 13c Would the project displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? As identified in the Initial Study prepared for the Empire Lakes Specific Plan Amendment Draft EIR, the Specific Plan Area, including PA 1B, was previously developed with the Empire Lakes Golf Course and the Approved Project would not displace housing or people. The Project sites are currently undeveloped. The proposed Projects implement the Approved Project and involve the development of residential units on the undeveloped sites and will not displace housing or people. No new impacts will result with implementation of the proposed project compared to what was analyzed in the Initial Study. 24    Page 128 12.0 PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION EIR Thresholds 12.1 through 12.4 Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for: x x x x Fire Protection? Police Protection? Schools? Libraries? The Final EIR concluded that implementation of the Approved Project and associated increase in the City’s population would increase the demand for public services. However, with incorporation of the identified Final EIR PDFs, RRs and MMs, these impacts would be reduced to levels considered less than significant. The proposed Projects implement the Approved Project and involve the development of 258 townhomes within PA 1B, including potential live-work units within Parcels N-12 and N-15. The proposed development is well within the 2,000 units and non-residential building area allowed to be developed within PA 1B (the proposed Projects will be the first development in PA 1B). The increased demand on public services (i.e., fire and police services and libraries) and the potential increase in students from the proposed residential uses requiring school services, along with the previously approved and proposed developments in PA 1A, will not exceed that assumed and evaluated in the Final EIR for the Approved Project. As with the Approved Project, the proposed Projects incorporate Final EIR RR 12-1 (compliance with applicable codes, ordinances and standard conditions, including the current edition of the California Fire Code and the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District (RCFPD) Fire Protection Standards and Guidance Documents); Final EIR RR 12-2 (payment of applicable development impact fees to the City for public services); and Final EIR RR 12-4 (payment of developer fees to the impacted school districts). Further, the proposed Projects incorporate Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) features (refer to Final EIR PDF 12-1). The City has also purchased a site for a potential future fire station (refer to Final EIR PDF 12-4). Potential impacts to public services will be less than significant, consistent with conclusions of the Final EIR. No new or substantially more severe impacts will result from implementation of the proposed Projects compared to what was analyzed in the Final EIR for the Approved Project. EIR Threshold 12.5 Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for parks? EIR Threshold 12.6 Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? 25    Page 129 EIR Threshold 12.7 Would the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? The Final EIR concluded that implementation of the Approved Project and associated increase in the City’s population would increase the demand for park and recreational services. Further, the Approved Project would involve the construction of new park and recreational facilities. However, with incorporation of the identified Final EIR PDFs, RRs and MMs, impacts related to parks and recreational facilities were determined to be less than significant. The proposed Projects implement the Approved Project and involve the development 258 townhomes within PA 1B, including potential live-work units within Parcels N-12 and N-15. The proposed development is well within the 2,000 units and non-residential building area allowed to be developed within PA 1B (the proposed Projects will be the first development in PA 1B). The increased demand on park and recreational facilities from the proposed Projects along with the previously approved development in PA IA will not exceed that assumed and evaluated in the Final EIR for the Approved Project. As with the Approved Project, the proposed Projects will require payment of the City’s Community and Recreation Center Impact Fee (Final RR 12-2), and dedication of land, payment of in-lieu fees, or a combination of both for the provision of neighborhood and community park or recreational purposes (Final EIR RR 12-3). Compliance with requirements and the provision of park and recreational facilities throughout the Specific Plan area, as identified in the Specific Plan, will ensure that impacts to parks will be less than significant, consistent with conclusions of the Final EIR. The proposed Projects do not involve the development of any of the identified REC (recreation areas) in the Specific Plan. However, the proposed Projects include common open space areas and amenities (i.e., landscaped areas and gathering spaces) and the proposed development within Parcel N-14 includes an approximately 0.14-acre park. The physical impacts associated with construction and use of these facilities have been analyzed in the Final EIR and this document. No new or substantially more severe impacts will result from implementation of the proposed project compared to what was analyzed in the Final EIR for the Approved Project. 13.0 TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC EIR Threshold 13.1 Would the project conflict with any applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? Pedestrian, bicycle and transit facilities are discussed under EIR Threshold 13.5, below. With respect to roadways, the Final EIR concluded that vehicle trips generated by operation of the Approved Project would lead to study area intersections and freeway facilities operating at deficient level of service (LOS) (exceeding City of Rancho Cucamonga, City of Ontario, and/or Caltrans standards). Even with implementation of Final RR 13-2 and RR 13-3, and MM 13-1 through MM 13-4, impacts would remain significant due to the lack of feasible mitigation and/or because the Property Owner/Developer or the City of Rancho Cucamonga cannot guarantee the implementation of improvements in another jurisdiction (i.e., in the City of Ontario and on Caltrans facilities). Significant and unavoidable impacts 26    Page 130 were identified at I-10 and I-15 mainline segments and ramps under the Existing Year (2014) and/or Completion Year (2024) Plus Project and Cumulative Year (2036) traffic analysis scenarios. The proposed Projects involve the development of 258 townhomes within PA 1B, including potential live-work units within Parcels N-12 and N-15. The proposed development is well within the 2,000 units and non-residential building area allowed to be developed within PA 1B (the proposed Projects will be the first development in PA 1B). Fehr & Peers conducted an analysis of the proposed Projects to determine consistency with the Approved Project as it relates to the traffic analysis assumptions that were the basis for the Final EIR Traffic Impact Analysis conducted for and presented in the Empire Lakes Specific Plan Amendment Final EIR (TIA). The City of Rancho Cucamonga The Resort Specific Plan North (Planning Area 1B) – Trip Generation Comparison Memo prepared by Fehr & Peers (August 2024) is provided in Attachment B of this document (Traffic Memorandum). As presented in the Traffic Memorandum, the proposed Projects are consistent with the Approved Project with respect to the assumptions in the TIA as outlined in the following table: Attribute TIA Assumption Proposed Project Consistency Between the Metrolink Station and No Conflict – The Project sites for the proposed Projects are within the Empire LakesLocation6th Street PA 1B boundary. No Conflict – The secondary access locations are consistent with the assumptions from the TIA. The TIA assumed one primary access point to 6th Street; however, access The TIA assumed access by one to 6th Street was expanded with the adoption of The Resort Specific Plan Planning signalized intersection on 6th Street Area 1B Mixed Use Infill Area in 2022. The proposed Projects are consistent with the and minor access locations to the amended Specific Plan for PA 1B adopted in 2022, which added two additional access east on 7th Street, to the west on points to 6th Street. Although these access points are not consistent with the original 7th Street, and connectivity to the TIA assumptions, the additional access points only improve connectivity and Access Metrolink Station to the North.intersection density and, if anything, will improve operations when compared to what the TIA evaluated (e.g. the circulation associated with the proposed Projects would be better than what was documented in the TIA). No Conflict – Plans for the proposed Projects within Parcels N-12, N-14 and N-15 occupy a total of 11.43 of the acres within PA 1B and are within the acres assumed in the TIA. The TIA assumed 67 acres for the northside of The Resort.Size No Conflict – The Resort Specific Plan defines Parcels N-14 and N-15 as a Village Neighborhood (VN) place type, which allows medium-density residential development (16-28 dwelling units per acre), and Parcel N-12 as a Core Living (CL) place type, which allows medium-high-density residential development (18-35 dwelling units per acre). Portions of Parcels N-12, N-14, and N-15 along 6th Street, The Resort Parkway, and E Street also have a Mixed Use (MU) Overlay. The proposed residential uses, and potential live-work units in the Mixed Use (Use) Overlay are consistent with the respective land use designation and allowed densities. The TIA assumed areas N-12, N-14, and N-15 to be medium to medium high-density housing. Density Assumed to be consistent with the Specific Plan guidelines and City No Conflict Standards Access Design A review of the trip generation from the proposed Projects in conjunction with existing and approved development within PA 1A area was conducted. As described in the Traffic Memorandum, the trip generation for the proposed, existing, and approved uses were calculated using standard trip generation rates from the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition. The estimated trip generation from the 27    Page 131 proposed Projects is 124 AM peak hour trips, 147 PM peak hour trips and 1,858 average daily trips (ADT). The trips generated from the proposed Projects in conjunction with existing and previously approved development in PA 1A south of 6th Street is estimated to be 1,034 AM peak hour trips, 1,221 PM peak hour trips, and 13,901 ADT, is fewer than the total number of peak hour trips and ADT anticipated for buildout of the Specific Plan area (the Final EIR TIA estimated 1,676 AM peak hour trips, 2,097 PM peak hour trips and 25,183 ADT). Therefore, the TIA for the Approved Project accounted for the proposed Projects. There will not be an increase in trip generation with the proposed Projects compared to that assumed in the TIA and, with implementation of applicable PDFs, RRs, and MMs (including payment of required transportation development impact fees required by Final EIR RR 13-2), no new or substantially more severe traffic impacts at study intersections or freeway mainline segments will result. With respect to construction-related traffic, as identified in the Project Description, there will be no heavy truck trips on the local roadways associated with grading activities for the proposed Projects (e.g., no import or export of soil) as the earthwork within PA 1B would balance onsite. However, there will be heavy truck trips associated with other construction activities for the import of materials, equipment, concrete, etc. The number of heavy truck trips for the proposed Projects, which are limited to development within Parcels N-12, N-14, and N-15, will represent a relatively small portion of the estimated 50 heavy trucks on a daily basis in the Final EIR for the Approved Project. Further, the construction activities occurring in PA 1A at the same time as the proposed Projects would be limited to the Electric Pickle Project, located in the southwestern portion of the Specific Plan area (north of and adjacent to 4th Street). Overlapping construction activities in PA 1A and PA 1B were anticipated and evaluated in the Final EIR. Construction activities and associated truck travel will be required to comply with applicable City requirements, including Chapter 10.56, Truck Routes and Restrictions, of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code (refer to Final EIR RR 13-4). No new or substantially more severe impacts will result from implementation of the proposed project compared to what was analyzed in the Final EIR for the Approved Project. EIR Threshold 13.2 Would the project conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion? The Final EIR concluded that San Bernardino County Congestion Management Plan (CMP)-designated intersections and freeway facilities would operate at a deficient LOS with the Approved Project. Identified mitigation for certain intersections is not feasible as the Property Owner/Developer and the City of Rancho Cucamonga cannot guarantee implementation of mitigation in the City of Ontario or for Caltrans facilities. Impacts to CMP intersections were determined to be significant and unavoidable along with freeway mainline segments and ramps along I-10 and I-15. As described above for Threshold 13.1, there will not be an increase in trip generation with the proposed Projects compared to that assumed in the TIA. As identified in the Final EIR, there is no feasible mitigation for the impacts to CMP intersections, and/or the Property Owner/Developer or the City of Rancho Cucamonga cannot guarantee the implementation of improvements in another jurisdiction. Therefore, significant and unavoidable impacts at CMP facilities identified in the Final EIR will occur with the proposed Projects. No new or substantially more severe traffic impacts at study intersections or freeway mainline segments will result from implementation of the proposed Projects compared to what was analyzed in the Final EIR for the Approved Project. 28    Page 132 EIR Threshold 13.3 Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? EIR Threshold 13.4 Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? The Final EIR concluded that the Approved Project would provide adequate project access and an internal circulation system (refer to Final EIR PDF 13-1), which would be in compliance with applicable requirements for emergency access (refer to Final EIR RR 12-1). Notably, it was determined that there would be: (1) sufficient internal accessibility throughout the Specific Plan area, (2) appropriate traffic- control devices, (3) adequate spacing between external access points, and (4) adequate emergency vehicle access. Impacts were determined to be less than significant and no additional mitigation was required. The intersection improvements required by Final EIR PDF 13-1, including along 6th Street and 7th Street, will be completed by the Project Applicant, as required by the City. The proposed Projects will not change the types of uses proposed in Specific Plan Parcels N-12, N-14, and N-15 (residential and associated uses), and will not change the access requirements for this area. As previously identified, the secondary access locations for the proposed Projects are consistent with the assumptions from the TIA prepared for the Final EIR. However, access to 6th Street was expanded with the adoption of The Resort Specific Plan Planning Area 1B Mixed Use Infill Area in 2022. As previously discussed, the TIA assumed one access point to 6th Street. The proposed Projects are consistent with the amended Specific Plan adopted in 2022, which added two additional access points to 6 th Street. The additional access points serve to improve connectivity and intersection density and overall circulation operations when compared to what was evaluated in the TIA and Final EIR. Therefore, the proposed Projects would have enhanced emergency access. Further, the proposed Projects will adhere to applicable codes, ordinances and standard conditions, including the current edition of the California Fire Code and the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District (RCFPD) Fire Protection Standards and Guidance Documents regarding access (as required by Final EIR RR 12-1). Additionally, as identified in the Final EIR, access to the Project sites during construction would be from adjacent streets. As anticipated in the Final EIR, there may be limited partial lane closures along these roadways during construction. The lane closures would be temporary and would not block all travel lanes. Additionally, as required by Final EIR MM 13-5, a Traffic Control Plan will be prepared for implementation during the construction phase to ensure that at least one unobstructed lane is maintained in both directions and that temporary traffic signal, signal carriers (i.e., flag persons), or other appropriate traffic controls be implemented, if needed. Therefore, no new or substantially more severe impacts will result from implementation of the proposed Projects compared to what was analyzed in the Final EIR for the Approved Project. EIR Threshold 13.5 Would the project conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? The Final EIR concluded that the Approved Project would promote the use of alternative transportation systems (i.e., sidewalks, bikeways and bus service, transit). This would be accomplished by connecting pedestrians and bicyclists to various locations within the Specific Plan area; to the Rancho Cucamonga Metrolink Station adjacent to and northeast of the Specific Plan area; to nearby employment-generating and retail uses; and to bus facilities. 29    Page 133 The proposed Projects implement development allowed in PA 1B as part of the Approved Project. Consistent with Specific Plan requirements, the proposed Projects include pedestrian pathways throughout the development area that will serve pedestrian and bicyclists. Additionally, The Resort Parkway, which borders Parcel N-12 to the south; the roadway that borders Parcels N-14 and N-15 to the west; and the roadway that borders Parcel N-15 to the north (extension of 7th Street) will include painted “sharrows” indicating travel lanes are shared by bicycles and vehicles. The proposed pedestrian and bicycle facilities will provide connectivity to other parcels within PA 1B, existing development within PA 1A, and uses adjacent to the Specific Plan area, including but not limited to residential and non- residential uses and the Metrolink Station. As with the Approved Project, the proposed Projects will not preclude pedestrians, bicyclists, or transit users from traveling along existing and planned non-vehicular facilities and will facilitate access to the alternative transportation modes from on-site land uses. The proposed Projects will not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, nor will it otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities. Therefore, no new or substantially more severe impacts will result from implementation of the proposed Projects compared to what was analyzed in the Final EIR for the Approved Project. Initial Study Threshold 16c Would the project result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or change in location that results in substantial safety risks? The Initial Study prepared for the Empire Lakes Specific Plan Amendment Draft EIR concluded that the anticipated increase in population and employment generated by the uses that would be allowed by the Approved Project would not be of a magnitude that would impact air traffic volumes. Further, the Approved Project would not include any uses that would change air traffic patterns. It was determined that no substantial safety risks would result from the Approved Project and no mitigation was required. Consistent with the conclusion of the Initial Study, the proposed residential uses, which are entirely within PA 1 of the Specific Plan area, are consistent with the amount and type of residential development anticipated by the Approved Project, will not impact air traffic volumes or change air traffic patterns. Therefore, there will no substantial safety risks from changes in air traffic patterns. No new impacts will result from implementation of the proposed Projects compared to what was analyzed in the Final EIR for the Approved Project. 14.0 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS EIR Threshold 14.1 Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? EIR Threshold 14.2 Would the project require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? EIR Threshold 14.3 Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has inadequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? 30    Page 134 EIR Threshold 14.4 Would the project be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? EIR Threshold 14.5 Would the project comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? EIR Threshold 14.6 Would the project require or result in the construction of new electric, natural gas or communication facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? The Fina EIR concluded that with implementation of the identified Final EIR RRs and MMs, impacts resulting from the Approved Project related to utilities and service systems would be less than significant. The proposed Projects implement the Approved Project and involve the development of 258 townhome units within Parcels N-12, N-14 and N-15 of PA 1B, with the potential for live-work units within Parcel N-12 and N-14. As discussed in Section 2.0, Project Description, of this document, this development is within the maximum development allowed for each parcel. Further, as analyzed in the Final EIR, the Approved Project allows for up to 2,000 residential units and 120,000 sf of non-residential uses to be developed within PA 1B. The proposed Projects represent the first development in PA 1B. Therefore, the proposed Projects would not exceed the projected demand for water or dry utilities or increase the amount of wastewater or solid waste generation anticipated for the Approved Project and analyzed in the Final EIR. Because the amount and types of uses proposed would be consistent with the Approved Project, the utility infrastructure (on-site and off-site) needed to serve the proposed development would be the same as with the Approved Project (e.g., water, sewer, electric, and telecommunication lines). As with the Approved Project, utility infrastructure would be installed within PA 1B to serve the proposed use and would connect to existing and planned utility infrastructure within or adjacent to the Specific Plan area. The physical impact area for the utility infrastructure for the proposed Projects is entirely within the physical impact area for the Approved Project that was evaluated in the Final EIR. The proposed Projects incorporate water conservation requirements associated with landscaping (Final EIR RR 14-3 and RR 14-4), and solid waste reduction requirements during construction and operation (Final EIR RR 14-5 and RR 14-6). Consistent with conclusion of the Final EIR, the proposed Projects will have a less than significant impact related to utilities and service systems. No new impacts will result from implementation of the proposed Projects compared to what was analyzed in the Final EIR for the Approved Project. Initial Study Threshold 17a Would the project exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? Consistent with the conclusions of the Initial Study prepared for the Empire Lakes Specific Plan Amendment Draft EIR, development within the City, including the Approved Project and the proposed Projects, is required to comply with all applicable wastewater discharge requirements of the NPDES program, as enforced by the Santa Ana RWQCB. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Projects will not result in an exceedance of wastewater treatment requirements and impacts will be less than significant. No new impacts will result from implementation of the proposed Projects compared to what was analyzed in the Initial Study. 31    Page 135 ATTACHMENT B TRAFFIC MEMORANDUM    Page 136 Memorandum Date: To: August 15, 2024 Tina Andersen, T&B Planning From:Marsha Phillips Todd Carpenter Jason D. Pack, P.E. Subject:City of Rancho Cucamonga The Resort Specific Plan North (Planning Area 1B) – Trip Generation Comparison Memo OC24-1050.01 Fehr & Peers completed a trip generation comparison for the three proposed projects that are currently being processed north of 6th Street at The Resort Planning Area 1B (Parcels N-12, N-14 and N-15). The three current projects propose the following development: x x x Parcel N-12 (Lot 7 of Tract 20440) is generally located between C and D Streets and between The Resort Parkway and B Street. The proposed development within Parcel N- 12 includes 75 townhome units ranging from two to four bedrooms. Parcel N-14 (Lot 1 of Tract 20440) is generally located east of B Street and between 6th Street and Parcel N-15. The proposed development within Parcel N-14 consists of 84 two and three bedroom townhome units. Parcel N-15 (Lot 12 of TTM 20688) is generally located east of B Street and is between Parcel N-14 and E Street (E Street connects through to 7th Street east of The Resort). The proposed development within Parcel N-15 consists of 99 three and four bedroom townhome units. In total, these three projects will construct 258 townhomes in the PA 1B area of The Resort Specific Plan (formerly Empire Lakes Specific Plan). It should also be noted that the Specific Plan was amended in July 2022 as shown in The Resort Specific Plan Planning Area 1B Mixed Use Infill Area (Planning Area 1B is devoted to the property located north of 6th Street). The amended Specific Plan incorporates additional right-in/right-out access points from 6th Street to spread the traffic to additional intersections and create greater intersection density for PA 1B (increased intersection density improves connectivity, shortens trip lengths for bicycles and pedestrians, and 3750 University Avenue | Suite 225 | Riverside, CA 92501 | (951) 274-4800 | Fax (951) 684-4324 www.fehrandpeers.com   Page 137 Tina Andersen August 09, 2024 Page 2 of 5 reduced the number of vehicle trips generated by the project). The additional connectivity would improve traffic conditions compared to the results documented in Final Transportation Impact Analysis for Empire Lakes (herein referred to as the TIA), which supported the analysis of traffic impacts in the Empire lakes Specific Plan Final Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) certified by the City of Rancho Cucamonga in May 2016 (Empire Lakes Specific Plan Amendment Final EIR or Final EIR), State Clearinghouse [SCH] No. 2015041083). Fehr & Peers completed the TIA in October of 2015. The TIA provided the full transportation impact assessment for the Empire Lakes Specific Plan project and identified measures needed to mitigate identified traffic impacts (including timing of the proposed mitigation measures). The purpose of this memorandum is to explain how the trip generation of the proposed projects, in conjunction with the existing and approved development at the southern half of The Resort Specific Plan (PA 1A), does not exceed the trip generation in the TIA and confirm that no additional assessment is needed. TIA and Proposed Project Comparison Table 1 compares key attributes of the proposed projects with the TIA assumptions to show consistency with the TIA; thus, ensuring that transportation will not be affected. The Specific Plan land use assumptions are presented in Table 1. Trip Generation Comparison Fehr & Peers estimated the trip generation for the three projects for comparison to the assumptions used in the TIA. The results are summarized and compared to the TIA in Table 2. The trip generation for the existing and approved development uses (dwelling units) were calculated using standard trip generation rates from the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition. The trip generation is presented in Table 3.    Page 138 Tina Andersen August 09, 2024 Page 3 of 5 Table 1: The Resort PA 1B Project Attributes Attribute TIA Assumption Current Proposal Consistency Between the Metrolink Station No Conflict – The Project sites for the proposed projects are within theLocationand 6th Street Empire Lakes PA 1B boundary. No Conflict – The secondary access locations are consistent with the assumptions from the TIA. However, access to 6th Street was expanded with The TIA assumed access by one the adoption of The Resort Specific Plan Planning Area 1B Mixed Use Infill signalized intersection on 6th Street and minor access locations to the east on 7th Area in 2022. As previously discussed, the TIA assumed one access point to 6th Street. The projects are consistent with the amended Specific Plan adopted in 2022, which added two additional access points to 6th Street.Access Street, to the west on 7th Street, Although these access points are not consistent with the 2015 TIA and connectivity to the assumptions, the additional access points only improve connectivity and Metrolink Station to the North. intersection density and, if anything, would improve operations when compared to what the TIA evaluated (e.g. the circulation associated with the projects would be better than what was documented in the TIA). No Conflict – Plans for the three projects occupy a total of 11.43 of the acres within PA 1B and are within the acres assumed in the TIA.The TIA assumed 67 acres for the northside of The Resort.Size Use No Conflict – The Resort Specific Plan defines Parcels N-14 and N-15 as a Village Neighborhood (VN) place type, which allows medium-density residential development (16-28 dwelling units per acre), and Parcel N-12 as a Core Living (CL) place type, which allows medium-high-density residential development (18-35 dwelling units per acre). Portions of Parcels N-12, N-14, and N-15 along 6th Street, The Resort Parkway, and E Street also have a Mixed Use (MU) Overlay. The proposed residential uses, and potential live-work units in the Mixed Use (Use) Overlay are consistent with the respective land use designation and allowed densities. The TIA assumed areas N-12, N-14, and N-15 to be medium to medium high-density housing. Assumed to be consistent with the Specific Plan guidelines and Consistent. City Standards Access Design    Page 139 Table 2: Development Assumed for PA 1B within the TIA Compared to the Proposed Projects Time PA 1B - N12, N14, and N15 TIA Assumption Remaining Trips Period (TIA Assumption) – (Proposed Project + Existing and Approved Development) AM Peak Hour 124 (See table 3)PA 1B:PA 1B1: AM – 994 Total: AM – 870 (87% remaining) Total2: AM – 1,676 AM – 1,034 (62% remaining) PM Peak Hour 147 (See table 3)PA 1B:PA 1B1: PM – 1,200 Trips Total: PM – 1,053 Trips (88% remaining) Total2: PM – 2,097 Trips PM – 1,221 Trips (58% remaining) Daily 1,858 (See table 3)PA 1B:PA 1B1: Daily – 13,947 Total: Daily – 12,089 (87% remaining) Total2: Daily – 25,183 Daily – 13,901 (55% remaining) Notes: 1. PA 1B: refers to the north side of The Resort Specific Plan which consists of the area between 6th Street and the Metrolink – San Bernardino Line. 2. Total: refers to the total development (north and south; PA 1B and PA 1A) at The Resort Specific Plan. 3750 University Avenue | Suite 225 | Riverside, CA 92501 | (951) 274-4800 | Fax (951) 684-4324 www.fehrandpeers.com    Page 140 Table 3: Trip Generation of the Proposed Projects – Parcel N-12, N-14 and N-15 in PA 1B of The Resort Specific Plan AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Land Use Units ITE Code1 Quantity Daily In Out Total In Out Total Townhomes2 Townhomes2 Townhomes2 Dwelling Units Dwelling Units Dwelling Units 215 215 215 75 84 99 540 605 9 27 30 36 40 25 28 18 20 43 4810 713 12 31 36 93 48 33 86 23 61 56 Total Project Trips 1,858 124 147 Notes: 1. Sources: Trip Generation Manual 11th Edition (Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2021). 2. ITE rates for single-family attached housing are 7.2 for daily, 0.48 for AM peak hour, and 0.57 for PM peak hour. Single- family attached housing includes any single-family housing unit that shares a wall with an adjoining dwelling unit, including duplexes, townhouses, and rowhouses. As shown in Table 2, the three Project sites were subtracted from the trip “envelope” assumed in the TIA for PA 1B of the Resort Specific Plan to verify that the projects are consistent with the TIA assumptions. Additionally, the trips were subtracted from the overall trips for the entire Specific Plan area (PA1B and PA 1A) to verify the entirety of the development that has been constructed/proposed on the south side of the specific Plan area (PA 1A) combined with the three proposed projects above are within the envelope of what was assessed in the TIA. The comparison resulted in the area generating fewer daily, AM, and PM total trips compared to what was estimated in the TIA for PA 1B of the Specific Plan area and for the entire Specific Plan area as a whole. Therefore, the projects are consistent with the findings from the TIA, and no additional assessment is required. We hope this information is useful. If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me directly at 949-308-6312. 3750 University Avenue | Suite 225 | Riverside, CA 92501 | (951) 274-4800 | Fax (951) 684-4324 www.fehrandpeers.com   Page 141 ATTACHMENT C ACOUSTIC STUDY    Page 142 August 16, 2024 Ms. Tina Andersen T & B PLANNING, INC. 3200 El Camino Real, Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92602 Subject:The Resort Specific Plan Planning Area 1B Parcel N-14 (Lot 1 of Tract 20440) Acoustical Study, City of Rancho Cucamonga Dear Ms. Andersen: 1.0 Introduction RK ENGINEERING GROUP, INC. (RK) is pleased to provide this noise study for The Resort Specific Plan Planning Area (PA) 1B Parcel N-14 (Lot 1 of Tract 20440) Project (hereinafter referred to as “project”). The purpose of this study is to evaluate the anticipated future exterior and interior noise levels within the proposed project’s habitable living spaces pursuant to Mitigation Measure (MM) 10-7 of the Empire Lakes/Industrial Area Specific Plan (IASP) Sub-Area 18 Specific Plan Amendment Project Final Program Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR): Final EIR MM 10-7: Prior to issuance of building permits for buildings adjacent to 6th Street, the Property Owner/Developer shall submit an acoustical study to the City of Rancho Cucamonga Building Official that demonstrates that the proposed architectural design would provide an interior noise level of 45 A-weighted decibels Community Noise Equivalent Level (dBA CNEL) or less (based on buildout traffic noise conditions) in all habitable rooms of the proposed buildings facing 6th Street. The Property Owner/Developer shall also submit plans and specifications showing that: •ꢀ All residential units shall be provided with a means of mechanical ventilation, as required by the California Building Code for occupancy with windows closed. •ꢀ All exterior areas shall be located behind the buildings or shielded by a sound wall or other barrier to provide exterior noise levels not exceeding 70 dBA CNEL.    Page 143 T & B PLANNING, INC. Page 2 1.1 Project Site Location The Resort Specific Plan (previously the Empire Lakes Specific Plan) PA 1B is generally located north of 6th Street, south of the Metrolink railroad tracks, between Cleveland Avenue and Miliken Avenue in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The project site is located north of and adjacent to 6th Street, east of PA 1B Parcels 12 and 13 and The Resort Parkway, and west of the existing AMLI at Empire Lakes residential community and is currently vacant. A project site location map is provided in Exhibit A. 1.2 Project Description The proposed project consists of developing 84 townhomes, recreational space, and onsite parking within Parcel N-14. Building 9, which consists of nine (9) units (Units 50-58) is the only building proposed within Parcel N-14 with habitable units fronting onto 6th Street. Therefore, for the purposes of this study, exterior and interior noise levels are assessed at the first-row residential dwelling units (Units 50-58) facing 6th Street within Building 9. The site plan for the proposed project is provided on Exhibit B. 2.0 Study Method and Procedures The following section describes the noise modeling procedures and assumptions used in this analysis. 2.1 Roadway Noise Modeling Roadway noise from vehicular traffic was projected using a version of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Traffic Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-77-108). The FHWA model arrives at the predicted noise level through a series of adjustments to the key input parameters. The following outlines the key adjustments made to the computer model for the roadway inputs: •ꢀ Roadway classification – (e.g., freeway, major arterial, arterial, secondary, collector, etc.); •ꢀ Roadway Active Width – (distance between the center of the outer most travel lanes on each side of the roadway); •ꢀ Average Daily Traffic (ADT) Volumes, Travel Speeds, Percentages of automobiles, medium trucks, and heavy trucks; •ꢀ Roadway grade and angle of view; RK20052.doc JN: 0094-2024-02   Page 144 T & B PLANNING, INC. Page 3 •ꢀ Soft site conditions to be consistent with the City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Update Draft EIR, Appendix 5.13-1: Noise and Vibration Technical Memo); and •ꢀ Percentage of total ADT which flows each hour throughout a 24-hour period. The following outlines key adjustments to the computer model for the project site parameter inputs: •ꢀ Vertical and horizontal distances (Sensitive receptor distance from noise source); •ꢀ Noise barrier vertical and horizontal distances (Noise barrier distance from sound source and receptor); •ꢀ Traffic noise source spectra; and •ꢀ Topography. Table 1 shows the roadway parameters and traffic volume data utilized for this study. The parameters listed in Table 1 are referenced from the Traffic Noise Spreadsheet Calculator (2040 Conditions) located in the City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Update Draft EIR, Appendix 5.13-1: Noise and Vibration Technical Memo. Table 1 Roadway Parameters1 Distance fromPosted Speed (MPH) Centerline to Nearest Residential Receptors (Feet) Future Year (2040) ADTRoadwaySegment 6th Street Haven Avenue to Miliken Avenue 45 75 21,570 1 Source: City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Update Draft EIR, Appendix 5.13-1: Noise and Vibration Technical Memo. Table 2 shows the vehicle distribution and truck mix utilized for 6th Street. Vehicle distribution percentages are likewise referenced from the Traffic Noise Spreadsheet Calculator (2040 Conditions) located in the City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Update Draft EIR, Appendix 5.13-1: Noise and Vibration Technical Memo. RK20052.doc JN: 0094-2024-02   Page 145 T & B PLANNING, INC. Page 4 Table 2 Vehicle Distribution (Truck Mix)1 Daytime %Evening % (7 PM - 10 PM) 9.00 Night % (10 PM - 7 AM) 11.1 Total % of Traffic Flow 96.70 Motor-Vehicle Type (7 AM - 7 PM) 79.90Automobiles Medium Trucks Heavy Trucks 79.90 9.00 11.1 1.28 79.90 9.00 11.1 2.10 1 Source: City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Update Draft EIR, Appendix 5.13-1: Noise and Vibration Technical Memo. 2.2 Interior Noise Modeling The interior noise level is the difference between the projected exterior noise level at the structure’s façade and the noise reduction provided by the structure itself. Typical building construction will provide a conservative 12 dBA noise level reduction with a “windows open” condition and a very conservative 20 dBA noise level reduction with “windows closed”. The interior noise level is estimated by subtracting the building shell design from the estimated exterior noise level. The interior noise analysis is based on industry standards for building noise reduction established by the FHWA, the 2013 California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol (TeNS), the California Office of Noise Control Catalog of Sound Transmission Class (STC) and Impact Insulation Class (IIC) Ratings for Wall and Floor/Ceiling Assemblies, and the California Building Standards Code, Title 24. The TeNS manual shows that the noise reduction due to building exteriors with ordinary sash windows (windows closed) is at least 20 decibels. The building’s exterior walls will be constructed per the latest building code insulation requirements and provide occupants with the most protection from exterior noise. Insulated exterior walls, designed per the latest California Building Standards, would provide a minimum of STC 35-40. Windows, on the other hand, are one of the acoustically weakest parts of the structure. Therefore, for a conservative estimate of preliminary interior noise, the building’s noise reduction potential is limited to the STC of the windows. RK20052.doc JN: 0094-2024-02   Page 146 T & B PLANNING, INC. Page 5 3.0 Noise Analysis The following exterior and interior noise analyses have been prepared to help demonstrate that noise levels affecting the project site will not exceed 70 dBA CNEL at any outdoor patios, nor exceed 45 dBA CNEL within any habitable rooms of the proposed buildings that face 6th Street. 3.1 Exterior Noise Modeling The project must show that exterior noise levels at the project site will not exceed the 70 dBA CNEL threshold as prescribed in MM 10-7 of the Final EIR. Noise levels have been modeled at the patios/balconies of Units 50-58 on the first, second, and third floors facing 6th Street. Although not all floors may have patios/balconies, noise levels were modeled on all three levels to ensure a comprehensive evaluation as well as for informational purposes. Exterior noise levels are evaluated within the habitable patios and balconies. Based on the proposed site plan, these noise levels are modeled at a distance of 75 horizontal feet from the centerline of 6th Street. Although some patios and balconies may be situated slightly further back, the 75-foot distance is used as a conservative assessment of the closest balconies to the adjacent roadway. The finished patio elevation is expected to be approximately 5 feet above that of 6th Street, based on the proposed grading plan. Additionally, the proposed building floors are assumed to be approximately 10 feet tall. Therefore, the noise levels at the first-floor exterior patios, second-floor exterior balconies, and third-floor exterior balconies are estimated at approximately 5 feet, 15 feet, and 25 feet above ground level, respectively. Table 3 presents the projected exterior noise levels within the patios/balconies facing 6th Street. Exterior noise calculation sheets are provided in Appendix A. The noise levels projected in Table 3 are based on the Traffic Noise Spreadsheet Calculator (2040 Conditions) located in the City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Update Draft EIR, Appendix 5.13-1: Noise and Vibration Technical Memo. RK20052.doc JN: 0094-2024-02   Page 147 T & B PLANNING, INC. Page 6 Table 3 Future Exterior Noise Levels (2040 Conditions)1 Distance from Future Exterior Noise Levels (dBA CNEL) Exterior Noise Level Threshold (dBA CNEL) Noise Level Exceeds Threshold? Location (Units 50-58) Roadway Centerline (Feet)2 First Floor 68.6 68.4 68.1 No No No Exterior Patio Second Floor Exterior Balcony 75 70 Third Floor Exterior Balcony 1 Future exterior noise levels are based on traffic volume projections from the Traffic Noise Spreadsheet Calculator (2040 Conditions) located in the City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Update Draft EIR, Appendix 5.13-1: Noise and Vibration Technical Memo. 2 Although some patios and balconies may be situated slightly further back, noise levels are conservatively assessed at a distance of 75 feet from the centerline of 6th Street, which is the worst case scenario of the closest balconies to the roadway. As shown in Table 3, future ambient noise levels are expected to be below the established threshold of 70 dBA CNEL at all exterior patios/balconies. 3.2 Interior Noise Modeling The project must show that interior noise levels at the project site will not exceed the 45 dBA CNEL threshold as prescribed in MM 10-7 of the Final EIR. The following interior noise analysis has been performed for the first row of habitable dwellings facing the adjacent roadway (6th Street) using a typical “windows open” and “windows closed” condition. A “windows open” condition assumes 12 dBA of noise attenuation from the exterior noise level. A “windows closed” condition assumes 20 dBA of noise attenuation from the exterior noise level. Table 4 indicates the future interior noise levels along the adjacent roadway. RK20052.doc JN: 0094-2024-02   Page 148 T & B PLANNING, INC. Page 7 Table 4 Future Interior Noise Levels (2040 Conditions) Required Building Shell Noise Reduction to Achieve Standard (dBA CNEL) Interior Noise Level with Standard WindowsProjected Exterior Noise Level (dBA CNEL)1 Interior Noise Standard (dBA CNEL) Required STC Rating (STC ~ 25)Location (Units 50-58) "Windows Open"2 "Windows Closed"3 First Floor 68.6 68.4 68.1 23.6 23.4 23.1 56.6 56.4 56.1 48.6 48.4 48.1 29 29 29 Building Facade Second Floor Building Facade 45 Third Floor Building Facade 1 Worst-case future exterior noise levels are based on traffic volume projections from the Pacific Opus (TTM No. 20669) Multifamily Residential Project Traffic Impact Study Scoping Agreement, prepared by RK Engineering Group. 2 A minimum of 12 dBA noise reduction is assumed with the "windows open" condition. 3 A minimum of 20 dBA noise reduction is assumed with the "windows closed" condition. The project is expected to require a “windows closed" condition with mechanical fresh air ventilation for all residential units facing 6th Street in order to meet the threshold of 45 dBA CNEL established in MM 10-7 of the Final EIR. In addition, all residential units facing 6th Street will require upgraded STC-rated windows (STC rating of 29 or higher). Exterior walls, designed per the latest California Building Standards are typically rated between STC 35-40. In order to ensure adequate noise attenuation is provided from the building shell, exterior walls should be designed to meet the required building standards and sound attenuation targets. Attic vents and other openings should be baffled and oriented away from facing the adjacent roadways. Furthermore, the project shall comply with California Title 24 insulation building requirements for multi-family dwelling units for common separating assemblies (e.g., floor/ceiling assemblies and demising walls). 5.0 Conclusion Based upon this review, with the implementation of the following recommendations, the proposed residential dwelling units along 6th Street will be in compliance with the established exterior and interior noise standards as identified in MM 10-7 of the Empire RK20052.doc JN: 0094-2024-02   Page 149 T & B PLANNING, INC. Page 8 Lakes/Industrial Area Specific Plan (IASP) Sub-Area 18 Specific Plan Amendment Project Final Program Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR). 1.ꢀ Units 50-58 will require a “windows closed" condition with mechanical fresh air ventilation to meet the applicable 45 dBA CNEL interior noise standard. 2.ꢀ Units 50-58 will require upgraded STC-rated windows and sliding glass doors with a minimum STC rating of 29 or higher for all windows facing 6th Street. 3.ꢀ Exterior building walls and roof assemblies should be designed to meet the latest California Building Standards for building insulation. Attic vents and other openings should be baffled and oriented away from facing the adjacent roadways. 4.ꢀ Demising walls between units should be designed to meet the latest California Building Standards for separating assemblies. If you have any questions regarding this study, or would like further review, please do not hesitate to contact us at (949) 474-0809. Sincerely, RK ENGINEERING GROUP, INC. Bryan Estrada, AICP, PTP Principal Becca Morrison Environmental Specialist Attachments RK20052.doc JN: 0094-2024-02   Page 150 ꢀExhibits    Page 151 Exhibit ALocation Map Legend: = Project Site Boundary N engineering0094-2024-02 group, inc.THE RESORT SPECIFIC PLAN PLANNING AREA 1B PARCEL N-14 (LOT 1 OF TRACT 20440) ACOUSTICAL STUDY, City of Rancho Cucamonga, CA    Page 152 Exhibit BSite Plan Legend: = Building 9 (Units 50-58) engineeringgroup, inc.0094-2024-02 THE RESORT SPECIFIC PLAN PLANNING AREA 1B PARCEL N-14 (LOT 1 OF TRACT 20440) ACOUSTICAL STUDY, City of Rancho Cucamonga, CA    Page 153 Appendices    Page 154 Appendix A Exterior Noise Calculation Worksheets ꢀ   Page 155 &,tꢀͲZꢁͲϳϳͲϭϬϴꢂ,/',tꢀzꢂEK/^ꢃꢂWZꢃꢁ/ꢄd/KEꢂDKꢁꢃ>ꢂ;ꢄꢀ>sꢃEKͿ WZK:ꢀꢁd͗ ZKꢄꢅtꢄz͗ >Kꢁꢄd/KE͗ dŚĞꢂZĞƐŽƌƚꢂ;dƌĂĐƚꢂϮϬϲϴϳͿ ϲƚŚꢂ^ƚƌĞĞƚꢂ;,ĂǀĞŶꢂꢄǀĞŶƵĞꢂƚŽꢂDŝůŝŬĞŶꢂꢄǀĞŶƵĞͿ &ŝƌƐƚͲƌŽǁꢂĞdžƚĞƌŝŽƌꢂƉĂƚŝŽƐꢂĨĂĐŝŶŐꢂϲƚŚꢂ^ƚƌĞĞƚꢂ;ĨŝƌƐƚꢂĨůŽŽƌͿ :Kꢃꢂη͗ ꢅꢄdꢀ͗ ꢀE'/EꢀꢀZ͗ ꢃ͘ꢂDŽƌƌŝƐŽŶ ϬϬϵϰͲϮϬϮϰͲϬϮ ϳͬϯϬͬϮϬϮϰ EK/^ꢃꢂ/EWhdꢂꢁꢀdꢀ ZKꢀꢁtꢀzꢂꢄKEꢁ/d/KE^Zꢃꢄꢃ/sꢃZꢂ/EWhdꢂꢁꢀdꢀ ꢄꢅdꢂс ^Wꢀꢀꢅꢂс W<ꢂ,Zꢂйꢂс Ϯϭ͕ϱϳϬ ϰϱ Zꢀꢁꢀ/sꢀZꢂꢅ/^dꢄEꢁꢀꢂсꢂ ꢅ/^dꢂꢁͬ>ꢂdKꢂtꢄ>>ꢂс Zꢀꢁꢀ/sꢀZꢂ,ꢀ/',dꢂс ϳϱ ϳϱ ϱ͘ϬϭϬ EꢀꢄZꢂ>ꢄEꢀͬ&ꢄZꢂ>ꢄEꢀꢂꢅ/^dꢂ ZKꢄꢅꢂꢀ>ꢀsꢄd/KEꢂс 'Zꢄꢅꢀꢂꢂꢂс ϱϱ ϳϱ͘Ϭ Ϭ͘Ϭ й Ϯ͕ϭϱϳ tꢄ>>ꢂꢅ/^dꢄEꢁꢀꢂ&ZKDꢂZꢀꢁꢀ/sꢀZꢂс Wꢄꢅꢂꢀ>ꢀsꢄd/KEꢂꢂс Ϭ ϴϭ͘Ϭ ͲϵϬ ϵϬ ϭϴϬ ZKꢄꢅtꢄzꢂs/ꢀt͗>&ꢂꢄE'>ꢀс ZdꢂꢄE'>ꢀс ꢅ&ꢂꢄE'>ꢀс W<ꢂ,ZꢂsK>ꢂс ^/dꢃꢂꢄKEꢁ/d/KE^ꢂtꢀ>>ꢂ/E&KZDꢀd/KE ꢂꢄhdKDKꢃ/>ꢀ^ꢂꢂꢂсꢂ ꢂDꢀꢅ/hDꢂdZhꢁ<^ꢂс ꢂ,ꢀꢄszꢂdZhꢁ<^ꢂꢂс ϭϱ ϭϱ ϭϱ ,d,ꢂtꢄ>>с ;ϭϬꢂсꢂ,ꢄZꢅꢂ^/dꢀ͕ꢂϭϱꢂсꢂ^K&dꢂ^/dꢀͿ ꢄDꢃ/ꢀEdс ꢃꢄZZ/ꢀZꢂс Ϭ͘Ϭ Ϭ͘Ϭ Ϭ ;Ϭꢂсꢂtꢄ>>͕ꢂϭꢂсꢂꢃꢀZDͿ sꢃ,/ꢄ>ꢃꢂD/yꢂꢁꢀdꢀD/^ꢄ͘ꢂsꢃ,/ꢄ>ꢃꢂ/E&K ,ꢃ/',d ^>ꢃꢂꢁ/^dꢀEꢄꢃ 'Zꢀꢁꢃꢂꢀꢁ:h^dDꢃEdsꢃ,/ꢄ>ꢃꢂdzWꢃꢁꢀz ꢃsꢃE/E' Ϭ͘ϬϵϬ Ϭ͘ϬϵϬ E/',d Ϭ͘ϭϭϭ Ϭ͘ϭϭϭ Ϭ͘ϭϭϭ ꢁꢀ/>z Ϭ͘ϵϲϳϬ Ϭ͘ϬϭϮϴ Ϭ͘ϬϮϭϬ sꢃ,/ꢄ>ꢃꢂdzWꢃ ꢄhdKDKꢃ/>ꢀ^ Dꢀꢅ/hDꢂdZhꢁ<^ ,ꢀꢄszꢂdZhꢁ<^ ꢄhdKDKꢃ/>ꢀ^ Dꢀꢅ/hDꢂdZhꢁ<^ ,ꢀꢄszꢂdZhꢁ<^ Ϭ͘ϳϵϵ Ϭ͘ϳϵϵ Ϭ͘ϳϵϵ ϳϳ͘Ϭ ϳϵ͘Ϭ ϴϯ͘Ϭ ϳϬ͘ϯϱ ϳϬ͘ϭϯ ϲϵ͘ϴϰ ͲꢂͲ ͲꢂͲ Ϭ͘ϬϬϬ͘ϬϵϬ EK/^ꢃꢂKhdWhdꢂꢁꢀdꢀ EK/^ꢀꢁ/DWꢂꢃd^ꢁ;t/d,KhdꢁdKWKꢁKZꢁꢄꢂZZ/ꢀZꢁ^,/ꢀ>ꢅ/E'Ϳ sꢃ,/ꢄ>ꢃꢂdzWꢃW<ꢂ,Zꢂ>ꢃY ꢁꢀzꢂ>ꢃY ꢃsꢃEꢂ>ꢃY E/',dꢂ>ꢃY >ꢁE ꢄEꢃ> ϲϲ͘ϴ ϱϲ͘ϯ ϲϯ͘Ϭ ꢄhdKDKꢃ/>ꢀ^ Dꢀꢅ/hDꢂdZhꢁ<^ ,ꢀꢄszꢂdZhꢁ<^ ϲϳ͘Ϯ ϱϲ͘ϳ ϲϯ͘ϰ ϲϱ͘ϰ ϱϰ͘ϵ ϲϭ͘ϲ ϲϭ͘ϵ ϱϭ͘ϱ ϱϴ͘Ϯ ϱϴ͘ϭ ϰϳ͘ϲ ϱϰ͘ϯ ϲϲ͘ϰ ϱϱ͘ϵ ϲϮ͘ϲ EK/^ꢀꢂ>ꢀsꢀ>^ꢂ;ĚꢃꢄͿ ϲϵ͘Ϭ ϲϳ͘Ϯ ϲϯ͘ϳ ϱϵ͘ϵ ϲϴ͘Ϯ ϲϴ͘ϲ EK/^ꢀꢁ/DWꢂꢃd^ꢁ;t/d,ꢁdKWKꢁꢂEꢅꢁꢄꢂZZ/ꢀZꢁ^,/ꢀ>ꢅ/E'Ϳ sꢃ,/ꢄ>ꢃꢂdzWꢃW<ꢂ,Zꢂ>ꢃY ꢁꢀzꢂ>ꢃY ꢃsꢃEꢂ>ꢃY E/',dꢂ>ꢃY >ꢁE ꢄEꢃ> ϲϲ͘ϴ ϱϲ͘ϯ ϲϯ͘Ϭ ꢄhdKDKꢃ/>ꢀ^ Dꢀꢅ/hDꢂdZhꢁ<^ ,ꢀꢄszꢂdZhꢁ<^ ϲϳ͘Ϯ ϱϲ͘ϳ ϲϯ͘ϰ ϲϱ͘ϰ ϱϰ͘ϵ ϲϭ͘ϲ ϲϭ͘ϵ ϱϭ͘ϱ ϱϴ͘Ϯ ϱϴ͘ϭ ϰϳ͘ϲ ϱϰ͘ϯ ϲϲ͘ϰ ϱϱ͘ϵ ϲϮ͘ϲ EK/^ꢀꢂ>ꢀsꢀ>^ꢂ;ĚꢃꢄͿ ϲϵ͘Ϭ ϲϳ͘Ϯ ϲϯ͘ϳ ϱϵ͘ϵ ϲϴ͘Ϯ ϲϴ͘ϲ EK/^ꢃꢂꢄKEdKhZꢂ;&dͿ EK/^ꢃꢂ>ꢃsꢃ>^ ꢁEꢀ>ꢂ >ꢅE ϳϬꢂĚꢅꢀ ϲϬ ϲϱꢂĚꢅꢀ ϭϯϬ ϭϮϮ ϲϬꢂĚꢅꢀ Ϯϳϵ ϮϲϮ ϱϱꢂĚꢅꢀ ϲϬϮ ϱϲϱϱϳ    Page 156 &,tꢀͲZꢁͲϳϳͲϭϬϴꢂ,/',tꢀzꢂEK/^ꢃꢂWZꢃꢁ/ꢄd/KEꢂDKꢁꢃ>ꢂ;ꢄꢀ>sꢃEKͿ WZK:ꢀꢁd͗ ZKꢄꢅtꢄz͗ >Kꢁꢄd/KE͗ dŚĞꢂZĞƐŽƌƚꢂ;dƌĂĐƚꢂϮϬϲϴϳͿ ϲƚŚꢂ^ƚƌĞĞƚꢂ;,ĂǀĞŶꢂꢄǀĞŶƵĞꢂƚŽꢂDŝůŝŬĞŶꢂꢄǀĞŶƵĞͿ &ŝƌƐƚͲƌŽǁꢂĞdžƚĞƌŝŽƌꢂƉĂƚŝŽƐꢂĨĂĐŝŶŐꢂϲƚŚꢂ^ƚƌĞĞƚꢂ;ƐĞĐŽŶĚꢂĨůŽŽƌͿ :Kꢃꢂη͗ ꢅꢄdꢀ͗ ꢀE'/EꢀꢀZ͗ ꢃ͘ꢂDŽƌƌŝƐŽŶ ϬϬϵϰͲϮϬϮϰͲϬϮ ϳͬϯϬͬϮϬϮϰ EK/^ꢃꢂ/EWhdꢂꢁꢀdꢀ ZKꢀꢁtꢀzꢂꢄKEꢁ/d/KE^Zꢃꢄꢃ/sꢃZꢂ/EWhdꢂꢁꢀdꢀ ꢄꢅdꢂс ^Wꢀꢀꢅꢂс W<ꢂ,Zꢂйꢂс Ϯϭ͕ϱϳϬ ϰϱ Zꢀꢁꢀ/sꢀZꢂꢅ/^dꢄEꢁꢀꢂсꢂ ꢅ/^dꢂꢁͬ>ꢂdKꢂtꢄ>>ꢂс Zꢀꢁꢀ/sꢀZꢂ,ꢀ/',dꢂс ϳϱ ϳϱ ϭϱ͘ϬϭϬ EꢀꢄZꢂ>ꢄEꢀͬ&ꢄZꢂ>ꢄEꢀꢂꢅ/^dꢂ ZKꢄꢅꢂꢀ>ꢀsꢄd/KEꢂс 'Zꢄꢅꢀꢂꢂꢂс ϱϱ ϳϱ͘Ϭ Ϭ͘Ϭ й Ϯ͕ϭϱϳ tꢄ>>ꢂꢅ/^dꢄEꢁꢀꢂ&ZKDꢂZꢀꢁꢀ/sꢀZꢂс Wꢄꢅꢂꢀ>ꢀsꢄd/KEꢂꢂс Ϭ ϴϭ͘Ϭ ͲϵϬ ϵϬ ϭϴϬ ZKꢄꢅtꢄzꢂs/ꢀt͗>&ꢂꢄE'>ꢀс ZdꢂꢄE'>ꢀс ꢅ&ꢂꢄE'>ꢀс W<ꢂ,ZꢂsK>ꢂс ^/dꢃꢂꢄKEꢁ/d/KE^ꢂtꢀ>>ꢂ/E&KZDꢀd/KE ꢂꢄhdKDKꢃ/>ꢀ^ꢂꢂꢂсꢂ ꢂDꢀꢅ/hDꢂdZhꢁ<^ꢂс ꢂ,ꢀꢄszꢂdZhꢁ<^ꢂꢂс ϭϱ ϭϱ ϭϱ ,d,ꢂtꢄ>>с ;ϭϬꢂсꢂ,ꢄZꢅꢂ^/dꢀ͕ꢂϭϱꢂсꢂ^K&dꢂ^/dꢀͿ ꢄDꢃ/ꢀEdс ꢃꢄZZ/ꢀZꢂс Ϭ͘Ϭ Ϭ͘Ϭ Ϭ ;Ϭꢂсꢂtꢄ>>͕ꢂϭꢂсꢂꢃꢀZDͿ sꢃ,/ꢄ>ꢃꢂD/yꢂꢁꢀdꢀD/^ꢄ͘ꢂsꢃ,/ꢄ>ꢃꢂ/E&K ,ꢃ/',d ^>ꢃꢂꢁ/^dꢀEꢄꢃ 'Zꢀꢁꢃꢂꢀꢁ:h^dDꢃEdsꢃ,/ꢄ>ꢃꢂdzWꢃꢁꢀz ꢃsꢃE/E' Ϭ͘ϬϵϬ Ϭ͘ϬϵϬ E/',d Ϭ͘ϭϭϭ Ϭ͘ϭϭϭ Ϭ͘ϭϭϭ ꢁꢀ/>z Ϭ͘ϵϲϳϬ Ϭ͘ϬϭϮϴ Ϭ͘ϬϮϭϬ sꢃ,/ꢄ>ꢃꢂdzWꢃ ꢄhdKDKꢃ/>ꢀ^ Dꢀꢅ/hDꢂdZhꢁ<^ ,ꢀꢄszꢂdZhꢁ<^ ꢄhdKDKꢃ/>ꢀ^ Dꢀꢅ/hDꢂdZhꢁ<^ ,ꢀꢄszꢂdZhꢁ<^ Ϭ͘ϳϵϵ Ϭ͘ϳϵϵ Ϭ͘ϳϵϵ ϳϳ͘Ϭ ϳϵ͘Ϭ ϴϯ͘Ϭ ϳϮ͘ϯϮ ϳϭ͘ϴϮ ϳϬ͘ϵϴ ͲꢂͲ ͲꢂͲ Ϭ͘ϬϬϬ͘ϬϵϬ EK/^ꢃꢂKhdWhdꢂꢁꢀdꢀ EK/^ꢀꢁ/DWꢂꢃd^ꢁ;t/d,KhdꢁdKWKꢁKZꢁꢄꢂZZ/ꢀZꢁ^,/ꢀ>ꢅ/E'Ϳ sꢃ,/ꢄ>ꢃꢂdzWꢃW<ꢂ,Zꢂ>ꢃY ꢁꢀzꢂ>ꢃY ꢃsꢃEꢂ>ꢃY E/',dꢂ>ꢃY >ꢁE ꢄEꢃ> ϲϲ͘ϲ ϱϲ͘ϭ ϲϮ͘ϵ ꢄhdKDKꢃ/>ꢀ^ Dꢀꢅ/hDꢂdZhꢁ<^ ,ꢀꢄszꢂdZhꢁ<^ ϲϳ͘Ϭ ϱϲ͘ϱ ϲϯ͘ϯ ϲϱ͘Ϯ ϱϰ͘ϴ ϲϭ͘ϱ ϲϭ͘ϴ ϱϭ͘ϯ ϱϴ͘ϭ ϱϳ͘ϵ ϰϳ͘ϰ ϱϰ͘Ϯ ϲϲ͘Ϯ ϱϱ͘ϳ ϲϮ͘ϱ EK/^ꢀꢂ>ꢀsꢀ>^ꢂ;ĚꢃꢄͿ ϲϴ͘ϴ ϲϳ͘Ϭ ϲϯ͘ϲ ϱϵ͘ϳ ϲϴ͘Ϭ ϲϴ͘ϰ EK/^ꢀꢁ/DWꢂꢃd^ꢁ;t/d,ꢁdKWKꢁꢂEꢅꢁꢄꢂZZ/ꢀZꢁ^,/ꢀ>ꢅ/E'Ϳ sꢃ,/ꢄ>ꢃꢂdzWꢃW<ꢂ,Zꢂ>ꢃY ꢁꢀzꢂ>ꢃY ꢃsꢃEꢂ>ꢃY E/',dꢂ>ꢃY >ꢁE ꢄEꢃ> ϲϲ͘ϲ ϱϲ͘ϭ ϲϮ͘ϵ ꢄhdKDKꢃ/>ꢀ^ Dꢀꢅ/hDꢂdZhꢁ<^ ,ꢀꢄszꢂdZhꢁ<^ ϲϳ͘Ϭ ϱϲ͘ϱ ϲϯ͘ϯ ϲϱ͘Ϯ ϱϰ͘ϴ ϲϭ͘ϱ ϲϭ͘ϴ ϱϭ͘ϯ ϱϴ͘ϭ ϱϳ͘ϵ ϰϳ͘ϰ ϱϰ͘Ϯ ϲϲ͘Ϯ ϱϱ͘ϳ ϲϮ͘ϱ EK/^ꢀꢂ>ꢀsꢀ>^ꢂ;ĚꢃꢄͿ ϲϴ͘ϴ ϲϳ͘Ϭ ϲϯ͘ϲ ϱϵ͘ϳ ϲϴ͘Ϭ ϲϴ͘ϰ EK/^ꢃꢂꢄKEdKhZꢂ;&dͿ EK/^ꢃꢂ>ꢃsꢃ>^ ꢁEꢀ>ꢂ >ꢅE ϳϬꢂĚꢅꢀ ϱϵ ϲϱꢂĚꢅꢀ ϭϮϳ ϭϭϵ ϲϬꢂĚꢅꢀ Ϯϳϯ Ϯϱϲ ϱϱꢂĚꢅꢀ ϱϴϳ ϱϱϮϱϱ    Page 157 &,tꢀͲZꢁͲϳϳͲϭϬϴꢂ,/',tꢀzꢂEK/^ꢃꢂWZꢃꢁ/ꢄd/KEꢂDKꢁꢃ>ꢂ;ꢄꢀ>sꢃEKͿ WZK:ꢀꢁd͗ ZKꢄꢅtꢄz͗ >Kꢁꢄd/KE͗ dŚĞꢂZĞƐŽƌƚꢂ;dƌĂĐƚꢂϮϬϲϴϳͿ ϲƚŚꢂ^ƚƌĞĞƚꢂ;,ĂǀĞŶꢂꢄǀĞŶƵĞꢂƚŽꢂDŝůŝŬĞŶꢂꢄǀĞŶƵĞͿ &ŝƌƐƚͲƌŽǁꢂĞdžƚĞƌŝŽƌꢂƉĂƚŝŽƐꢂĨĂĐŝŶŐꢂϲƚŚꢂ^ƚƌĞĞƚꢂ;ƚŚŝƌĚꢂĨůŽŽƌͿ :Kꢃꢂη͗ ꢅꢄdꢀ͗ ꢀE'/EꢀꢀZ͗ ꢃ͘ꢂDŽƌƌŝƐŽŶ ϬϬϵϰͲϮϬϮϰͲϬϮ ϳͬϯϬͬϮϬϮϰ EK/^ꢃꢂ/EWhdꢂꢁꢀdꢀ ZKꢀꢁtꢀzꢂꢄKEꢁ/d/KE^Zꢃꢄꢃ/sꢃZꢂ/EWhdꢂꢁꢀdꢀ ꢄꢅdꢂс ^Wꢀꢀꢅꢂс W<ꢂ,Zꢂйꢂс Ϯϭ͕ϱϳϬ ϰϱ Zꢀꢁꢀ/sꢀZꢂꢅ/^dꢄEꢁꢀꢂсꢂ ꢅ/^dꢂꢁͬ>ꢂdKꢂtꢄ>>ꢂс Zꢀꢁꢀ/sꢀZꢂ,ꢀ/',dꢂс ϳϱ ϳϱ Ϯϱ͘ϬϭϬ EꢀꢄZꢂ>ꢄEꢀͬ&ꢄZꢂ>ꢄEꢀꢂꢅ/^dꢂ ZKꢄꢅꢂꢀ>ꢀsꢄd/KEꢂс 'Zꢄꢅꢀꢂꢂꢂс ϱϱ ϳϱ͘Ϭ Ϭ͘Ϭ й Ϯ͕ϭϱϳ tꢄ>>ꢂꢅ/^dꢄEꢁꢀꢂ&ZKDꢂZꢀꢁꢀ/sꢀZꢂс Wꢄꢅꢂꢀ>ꢀsꢄd/KEꢂꢂс Ϭ ϴϭ͘Ϭ ͲϵϬ ϵϬ ϭϴϬ ZKꢄꢅtꢄzꢂs/ꢀt͗>&ꢂꢄE'>ꢀс ZdꢂꢄE'>ꢀс ꢅ&ꢂꢄE'>ꢀс W<ꢂ,ZꢂsK>ꢂс ^/dꢃꢂꢄKEꢁ/d/KE^ꢂtꢀ>>ꢂ/E&KZDꢀd/KE ꢂꢄhdKDKꢃ/>ꢀ^ꢂꢂꢂсꢂ ꢂDꢀꢅ/hDꢂdZhꢁ<^ꢂс ꢂ,ꢀꢄszꢂdZhꢁ<^ꢂꢂс ϭϱ ϭϱ ϭϱ ,d,ꢂtꢄ>>с ;ϭϬꢂсꢂ,ꢄZꢅꢂ^/dꢀ͕ꢂϭϱꢂсꢂ^K&dꢂ^/dꢀͿ ꢄDꢃ/ꢀEdс ꢃꢄZZ/ꢀZꢂс Ϭ͘Ϭ Ϭ͘Ϭ Ϭ ;Ϭꢂсꢂtꢄ>>͕ꢂϭꢂсꢂꢃꢀZDͿ sꢃ,/ꢄ>ꢃꢂD/yꢂꢁꢀdꢀD/^ꢄ͘ꢂsꢃ,/ꢄ>ꢃꢂ/E&K ,ꢃ/',d ^>ꢃꢂꢁ/^dꢀEꢄꢃ 'Zꢀꢁꢃꢂꢀꢁ:h^dDꢃEdsꢃ,/ꢄ>ꢃꢂdzWꢃꢁꢀz ꢃsꢃE/E' Ϭ͘ϬϵϬ Ϭ͘ϬϵϬ E/',d Ϭ͘ϭϭϭ Ϭ͘ϭϭϭ Ϭ͘ϭϭϭ ꢁꢀ/>z Ϭ͘ϵϲϳϬ Ϭ͘ϬϭϮϴ Ϭ͘ϬϮϭϬ sꢃ,/ꢄ>ꢃꢂdzWꢃ ꢄhdKDKꢃ/>ꢀ^ Dꢀꢅ/hDꢂdZhꢁ<^ ,ꢀꢄszꢂdZhꢁ<^ ꢄhdKDKꢃ/>ꢀ^ Dꢀꢅ/hDꢂdZhꢁ<^ ,ꢀꢄszꢂdZhꢁ<^ Ϭ͘ϳϵϵ Ϭ͘ϳϵϵ Ϭ͘ϳϵϵ ϳϳ͘Ϭ ϳϵ͘Ϭ ϴϯ͘Ϭ ϳϱ͘ϱϲ ϳϰ͘ϴϮ ϳϯ͘ϰϳ ͲꢂͲ ͲꢂͲ Ϭ͘ϬϬϬ͘ϬϵϬ EK/^ꢃꢂKhdWhdꢂꢁꢀdꢀ EK/^ꢀꢁ/DWꢂꢃd^ꢁ;t/d,KhdꢁdKWKꢁKZꢁꢄꢂZZ/ꢀZꢁ^,/ꢀ>ꢅ/E'Ϳ sꢃ,/ꢄ>ꢃꢂdzWꢃW<ꢂ,Zꢂ>ꢃY ꢁꢀzꢂ>ꢃY ꢃsꢃEꢂ>ꢃY E/',dꢂ>ꢃY >ꢁE ꢄEꢃ> ϲϲ͘ϯ ϱϱ͘ϵ ϲϮ͘ϳ ꢄhdKDKꢃ/>ꢀ^ Dꢀꢅ/hDꢂdZhꢁ<^ ,ꢀꢄszꢂdZhꢁ<^ ϲϲ͘ϳ ϱϲ͘ϯ ϲϯ͘ϭ ϲϰ͘ϵ ϱϰ͘ϱ ϲϭ͘ϯ ϲϭ͘ϱ ϱϭ͘Ϭ ϱϳ͘ϴ ϱϳ͘ϲ ϰϳ͘Ϯ ϱϰ͘Ϭ ϲϱ͘ϵ ϱϱ͘ϱ ϲϮ͘ϯ EK/^ꢀꢂ>ꢀsꢀ>^ꢂ;ĚꢃꢄͿ ϲϴ͘ϱ ϲϲ͘ϴ ϲϯ͘ϯ ϱϵ͘ϰ ϲϳ͘ϳ ϲϴ͘ϭ EK/^ꢀꢁ/DWꢂꢃd^ꢁ;t/d,ꢁdKWKꢁꢂEꢅꢁꢄꢂZZ/ꢀZꢁ^,/ꢀ>ꢅ/E'Ϳ sꢃ,/ꢄ>ꢃꢂdzWꢃW<ꢂ,Zꢂ>ꢃY ꢁꢀzꢂ>ꢃY ꢃsꢃEꢂ>ꢃY E/',dꢂ>ꢃY >ꢁE ꢄEꢃ> ϲϲ͘ϯ ϱϱ͘ϵ ϲϮ͘ϳ ꢄhdKDKꢃ/>ꢀ^ Dꢀꢅ/hDꢂdZhꢁ<^ ,ꢀꢄszꢂdZhꢁ<^ ϲϲ͘ϳ ϱϲ͘ϯ ϲϯ͘ϭ ϲϰ͘ϵ ϱϰ͘ϱ ϲϭ͘ϯ ϲϭ͘ϱ ϱϭ͘Ϭ ϱϳ͘ϴ ϱϳ͘ϲ ϰϳ͘Ϯ ϱϰ͘Ϭ ϲϱ͘ϵ ϱϱ͘ϱ ϲϮ͘ϯ EK/^ꢀꢂ>ꢀsꢀ>^ꢂ;ĚꢃꢄͿ ϲϴ͘ϱ ϲϲ͘ϴ ϲϯ͘ϯ ϱϵ͘ϰ ϲϳ͘ϳ ϲϴ͘ϭ EK/^ꢃꢂꢄKEdKhZꢂ;&dͿ EK/^ꢃꢂ>ꢃsꢃ>^ ꢁEꢀ>ꢂ >ꢅE ϳϬꢂĚꢅꢀ ϱϲ ϲϱꢂĚꢅꢀ ϭϮϭ ϭϭϰ ϲϬꢂĚꢅꢀ ϮϲϮ Ϯϰϲ ϱϱꢂĚꢅꢀ ϱϲϰ ϱϯϬϱϯ    Page 158 RESOLUTION NO. 2024-031 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVE DESIGN REVIEW DRC2023-00406, A REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW OF 99 MULTI-FAMILY UNITS LOCATED ON APPROXIMATELY 4.9 ACRES OF LAND WITHIN PLANNING AREA N-15 IN THE VILLAGE NEIGHBORHOOD (VN) PLACETYPE OF THE RESORT SPECIFIC PLAN PLANNING AREA 1B, LOCATED NORTH OF 6TH STREET, SOUTH OF THE BNSF/METROLINK RIGHT OF WAY, AND WEST OF MILLIKEN AVENUE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 0209-272-20. A. Recitals. 1. The applicant, SC Rancho Development Corp., has filed an application for the issuance of Design Review DRC2023-00406, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Design Review request is referred to as "the application." 2. On the 23rd day of October 2024, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on said application and concluded said hearing on that date. 3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public hearing on October 23, 2024, including written and oral staff reports, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to a 4.9 acres undeveloped site located north of 6th Street, south of the BNSF/Metrolink right of way, and west of Milliken Avenue; and Exhibit E    Page 159 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2024-031 DESIGN REVIEW DRC2023-00406 – SC RANCHO DEVLOPMENT CORP. October 23, 2024 Page 2 b. The existing Land Use, General Plan, and Zoning Designations for, the project site and the surrounding properties are as follows: c. The project is for the development of 99 for sale multi-family townhouse units. The Resort Specific Plan, Planning Area 1B is divided into nineteen (19) planning areas broken into 4 Placetypes; and d. The project site is within the planning area N-15 and the Village Neighborhood (VN) Placetype. The site is also partially within the Mixed-Use Overlay along the 7th Street alignment; and e. The Design Review Committee reviewed and recommended approval as proposed on August 20, 2024. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in Paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby specifically finds and concludes as follows: a. The proposed development is consistent with the General Plan. The General Plan Designation for the project site is City Center, which envisions a mix of high-density residential and non-residential land uses. The project furthers the vision of the General Plan and the City Center land use designation which encourages infill development with a mix of uses. The proposed development is part of the Resort Specific Plan which will include residential and commercial land uses. Project development would also help implement and further several goals and policies of the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan, including the ability to provide complete places (LC1.1), ensuring the quality of public space (LC- 1.3), and the provision of compatible development (LC- 1.11). The additional housing units will also assist the City in reaching its State housing Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) outlined in the Housing Element; and b. The proposed development is in accord with the objectives of the Development Code the Resort Specific Plan, and the purposes of the zone in which the site is located. The project site is within the planning area N-15 and the Village Neighborhood (VN) Placetype which was established to provide a range of housing types including attached townhomes in a walkable mixed-use urban community. The project density of 20 dwelling units per acre is with the expected density for the Village Neighborhood (VN) Placetype of 16-28 dwelling units per acre; and c. The proposed development complies with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code and the Resort Specific Plan, Planning Area 1B. The proposed development meets all standards outlined in the Development Code and the Resort Specific Plan, Planning Area 1B, including density, setbacks, building height, open space and parking: and Land Use General Plan Zoning Site Vacant Land City Center Village Neighborhood (Planning Area N15) North Vacant Land City Center Village Neighborhood (Planning Areas N18 and N19) South Vacant Land City Center Village Neighborhood (Planning Areas N14) East Apartments City Center Center 2 (CE2) West Vacant Land City Center Village Neighborhood (Planning Area 12)    Page 160 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2024-031 DESIGN REVIEW DRC2023-00406 – SC RANCHO DEVLOPMENT CORP. October 23, 2024 Page 3 d. The proposed development, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. A CEQA Section 15162 compliance memo was prepared for the project which demonstrates that the project would not have a significant impact on the environment. 4. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and the City's local CEQA Guidelines, the City certified an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) on May 18, 2016 (SCH No. 2015041083) in connection with the City's approval of General Plan Amendment DRC2015- 00114, Specific Plan Amendment DRC2015-00040, and Development Code Amendment DRC2015-00115. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, no subsequent or supplemental EIR or Negative Declaration is required in connection with subsequent discretionary approvals of the same project unless: (i) substantial changes are proposed to the project that indicate new or more severe impacts on the environment; (ii) substantial changes have occurred in the circumstances under which the project was previously reviewed that indicates new or more severe environmental impacts; or (iii) new important information shows the project will have new or more severe impacts than previously considered; or (iv) additional mitigation measures are now feasible to reduce impacts or different mitigation measures can be imposed to substantially reduce impacts. To demonstrate that no subsequent EIR is required, the City’s environmental consultant, T&B Planning, prepared an Environmental Technical Analysis Memorandum (Exhibit D - dated September 9, 2024). The memorandum concluded that the project is within the scope of the approved overall project and analysis included in the Final EIR identified above and no additional environmental review is required in connection with the City's consideration of Design Review DRC2023-00406. Substantial changes to the project or the circumstances surrounding the project have not occurred which would create new or more severe impacts than those evaluated in the previous EIR. The previous environmental review analyzed the effects of the proposed project. Staff further finds that the project will not have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR, nor have more severe effects than previously analyzed, and that additional or different mitigation measures are not required to reduce the impacts of the project to a level of less than significant. The Planning Commission has reviewed the Planning Department’s determination of exemption, and based on its own independent judgment, concurs in the staff’s determination of exemption. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth in the attached Conditions of Approval. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER 2024. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Tony Morales, Chairman    Page 161 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2024-031 DESIGN REVIEW DRC2023-00406 – SC RANCHO DEVLOPMENT CORP. October 23, 2024 Page 4 ATTEST: Matt Marquez, Secretary I, Matt Marquez, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 23rd day of October 2024, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS:    Page 162 Conditions of Approval Community Development Department Project #: DRC2023-00406 Project Name: The Resort PA N15 Lot 12 Location: 9097 CLEVELAND AVE - 020927220-0000 Project Type: Design Review ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Planning Department Please be advised of the following Special Conditions The project shall comply with the related CEQA Section 15162 Compliance Memorandum dated September 9, 2024, and the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH No. 2015041083) approved on May 18, 2016. in connection with the City’s approval of General Plan Amendment DRC2015-00114, Specific Plan Amendment DRC2015-00040, and Development Code Amendment DRC2015-00115. 1. Standard Conditions of Approval The applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend, and hold harmless, the City, and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, those City agents serving as independent contractors in the role of City officials and instrumentalities thereof (collectively “Indemnitees”), from any and all claims, demands, lawsuits, writs of mandamus, and other actions and proceedings (whether legal, equitable, declaratory, administrative or adjudicatory in nature), and alternative dispute resolutions procedures (including, but not limited to, arbitrations, mediations, and other such procedures) (collectively “Actions”), brought against the City, and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof, that challenge, attack, or seek to modify, set aside, void, or annul, the action of, or any permit or approval issued by, the City and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof (including actions approved by the voters of the City), for or concerning the project, whether such actions are brought under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), State Planning and Zoning Law, the Subdivisions Map Act, Code of Civil Procedure Section 1085 or 1094.5, or any other state, federal, or local statute, law, ordinance, rule, regulation, or any decision of a competent jurisdiction. This indemnification provision expressly includes losses, judgments, costs, and expenses (including, without limitation, attorneys’ fees or court costs) in any manner arising out of or incident to this approval, the Planning Director’s actions, the Planning Commission’s actions, and/or the City Council’s actions, related entitlements, or the City’s environmental review thereof. The Applicant shall pay and satisfy any judgment, award or decree that may be rendered against City or the other Indemnitees in any such suit, action, or other legal proceeding. It is expressly agreed that the City shall have the right to approve, which approval will not be unreasonably withheld, the legal counsel providing the City’s defense, and that the applicant shall reimburse City for any costs and expenses directly and necessarily incurred by the City in the course of the defense. City shall promptly notify the applicant of any Action brought and City shall cooperate with applicant in the defense of the Action. In the event such a legal action is filed challenging the City’s determinations herein or the issuance of the approval, the City shall estimate its expenses for the litigation. The Applicant shall deposit said amount with the City or, at the discretion of the City, enter into an agreement with the City to pay such expenses as they become due. 2. www.CityofRC.us Printed: 9/26/2024    Page 163 Project #: DRC2023-00406 Project Name: The Resort PA N15 Lot 12 Location: 9097 CLEVELAND AVE - 020927220-0000 Project Type: Design Review ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Planning Department Standard Conditions of Approval Copies of the signed Planning Commission Resolution of Approval or Approval Letter, Conditions of Approval, and all environmental mitigations shall be included on the plans (full size). The sheet (s) are for information only to all parties involved in the construction /grading activities and are not required to be wet sealed/stamped by a licensed Engineer/Architect. 3. The applicant shall be required to pay California Department of Fish and Wildlife Notice of Exemption fee in the amount of $50.00. All checks are to be made payable to the Clerk of the Board Supervisors and submitted to the Planning Commission Secretary prior to public hearing or within 5 days of the date of project approval. 4. Any approval shall expire if Building Permits are not issued or approved use has not commenced within 2 years from the date of approval or a time extension has been granted. 5. This project is subject to public art requirement outlined in Chapter 17.124 of the Development Code . Prior to the issuance of building permits (for grading or construction ), the applicant shall inform the Planning Department of their choice to install public art, donate art or select the in -lieu option as outlined in 17.124.020.D. If the project developer chooses to pay the in -lieu fee, the in-lieu art fee will be invoiced on the building permit by the City and shall be paid by the applicant prior to building permit issuance. If the project developer chooses to install art, they shall submit, during the plan check process, an application for the art work that will be installed on the project site that contains information applicable to the art work in addition to any other information as may be required by the City to adequately evaluate the proposed the art work in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 17.124. If the project developer chooses to donate art, applications for art work donated to the City shall be subject to review by the Public Art Committee which shall make a recommendation whether the proposed donation is consistent with Chapter 17.124 and final acceptance by the City Council. No final approval, such as a final inspection or the a issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, for any development project (or if a multi-phased project, the final phase of a development project) that is subject to this requirement shall occur unless the public art requirement has been fulfilled to the satisfaction of the Planning Department. 6. All site, grading, landscape, irrigation, and street improvement plans shall be coordinated for consistency prior to issuance of any permits (such as grading, tree removal, encroachment, building, etc.) or prior to final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision, or approved use has commenced, whichever comes first. 7. Prior to any use of the project site or business activity being commenced thereon, all Conditions of Approval shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. 8. Revised Site Plans and building elevations incorporating all Conditions of Approval shall be submitted for Planning Director review and approval prior to the issuance of Building Permits. 9. www.CityofRC.us Page 2 of 12Printed: 9/26/2024    Page 164 Project #: DRC2023-00406 Project Name: The Resort PA N15 Lot 12 Location: 9097 CLEVELAND AVE - 020927220-0000 Project Type: Design Review ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Planning Department Standard Conditions of Approval Street names shall be submitted for Planning Director review and approval in accordance with the adopted Street Naming Policy prior to approval of the final map 10. All units shall be provided with garage door openers if driveways are less than 18 feet in depth from back of sidewalk. 11. All parking spaces shall be 9 feet wide by 17 feet long with a required 1-foot overhang (e.g., over a curb stop). 12. All parking spaces shall be double striped per City standards and all driveway aisles, entrances, and exits shall be striped per City standards. 13. Textured pedestrian pathways and textured pavement across circulation aisles shall be provided throughout the development to connect dwellings /units/buildings with open spaces /plazas/ recreational uses. 14. For multi-family residential and non -residential development, property owners are responsible for the continual maintenance of all landscaped areas on -site, as well as contiguous planted areas within the public right-of-way. All landscaped areas shall be kept free from weeds and debris and maintained in healthy and thriving condition, and shall receive regular pruning, fertilizing, mowing, and trimming. Any damaged, dead, diseased, or decaying plant material shall be replaced within 30 days from the date of damage. 15. A detailed landscape and irrigation plan, including slope planting and model home landscaping in the case of residential development, shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and submitted for Planning Director review and approval prior to the issuance of Building Permits for the development or prior final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision. For development occurring in the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone, the landscape plans will also be reviewed by Fire Construction Services. 16. Landscaping and irrigation systems required to be installed within the public right -of-way on the perimeter of this project area shall be continuously maintained by the developer. 17. Within parking lots, trees shall be planted at a rate of one 15-gallon tree for every three parking stalls.18. The final design of the perimeter parkways, walls, landscaping, and sidewalks shall be included in the required landscape plans and shall be subject to Planning Director review and approval and coordinated for consistency with any parkway landscaping plan which may be required by the Engineering Services Department. 19. All private slopes of 5 feet or more in vertical height and of 5:1 or greater slope, but less than 2:1 slope, shall be, at minimum, irrigated and landscaped with appropriate ground cover for erosion control . Slope planting required by this section shall include a permanent irrigation system to be installed by the developer prior to occupancy. 20. www.CityofRC.us Page 3 of 12Printed: 9/26/2024    Page 165 Project #: DRC2023-00406 Project Name: The Resort PA N15 Lot 12 Location: 9097 CLEVELAND AVE - 020927220-0000 Project Type: Design Review ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Planning Department Standard Conditions of Approval All private slopes in excess of 5 feet, but less than 8 feet in vertical height and of 2:1 or greater slope shall be landscaped and irrigated for erosion control and to soften their appearance as follows: one 15-gallon or larger size tree per each 150 sq. ft. of slope area, 1-gallon or larger size shrub per each 100 sq. ft. of slope area, and appropriate ground cover. In addition, slope banks in excess of 8 feet in vertical height and 2:1 or greater slope shall also include one 5-gallon or larger size tree per each 250 sq. ft. of slope area. Trees and shrubs shall be planted in staggered clusters to soften and vary slope plane. Slope planting required by this section shall include a permanent irrigation system to be installed by the developer prior to occupancy. 21. Tree maintenance criteria shall be developed and submitted for Planning Director review and approval prior to issuance of Building Permits. These criteria shall encourage the natural growth characteristics of the selected tree species. 22. Trees shall be planted in areas of public view adjacent to and along structures at a rate of one tree per 30 linear feet of building. 23. All walls shall be provided with decorative treatment. If located in public maintenance areas, the design shall be coordinated with the Engineering Services Department. 24. All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners and other roof mounted equipment and /or projections shall be screened from all sides and the sound shall be buffered from adjacent properties and streets as required by the Planning Department. Such screening shall be architecturally integrated with the building design and constructed to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. Any roof -mounted mechanical equipment and /or ductwork, that projects vertically more than 18 inches above the roof or roof parapet, shall be screened by an architecturally designed enclosure which exhibits a permanent nature with the building design and is detailed consistent with the building. Any roof -mounted mechanical equipment and /or ductwork, that projects vertically less than 18 inches above the roof or roof parapet shall be painted consistent with the color scheme of the building. Details shall be included in building plans. 25. Engineering Services Department Please be advised of the following Special Conditions Comply with all Engineering Conditions of Approval under SUBTT 20440.1. Development Impact Fees Due Prior to Building Permit Issuance: (Subject to Change / Periodic Increases - Refer to current fee schedule to determine current amounts) 2. Standard Conditions of Approval All existing easements lying within future rights -of-way shall be quit -claimed or delineated on the final map. Existing drainage easement within right-of-way of 7th street to be vacated. 3. Reciprocal access easements shall be provided ensuring access to all parcels by CC &Rs or by deeds and shall be recorded concurrently with the map or prior to the issuance of Building Permits, where no map is involved. 4. www.CityofRC.us Page 4 of 12Printed: 9/26/2024    Page 166 Project #: DRC2023-00406 Project Name: The Resort PA N15 Lot 12 Location: 9097 CLEVELAND AVE - 020927220-0000 Project Type: Design Review ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Engineering Services Department Standard Conditions of Approval Reciprocal parking agreements for all parcels and maintenance agreements ensuring joint maintenance of all common roads, drives, or parking areas shall be provided by CC & R's or deeds and shall be recorded prior to, or concurrent with, the final map. 5. ** CD Information Required Prior to Sign-Off for Building Permit Prior to the issuance of building permits, if valuation is greater or equal to $100,000, a Diversion Deposit and a related administrative fee shall be paid for the Construction and Demolition Diversion Program. The deposit is fully refundable if at least 65% of all wastes generated during construction and demolition are diverted from landfills, and appropriate documentation is provided to the City. Applicant must identify if they are self -hauling or utilizing Burrtec prior to issuance of a building permit. Proof of diversion must be submitted to the Environmental Engineering Division within 60 days following the completion of the construction and / or demolition project. Contact Marissa Ostos, Environmental Engineering, at (909) 774-4062 for more information. Instructions and forms are available at the City 's website, www.cityofrc.us, under City Hall / Engineering / Environmental Programs / Construction & Demolition Diversion Program. 6. Fire Prevention / New Construction Unit Standard Conditions of Approval Required alarm systems and supervision systems are required to be in accordance with Fire District Standard 9-5. The Standard has been uploaded to the Documents section. 1. This project is required to establish a designated cooking area in accordance with Fire District Standard 33-3. A copy of the Standard has been uploaded to the Documents section . 2. Plans for the alarm and /or supervision (monitoring) system are required to be submitted separately and issued a separate permit. Submit all plans to the Building Department for routing to the Fire District. 3. When radio signal strength testing determines that emergency responder communication coverage will require an in-building system to meet the requirements of the Fire Code, plans for the system are required to be submitted separately and issued a separate permit. Submit all plans to the Building Department for routing to the Fire District. 4. Plans for the private, onsite fire underground water infrastructure are required to be submitted separately and issued a separate permit. Submit all plans to the Building Department for routing to the Fire District. 5. Plans for the public, offsite fire underground water infrastructure are required to be submitted separately and issued a separate permit. Plans are required to be submitted prior to or concurrently with the plans submitted to the Water District. Submit all plans to the Building Department for routing to the Fire District. 6. Plans for the automatic fire sprinkler system are required to be submitted separately and issued a separate permit. Submit all plans to the Building Department for routing to the Fire District. 7. www.CityofRC.us Page 5 of 12Printed: 9/26/2024    Page 167 Project #: DRC2023-00406 Project Name: The Resort PA N15 Lot 12 Location: 9097 CLEVELAND AVE - 020927220-0000 Project Type: Design Review ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Fire Prevention / New Construction Unit Standard Conditions of Approval Plans for the temporary emergency vehicle access and /or hydrants, if necessary, are required to be submitted separately and issued a separate permit. Submit all plans to the Building Department for routing to the Fire District. 8. Emergency responder communication coverage in accordance with Fire District Standard 5-12 is required for the building (s) included in this project. A radio signal strength test of the public safety radio communication system conducted in accordance with the requirements of the 2022 California Fire Code is required to be submitted. Where existing radio signal strength does not meet the requirements of the Fire Code, a separate submittal for an emergency responder communication coverage system is required. 9. Fire extinguishers are required in accordance with Section 906 of the California Fire Code. Consult with the Fire Inspector for the correct type, size, and exact installation locations. 10. Roof access is required to be in accordance with Fire District Standard 5-6. The Standard has been uploaded to the Documents section. 11. Street address and building identification signage for multi -unit residential buildings are required to be in accordance with Fire District Standard 5-7. The Standard has been uploaded to the Documents section. 12. Public and private fire service water mains, public and private hydrants, water control valves, fire sprinkler risers, fire department connections (FDCs), and other fire protection water related devices and equipment are required to be provided, designed, and installed in accordance with Fire District Standard 5-10. The Standard has been uploaded to the Documents section. 13. Building and Safety Services Department Please be advised of the following Special Conditions When the Entitlement Review is approved submit complete electrical drawings construction to Building and Safety for plan review in accordance with the current edition of the CA Building, Electrical code and all local ordinances and standards. 1. Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with current adopted California Building Code and/or the California Residential Code, City Grading Standards, and accepted grading practices. The Grading and Drainage Plan (s) shall be in substantial conformance with the approved conceptual Grading and Drainage Plan. 1. A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified Engineer licensed by the State of California to perform such work. Two copies will be provided at grading and drainage plan submittal for review. Plans shall implement design recommendations per said report. 2. A geologic report shall be prepared by a qualified Engineer or Engineering Geologist and submitted at the time of application for Grading and Drainage Plan review. 3. www.CityofRC.us Page 6 of 12Printed: 9/26/2024    Page 168 Project #: DRC2023-00406 Project Name: The Resort PA N15 Lot 12 Location: 9097 CLEVELAND AVE - 020927220-0000 Project Type: Design Review ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval The final Grading and Drainage Plan, appropriate certifications and compaction reports shall be completed, submitted, and approved by the Building and Safety Official prior to the issuance of building permits. 4. A separate Grading and Drainage Plan check submittal is required for all new construction projects and for existing buildings where improvements being proposed will generate 50 cubic yards or more of combined cut and fill. The Grading and Drainage Plan shall be prepared, stamped, and wet signed by a California licensed Civil Engineer prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit. 5. The applicant shall comply with the City of Rancho Cucamonga Dust Control Measures and place a dust control sign on the project site prior to the issuance of a grading permit. All dust control sign (s) shall be located outside of the public right of way. 6. If a Rough Grading and Drainage Plan /Permit are submitted to the Building and Safety Official for review, the rough grading plan shall be a separate plan submittal and permit from Precise Grading and Drainage Plan/Permit. 7. Prior to issuance of a grading permit the Final Grading and Drainage Plan shall show the accessibility path from the public right of way and the accessibility parking stalls to the building doors in conformance with the current adopted California Building Code. All accessibility ramps shall show sufficient detail including gradients, elevations, and dimensions and comply with the current adopted California Building Code. 8. The Grading and Drainage Plan shall implement City Standards for on -site construction where possible , and shall provide details for all work not covered by City Standard Drawings. 9. Prior to the issuance of a grading plan for multi -family projects, the private streets and drive aisles within multi-family developments shall include street plans as part of the Grading and Drainage Plan set. The private street plan view shall show typical street sections. The private street profile view shall show the private street/drive aisle centerline. 10. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the grading and drainage plan shall show the maximum parking stall gradient at 5 percent. Accessibility parking stall grades shall be constructed per the, current adopted California Building Code. 11. The applicant shall provide a grading agreement and grading bond for all cut and fill combined exceeding 5,000 cubic yards prior to issuance of a grading permit. The grading agreement and bond shall be approved by the Building and Safety Official . 12. The final grading and drainage plan shall show existing topography a minimum of 100-feet beyond project boundary. 13. This project shall comply with the accessibility requirements of the current adopted California Building Code. 14. www.CityofRC.us Page 7 of 12Printed: 9/26/2024    Page 169 Project #: DRC2023-00406 Project Name: The Resort PA N15 Lot 12 Location: 9097 CLEVELAND AVE - 020927220-0000 Project Type: Design Review ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval Grading Inspections: a) Prior to the start of grading operations the owner and grading contractor shall request a pre -grading meeting. The meeting shall be attended by the project owner /representative , the grading contractor and the Building Inspector to discuss about grading requirements and preventive measures, etc. If a pre-grading meeting is not held within 24 hours from the start of grading operations, the grading permit may be subject to suspension by the Building Inspector; b) The grading contractor shall call into the City of Rancho Cucamonga Building and Safety Department at least 1 working day in advance to request the following grading inspections prior to continuing grading operations: i)The bottom of the over-excavation; ii)Completion of Rough Grading, prior to issuance of the building permit; iii)At the completion of Rough Grading, the grading contractor or owner shall submit to the Engineering Services Department an original and a copy of the Pad Certifications to be prepared by and properly wet signed and sealed by the Civil Engineer and Soils Engineer of Record; iv) The rough grading certificates and the compaction reports will be reviewed by the Associate Engineer or a designated person and approved prior to the issuance of a building permit. 15. Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit, the permitted grading plan (or architectural site plan ) set shall show in each of the typical sections and the plan view show how the separations between the building exterior and exterior ground surface meet the requirements of Sections CBC 1804.3/CRC R401.3, CBC2304.11.2.2/CRC R317.1(2) and CBC2512.1.2/CRC R703.6.2.1 of the current adopted California Building Code/Residential Code. 16. Prior to approval of the project -specific storm water quality management plan, the applicant shall submit to the Building Official, or his designee, a precise grading plan showing the location and elevations of existing topographical features, and showing the location and proposed elevations of proposed structures and drainage of the site. 17. It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to acquire any required off -site drainage easements prior to the issuance of a grading permit. 18. Private sewer, water, and storm drain improvements will be designed per the latest adopted California Plumbing Code. Private storm drain improvements shall be shown on the grading and drainage plan. 19. Prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy or final sign off by the Building Inspector the engineer of record shall certify the functionality of the storm water quality management plan (WQMP) storm water treatment devices and best management practices (BMP). 20. Reciprocal access easements for all parcels and maintenance agreements ensuring joint maintenance of all storm water quality structural /treatment devices and best management practices (BMP) as provided for in the project’s Storm Water Quality Management Plan, shall be provided for by CC &R’s or deeds and shall be recorded prior to the approval of the Water Quality Management Plan. Said CC &R’s and/or deeds shall be included in the project site specific Storm Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) document prior to approval of the WQMP document and recording of the Memorandum of Agreement of Storm Water Quality Management Plan . 21. www.CityofRC.us Page 8 of 12Printed: 9/26/2024    Page 170 Project #: DRC2023-00406 Project Name: The Resort PA N15 Lot 12 Location: 9097 CLEVELAND AVE - 020927220-0000 Project Type: Design Review ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval Prior to the issuance of a Grading Permit the City of Rancho Cucamonga’s “Memorandum of Agreement of Storm Water Quality Management Plan” shall be submitted for review and approval by the Building Official and recorded with the County Recorder’s Office . 22. Prior to issuance of a Grading Permit the applicant shall obtain a Waste Discharge Identification Number (WDID). The WDID number shall also be shown on the WQMP Site and Drainage Plan document. 23. The applicant shall provide a copy of a completed EPA Form 7520-16 (Inventory of Injection Wells) for each underground infiltration device, with the Facility ID Number assigned, to the Building and Safety Services Department Official prior to issuance of the Grading Permit and /or approval of the project-specific Water Quality Management Plan. A copy of EPA Form 7520-16 shall be scanned and pasted onto the permitted grading plan set, and a copy of said form shall be included in the project-specific Water Quality Management Plan . 24. The land/property owner shall follow the inspection and maintenance requirements of the approved project specific Water Quality Management Plan and shall provide a copy of the inspection reports on a biennial basis to the City of Rancho Cucamonga Environmental Program Manager. 25. A final project-specific Storm Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) shall be approved by the Building and Safety Director, or his designee, and the City of Rancho Cucamonga’s “Memorandum of Storm Water Quality Management Plan” shall be recorded prior to the issuance of a grading permit or any building permit. 26. Prior to issuance of a grading permit the Final Project -Specific Water Quality Management Plan shall include a completed copy of “Worksheet H: Factor of Safety and Design Infiltration Worksheet” located in Appendix D “Section VII – Infiltration Rate Evaluation Protocol and Factor of Safety Recommendations, …” of the San Bernardino County Technical Guidance Document for Water Quality Management Plans. The infiltration study shall include the Soil Engineer’s recommendations for Appendix D, Table VII.3: Suitability Assessment Related Considerations for Infiltration Facility Safety Factors”. 27. Prior to approval of the final project -specific water quality management plan the applicant shall have a soils engineer prepare a project -specific infiltration study for the project for the purposes of storm water quality treatment. The infiltration study and recommendations shall follow the guidelines in the current adopted “San Bernardino County Technical Guidance Document for Water Quality Management Plans”. 28. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy by the Building Official, or his designee, the civil engineer of record shall file a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Post Construction Storm Water Treatment Devices As-Built Certificate with the Environmental Programs Coordinator, City of Rancho Cucamonga Engineering Services Department. 29. www.CityofRC.us Page 9 of 12Printed: 9/26/2024    Page 171 Project #: DRC2023-00406 Project Name: The Resort PA N15 Lot 12 Location: 9097 CLEVELAND AVE - 020927220-0000 Project Type: Design Review ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval As the use of drywells are proposed for the structural storm water treatment device, to meet the infiltration requirements of the current Municipal Separate Storm Sewers Systems (MS4) Permit, adequate source control and pollution prevention control BMPs shall be implemented to protect groundwater quality. The need for pre -treatment BMPs such as sedimentation or filtration shall be evaluated prior to infiltration and discussed in the final project -specific Water Quality Management Plan document. 30. www.CityofRC.us Page 10 of 12Printed: 9/26/2024    Page 172 Project #: DRC2023-00406 Project Name: The Resort PA N15 Lot 12 Location: 9097 CLEVELAND AVE - 020927220-0000 Project Type: Design Review ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval GROUND WATER PROTECTION: Prior to approval of the final project specific water quality management plan (WQMP), the WQMP document shall meet the requirements of the State Water Resources Control Board Order No . R8-2010-0036 (NPDES No. CAS 618036), the San Bernardino County Municipal Separate Storm Sewers Separation (MS4) Permit reads: Section XI.D(Water Quality Management Plan Requirements ).8(Groundwater Protection): Treatment Control BMPs utilizing infiltration [exclusive of incidental infiltration and BMPs not designed to primarily function as infiltration devices (such as grassy swales, detention basins, vegetated buffer strips, constructed wetlands, etc.)] must comply with the following minimum requirements to protect groundwater: a.Use of structural infiltration treatment BMPs shall not cause or contribute to an exceedance of ground water quality objectives. b.Source control and pollution prevention control BMPs shall be implemented to protect groundwater quality. The need for pre-treatment BMPs such as sedimentation or filtration should be evaluated prior to infiltration. c.Adequate pretreatment of runoff prior to infiltration shall be required in gas stations and large commercial parking lots. (NOTE: The State Water Quality Control Board defines a large commercial parking lot as ‘100,000 sq. ft. or more of commercial development to include parking lot (with 100 or more vehicle traffics ), OR, by means of 5,000sqft or more of allowable space designated for parking purposes’). d.Unless adequate pre -treatment of runoff is provided prior to infiltration structural infiltration treatment BMPs must not be used for areas of industrial or light industrial activity {77}, areas subject to high vehicular traffic (25,000 or more daily traffic ); car washes; fleet storage areas; nurseries; or any other high threat to water quality land uses or activities. e.Class V injection wells or dry wells must not be placed in areas subject to vehicular {78} repair or maintenance activities {79}, such as an auto body repair shop, automotive repair shop, new and used car dealership, specialty repair shop (e.g., transmission and muffler repair shop) or any facility that does any vehicular repair work. f.Structural infiltration BMP treatment shall not be used at sites that are known to have soil and groundwater contamination. g.Structural infiltration treatment BMPs shall be located at least 100 feet horizontally from any water supply wells. h.The vertical distance from the bottom of any infiltration structural treatment BMP to the historic high groundwater mark shall be at least 10-feet. Where the groundwater basins do not support beneficial uses, this vertical distance criteria may be reduced, provided groundwater quality is maintained. i.Structural infiltration treatment BMPs shall not cause a nuisance or pollution as defined in Water Code Section 13050. 31. www.CityofRC.us Page 11 of 12Printed: 9/26/2024    Page 173 Project #: DRC2023-00406 Project Name: The Resort PA N15 Lot 12 Location: 9097 CLEVELAND AVE - 020927220-0000 Project Type: Design Review ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval RESIDENTIAL MANDATORY MEASURES – CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS CODE – Prior to the issuance of any building permit the applicant shall comply with Section 4.106.3 (Grading and Paving) of the current adopted California Green Building Standards Code: Construction plans shall indicate how the site grading or drainage system will manage all surface water flows to keep water from entering building. Examples of methods to manage surface water include, but are not limited to, the following: 1.Swales. 2.Water collection and disposal systems . 3.French drains. 4.Water retention gardens . 5.Other water measures which keep surface water away from buildings and aid in groundwater recharge. Exception: Additions and alterations not altering the drainage path. 32. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the precise grading and drainage plan shall follow the format provided in the City of Rancho Cucamonga handout "Information for Grading Plans and Permit". 33. Prior to approval of the Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), the WQMP shall include a copy of the project Conditions of Approval . 34. The land owner shall provide an inspection report on a biennial basis for the structural storm water treatment devices, commonly referred to as BMPs, to the City of Rancho Cucamonga Environmental Program Manager. The land owner shall maintain on a regular basis as described in the Storm Water Quality Management Plan prepared for the subject project. All costs associated with the underground infiltration chamber are the responsibility of the land owner. 35. www.CityofRC.us Page 12 of 12Printed: 9/26/2024    Page 174