HomeMy WebLinkAbout2026-03-25 - Agenda Packet
Historic Preservation Commission
and
Planning Commission
Meeting Agenda
Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
March 25, 2026
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
7:00 PM
A. CALL TO ORDER AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL: Chairman Boling
Vice Chairman Daniels
Commissioner Dopp
Commissioner Morales
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 February 25th, 2026. (No meeting was held on
March 11th, 2026.)
D. PUBLIC HEARINGS
D1. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP – NEO & ASSOCIATES INC. ON BEHALF OF MARK REYNOSO – A
request to subdivide an existing 63,360 square foot parcel into two parcels within the Very Low (VL)
Residential Zone, Hillside Overlay Zone, and Equestrian Overlay Zone, located at 5451 Moonstone
Avenue, generally located northeast of the intersection of Hillside Road and Moonstone Avenue; APN:
1061-251-32. This item is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) as a Class 15 exemption under CEQA Guidelines Section 15315 – Minor Land Divisions
(SUBTPM20985). (Continued from February 25, 2026, HPC/PC meeting).
D2. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP – DECLIFF PROPERTIES LLC –
A request to subdivide two existing lots totaling approximately 39.58 gross acres into five (5)
numbered lots and six (6) lettered lots. The project site is located within the Rural Hillside (R-H), Rural
Open Space (R-OS), and Rural Flood Control/Utility Corridor (R-FC/UC) regulating zones of the
Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan (EHNCP). The site is located north of DeCliff
Drive, east of Wardman Bullock Road, and west of Ambleside Place (APNs: 0226-061-68 and 0226-
061-69). Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), this project is consistent with
the Certified Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan EIR (SCH No. 2017091027), and
a compliance memorandum has been prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183
(SUBTT20653).
E. GENERAL BUSINESS
E1. Consideration to Receive and File the General Plan Annual Progress Report and the Housing Element
Annual Progress Report for 2025.
F. DIRECTOR ANNOUNCEMENTS
G. COMMISSION ANNOUNCEMENTS
H. 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 appeals filed must be in writing with the City Clerk’s
Office, state the reason for the appeal, and be accompanied by an appeal fee pursuant to the most adopted
fee schedule for all decisions for 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 Draft Minutes
Page 1 of 4
2
8
3
1
\
Historic Preservation Commission and
Planning Commission
Agenda
February 25, 2026
Draft Minutes
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
7:00 p.m.
The regular joint meeting of the Planning and Historic Preservation Commission was held on February 25,
2026. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Boling at 7:00 p.m.
A. Roll Call
Planning Commission present: Chairman Boling, Commissioner Dopp, Commissioner Morales, and
Commissioner Diaz - Absent Vice Chairman Daniels.
Staff Present: Serita Young, Assistant City Attorney; Jennifer Nakamura, Planning Director; Jared Knight,
Associate Planner; Haide Aguirre, Contract Planner; Miguel Sotomayer, Principal Engineer; Elizabeth
Thornhill, Executive Assistant.
B. Public Communications
Chairman Boling opened the public communications.
Ferdinand Detres Jr., a representative with the Small Business Administration, provided information
regarding disaster relief funding available to individuals impacted by a major emergency event.
Hearing no other comments from the public, Chairman Boling closed the public communications.
C. Consent Calendar
C1. Consideration to adopt Regular Meeting Minutes of January 14, 2026.
C2. Findings of General Plan Conformity for Real Property Disposition of Two Parcels Totaling
Approximately 0.339 Acres, Located at the Intersection of Foothill Boulevard and Red Hill Country Club
Drive; APN 207-112-05 and APN 207-112-24. This item is exempt from the California Environmental Quality
Act under CEQA Section 15061(b)(3).
Motion: Moved by Commissioner Morales; seconded by Commissioner Dopp to approve Consent Calendar
Items C1 through C2. Absent: Commissioner Daniels. Motion carried 4-1.
D. Public Hearings
D1. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP – NEO & ASSOCIATES INC. ON BEHALF OF MARK REYNOSO – A
request to subdivide an existing 76,782-square-foot parcel into two parcels within the Very Low (VL)
Residential Zone, Hillside Overlay Zone, and Equestrian Overlay Zone, located at 5451 Moonstone Avenue,
generally located northeast of the intersection of Hillside Road and Moonstone Avenue; APN: 1061-251-
32. This item is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as a
Class 15 exemption under CEQA Guidelines Section 15315 – Minor Land Divisions.
Page 4
HPC/PC Draft Minutes
Page 2 of 4
2
8
3
1
Associate Planner Knight announced that due to discrepancies with the submitted plans, staff has
requested that the item be continued to the March 25, 2026, Planning Commissiong meeting.
Chairman Boling announced that due to this project being advertised, the Public Hearing is open.
Resident Larry Weidinger expressed his concern with the square footage of the project and its uniqueness
to the area.
Hearing no other comments from the public, Chairman Boling announced that this item will be continued to
the March 25th Planning Commission meeting and the public hearing will remain open until then.
Motion: Moved by Commissioner Dopp; seconded by Commissioner Diaz to continue this item to March
25, 2026. Absent: Commissioner Daniels. Motion carried 4-1.
D2. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP AND MAJOR DESIGN REVIEW – VINEYARD CROSSING
DEVELOPMENT (NH ETIWANDA, LLC NEWBRIDGE HOMES) – A request to merge six undeveloped
lots totaling 9.37 gross acres into two lots and construct a mixed-use development with 180 residential
units, including 5 percent (5%) very low-income housing pursuant to the State Density Bonus Law, on
approximately 8.69-gross acres (Lot 1) and 8,100 square feet of commercial space on approximately
0.68-gross acres (Lot 2). The proposal is located within the Traditional Town Center Land Use and in the
Center-1 (CE1) Zoning, at the northeast corner of Etiwanda Avenue and Baseline Road (APN: 0227-131-
17, -38, -39, -46, -50, and -51). This item is statutorily exempt from the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.66, as enacted by
Assembly Bill 130 (SUBTT20790 and DRC2024-00429).
Contract Planner Aguirre provided a PowerPoint presentation (copy on file). She noted a revision to the
Conditions of Approval by the Planning Department, adding Condition No. 26 to require submittal of a Uniform
Sign Program prior to issuance of any sign permits, and deleting Condition No. 51, as the language is already
included in Condition No. 52. Commissioners received a redlined version of the changes on the dais for review.
Chairman Boling opened the public hearing.
Applicant Representative Denise Ashton, along with her team, was present and available to answer questions
from the Commission.
The following people commented on the project: Oscar Herrera; Craig Bruorton; Belinda Sanchez; Brenda
Moncayo.
The comments included the following concerns:
Highway safety
Traffic concerns
School capacity
Design not compatible with area
Noise
Pollution
Density
Children safety
Narrow sidewalks
Applicant responded to the following public comments:
Sidewalks match those east and west of the site, creating a consistent streetscape along the frontage.
Traffic impact was created one week ago showing no traffic impact.
Page 5
HPC/PC Draft Minutes
Page 3 of 4
2
8
3
1
For the record, it is noted that the following correspondence was received after the preparation of the agenda
packet. The actual correspondence should be referenced for complete details:
Email from Sandra Sosa expressing support for the project.
Email from Connie Lee expressing concerns regarding traffic safety, overdevelopment, infrastructure
strain and environmental impact.
Email from Dylan Casey, Cal HDF Director, reminding the city of its obligation to comply with State laws
when evaluating the proposed housing development project.
Email from Sandeep Sehgal expressing opposition of the proposed development due to increased
pollution and environmental impact.
Email from Mr. Sun opposing the proposed development due to traffic gridlock, Hospital capacity
collapse, noise and safety risks for pedestrians.
Hearing no other comments, Chairman Boling closed public hearing.
Commissioner Morales inquired where the applicant intends to place the project’s monument signs.
Planning Director Nakamura clarified that the signs proposed in the plan are conceptual only and have not yet
been reviewed by staff for compliance with the code.
Applicant responded that their plan is to have three or so and indicated at the corner of the entry and at the retail
center.
Commissioner Morales suggested that the signage would be more visually appealing if located within the
landscaping between the sidewalk and Base Line, noting that it would provide an enhanced visual effect.
Commissioner Diaz asked whether any discussion has taken place regarding a shared parking agreement with
the adjacent commercial space.
Planning Director Nakamura stated that if the developer agrees to include a shared parking agreement as part
of the parking management plan, it would be reviewed administratively to ensure implementation.
Applicant concurred.
Planning Director Nakamura confirmed that it will be incorporated into the parking management plan condition.
Commissioner Diaz addressed the architecture because there have been a lot of comments made about it. The
description abstract interpretation of Spanish style seems heavy on the abstract. The Spanish seems like an
afterthought. She recommended making it more cohesive with the surrounding neighborhood.
Applicant indicated that they believe the project integrates well with the surrounding area.
Commissioner Diaz asked if any architectural adjustments could be made to reduce the abstract elements and
emphasize the Spanish style.
Applicant indicated that they could study that option.
Commissioner Dopp suggested making the design more reflective of the Spanish style and encouraged
incorporating additional accenting elements. He also recommended dedicating a few more units toward the
front and requested that the sidewalks be extended to eight feet.
Commissioner Morales expressed appreciation that there is no driveway on Etiwanda and commended the
applicant for working with staff to develop the project. He noted that the City maintains high standards and
thanked the applicant for creating a project worthy of a world-class community.
Chairman Boling stated that he echoes the comments of the other Commissioners. He expressed concern that
the project does not cohesively fit in with the surrounding buildings and suggested selecting a single architectural
direction – either contemporary or Spanish. He noted that the applicant is providing needed housing types for
the City and asked whether the units include garages.
Page 6
HPC/PC Draft Minutes
Page 4 of 4
2
8
3
1
Applicant confirmed that each unit includes a two-car garage.
Chairman Boling suggested that the applicant consider widening the sidewalks along Etiwanda to enhance
safety for children traveling to and from school. He asked the applicant about commercial components, noting
that when commercial spaces are oriented inward toward the rear of a building, service areas are often pushed
toward the street. He expressed concern that, given Base Line is a major arterial, the presence of racks and
boxes along the street frontage would not be visually appealing. He asked the applicant to clarify their intent for
how the commercial component would operate.
Applicant responded that, pursuant to the form-based code, frontage is required along the edge. They stated
they will make every effort to provide an attractive friendly frontage. Any service activities would occur from the
rear (north side), on the parking lot side.
Chairman Boling stated that the addition of a third traffic lane on Base Line will help address some of the public’s
concerns regarding traffic.
Motion: Moved by Commissioner Diaz; seconded by Commissioner Dopp to adopt Resolutions 2026-006,
Tentative Tract Map SUBTT20790 and Major Design Review DRC2024-00429 with the modified Conditions
of Approval and adding Parking Management Plan condition. Absent: Commissioner Daniels. Motion
carried 4-1.
E. Director Announcements
Planning Director Nakamura announced that there will be no meeting on March 11th and that the
Commission will reconvene on March 25th.
F. Commission Announcements - None
H. Adjournment
Motion: Moved by Commissioner Morales, seconded by Commissioner Diaz to adjourn the meeting.
Hearing no objections, Chairman Boling adjourned the meeting at 8:23 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Elizabeth Thornhill, Executive Assistant
Planning Department
Approved:
Page 7
DATE:March 25, 2026
TO:Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM:Jennifer Nakamura, CNU-A, Planning Director
INITIATED BY:Jared Knight, Associate Planner
SUBJECT:TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP – NEO & ASSOCIATES INC. ON BEHALF OF
MARK REYNOSO – A request to subdivide an existing 63,360 square foot
parcel into two parcels within the Very Low (VL) Residential Zone, Hillside
Overlay Zone, and Equestrian Overlay Zone, located at 5451 Moonstone
Avenue, generally located northeast of the intersection of Hillside Road and
Moonstone Avenue; APN: 1061-251-32. This item is exempt from the
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as a
Class 15 exemption under CEQA Guidelines Section 15315 – Minor Land
Divisions (SUBTPM20985). (Continued from February 25, 2026, HPC/PC
meeting).
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2026-007 for the approval
of Tentative Parcel Map 20985 subject to the attached conditions of approval.
BACKGROUND:
The proposed subdivision was originally considered at the October 22nd, 2025, Planning
Commission meeting. Due to the irregular shape of the proposed new parcels, the Planning
Commission voted to continue the item, and instructed staff and the applicants to modify the
proposed subdivision to create more standard lots.
After working with the applicant, staff scheduled the item to be heard at the February 25th, 2026
Planning Commission Meeting. However, on February 19th, following the publication of the
Planning Commission agenda, a significant discrepancy in the size of the project area on the
proposed Tentative Parcel Map was found. At the February 25th, 2026 Planning Commission
Meeting, staff requested that the item be continued to the March 25th, 2026 planning commission
meeting to correct this discrepancy, and the Planning Commission voted to grant the continuance
to the specified date.
The 63,360 square foot project site is an irregularly shaped and oversized lot. The project site is
currently developed with an existing single-family residence. The site is generally located to the
northeast of the intersection of Moonstone Avenue and Hillside Road. An aerial view of the project
site is provided in Figure 1.
Page 8
Page 2
6
6
8
4
Figure 1 - Aerial View of Site
The existing land uses, along with the General Plan and Zoning designations, for the subject site
and adjacent properties are provided in the following table:
Land Use General Plan Zoning
Site
North
West
South
East
ANALYSIS:
The applicant proposes subdividing project site into two parcels for the purpose of residential
development. Hereafter, the proposed new parcels are referred to as Parcel 1 and Parcel 2.
Parcel 1 encompasses the northeastern portion of the property and totals 43,359 square feet.
Parcel 2 encompasses the southwestern portion of the property and totals 20,000 square feet in
size. The proposed subdivision is shown in Figure 2.
Page 9
Page 3
6
6
8
4
Figure 2 – Proposed Subdivision
Each parcel will have dedicated street access from Moonstone Avenue near the northwest corner
of the property. Although the proposed subdivision would result in two irregularly shaped parcels,
both parcels comply with the development standards for the Very Low (VL) residential Zone as
described in the table below.
Development Standard Requirement Proposed Lots Analysis
sq ftMinimum Lot Area
Minimum Lot Area (Net Average)
Minimum Lot Width
Minimum Lot Depth
Minimum Frontage (Flag Lot)
Minimum Frontage
The applicant has submitted separate development applications for two single-family residences
to be developed on the newly created lots. The subject application is for the subdivision only, and
the development package for the proposed single-family residences is currently under review by
staff. Pursuant to Development Code Section 17.16.130(B)(2), residential development involving
four or fewer dwelling units requires an approved Minor Design Review. Pursuant to Development
Code Section 17.16.130(C)(2), the approving authority for Minor Design Review applications is
the Planning Director. The existing residence is proposed to be demolished as part of the
Page 10
Page 4
6
6
8
4
proposed future residential development.
Public Art
There is no public art requirement for subdivisions. For future development of the parcels,
pursuant to Development Code Section 17.124.020(B), residential projects with a density equal
to or less than four dwelling units per acre are exempt from public art requirements.
Environmental Assessment
Planning Department Staff have determined that the project is categorically exempt from the
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City’s CEQA
Guidelines. The project qualifies as a Class 15 exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section
15315 – Minor Land Divisions. The project scope is for the subdivision of a residentially zoned lot
into two separate parcels in conformance with the General Plan and Very Low (VL) aone, and no
variances or exceptions are required. All services and access to the proposed parcels to local
standards are available, including fire, public safety, and utility services. The existing parcel was
not involved in the division of a larger parcel within the previous two years, and it is relatively flat
and does not have an average slope greater than 20 percent. There is no substantial evidence
that the project may have a significant effect on the environment.
Correspondence
This item was originally advertised as a public hearing for the February 25th, 2026 Planning
Commission meeting. The item was advertised with a regular legal advertisement in the Inland
Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper on February 13th, notices were mailed to 48 owners within a 660-
foot radius of the project site on February 10th, and the property was also posted with physical
notices on February 10th.
During the February 25th, 2026 Planning Commission meeting, it was announced that the item
would be continued to the regular Planning Commission meeting on March 25th, 2026, with the
public comment period to be left open until that date.
Since the initial advertisement of the item, staff have received no comments.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The proposed parcel map would subdivide one residential parcel into two lots. The action itself
does not directly generate tax revenue; however, it enables the development of an additional
residential unit in the future. Construction of two new residences would result in increased
assessed valuation and corresponding property tax revenues. Given the limited scale of the
subdivision, the project is not expected to result in a measurable increase in municipal service
demands.
COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / VALUE(S) ADDRESSED:
The proposed subdivision promotes the City Council’s Core Values of “family-oriented
atmosphere” and “relentless pursuit of improvement.” The new parcels create an opportunity for
additional housing units by subdividing the oversized and underutilized parcel of land in a manner
that remains consistent with the development standards of the underlying zone and compatible in
size and configuration with neighboring residential lots.
EXHIBITS:
Exhibit A – Link_Tentative Parcel Map
Exhibit B – Meeting Minutes from October 22nd, 2025 Planning Commission Meeting
Exhibit C – Draft Resolution 2026-007 with Conditions of Approval
Page 11
EXHIBIT A - TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP
Historic Preservation Commission and
Planning Commission
Agenda
October 22, 2025
Final Minutes
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
7:00 p.m.
The regular joint meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission and Planning Commission was held on
October 22, 2025. 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: Serita Young, Assistant City Attorney; Jennifer Nakamura, Planning Director; Sean
McPherson, Principal Planner; Miguel Sotomayor, Principal Engineer; Stacy Lee, Assistant Planner;
Aracely Estrada, Management Analyst; Elizabeth Thornhill, Executive Assistant.
B.Public Communications
Chairman Morales opened the public communications.
Hearing no comments from the public, Chairman Morales closed the public communications.
C.Consent Calendar
C1. Consideration to adopt Regular Meeting Minutes of October 8, 2025.
Motion: Moved by Vice Chairman Boling; seconded by Commissioner Daniels. Motion carried
unanimously, 5-0.
D.Public Hearings
D1. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP -ROBERT TOBIN ON BEHALF OF ADRIAN BUIGUES-A request to
subdivide an existing 19,252-square-foot parcel into two parcels within the Low (L) Residential Zone,
located at 9817 Base Line Road; APN: 1077-011-02. This item is exempt from the requirements of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as a Class 15 exemption under CEQA Guidelines Section
15315 -Minor Land Divisions (SUBTPM20935).
Assistant Planner Lee provided a PowerPoint presentation (copy on file).
Chairman Morales opened the public hearing.
Applicant Robert Tobin, along with Architect Doug Andresen were present and available to answer questions.
They stated that they did not receive the Conditions of Approval.
Planning Director Nakamura stated that the Conditions of Approval, along with the Staff Report, was sent to the
applicant via email, and was posted on the website on Thursday, October 16th .
HPC/PC Final Minutes
Page 1 of 9 Exhibit B
Page 13
Vice Chairman Boling reiterated that the applicant had been given the opportunity to review the Conditions of
Approval provided by staff and therefore had ample time to do so.
Planning Director Nakamura confirmed.
Commissioner Daniels suggested to allow the applicant a few minutes to look over a hard copy of the Conditions
of Approval while the Commission deliberates.
Applicant Tobin, along with Architect Andresen reviewed the documents.
Commissioner Daniels stated that he had spoken with the City Engineer regarding the ingress and egress
easement on Parcel 2. He noted that he had not realized the easement was intended for Parcel 1, ensuring that
any future development on that parcel would access London Avenue rather than Base Line Road. He
commented that this was an excellent addition to the map.
Vice Chairman Boling stated that in the Conditions of Approval, number 7, Subsection 1, the Engineering
Services Department requires the applicant to provide fiber optic conduit along Base Line Road. He further
stated that Subsection 2 requires the same along London Avenue and inquired about the rationale for this
requirement, given that London Avenue is a small residential cul-de-sac. He asked to explain how this aligns
with the City's Master Plan for fiber optics.
Principal Engineer Sotomayor explained that it is the City's requirement for developers to install fiber optic
conduit along project frontages to support future connectivity. He added that the City's long-term goal is to
have fiber installed citywide.
Vice Chairman Boling expressed appreciation to the applicant for preparing the proposed parcel map noting that
it aligns the subject site with the General Plan and zoning for future use. He added that while it may not reflect
the current use, it appropriately prepares the site for future development while respecting the long-term operation
of Parcel 1 as a valued community asset, the Child Care Center. He asked staff to confirm that the Child Care
Center would be permitted to continue operating as legal nonconforming use, provided that operations are not
discontinued for an extended period of time.
Assistant Planner Lee confirmed.
Chairman Morales re-opened the public hearing to allow the applicant an opportunity to respond after
reviewing the Conditions of Approval.
Applicant Tobin stated that they had reviewed the Conditions of Approval, found them to be standard, and had
no objections. He apologized for the earlier confusion.
Hearing no comments from the public, Chairman Morales closed public hearing.
Motion: Moved by Commissioner Dopp; seconded by Vice Chairman Boling to adopt Resolution 2025-038
approving Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM20935. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0.
D2. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP -JACLYN MCDOWELL ON BEHALF OF MARK REYNOSO -A request
to subdivide an existing 76,782-square-foot parcel into two parcels within the Very Low (VL) Residential
Zone, Hillside Overlay Zone, and Equestrian Overlay Zone, located at 5451 Moonstone Avenue; APN:
1061-251-32. This item is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
as a Class 15 exemption under CEQA Guidelines Section 15315 -Minor Land Divisions (SUBTPM20985).
Assistant Planner Lee provided a PowerPoint presentation (copy on file) and noted that a few typographical
errors had been identified in the Staff Report and draft Resolution; corrections were made, and red-lined copies
were provided on the dais. Corrections in the Proposed Lots; changed Parcel 1 from 21,926 sq. ft. to 54,855
sq. ft., and Parcel 2 from 54,855 sq. ft. to 21,926 sq. ft.
HPC/PC Final Minutes
Page 2 of 9
Page 14
Commissioner Dopp inquired about Parcel 2 on the east end of the lot, nothing that the staff report lists the
minimum lot width as 142 feet and 383 feet, though it appears to be approximately 9-10 feet. He asked how
the measurement was calculated and how it complies with applicable standards.
Assistant Planner Lee responded that staff had expressed similar concerns. However, she noted that there are
no objective findings to recommend denial, as the subdivision meets the development standards required for
the underlying zone. She added that the measurements are based on definitions of lot depth and lot width as
outlined in the Development Code.
Commissioner Daniels stated that the Government Code allows denial of subdivisions based on issues of public
health or safety, referencing Section 66474, which provides legal grounds for denial if a project poses serious
health problems. He noted that while the subdivision is consistent with the City's General Plan and zoning, be
believes the proposed layout of the two parcels is poor. He expressed concern that the flag portion of the lot
may not be properly maintained and could become an eyesore to the community. He then sought assistance
from legal counsel.
Assistant City Attorney Young responded that she is not sure we can correlate a bad design to a health problem.
She said we would need a bit more facts, such as studies to back up a denial based on a health issue.
Commissioner Daniels stated that the proposed design creates an untenable situation with the long, narrow flag
portion of the lot and the adjoining areas to the west. He commented that the configuration appears to serve no
purpose other than to meet the minimum lot size requirements.
Chairman Morales opened the public hearing.
The applicant explained that the lot's angled design is due to the existing contours of the site. He noted that an
existing driveway and a grove of mature trees along that driveway influenced the layout, as they wished to
preserve the trees.
He stated that one of the requirements is that the lot must extend completely through the site and connect to
both sides. He explained that, although that portion of the lot is not necessary, it was included to meet site
requirements. He added that the intent is to divide the property, so the back house and pool remain, with plans
to rebuild the house and resurface the pool.
The following individuals spoke in opposition of the project: Larry Weidinger, Gary Drejdan, Maureen
Malady-Myers.
The comments included the following concerns:
• Privacy
• Health hazard
• Mountain view
• Wall height
• Habitat area
• Septic
• Bridle trail around property
The applicant provided an explanation on the following:
• Trees -The grove of mature pine trees will be left alone.
• Septic -Septic will be done by professional engineers.
• Height and placement of the building -They are abiding by all code standards.
• Bridle Trail -Will be addressed during planning.
Commissioner Dopp stated that there is a gate at the rear of Parcel 2 and inquired whether the future
property owner would be responsible for maintaining the area. He expressed concern that, while there is
an intent to preserve the existing trees, lack of proper maintenance could pose a public health and safety
risk, particularly related to wildfires.
HPC/PC Final Minutes
Page 3 of 9
Page 15
Applicant confirmed and indicated maintaining the area it is something that can be added to the Conditions
of Approval.
Hearing no other comments from the public, Chairman Morales closed public hearing.
Commissioner Dopp asked staff to clarify the requirement for property lines to extend from the front to the
back of the site. He referenced the applicant's statement that the lot was designed to reach the east end
of the parcel to satisfy a city code requirement and requested confirmation as to whether such a provision
exists in the regulations.
Planning Director Nakamura responded that staff would review the subdivision ordinance during
deliberations, noting that the cited requirement is not one she is familiar with. She clarified that the current
application pertains solely to the lot split and is unrelated to any future approval of the house design, which
would be addressed separately through the entitlement process. She emphasized that today's focus is on
the subdivision of the two lots.
Commissioner Dopp stated that he finds it difficult to support a parcel with such an irregular shape due to
potential management and liability concerns. He commended that a large portion of the parcel appears
unviable as a standalone property. While acknowledging that this is not sufficient grounds for denial, he
expressed discomfort with the configuration.
Commissioner Daniels concurred with Commissioner Dopp. He also stated he would like to see the rear
flag portion combined with Parcel 1. He explained that as a Commission, part of their responsibility is to
try to make good planning and have parcels that makes sense. With that in mind, he is uncomfortable
approving this because he believes it is a terrible design, especially after seeing the amount of land
available in Parcel 1 .
Commissioner Diaz and Vice Chairman Boling concurred.
Planning Director Nakamura suggested re-opening the public hearing to allow the applicant to return and
clarify which concerns they are willing or unwilling to address. She said that she was unable to identify any
provision in the subdivision ordinance requiring the east-west lot configuration but stated that staff would
further review and examine the matter. Regarding variances, she explained that they may be granted for
development standards outlined in Title 17. Therefore, if a variance related to lot standards were
necessary, it could be considered. In response to concerns about the existing trees, she explained that all
departments will review the site once a development application is submitted. If the property is located
within a high fire hazard zone, there may be requirements for the removal of certain trees and the replanting
of fire-adaptive trees as part of the new development.
Chairman Morales reopened the public hearing.
Applicant stated if there is nothing in the code that indicates they have to extend all the way across the
subdivision, he would be open to revising that and going with the quickest approval process possible to
avoid further delays for his client. He said he would be okay with going perhaps a little bit under 20,000 sq.
ft. in Parcel 2 and could easily remove 1,200 sq. ft. right away.
Chairman Morales closed the public hearing.
Planning Director Nakamura stated the Commissioners have the following choices to make:
• Accept staff's recommendation for approval,
• If they feel they have the findings to make a denial, they can do so, or
• Continue the item to a date uncertain and allow staff to work with the applicant to finalize any
revisions and to determine what the best path forward would be.
Motion: Moved by Vice Chairman Boling; seconded by Commissioner Daniels, to continue this item to a
date uncertain. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0.
HPC/PC Final Minutes
Page 4 of 9
Page 16
Commissioner Daniels noted that the Commission is not reviewing the development of the parcels at this
time and stated he was unclear whether the existing structure would be refurbished. He requested that a
small reference map be provided showing the locations of structures on the parcels.
Assistant City Attorney Young responded that it would not be appropriate if only considering a lot split. The
potential proposal on a lot split could change over time because it is in preliminary review right now.
Commissioner Daniels asked for clarification on whether the house will remain.
Planning Director Nakamura replied that as staff mentioned in the report, the house is to be demolished but
the idea is to rebuild in the same place.
Commissioner Daniels stated that it was not clear as the applicant indicated something different.
D3. DESIGN REVIEW, MINOR EXCEPTION, VARIANCE -VINOVA (LENNAR) - A request for site plan
and architectural review of 166 single-family residences within an approved tract map on approximately 70-
acres located near the northeast corner of Etiwanda Avenue and Wilson Avenue; (Tracts 16072 and 16072-
2). This item is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under
CEQA Section 15162. ( Design Review D RC2024-00395, Minor Exception D RC2025-00168, Variance
D RC2025-00169).
Principal Planner McPherson provided a PowerPoint presentation (copy on file).
Chairman Morales opened the public hearing.
Applicant was present and available to answer questions.
For the record, correspondence from Lozeau Drury, L LP was received following the preparation of the
agenda packet, expressing opposition to the project. The correspondence should be referred to for further
details.
Resident Edward Aldaz had the following concerns:
• Wall placement
• Health risk -vermin
• Digging close to home
Applicant responded to the wall concerns and said there will be permitted walls built around the homes.
They will be developing everything within property line and the track boundaries.
Principal Planner McPherson clarified that the walls referenced were primarily interior walls to the approved
lots. He said this project will also include walls along the perimeter as is standard in a subdivision like this.
Relative to the comment about any additional grading, it has already commenced. There is no expectation
that grading beyond the boundaries which have already been graded will occur. The application before the
commission tonight is relative to the construction of the homes on those, previously graded lots.
Commissioner Daniels referred to the two different roofing materials being proposed and that several of the
units feature standard seam walls. He commented that typically only one type of roofing material is used
and asked for the reason behind the use of two.
Applicant explained that it is an architectural feature intended to create diversity.
Commissioner Daniels commented on the gable roof extending over the entrance appears awkward with
the flat wall positioned in front of it. He also inquired how the two subdivisions will be phased.
Applicant responded that they are trying to revisit the traditional style in a contemporary way. In terms of
the phasing, there are essentially two different product lines. The one-story and two-story homes will be
built simultaneously.
HPC/PC Final Minutes
Page 5 of 9
Page 17
Commissioner Daniels stated that the Fire Department will likely require two access points prior to the
storing of lumber for construction and asked if the developer will construct the street network.
Applicant confirmed that approximately 90% of the street network has been constructed.
Commissioner Daniels asked if Lennar designed the parks.
Applicant answered that it is a mutual effort and want to do the best they can for the community.
Commissioner Daniels complimented the project. He said it is very nice and will be a good asset to the
development of the community. He asked if Wilson Avenue will be open soon.
Applicant answered that they will open it as soon as they can.
Chairman Morales closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Dopp stated that he got to see this at the Design Review Committee meeting. He
remembers comments being made about the front wall, possibly making it a balcony. Aside from that, it
was decided that most of the designs were appropriate for the neighborhood. He indicated he is a big fan
of some of the amenities. For example, the Central Paseo he originally was pushing for with the developer
when there was a lack of one on a map that was before them a few years ago. It is nice to see it carried
out because it was not a requirement at the time. He said that the design helps create a stronger sense of
community within a subdivision, noting that traditional urban studies show such connectivity is often missing
in developments characterized by long roads. He added that incorporating amenities and green spaces
at a central nexus point will provide an excellent gathering area and be a valuable enhancement to the
project.
Commissioner Daniels stated he went through all the minor exceptions and the variances and did not have
any problems with the waivers that are being requested which are very minor.
Commissioner Diaz stated that we have 166 new single-family homes coming to an area of the city where
people want them, and it is very exciting. She said the issues presented are minor exceptions and
expressed no concerns. She supports staffs' determination that the CEQA report on file remains relevant
and applicable, and stated that she looks forward to seeing the project move forward.
Vice Chairman Boling stated, as mentioned previously, there were some issues and concerns addressed
at the Design Review Committee meeting related to a couple of the models and elevations. The applicant's
submission and provision of the 3 D rendering helped give them a better perspective of what those products
are intended to look like. As it pertains to the minor exceptions and variances, they are nominal.
Regarding the letter that was received by the city late in the process challenging the previously certified
E I R, there have been no substantial changes nor new uses planned for this project, so he sees no issues
or problems. As it pertains to the comment made by the public, he strongly encouraged the resident to
speak directly to the applicants representative pertaining to the issues and questions that he has that are
beyond the scope of the commission's actions being taken tonight.
Chairman Morales addressed the public comment regarding rodents, stating that those issues should
subside as the site is developed. He thanked the applicant for working collaboratively with staff to ensure
the project is completed properly.
Motion: Moved by Commissioner Dopp; seconded by Commissioner Daniels to adopt Resolution 2025-
036 approving Design Review D RC2024-00395, Variance D RC2025-00169 and Minor Exception
D RC2025-00168. Motion carried unanimously, 5 -0.
HPC/PC Final Minutes
Page 6 of 9
Page 18
D4. MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT -CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA -A request to amend Title
17 of the Muni cipal Code for the development of Ac cessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) and Junior Ac cessory
Dwelling Units (JADUs) in complian ce with State ADU Law. This item is statutorily exempt from the
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under CEQA Se ction 15282 (h). A publi c
hearing will be held by the City Coun cil for final a ction at a future date to be determined. ( D RC2025-00072).
Assistant Planner Lee provided a PowerPoint presentation ( copy on file).
Commissioner Daniels asked for clarifi cation regarding the ADU pre-approved plans and whether any
member of the publi c may request a c cess to those plans.
Planning Dire ctor Nakamura des cribed the pre-approval pro cess. Any li censed contra ctor, engineer or
ar chite ct may submit a plan for an ADU. The City condu cts an initial review, and on ce approved, the plans
are filed and posted on the City's website. She noted that anyone may use the City's pre-approved plans
to apply for an ADU, whi ch is the basis of the City's ADU Pre-Approved Program.
Commissioner Daniels asked Assistant City Attorney Young why penalties cannot be imposed for an
unpermitted ADU built two to five years ago and later dis covered by the City.
Assistant City Attorney Young responded that she had not reviewed the legislative intent behind the
provision but suggested that the state may have re cognized the large number of unpermitted additions
constru cted by property owners for various reasons. She explained that if those additions were built to
code and can be legalized, this pro cess provides a pathway for doing so without penalty, thereby creating
additional housing units that the City can count toward its housing requirements.
Commissioner Daniels asked if there is a timeframe for complian ce, if an ADU is dis covered.
Staff responded that they do not believe there is a timeframe.
Planning Dire ctor Nakamura mentioned if work is done without building permits there is a 50% penalty.
Chairman Morales opened the publi c hearing.
Hearing no comments from the publi c, Chairman Morales closed the publi c hearing.
Commissioner Dopp stated that the amendment will make it somewhat easier to meet the City's housing
goals. He noted that while the overall impa ct may be limited due to the small number of lots over 20,000
square feet, it still represents a move in the right dire ction.
Vi ce Chairman Boling said he is en couraged at the number of ADU's that have been developed in the city
over the past few years. He expressed appre ciation for staff's diligen ce in bringing forward Muni cipal Code
Amendments su ch as this one.
Chairman Morales thanked staff for their hard work in updating the regulations to ensure consisten cy with
state ADU law.
Motion: Moved by Vi ce Chairman Boling; se conded by Commissioner Diaz to adopt Resolution 2025-035
re commending that the City Coun cil approve Muni cipal Code Amendment D RC2025-00072. Motion carried
unanimously, 5-0.
D5. Consideration of a Muni cipal Code Amendment to amend the Ran cho Cu camonga Muni cipal Code to
amend Se ction 12.20.080 of Chapter 12.20 of Title 12 and Se ctions 17.20.020 and 17.20.040 of Title 17 of
the Muni cipal Code to Dissolve the Trails Advisory Committee. This Item is Exempt from the California
Environmental Quality Act, Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Se ctions 15378 (B)(5) and 15061 (B)(3).
This Item Will be Forwarded to City Coun cil for Final Action. ( D RC2025-00254).
HPC/PC Final Minutes
Page 7 of 9
Page 19
Planning Director Nakamura provided a brief summary and report on the item. She requested that the
Planning Commission make a recommendation to City Council to approve the Municipal Code Amendment
in order to dissolve the Trails Advisory Committee.
Vice Chairman Boling recommended that staff send a letter of appreciation to the committee members,
formally thanking them for their service and notifying them that their duties have concluded.
Planning Director Nakamura confirmed.
Chairman Morales opened the public hearing.
Hearing no comments from the public, Chairman Morales closed the public hearing.
Motion: Moved by Vice Chairman Boling; seconded by Commissioner Dopp to adopt Resolution 2025-034
recommending that the City Council approve the Municipal Code Amendment D RC2025-00254 to dissolve
the Trails Advisory Committee. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0.
D6. Consideration of a General Plan Amendment and Municipal Code Amendment to Amend the General
Plan Land Use and Community Character Chapter related to Floor Area Ratio on Table LC-1 and Policies
Relating First Floor Non-Residential Dimensions and Block Lengths; Amend the General Plan Mobility and
Access Chapter to add Dimension Standards for Street Typologies, Remove the Proposed 8th Street Trail
and Amend the Truck Routes Map Pursuant to AB98; Amend Municipal Code Table 17.130.050-1 to Update
Floor Area Ratio and Ground Floor Non-Residential Dimensions for Form Based Zones; and Amend
Municipal Code Section 17 .138.030 Regarding Block Length for Form Based Zones. An Addendum to the
General Plan E I R Has Been Prepared for this Project. (C ONT INUE D T O N OVEMBE R 12 m, 2025
MEET IN G)
Planning Director Nakamura requested that this item be continued to November 12 th , 2025, meeting to
allow additional time to finalize remaining details.
Chairman Morales opened the public hearing.
Chairman Morales announced that this item will remain open to the November 12 th HPC/PC meeting.
Motion: Moved by Vice Chairman Boling; seconded by Commissioner Diaz to continue this item to
November 12 th Planning Commission meeting. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0.
E. General Business
E1. Consideration to Approve a Resolution Adopting bylaws for the Design Review Committee
Management Analyst Estrada provided a PowerPoint presentation (copy on file).
Chairman Morales opened the public hearing.
Hearing no comments from the public, Chairman Morales closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Dopp stated that several Commissioners previously requested clarification regarding
absences, so he appreciates the effort.
Commissioner Daniels thanked staff for doing a great job.
Vice Chairman Boling thanked staff for helping to address concerns that come up which have the potential
to delay developer and resident applications. He said these steps moving forward, reflect the City's pro
business and pro-resident position.
HPC/PC Final Minutes
Page 8 of 9
Page 20
Commissioner Diaz expressed appreciation to staff for their efforts on this item and that it responds to the
needs raised by the Commissioners.
Motion: Moved by Commissioner Diaz; seconded by Vice Chairman Boling to adopt Resolution 2025-033
repealing Resolution 79-61 and approving the bylaws for the Design Review Committee. Motion carried
unanimously, 5-0.
F. Director Announcements
Planner Director Nakamura announced that one meeting is scheduled for both November and December.
She noted there will be no second meeting in November due to the Thanksgiving holiday and no second
meeting in December, as it falls on Christmas Eve and City Hall will be closed until after the new year.
She provided an update on the Planning Commissions memo which was presented to City Council last
week. City Council expressed their appreciation for the work the Commissioners do and know that density
bonus projects are very difficult and complicated. They are considering the following actions:
1) Sharing the memo with the City's lobbyists, who can communicate the real-world impacts of certain
housing laws during meetings with state representatives.
2) Having Council Member Kristine Scott, who serves on the Board for the Inland Empire Division of
the League of California Cities, raise the issue at their next meeting to explore whether other cities
may wish to collaborate on a unified message regarding density bonus law projects and their
impacts.
G. Commission Announcements -None
H. Adjournment
Motion: Moved by Commissioner Diaz, seconded by Vice Chairman Boling to adjourn the meeting.
Hearing no objections, Chairman Morales adjourned the meeting at 8:54 p.m.
Approved: HPC/PC November 12, 2025 Meeting.
Respectfully submitted,
�abd?"Muddt
Elizabeth Thornhill, Executive Assistant
Planning Department
HPC/PC Final Minutes
Page 9 of 9
Page 21
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-007
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING TENTATIVE
PARCEL MAP SUBTPM20985, A REQUEST TO SUBDIVIDE AN
EXISTING 63,360-SQUARE-FOOT PARCEL INTO TWO PARCELS
WITHIN THE VERY LOW (VL) RESIDENTIAL ZONE, HILLSIDE
OVERLAY ZONE, AND EQUESTRIAN OVERLAY ZONE, LOCATED AT
5451 MOONSTONE AVENUE; APN: 1061-251-32.
A.Recitals.
1. The applicant, Neo & Associates Inc., on behalf of Mark Reynoso, filed an application
for the approval of Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM20985, as described in the title of this
Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Tentative Parcel Map request is referred to
as "the application."
2.On the 22nd day October 2025, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and continued to a future
uncertain date.
3.On the 25th day of February 2026, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application, and at the request of staff
continued to the 25th day of March, 2026.
4.On the 25th day of March 2026, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said
hearing on that date.
5.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 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 February 25th, 2026, including written and oral staff reports, together
with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows:
a. The application applies to the property currently addressed 5451 Moonstone
Avenue, generally located to the northeast of Moonstone Avenue and Hillside Road; and
b. The subject site consists of a single 63,360-square-foot (1.42-acre) subject site,
which is partially developed with a single-family residence; and
Exhibit C
Page 22
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2026-007
SUBTPM20985 – NEO & ASSOCIATES INC.
March 25th, 2026
Page 2
c.The existing land uses, along with the General Plan and Zoning designations,
for the subject site and adjacent properties are provided in the following table:
Land Use General Plan Zoning
Site Single-Family Dwelling Semi-Rural Neighborhood Very Low Residential*
North Single-Family Dwelling Semi-Rural Neighborhood Very Low Residential*
West Single-Family Dwelling Semi-Rural Neighborhood Very Low Residential*
South Single-Family Dwelling Semi-Rural Neighborhood Very Low Residential*
East Single-Family Dwelling Semi-Rural Neighborhood Very Low Residential*
*Hillside and Equestrian Overlay Zones
d.The application is for the subdivision of an oversized parcel totaling 63,360
square feet, or 1.42 acres of land, into two numbered parcels for residential purposes. Parcel 1
encompasses the western section of the property totaling 20,000 square feet, while Parcel 2
encompasses the eastern section of the property totaling 43,360 square feet; and
e. The newly created parcels comply with each of the applicable development
standards for the Very Low (VL) Residential Zone as demonstrated in the table below:
Development Standard Requirement Proposed Lots Analysis
Minimum Lot Area 20,000 sq ft Parcel 1 – 43,360 sq ft Compliant
Parcel 2 – 20,000 sq ft Compliant
Minimum Lot Area (Net Average) 22,500 sq ft 31,680 sq ft Compliant
Minimum Lot Width 90 ft Parcel 1 – 90 ft Compliant
Parcel 2 – 142 ft Compliant
Minimum Lot Depth 200 ft Parcel 1 – 319 ft Compliant
Parcel 2 – 215 ft Compliant
Minimum Frontage (Flag Lot) 30 ft Parcel 1 – 30 ft Compliant
Minimum Frontage 50 ft Parcel 2 – 142 ft Compliant
f.The application as submitted includes no physical development of structures at
the subject site.
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 proposed subdivision is in accord with the General Plan, the objectives of
the Development Code, and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. The proposal
is to subdivide a property with an area of 63,360 square feet into 2 numbered parcels. The
underlying General Plan Land Use is Semi-Rural Neighborhood, which is intended for the
Page 23
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2026-007
SUBTPM20985 – NEO & ASSOCIATES INC.
March 25th, 2026
Page 3
development of low-density residential development with a rural character. Likewise, the
underlying zoning district is Very Low Residential, which is intended for low-density, single-family
residential development. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the intended density and
use for the underlying site; and
b.The proposed subdivision complies with each of the applicable provisions of the
Development Code for the Very Low Residential (VL) Zone; and
c.The proposed subdivision will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or
welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The proposal is for
the subdivision only and does not include the development of the proposed new parcels. Future
development of the proposed new parcels shall be subject to separate review.
4.The Planning Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project
will have a significant effect on the environment based on the findings as follows:
a.The Planning Department staff has determined that the project is categorically
exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City’s
CEQA Guidelines. The project qualifies as a Class 15 exemption under State CEQA Guidelines
Section 15315 – Minor Land Divisions. The project scope of work includes the subdivision of one
residential lot into two residential lots. Both lots will remain in conformance with the General Plan
and zoning, and no variances or exceptions are required.
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 condition set forth in the
attached Conditions of Approval incorporated herein by this reference.
6.The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 25th DAY OF MARCH 2026.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY: ___________________________________
Alvin C. Boling, Chairman
ATTEST: __________________________________
Jennifer Nakamura, Secretary
Page 24
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2026-007
SUBTPM20985 – NEO & ASSOCIATES INC.
March 25th, 2026
Page 4
I, Jennifer Nakamura, Secretary of the Planning Commission for 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 25th day of March, 2026, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS:
Page 25
Conditions of Approval
Community Development Department
Project #: SUBTPM20985 DRC2025-00083
Project Name: 5451 Moonstone Ave
Location: 5451 MOONSTONE AVE - 106125132-0000
Project Type: Tentative Parcel Map Minor Design Review
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Planning Department
Standard Conditions of Approval
The applicant shall sign the Statement of Agreement and Acceptance of Conditions of Approval
provided by the Planning Department. The signed Statement of Agreement and Acceptance of
Conditions of Approval shall be returned to the Planning Department prior to the submittal of
grading/construction plans for plan check, request for a business license, and/or commencement of the
approved activity.
1.
2.
www.CityofRC.us
Printed: 3/12/2026
Page 26
Project #: SUBTPM20985 DRC2025-00083
Project Name: 5451 Moonstone Ave
Location: 5451 MOONSTONE AVE - 106125132-0000
Project Type: Tentative Parcel Map Minor 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.
4.
5.
Engineering Services Department
Please be advised of the following Special Conditions
Final Map
The project Final Map shall meet the Subdivision Map Act, City Development Codes, and Conditions of
Approval requirements. The Final Map shall be approved and recorded with the San Bernardino
County Recorders Office prior to issuance of Building Permits.
1.
Standard Conditions of Approval
Dedication shall be made of the following rights-of-way on the perimeter streets (measured from street
centerline):
Moonstone Avenue - 30' from CL
2.
3.
4.
5.
www.CityofRC.us Page 2 of 5Printed: 3/12/2026
Page 27
Project #: SUBTPM20985 DRC2025-00083
Project Name: 5451 Moonstone Ave
Location: 5451 MOONSTONE AVE - 106125132-0000
Project Type: Tentative Parcel Map Minor Design Review
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Engineering Services Department
Standard Conditions of Approval
Permits shall be obtained from the following agencies for work within their right of way:
City of Rancho Cucamonga, Engineering Services Department.
6.
7.
8.
www.CityofRC.us Page 3 of 5Printed: 3/12/2026
Page 28
Project #: SUBTPM20985 DRC2025-00083
Project Name: 5451 Moonstone Ave
Location: 5451 MOONSTONE AVE - 106125132-0000
Project Type: Tentative Parcel Map Minor Design Review
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Engineering Services Department
Standard Conditions of Approval
Install street trees per City street tree design guidelines and standards as follows. The completed
legend (box below) and construction notes shall appear on the title page of the street improvement
plans. Street improvement plans shall include a line item within the construction legend stating: “Street
trees shall be installed per the notes and legend on Sheet ___ (typically Sheet 1).” Where public
landscape plans are required, tree installation in those areas shall be per the public landscape
improvement plans.
Street Name
Botanical Name
Common Name
Min. Grow Space
Spacing
Size
Qty.
Construction Notes for Street Trees:
1) All street trees are to be planted in accordance with City standard plans.
2) Prior to the commencement of any planting, an agronomic soils report shall be furnished to the City
inspector. Any unusual toxicities or nutrient deficiencies may require backfill soil amendments, as
determined by the City inspector.
3) All street trees are subject to inspection and acceptance by the Engineering Services Department.
Street trees are to be planted per public improvement plans only.
9.
10.
www.CityofRC.us Page 4 of 5Printed: 3/12/2026
Page 29
Project #: SUBTPM20985 DRC2025-00083
Project Name: 5451 Moonstone Ave
Location: 5451 MOONSTONE AVE - 106125132-0000
Project Type: Tentative Parcel Map Minor Design Review
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Engineering Services Department
Standard Conditions of Approval
Improvement Plans and Construction:
a. Street improvement plans, including street trees, street lights, and intersection safety lights on future
signal poles, and traffic signal plans shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and shall be
submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. Security shall be posted and an agreement executed
to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the City Attorney guaranteeing completion of the public
and/or private street improvements, prior to final map approval or the issuance of Building Permits ,
whichever occurs first.
b. Prior to any work being performed in public right-of-way, fees shall be paid and a construction permit
shall be obtained from the Engineering Services Department in addition to any other permits required.
c. Pavement striping, marking, traffic signing, street name signing, traffic signal conduit, and
interconnect conduit shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
d. Signal conduit with pull boxes shall be installed with any new construction or reconstruction project
along major or secondary streets and at intersections for future traffic signals and interconnect wiring .
Pull boxes shall be placed on both sides of the street at 3 feet outside of BCR, ECR, or any other
locations approved by the City Engineer.
Notes:
1) Pull boxes shall be No. 6 at intersections and No. 5 along streets, a maximum of 200 feet apart ,
unless otherwise specified by the City Engineer.
2) Conduit shall be 3-inch pvc with pull rope or as specified.
e. Access ramps for the disabled shall be installed on all corners of intersections per latest ADA
standards or as directed by the City Engineer.
f. Existing City roads requiring construction shall remain open to traffic at all times with adequate
detours during construction. Street or lane closure permits are required. A cash deposit shall be
provided to cover the cost of grading and paving, which shall be refunded upon completion of the
construction to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
g. Concentrated drainage flows shall not cross sidewalks. Under sidewalk drains shall be installed to
City Standards, except for single-family residential lots.
h. Street names shall be approved by the Planning Manager prior to submittal for first plan check.
11.
www.CityofRC.us Page 5 of 5Printed: 3/12/2026
Page 30
Page 1 of 9
3
3
9
4
DATE: March 25, 2026
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Jennifer Nakamura, CNU-A, Planning Director
INITIATED BY: Haide Aguirre, Contract Planner
SUBJECT:ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP –
DECLIFF PROPERTIES LLC – A request to subdivide two existing lots totaling
approximately 39.58 gross acres into five (5) numbered lots and six (6) lettered
lots. The project site is located within the Rural Hillside (R-H), Rural Open
Space (R-OS), and Rural Flood Control/Utility Corridor (R-FC/UC) regulating
zones of the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan
(EHNCP). The site is located north of DeCliff Drive, east of Wardman Bullock
Road, and west of Ambleside Place (APNs: 0226-061-68 and 0226-061-69).
Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), this project is
consistent with the Certified Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and
Conservation Plan EIR (SCH No. 2017091027), and a compliance
memorandum has been prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183
(SUBTT20653).
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommend that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2026-009 approving
Tentative Tract Map SUBTT20653 with the attached conditions of approval.
BACKGROUND:
Site Characteristics and Land Use/Zoning
The 39.58 gross acre site is located within the Rural/Conservation Area of the Etiwanda Heights
Neighborhood and Conservation Plan (EHNCP) between Wardman Bullock Road and Ambleside
Place, and north of DeCliff Drive, near San Bernardino National Forest. The project site has
multiple zones, including Rural Hillside (R-H), Rural Open Space (R-OS), and Rural Flood
Control/Utility Corridor (R-FC/UC). The project site is within the Rural Open Space and the
General Open Space and Facilities Land Use Designations. In addition, the project site is within
the Hillside Overlay Per Ordinance 628 and the Equestrian Overlay.
The site is vacant, rectangular in shape, and features irregular topography characterized by its
natural landforms, steep slopes, and utility easements, including San Bernardino County
Drainage Easement (SBCDE) and the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power Easement.
The open space standards emphasize conserving the unique rural open space character. The
site measures approximately 662 feet in width along the project frontage and approximately 2,600
feet in length, with steep slopes primarily following the flood easement areas.
Page 31
Page 2 of 9
3
3
9
4
The northern parcel APN: 0226-061-68 will remain undisturbed as it is designated Rural Open
Space (R-OS) and Rural Flood Control/Utility Corridor (R-FC/UC). This parcel includes a 100-foot
fault zone line and a blue-line stream.
The southern parcel APN: 0226-061-69 is designated Rural Flood Control/Utility Corridor (R-
FC/UC) with overhead transmission powerline easements and Rural Hillside (R-H) zoning, where
the proposed five (5) parcels for future single-family hillside residential development will be
located.
The existing Land Use, General Plan, and Zoning designations for the project site and adjacent
properties are provided in the following table:
Land Use General Plan Zoning
Vacant/Undeveloped
APN: 0226-061-68
Rural Open Space
General Open Space and
Facilities
Rural Open Space (R-OS)
Rural Flood Control/Utility
Corridor (R-FC/UC)
Site*
Vacant/Undeveloped
APN: 0226-061-69
Rural Open Space
General Open Space and
Facilities
Rural Hillside (R-H)
Rural Flood Control/Utility
Corridor (R-FC/UC)
North*Vacant/Undeveloped
Rural Open Space
General Open Space and
Facilities
Rural Hillside (R-H)
Rural Open Space (R-OS)
Rural Flood Control/Utility
Corridor (R-FC/UC)
West*Dwelling, Single-Family
Rural Open Space
General Open Space and
Facilities
Rural Hillside (R-H)
Rural Open Space (R-OS)
Rural Flood Control/Utility
Corridor (R-FC/UC)
South*Vacant/Undeveloped
General Open Space and
Facilities Flood Control/Utility Corridor
(FC/UC)
East Ling Yen Temple,
Vacant/Undeveloped
Rural Open Space
General Open Space and
Facilities
Rural Hillside (R-H)
Rural Open Space (R-OS)
Rural Flood Control/Utility
Corridor (R-FC/UC)
Page 32
Page 3 of 9
3
3
9
4
Figure 1 – Site Map
ANALYSIS:
DeCliff Properties LLC (“Applicant”) proposes to subdivide two existing parcels totaling
approximately 39.58 gross acres into five (5) numbered lots for future single-family hillside
residential housing and six (6) lettered lots reserved for open space.
Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan (EHNCP) Consistency
The proposed project is consistent with the community vision of the EHNCP, which emphasizes
rural open space and habitat conservation. The Plan supports limited rural housing designed to
enhance the rural character of the area while minimizing impacts on natural habitats.
The proposed single-family residential lots are located within the Rural Hillside (H-R) zoning,
which limits development intensity and minimizes grading and erosion. This designation aims to
reduce exposure to wildland fire, seismic fault, and flood hazards, while protecting environmental
resources such as water quality, native vegetation, and wildlife habitat. Development in this zone
is generally small-scale and located on relatively flatter areas within sloping foothill terrain.
Rural Hillside (H-R) zoning allows for organized and carefully planned development that
minimizes physical, visual, and environmental impacts, thereby maintaining the natural and open
space character of the foothill environment. Additionally, the EHNCP provides standards and
guidelines for site planning, configuration, and design to ensure that new development is
sensitively integrated into the landscape and complements the existing and historic foothill
DeCliff DriveWa
r
d
m
a
n
Bu
l
l
o
c
k
Ro
a
d
Am
b
l
e
s
i
d
e
Pl
a
c
e
PROJECT
SITE
Page 33
Page 4 of 9
3
3
9
4
character.
Density and Lot Configuration
The proposed subdivision complies with the Rural Hillside (H-R) zoning requirement of one (1)
dwelling unit per two (2) acres. Lots 1 through 4 are each a minimum of two acres, and Lot 5 is
3.41 acres, meeting the allowable density standard.
The Rural Hillside (R-H) zoning further requires at least 80 percent of the site preserved as natural
open space. The project site includes multiple zoning designations, including Rural Opens Space
(R-OS) and Rural Flood Control/Utility Corridor (R-FC/UC), which will maintain 100 percent
avoidance.
Environmental Constraints and Site Planning
Project plan exhibits (Sheets A0 through A2) identify site constraints, including utility easements,
blue-line stream boundaries, fault lines, and slope conditions. The slope analysis shows that the
area where the residential lots are proposed has a minimum slope of fifteen (15) percent and a
maximum slope of twenty (20) percent. Therefore, the site complies with the EHNCP Universal
Standards, which prohibit structures on parcels with an average slope equal to or greater than
thirty (30) percent. These exhibits comply with the EHNCP requirement to map environmental
constraints and demonstrate that the proposed single-family lots and open space areas have
been sited to avoid sensitive features to the greatest extent feasible. (See Figure 2 – Constraint
Areas).
Compliance with Universal Standards
The subdivision also complies with applicable Universal Standards pursuant to EHNCP, Section
5.9.4 (B), including but not limited to:
No single-family residential parcels contain slopes equal to or greater than 30 percent
within the proposed building areas.
No structure will be constructed within 50 feet of any mapped fault line.
No structure will be constructed within 50 feet of any blue-line stream.
Page 34
Page 5 of 9
3
3
9
4
Figure 2 – Constraint Areas
The project incorporates a cluster design approach, with Lots 1 through 4 grouped together and
served by a sixty (60) foot shared-access road easement connecting to DeCliff drive. Lot 5 is
located at the terminus of the access road. This configuration minimizes grading and infrastructure
extensions while preserving larger contiguous areas of open space. The clustered layout also
facilitates a shared fuel modification zone, reducing environmental impacts and enhancing wildfire
protection.
Page 35
Page 6 of 9
3
3
9
4
The project site is part of the City’s trail network envisioned for the Etiwanda Heights area.
Consistent with this requirement, the project includes a ten (10) foot decomposed granite horse
trail located along the north side of DeCliff Drive and connecting along the east side to the project’s
access road to all five proposed lots.
Figure 3 – Site Plan – Clustered Design
The subdivision complies with the EHNCP subdivision development standards described on the
table below.
Page 36
Page 7 of 9
3
3
9
4
Compliance Standards - Table 5.9.4 Building Standards (EHNCP)
Development Standard Requirement Proposed Lots Analysis
Lot 1 – 2 acres Compliant
Lot 2 – 2 acres Compliant
Lot 3 – 2 acres Compliant
Lot 4 – 2 acres Compliant
Minimum Lot Areal 1 acre
Lot 5 – 3.41 acres Compliant
Lot 1 – 308.00ft Compliant
Lot 2 – 306.00 ft Compliant
Lot 3 – 298.00 ft Compliant
Lot 4 – 293.00 ft Compliant
Minimum Lot Width 150 ft
Lot 5 – 663.00 ft Compliant
Lot 1 – 285.00 ft Compliant
Lot 2 – 286.00 ft Compliant
Lot 3 – 274.00 ft Compliant
Lot 4 – 293.00 ft Compliant
Minimum Lot Depth 150 ft
Lot 5 – 161.00 ft Compliant
Setbacks
Primary Building Front 40 ft Lot 1-Lot 5 – 40 ft Compliant
Primary Building Side 40 ft
Lot 1-Lot 5 – minimum
40 ft on one side,
exceeded on the
opposite side
Compliant
Primary Building Rear 40 ft Exceeded Compliant
In addition, the project has been conditioned to ensure that future development complies with all
applicable standards, included in Table 5.9.4 and other relevant provisions of the EHCNP.
Fuel Modification Zone
The project site is located in the fire hazard zone and requires a fuel modification boundary. The
fuel modification area is required of homes where vegetation can be managed to reduce fire risk.
The project site is clustering the proposed lots closer together, setting homes back from slopes,
thereby eliminating open space fuel loads between homes.
A preliminary fuel modification plan was submitted identifying drought tolerant plant species within
100 feet of the residences. A final fuel modification plan will be reviewed and approved by the
Fire Department during the plan check review process.
Page 37
Page 8 of 9
3
3
9
4
Figure 4 – Preliminary Fuel Modification Plan
Public Art
This project is exempt from the City’s Public art requirement as the requirement is not applicable
for subdivisions.
Environmental Assessment
Environmental impacts associated with development in the project area were previously analyzed
in the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan (EHNCP) certified Environmental
Impact Report (EIR) adopted by the City Council in October 2019, (SCH No. 2017091027).
CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 mandates that projects consistent with the development density
established by the existing zoning, community plan, or general plan policies for which an EIR was
certified shall not require subsequent environmental analysis, except as necessary to examine
whether the project would result in: (1) project-specific significant effects that are peculiar to the
project or its site; (2) impacts not analyzed in the prior EIR; (3) potentially significant off-site or
cumulative impacts not discussed in the prior EIR; or (4) significant effects that are more severe
than those analyzed in the prior EIR due to new information that was not known and could not
have been known at the time the EIR was certified.
Page 38
Page 9 of 9
3
3
9
4
A CEQA Compliance Memorandum (Exhibit B) was prepared pursuant to Section 15183 by
Lilburn Corporation in February 2026, to evaluate the project’s consistency with the certified EIR.
The analysis concluded that the subdivision is consistent with the land use, density, and
development assumptions previously analyzed and would not result in project-specific significant
effects that are peculiar to the site, impacts not previously analyzed, significant off-site or
cumulative impacts, or impacts of greater severity than those identified in the prior EIRs.
Correspondence
This item was advertised as a public meeting with a regular legal advertisement in the Inland
Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper on March 11, 2026. Public notices were mailed to the 24 property
owners within a 660-foot radius of the project site on March 10, 2026, as well. The site was posted
with one notice on March 11, 2026. As of today’s date, staff have received no comments or
questions (in support or in opposition) from the public regarding the project.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The proposed subdivision establishes legal parcels but does not include development of the site at
this time. As a result, the project would not result in a direct fiscal impact to the City. Any future
development of the parcels would be subject to applicable development impact fees, permit fees,
and other requirements in effect at the time development is proposed.
COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / VALUE(S) ADDRESSED:
The proposed subdivision supports the City Council’s values by implementing the City’s adopted
land use policies and promoting orderly, long-term planning for rural areas. By establishing legal
parcels consistent with City regulations, the project helps ensure that any future development will
be reviewed under current environmental, infrastructure, and safety standards, supporting a
sustainable future while protecting the excellent quality of life valued by residents.
EXHIBITS:
Exhibit A – Link_ Tentative Tract Map Project Plans
Exhibit B – Link_ Preliminary Fire Protection Plan
Exhibit C – Link_ CEQA Compliance Memorandum with Appendices
Exhibit D – CVWD Availability of Water and Sewer Service Letter
Exhibit E – Draft Resolution 2026-009 with Conditions of Approval
Page 39
LOT B2.27 ACRES(99,022 SF)
FAULT LINE BASED
ON USGS DATA
FAULT L
I
N
E
B
A
S
E
D
ON USG
S
D
A
T
A
S.B.C.D.E.
S.B.C.D.E.
S.B.C.D.E.
LOT 22.00 ACRES(87,120 SF)
LOT 53.31 ACRES(144,020SF)
LOT A2.30 ACRES(100,021 SF)
LOT D1.05 ACRES(45,618 SF)
LOT 12.00 ACRES(87,120 SF)
LOT 32.00 ACRES(87,120 SF)
LOT 42.00 ACRES(87,120 SF)
LOT F18.63 ACRES(811,523 SF)
LOT E3.16 ACRES(137,697 SF)
LOT C0.76 ACRES(33,136 SF)
LOT 5
APN - 0226 061 68
APN - 0226 061 69
LOT B2.27 ACRES(99,022 SF)
FAULT LINE BASED
ON USGS DATA
FAULT L
I
N
E
B
A
S
E
D
ON USG
S
D
A
T
A
S.B.C.D.E.
S.B.C.D.E.
S.B.C.D.E.
LOT 22.00 ACRES(87,120 SF)
LOT 53.31 ACRES(144,020SF)
LOT A2.30 ACRES(100,021 SF)
LOT D1.05 ACRES(45,618 SF)
LOT 12.00 ACRES(87,120 SF)
LOT 32.00 ACRES(87,120 SF)
LOT 42.00 ACRES(87,120 SF)
LOT F18.63 ACRES(811,523 SF)
LOT E3.16 ACRES(137,697 SF)
LOT C0.76 ACRES(33,136 SF)
OWNER / DEVELOPER:
ENGINEER:
PEARL CITY ENGINEERING, INC.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
AREA SUMMARY
ZONING
SOOD KISRA
ANISA SHARIF
KAMIL MUHYIEDDEEN
PLOTTED EASEMENTS PER TITLE REPORT:
EXHIBIT A
LOT B2.27 ACRES(99,022 SF)
FAULT LINE BASED
ON USGS DATA
FAULT L
I
N
E
B
A
S
E
D
ON USG
S
D
A
T
A
S.B.C.D.E.
S.B.C.D.E.
S.B.C.D.E.
LOT 22.00 ACRES(87,120 SF)
LOT 53.31 ACRES(144,020SF)
LOT A2.30 ACRES(100,021 SF)
LOT D1.05 ACRES(45,618 SF)
LOT 12.00 ACRES(87,120 SF)
LOT 32.00 ACRES(87,120 SF)
LOT 42.00 ACRES(87,120 SF)
LOT F18.59 ACRES(809,780 SF)
LOT E3.16 ACRES(137,697 SF)
LOT C0.76 ACRES(33,136 SF)
OWNER / DEVELOPER:
ENGINEER:
PEARL CITY ENGINEERING, INC.
SOOD KISRA
ANISA SHARIF
KAMIL MUHYIEDDEEN
LEGEND:ABBREVIATIONS:
ZONING
OWNER / DEVELOPER:
ENGINEER:
PEARL CITY ENGINEERING, INC.
SOOD KISRA
ANISA SHARIF
KAMIL MUHYIEDDEEN
SOURCE OF TOPOGRAPHIC MAPEARTHWORK
CONCRETE DITCH AT TOP OF SLOPE
LEGEND:ABBREVIATIONS:
LOT 3LOT 2LOT 13LOT 12LOT 11LOT 10LOT 7LOT 6LOT 9LOT 8LOT 4LOT 1LOT 5LOT ALOT 15PHASE 1CLOT 16PHASE 2LOT 17PHASE 3LOT 18PHASE 4PHASE 1BLOT 14PHASE 1ABLDG5BLDG6BLDG8BLDG1BLDG2BLDG3BLDG4DWYDWYDWYDWYDWYDWYDWYBLDG7AMBLESIDE PLACE20' PAVED ROADAND 5' SHOULDER20' PAVED ROADAND 5' SHOULDER20' PAVED ROADAND 5' SHOULDER20' PAVED ROADAND 5' SHOULDER30'30'30'30'42'32'10'100'76'24'100'24'10'EXISTING SITE GRADING PERMASS GRADING PLAN-GP1458EX. SEWERPROTECT IN PLACEBASIN CTEMP. INFILTRATIONBASINEX. PORK CHOPTO BE REMOVEDEXIST. R/WEXIST. R/WPROP. R/WJOIN EXIST.SLOT IN BERMFLWATER SURFACE(WS) ELEV.WATER SURFACE(WS) ELEV.12" STORMDRAINHYDRODYNAMICSEPARATORBASIN BU.G. INFILTRATION BASINPROP.12" S.D.PROP.12" S.D.JOIN EXIST.LIMIT OFCONSTRUCTIONLIMIT OFCONSTRUCTIONLIMIT OFCONSTRUCTIONLIMIT OFCONSTRUCTIONLIMIT OFCONSTRUCTIONPARCEL BDRYPARCEL BDRYPROPOSEDPARCEL BDRYPARCEL BDRYSEE NOTES 1 & 2LIMIT OFCONSTRUCTIONFENCE PERSEPERATE PLANSPROP. INFILTRATIONBASINEX. 10' TO 12'AC PAVED ROADEX. 10' TO 12'AC PAVED ROADEX. 12"W(CVWD OWNED)EX. 16"W(CVWD OWNED)EX. 12"W(CVWD OWNED)EX. 16"W(CVWD OWNED)CONNECT TOEXISTING 12"WPROPOSED 8"WATERLINEPROPOSED 8"WATERLINE1" WM1" WM1" WM1" WM1" WMPROP. 1"WPROP. 1,500 GALSEPTIC TANK ANDLEACH FIELDPROP. 1,500 GALSEPTIC TANK ANDLEACH FIELDPROP. 1,500 GALSEPTIC TANK ANDLEACH FIELDPROP. 1,500 GALSEPTIC TANK ANDLEACH FIELDFIREHYDRANTEX. 60'EASEMENTEX. 40'EASEMENTEX. 12"W(CVWD OWNED)EX. 16"W(CVWD OWNED)EX. ±20'AC PAVED ROADEX. ±28'AC PAVED ROADEX. GATE (NOPUBLIC ACCESS)EX. ±28'AC PAVED ROADPROP. 50' DEDICATION ROADWAY(SHARE ACCESS AGREEMENT REQUIRED)PROP. 50' DEDICATIONTO CITY OFRANCHO CUCAMONGAFIREHYDRANTR=25'R=25'R=28'(TYP.)R=28'(TYP.)PARCEL 2PARCEL MAP NO. 8086P.M.B. 84/63-64PARCEL MAP NO. 14282P.M.B. 176/38-39PARCEL MAP NO. 13742P.M.B. 161/23-24PARCEL 2PARCEL 1PARCEL MAP NO. 16382P.M.B. 211/93-95TRACT MAP NO. 12666-3M.B. 220/43-45TRACT MAP NO. 18218M.B. 319/81-892.32 ACRES(101,216 SF)0.83 ACRES(35,949 SF)PARCEL MAP 17603PARCEL 9NOT-A-PART1.67 ACRES(72,868 SF)3.33 ACRES(145,422 SF)1.10 ACRES(47,917 SF)0.55 ACRES(23,813 SF)0.69 ACRES(30,315 SF)0.61 ACRES(26,378 SF)1.00 ACRES(43,696 SF)0.59 ACRES(25,889 SF)0.89 ACRES(38,928 SF)0.69 ACRES(30,189 SF)3.47 ACRES(151,129 SF)0.04 ACRES(1,640 SF)2.21 ACRES(96,337 SF)3.19 ACRES(138,882 SF)4.18 ACRES(181,824 SF)1.50 ACRES(65,496 SF)5.92 ACRES(258,046 SF)R/W VACATIONBY CITY9-FT R/W DEDICATIONBY SEPERATE INSTRUMENT70' WIDE EASEMENT TO CALIFORNIA ELECTRICPOWER COMPANY FOR ELECTRIC TRANSMISSIONAND DISTRIBUTION LINES AND INCIDENTALPURPOSES PER BOOK 4128, PAGE 146, O.R.70' WIDE EASEMENT TO CALIFORNIA ELECTRICPOWER COMPANY FOR ELECTRIC TRANSMISSIONAND DISTRIBUTION LINES AND INCIDENTALPURPOSES PER BOOK 4128, PAGE 146, O.REX.30' DRAINAGE EASEMENTDEDICATED HEREON TOTHE CITY OF VICTORVILLE(TO REMAIN)EX. 30' DRAINAGE EASEMENTDEDICATED HEREON TOTHE CITY OF VICTORVILLE(TO REMAIN)EX. 30' DRAINAGE EASEMENTDEDICATED HEREON TOTHE CITY OF VICTORVILLE(TO REMAIN)EX. 30' DRAINAGE EASEMENTDEDICATED HEREON TOTHE CITY OF VICTORVILLE(TO REMAIN)150.0'58.0'24.0'68.0'150.0'58.0'24.0'68.0'32.0'10.0'40.0'82.0'32.0'10.0'32.0'74.0'32.0'10.0'32.0'84.0'10.0'32.0'10.0'32.0'84.0'30.0'35.0'30.0'35.0'30.0'30.0'150.0'58.0'24.0'68.0'150.0'58.0'24.0'68.0'32.0'10.0'40.0'82.0'32.0'10.0'32.0'74.0'32.0'10.0'32.0'84.0'10.0'32.0'10.0'32.0'84.0'30.0'35.0'30.0'35.0'30.0'30.0'60'60'10'10'10'10'10'10'10'10'10'10'10'42'42'10'16'16'16'16'16'16'16'16'40'40'40'40'40'40'40'40'40'40'40'40'40'40'40'40'40'40'40'40'40'40'BEAR VALLEY ROAD3RD AVENUE50'50'50'33523PPPPPP77554433PPPPPP338832999993356310666510636551010734563111141313131312121212N62°53'18"E68.86'42.10'26.76'Δ=64°26'20"R=25.00'L=28.12'T=14.06'136.68'507.74'153.17'94.13'123.45'301.44'75.72'119.67'314.91'917.90'225.74' 53.85'88.40'119.95'103.02'33.00'133.04'187.61'78.06'131.78'158.95'28.11'33.00'97.14'S88°28'01"W56.01'N01°31'59"W35.41'N01°42'36"W 25.67'N01°31'27"W89.87'N88°28'37"E21.04'160.34'270.43'249.06'676.89'310.27'N01°44'15"W30.18'N88°16'03"E29.83'S42°39'55"W100.03'186.63'N64°57'14"E31.32'N86°53'16"E11.66'N62°53'18"E68.86'42.10'26.76'Δ=64°26'20"R=25.00'L=28.12'T=14.06'136.68'507.74'153.17'94.13'123.45'301.44'75.72'119.67'314.91'917.90'225.74' 53.85'88.40'119.95'103.02'33.00'133.04'187.61'78.06'131.78'158.95'28.11'33.00'97.14'S88°28'01"W56.01'N01°31'59"W35.41'N01°42'36"W 25.67'N01°31'27"W89.87'N88°28'37"E21.04'160.34'270.43'249.06'676.89'310.27'N01°44'15"W30.18'N88°16'03"E29.83'S42°39'55"W100.03'186.63'N64°57'14"E31.32'N86°53'16"E11.66'S00°52'13"E 82.15'SETBACKSETBACKSETBACKSETBACKSETBACKSETBACKSETBACKSETBACKN89°01'51"E39.91'S00°58'10"E 193.16'N89°07'41"E 171.60'N00°52'19"W 116.56'N00°54'29"W 127.49'S89°06'38"W 139.84'N89°08'06"E 155.10'N44°09'20"E 56.98'N00°40'00"W 129.68'S00°40'00"E 275.23'N00°38'22"W 445.23'N89°07'41"E 83.96'N59°07'40"E 106.84'N00°54'29"W42.51'N89°07'41"E21.59'S89°06'38"W 152.58'572.54'572.54'SETBACKSETBACKSETBACKSETBACKSETBACKSETBACKSETBACKSETBACKSETBACKSETBACKSETBACKSETBACKSETBACKSETBACKSETBACKSETBACKSETBACKSETBACKSETBACKSETBACKSETBACKPRIVATE ROAD WAY
R-H
R-H
TOTAL : 1,724,104 SF = 39.58 ACRES
R-OS =0 SF x 95% = 0 SF (AVOID)
0 SF (USEABLE)
R-H = 832,289 SF x 80% = 665,831.20 SF (AVOID)
166,457.80 SF (USEABLE)
R-FC/UC = 891,815 SF x 100% = 891,815 SF (AVOID)
0 SF (USEABLE)
R-FC/UC
R-FC/UC
25
9
9
.
9
4
f
t
671.44 ft
26
0
3
.
2
5
f
t
662.74 ft
R-H
PROJECT # :
D
R
A
W
I
N
G
T
I
T
L
E
:
DE
C
L
I
F
F
D
R
.
RA
N
C
H
O
C
U
C
A
M
O
N
G
A
91
7
5
9
S C A L E
NOTE: THIS DRAWING IS 24"X36". DO NOT SCALE
DRAWINGS. USE FIGURED DIMENSIONS ONLY, OR SEEK
CLARIFICATION FROM ARCHITECT FOR MEASUREMENTS
THAT ARE NOT INDICATED.
D A T E I S S U E
I,
N
I
D
A
L
H
A
M
I
D
A
,
L
I
C
#
3
7
9
6
9
,
C
E
R
T
I
F
Y
T
H
A
T
I
A
M
T
H
E
P
R
O
F
E
S
S
I
O
N
A
L
W
H
O
DE
S
I
G
N
E
D
T
H
E
S
E
P
L
A
N
S
A
N
D
T
H
E
C
O
M
P
L
E
M
E
N
T
A
R
Y
S
P
E
C
I
F
I
C
A
T
I
O
N
S
.
I
A
L
SO
CE
R
T
I
F
Y
T
H
A
T
I
U
N
D
E
R
S
T
A
N
D
T
H
A
T
S
U
C
H
P
L
A
N
S
A
N
D
S
P
E
C
I
F
I
C
A
T
I
O
N
S
CO
M
P
L
Y
W
I
T
H
T
H
E
A
P
P
L
I
C
A
B
L
E
P
R
O
V
I
S
I
O
N
S
O
F
T
H
E
J
O
I
N
T
R
E
G
U
L
A
T
I
O
N
A
ND
AP
P
L
I
C
A
B
L
E
P
R
O
V
I
S
I
O
N
S
O
F
T
H
E
R
E
G
U
L
A
T
I
O
N
S
A
N
D
C
O
D
E
S
O
F
T
H
E
AG
E
N
C
I
E
S
,
R
E
G
U
L
A
T
O
R
Y
B
O
A
R
D
S
O
R
P
U
B
L
I
C
C
O
R
P
O
R
A
T
I
O
N
S
W
I
T
H
JU
R
I
S
D
I
C
T
I
O
N
S
.
I
A
C
K
N
O
W
L
E
D
G
E
T
H
A
T
A
N
Y
F
A
L
S
E
D
E
C
L
A
R
A
T
I
O
N
O
R
FA
L
S
I
F
I
C
A
T
I
O
N
O
F
T
H
E
F
A
C
T
S
T
H
A
T
H
A
V
E
B
E
E
N
P
R
O
D
U
C
E
D
W
I
T
H
O
U
T
KN
O
W
L
E
D
G
E
O
R
B
Y
N
E
G
L
I
G
E
N
C
E
,
E
I
T
H
E
R
B
Y
M
E
,
M
Y
A
G
E
N
T
S
O
R
EM
P
L
O
Y
E
E
S
,
O
R
B
Y
O
T
H
E
R
P
E
R
S
O
N
S
W
I
T
H
M
Y
K
N
O
W
L
E
D
G
E
,
M
A
K
E
M
E
RE
S
P
O
N
S
I
B
L
E
F
O
R
A
N
Y
D
I
S
C
L
A
I
M
E
R
O
T
H
E
R
C
O
M
P
E
T
E
N
T
A
U
T
H
O
R
I
T
I
E
S
,
IN
C
L
U
D
I
N
G
,
B
U
T
N
O
T
L
I
M
I
T
E
D
T
O
,
T
H
E
T
E
R
M
I
N
A
T
I
O
N
O
F
P
A
R
T
I
C
I
P
A
T
I
O
N
I
N
T
H
E
PR
O
F
E
S
S
I
O
N
A
L
C
E
R
T
I
F
I
C
A
T
I
O
N
P
R
O
C
E
D
U
R
E
S
I
N
T
H
E
C
A
B
G
U
I
D
E
L
I
N
E
S
.
AD
D
R
E
S
S
:
2
5
6
A
L
D
E
R
G
A
T
E
S
T
.
PH
O
N
E
:
3
2
3
.
6
7
8
.
1
4
6
3
EM
A
I
L
:
N
I
D
A
L
@
H
A
M
I
D
A
-
A
R
C
H
I
T
E
C
T
S
.
C
O
M
3/1/2026 5:10:09 AM
Project Number
A0
CO
V
E
R
S
H
E
E
T
PROJECT ADDRESS :
13702 DECLIFF DR.
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA
91759
PROJECT DESCRIPTION :
5 LOT SUBDIVISION W/ 1 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE PER LOT
LEGAL DESCRIPTION : PARCEL #022606168
ZONE : (R-HS, R-OS, R-FC/UC)
ASSESSOR PARCEL # 022606168
HILLSIDE AREA : YES
OWNERS:
SOOD KISRA
ANISA SHARIF
KAMIL MUHYIEDDEEN
ARCHITECT:
HAMIDA ARCHITECTS
256 ALDERGATE ST.
MONTEREY PARK, CA - 91755
323.678.1463
NIDAL@HAMIDA-ARCHITECTS.COM
STRUCTURAL:
TBD
CIVIL:
PEARLCITY, INC
YHU@PEARLCITYINC.COM
714.606.3655
LANDSCAPE :
TBD
SHEET LIST
A0 COVER SHEET
A0.1 ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN
A0.2 SLOPE BAND ANALYSIS
A0.3 USGS FAULT LINE ANALYSIS
A1.1 ENLARGED LOT PLANS - LOTS 1,2,3,4
A1.2 ENLARGED LOT PLAN-LOT 5
A2 LIGHTING & FENCE SPECS
C1 CONCEPTUAL GRADING PLAN
C2 SITE PLAN
C3 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 20653
C4 FIRE ACCESS PLAN
C5 SITE UTILIZATION MAP
C6 OVERHEAD POWERLINE EXHIBIT
DECLIFF DR. - LOT SUBDIVISION
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA - 91759
3APN #022606169 - GENERAL PLAN MAP
NO SCALE
GEOTECHNICAL:
TBD
1PROJECT INFORMATION
NO SCALE 2APN #022606168 - GENERAL PLAN MAP
NO SCALE
LEGAL DESCRIPTION : PARCEL #022606169
ZONE : (R-HS, R-OS, R-FC/UC)
ASSESSOR PARCEL # 022606169
HILLSIDE AREA : YES
4SHEET LIST
NO SCALE
A PROJECT-SPECIFIC FIRE PROTECTION PLAN IS REQUIRED FOR THIS PROJECT. THE FIRE PROTECTION
PLAN IS REQUIRED TO BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH FIRE DISTRICT STANDARD 49-1. THE STANDARD HAS
BEEN UPLOADED TO THE DOCUMENTS SECTION OF THE PROJECT CASE FILE IN THE ONLINE PERMIT
CENTER .THE FIRE PROTECTION PLAN IS REQUIRED TO BE SUBMITTED AND APPROVED PRIOR TO THE
FIRE DISTRICT APPROVING THE SUBDIVISION OF THE EXISTING PARCELS.
11.07 ACRES
7.17 ACRES
1.1R-H & R-OS SQUARE FOOTAGE DIAGRAM NOTES
NO SCALE
1. IDENTIFY PROJECT SITE AND APPLICABLE RURAL SUB-ZONES. IDENTIFY THE PROPOSED PROJECT SITE –
WHICH MAY BE ALL OR A PORTION OF AN EXISTING PARCEL, OR MAY INCLUDE MULTIPLE EXISTING
PARCELS – AND THEN IDENTIFY WHICH PORTIONS AND ACREAGES OF THE PROJECT SITE FALL WITHIN EACH
OF THE SEVERAL RURAL REGULATING SUB-ZONES. REFER TO THE REGULATING PLAN (FIGURE 5.9.3B) TO
DETERMINE WHICH SUB-ZONE DESIGNATION (OR MULTIPLE SUB-ZONE DESIGNATIONS) ARE PRESENT
WITHIN THE PROJECT SITE (SEE FIGURE 5.9.2(A))
2. CALCULATE POTENTIALLY ALLOWABLE DWELLING UNITS. THE NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS THAT MAY
POTENTIALLY BE DEVELOPED WITHIN THE PROJECT SITE IS BASED ON THE MAXIMUM DENSITY RATIO(S) FOR
EACH OF THE APPLICABLE SUB-ZONE(S). CALCULATE THE ACREAGE OF EACH SUB-ZONE WITHIN THE
PROJECT SITE, AND DIVIDE THAT ACREAGE BY THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE DENSITY FOR THAT SUB-ZONE
(MEASURED IN ACRES PER DWELLING, SEE TABLE 5.9.3A) TO CALCULATE THE MAXIMUM POTENTIAL NUMBER
OF DWELLINGS WITHIN THAT
SUB-ZONE PORTION OF THE PROJECT SITE. THE SUM OF THE MAXIMUM DWELLING COUNTS FOR EACH SUB-
ZONE AREA WILL BE THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF DWELLINGS ALLOWABLE WITHIN THE ENTIRE PROJECT SITE.
PLEASE NOTE THAT THE HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE
(SEE CHAPTER 7.7 OF THIS PLAN, AND 17.16.140 AND 17.52 OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE)
IS ALSO APPLICABLE TO PROPERTIES WITHIN THE RURAL/CONSERVATION AREA. ACCORDINGLY, THE
CALCULATION OF THE MAXIMUM POTENTIALLY ALLOWABLE NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS WITHIN ANY
PARCEL MUST TAKE THE SLOPE/DENSITY REGULATIONS OF THAT ORDINANCE INTO ACCOUNT.
3. CALCULATE REQUIRED OPEN SPACE AREA. SEE TABLE 5.9.5. IN PARALLEL FASHION TO THE CALCULATION
OF THE MAXIMUM POTENTIAL DWELLING UNITS WITHIN THE PROJECT SITE, THE MINIMUM REQUIRED RURAL
OPEN SPACE AREA WITHIN THE PROJECT SITE IS CALCULATED BY IDENTIFYING THE MINIMUM RURAL OPEN
SPACE ACREAGE FOR EACH SUB-ZONE PORTION OF THE PROJECT SITE, AND THE SUM OF THOSE IS THE
MINIMUM REQUIRED RURAL OPEN SPACE AREA WITHIN THE PROJECT SITE
LOT 3LOT 2LOT 13LOT 12LOT 11LOT 10LOT 7LOT 6LOT 9LOT 8LOT 4LOT 1LOT 5LOT ALOT 15PHASE 1CLOT 16PHASE 2LOT 17PHASE 3LOT 18PHASE 4PHASE 1BLOT 14PHASE 1ABLDG5BLDG6BLDG8BLDG1BLDG2BLDG3BLDG4DWYDWYDWYDWYDWYDWYDWYBLDG7AMBLESIDE PLACE20' PAVED ROADAND 5' SHOULDER20' PAVED ROADAND 5' SHOULDER20' PAVED ROADAND 5' SHOULDER20' PAVED ROADAND 5' SHOULDER30'30'30'30'42'32'10'100'76'24'100'24'10'EXISTING SITE GRADING PERMASS GRADING PLAN-GP1458EX. SEWERPROTECT IN PLACEBASIN CTEMP. INFILTRATIONBASINEX. PORK CHOPTO BE REMOVEDEXIST. R/WEXIST. R/WPROP. R/WJOIN EXIST.SLOT IN BERMFLWATER SURFACE(WS) ELEV.WATER SURFACE(WS) ELEV.12" STORMDRAINHYDRODYNAMICSEPARATORBASIN BU.G. INFILTRATION BASINPROP.12" S.D.PROP.12" S.D.JOIN EXIST.LIMIT OFCONSTRUCTIONLIMIT OFCONSTRUCTIONLIMIT OFCONSTRUCTIONLIMIT OFCONSTRUCTIONLIMIT OFCONSTRUCTIONPARCEL BDRYPARCEL BDRYPROPOSEDPARCEL BDRYPARCEL BDRYSEE NOTES 1 & 2LIMIT OFCONSTRUCTIONFENCE PERSEPERATE PLANSPROP. INFILTRATIONBASINEX. 10' TO 12'AC PAVED ROADEX. 10' TO 12'AC PAVED ROADEX. 12"W(CVWD OWNED)EX. 16"W(CVWD OWNED)EX. 12"W(CVWD OWNED)EX. 16"W(CVWD OWNED)CONNECT TOEXISTING 12"WPROPOSED 8"WATERLINEPROPOSED 8"WATERLINE1" WM1" WM1" WM1" WM1" WMPROP. 1"WPROP. 1,500 GALSEPTIC TANK ANDLEACH FIELDPROP. 1,500 GALSEPTIC TANK ANDLEACH FIELDPROP. 1,500 GALSEPTIC TANK ANDLEACH FIELDPROP. 1,500 GALSEPTIC TANK ANDLEACH FIELDFIREHYDRANTEX. 60'EASEMENTEX. 40'EASEMENTEX. 12"W(CVWD OWNED)EX. 16"W(CVWD OWNED)EX. ±20'AC PAVED ROADEX. ±28'AC PAVED ROADEX. GATE (NOPUBLIC ACCESS)EX. ±28'AC PAVED ROADPROP. 50' DEDICATION ROADWAY(SHARE ACCESS AGREEMENT REQUIRED)PROP. 50' DEDICATIONTO CITY OFRANCHO CUCAMONGAFIREHYDRANTR=25'R=25'R=28'(TYP.)R=28'(TYP.)PARCEL 2PARCEL MAP NO. 8086P.M.B. 84/63-64PARCEL MAP NO. 14282P.M.B. 176/38-39PARCEL MAP NO. 13742P.M.B. 161/23-24PARCEL 2PARCEL 1PARCEL MAP NO. 16382P.M.B. 211/93-95TRACT MAP NO. 12666-3M.B. 220/43-45TRACT MAP NO. 18218M.B. 319/81-892.32 ACRES(101,216 SF)0.83 ACRES(35,949 SF)PARCEL MAP 17603PARCEL 9NOT-A-PART1.67 ACRES(72,868 SF)3.33 ACRES(145,422 SF)1.10 ACRES(47,917 SF)0.55 ACRES(23,813 SF)0.69 ACRES(30,315 SF)0.61 ACRES(26,378 SF)1.00 ACRES(43,696 SF)0.59 ACRES(25,889 SF)0.89 ACRES(38,928 SF)0.69 ACRES(30,189 SF)3.47 ACRES(151,129 SF)0.04 ACRES(1,640 SF)2.21 ACRES(96,337 SF)3.19 ACRES(138,882 SF)4.18 ACRES(181,824 SF)1.50 ACRES(65,496 SF)5.92 ACRES(258,046 SF)R/W VACATIONBY CITY9-FT R/W DEDICATIONBY SEPERATE INSTRUMENT70' WIDE EASEMENT TO CALIFORNIA ELECTRICPOWER COMPANY FOR ELECTRIC TRANSMISSIONAND DISTRIBUTION LINES AND INCIDENTALPURPOSES PER BOOK 4128, PAGE 146, O.R.70' WIDE EASEMENT TO CALIFORNIA ELECTRICPOWER COMPANY FOR ELECTRIC TRANSMISSIONAND DISTRIBUTION LINES AND INCIDENTALPURPOSES PER BOOK 4128, PAGE 146, O.REX.30' DRAINAGE EASEMENTDEDICATED HEREON TOTHE CITY OF VICTORVILLE(TO REMAIN)EX. 30' DRAINAGE EASEMENTDEDICATED HEREON TOTHE CITY OF VICTORVILLE(TO REMAIN)EX. 30' DRAINAGE EASEMENTDEDICATED HEREON TOTHE CITY OF VICTORVILLE(TO REMAIN)EX. 30' DRAINAGE EASEMENTDEDICATED HEREON TOTHE CITY OF VICTORVILLE(TO REMAIN)150.0'58.0'24.0'68.0'150.0'58.0'24.0'68.0'32.0'10.0'40.0'82.0'32.0'10.0'32.0'74.0'32.0'10.0'32.0'84.0'10.0'32.0'10.0'32.0'84.0'30.0'35.0'30.0'35.0'30.0'30.0'150.0'58.0'24.0'68.0'150.0'58.0'24.0'68.0'32.0'10.0'40.0'82.0'32.0'10.0'32.0'74.0'32.0'10.0'32.0'84.0'10.0'32.0'10.0'32.0'84.0'30.0'35.0'30.0'35.0'30.0'30.0'60'60'10'10'10'10'10'10'10'10'10'10'10'42'42'10'16'16'16'16'16'16'16'16'40'40'40'40'40'40'40'40'40'40'40'40'40'40'40'40'40'40'40'40'40'40'BEAR VALLEY ROAD3RD AVENUE50'50'50'33523PPPPPP77554433PPPPPP338832999993356310666510636551010734563111141313131312121212N62°53'18"E68.86'42.10'26.76'Δ=64°26'20"R=25.00'L=28.12'T=14.06'136.68'507.74'153.17'94.13'123.45'301.44'75.72'119.67'314.91'917.90'225.74'53.85'88.40'119.95'103.02'33.00'133.04'187.61'78.06'131.78'158.95'28.11'33.00'97.14'S88°28'01"W56.01'N01°31'59"W35.41'N01°42'36"W 25.67'N01°31'27"W89.87'N88°28'37"E21.04'160.34'270.43'249.06'676.89'310.27'N01°44'15"W30.18'N88°16'03"E29.83'S42°39'55"W100.03'186.63'N64°57'14"E31.32'N86°53'16"E11.66'N62°53'18"E68.86'42.10'26.76'Δ=64°26'20"R=25.00'L=28.12'T=14.06'136.68'507.74'153.17'94.13'123.45'301.44'75.72'119.67'314.91'917.90'225.74'53.85'88.40'119.95'103.02'33.00'133.04'187.61'78.06'131.78'158.95'28.11'33.00'97.14'S88°28'01"W56.01'N01°31'59"W35.41'N01°42'36"W 25.67'N01°31'27"W89.87'N88°28'37"E21.04'160.34'270.43'249.06'676.89'310.27'N01°44'15"W30.18'N88°16'03"E29.83'S42°39'55"W100.03'186.63'N64°57'14"E31.32'N86°53'16"E11.66'S00°52'13"E 82.15'SETBACKSETBACKSETBACKSETBACKSETBACKSETBACKSETBACKSETBACKN89°01'51"E39.91'S00°58'10"E 193.16'N89°07'41"E 171.60'N00°52'19"W 116.56'N00°54'29"W 127.49'S89°06'38"W 139.84'N89°08'06"E 155.10'N44°09'20"E 56.98'N00°40'00"W 129.68'S00°40'00"E 275.23'N00°38'22"W 445.23'N89°07'41"E 83.96'N59°07'40"E 106.84'N00°54'29"W42.51'N89°07'41"E21.59'S89°06'38"W 152.58'572.54'572.54'SETBACKSETBACKSETBACKSETBACKSETBACKSETBACKSETBACKSETBACKSETBACKSETBACKSETBACKSETBACKSETBACKSETBACKSETBACKSETBACKSETBACKSETBACKSETBACKSETBACKSETBACKPRIVATE ROAD WAY
LOT 3
LOT 1
LOT 4
LOT 2
LOT 5
2 ACRES
87,120 SF
2 ACRES
87,120 SF
2 ACRES
87,120 SF
2 ACRES
87,120 SF
.5 ACRE HOMESITE .5 ACRE HOMESITE
.5 ACRE HOMESITE .5 ACRE HOMESITE
LOCATION OF SFD
662.91 ft
LOCATION OF SFD
185.00 ft
19
3
.
5
0
f
t
185.00 ft
BLUE LINE STREAM
FAULT ZONE
HOME SITE
FLOOD UTILITY CORRIDOR
SFD FOOTPRINT
100' FAULT ZONE
BLUE LINE STREAM
TO
B
L
U
E
L
I
N
E
S
T
R
E
A
M
9.
8
4
f
t
FLOOD / UTILITY
CORRIDOR
UTILITY CORRIDOR
UTILITY CORRIDOR
100' FAULT ZONE
50
.
0
0
f
t
50
.
0
0
f
t
FAULT LINE PER USGS
FAULT LINE PER USGS
50
.
0
0
f
t
50
.
0
0
f
t
306.30 ft
50.00 ft
306.55 ft
LOCATION OF SFD LOCATION OF SFD
4.00 ft
5.00 ft
26.00 ft
10.00 ft
5.00 ft
50.00 ft
REFER TO CIVIL
FOR LOCAL
RURAL STREET
SECTION
PROJECT # :
D
R
A
W
I
N
G
T
I
T
L
E
:
DE
C
L
I
F
F
D
R
.
RA
N
C
H
O
C
U
C
A
M
O
N
G
A
91
7
5
9
S C A L E
NOTE: THIS DRAWING IS 24"X36". DO NOT SCALE
DRAWINGS. USE FIGURED DIMENSIONS ONLY, OR SEEK
CLARIFICATION FROM ARCHITECT FOR MEASUREMENTS
THAT ARE NOT INDICATED.
D A T E I S S U E
I,
N
I
D
A
L
H
A
M
I
D
A
,
L
I
C
#
3
7
9
6
9
,
C
E
R
T
I
F
Y
T
H
A
T
I
A
M
T
H
E
P
R
O
F
E
S
S
I
O
N
A
L
W
H
O
DE
S
I
G
N
E
D
T
H
E
S
E
P
L
A
N
S
A
N
D
T
H
E
C
O
M
P
L
E
M
E
N
T
A
R
Y
S
P
E
C
I
F
I
C
A
T
I
O
N
S
.
I
A
L
SO
CE
R
T
I
F
Y
T
H
A
T
I
U
N
D
E
R
S
T
A
N
D
T
H
A
T
S
U
C
H
P
L
A
N
S
A
N
D
S
P
E
C
I
F
I
C
A
T
I
O
N
S
CO
M
P
L
Y
W
I
T
H
T
H
E
A
P
P
L
I
C
A
B
L
E
P
R
O
V
I
S
I
O
N
S
O
F
T
H
E
J
O
I
N
T
R
E
G
U
L
A
T
I
O
N
A
ND
AP
P
L
I
C
A
B
L
E
P
R
O
V
I
S
I
O
N
S
O
F
T
H
E
R
E
G
U
L
A
T
I
O
N
S
A
N
D
C
O
D
E
S
O
F
T
H
E
AG
E
N
C
I
E
S
,
R
E
G
U
L
A
T
O
R
Y
B
O
A
R
D
S
O
R
P
U
B
L
I
C
C
O
R
P
O
R
A
T
I
O
N
S
W
I
T
H
JU
R
I
S
D
I
C
T
I
O
N
S
.
I
A
C
K
N
O
W
L
E
D
G
E
T
H
A
T
A
N
Y
F
A
L
S
E
D
E
C
L
A
R
A
T
I
O
N
O
R
FA
L
S
I
F
I
C
A
T
I
O
N
O
F
T
H
E
F
A
C
T
S
T
H
A
T
H
A
V
E
B
E
E
N
P
R
O
D
U
C
E
D
W
I
T
H
O
U
T
KN
O
W
L
E
D
G
E
O
R
B
Y
N
E
G
L
I
G
E
N
C
E
,
E
I
T
H
E
R
B
Y
M
E
,
M
Y
A
G
E
N
T
S
O
R
EM
P
L
O
Y
E
E
S
,
O
R
B
Y
O
T
H
E
R
P
E
R
S
O
N
S
W
I
T
H
M
Y
K
N
O
W
L
E
D
G
E
,
M
A
K
E
M
E
RE
S
P
O
N
S
I
B
L
E
F
O
R
A
N
Y
D
I
S
C
L
A
I
M
E
R
O
T
H
E
R
C
O
M
P
E
T
E
N
T
A
U
T
H
O
R
I
T
I
E
S
,
IN
C
L
U
D
I
N
G
,
B
U
T
N
O
T
L
I
M
I
T
E
D
T
O
,
T
H
E
T
E
R
M
I
N
A
T
I
O
N
O
F
P
A
R
T
I
C
I
P
A
T
I
O
N
I
N
T
H
E
PR
O
F
E
S
S
I
O
N
A
L
C
E
R
T
I
F
I
C
A
T
I
O
N
P
R
O
C
E
D
U
R
E
S
I
N
T
H
E
C
A
B
G
U
I
D
E
L
I
N
E
S
.
AD
D
R
E
S
S
:
2
5
6
A
L
D
E
R
G
A
T
E
S
T
.
PH
O
N
E
:
3
2
3
.
6
7
8
.
1
4
6
3
EM
A
I
L
:
N
I
D
A
L
@
H
A
M
I
D
A
-
A
R
C
H
I
T
E
C
T
S
.
C
O
M
2/23/2026 4:24:00 PM
Project Number
A0.1
AR
C
H
I
T
E
C
T
U
R
A
L
S
I
T
E
P
L
A
N
3.1NOTES
NO SCALE
4. MAP ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS. TO INFORM THE PROJECT SITE PLAN AND DESIGN – AND TOENSURE THAT THE ALLOWABLE DWELLING UNITS AND REQUIRED OPEN SPACE ACREAGE CALCULATED IN THE TWO PREVIOUS STEPS ARE
OPTIMALLY LOCATED AND CONFIGURED ON THE PROJECT SITE
– A SITE SURVEY, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS BASE MAP, AND ACCOMPANYING TECHNICAL REPORTS SHALL BE PREPARED AND SUBMITTED AS PART OF ANY DEVELOPMENT PERMIT APPLICATION. THE SURVEY, CONSTRAINTS MAP AND
REPORTS SHALL INCLUDE A BOUNDARY AND TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY PREPARED BY A LICENSED CIVIL ENGINEER OR SURVEYOR, AND MAPS AND REPORTS DESCRIBING ALL ON-SITE DRAINAGE COURSES, BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES,
ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES, STRUCTURES, GEOLOGICAL FEATURES AND FAULT ZONES, AND OTHER ON-SITE CONDITIONS THAT MIGHT INFORM OR CONSTRAIN THE PROJECT PLAN AND DESIGN (SEE FIGURE 5.9.2(B)).
5. DETERMINE LOCATION OF HOMESITES. BASED ON THE SITE SURVEY AND CONSTRAINTS MAPPING, IDENTIFY PREFERRED LOCATIONS FOR HOMESITES, CLUSTERS OF HOMESITES, REQUIRED FUEL MODIFICATION BUFFER AREAS, LEGAL
LOT BOUNDARIES, AND ACCESS ROADS (SEE FIGURES 5.9.2(C) AND (F)).
A. HOMESITES MAY BE UP TO 1/2 ACRE IN AREA MAXIMUM.
B. FUEL MODIFICATION BUFFER AREAS AND ACCESS ROADS SHALL BE AS REQUIRED BY THE FIRE MARSHALL AND PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR.
C. LOTS MUST BE A MINIMUM AREA OF 1-ACRE.
D. BASED ON TOPOGRAPHIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSTRAINTS, IT MAY PROVE IMPOSSIBLE TO FIT THE
MAXIMUM NUMBER OF HOMESITES AND LOTS (AS
CALCULATED IN STEP 2) ON THE PROJECT SITE, AND THUS THE TOTAL NUMBER OF HOMESITES WILL NECESSARILY BE LESS THAN THE NUMBER ALLOWED BY SUB-ZONE REGULATION DENSITY AND OPEN SPACE CALCULATIONS.
E. LOTS MAY BE EXPANDED TO INCLUDE THE ENTIRE FUEL MODIFICATION BUFFER AREA ASSOCIATED WITH THE CORRESPONDING HOMESITE.
F. LOTS MAY BE FURTHER EXPANDED SO AS TO COLLECTIVELY INCLUDE THE REMAINDER OF THE PROJECT SITE, INCLUDING
ALL OPEN SPACE EASEMENT AREAS.
1" = 160'-0"3ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN
3.1FEMA
NO SCALE
PROJECT # :
D
R
A
W
I
N
G
T
I
T
L
E
:
DE
C
L
I
F
F
D
R
.
RA
N
C
H
O
C
U
C
A
M
O
N
G
A
91
7
5
9
S C A L E
NOTE: THIS DRAWING IS 24"X36". DO NOT SCALE
DRAWINGS. USE FIGURED DIMENSIONS ONLY, OR SEEK
CLARIFICATION FROM ARCHITECT FOR MEASUREMENTS
THAT ARE NOT INDICATED.
D A T E I S S U E
I,
N
I
D
A
L
H
A
M
I
D
A
,
L
I
C
#
3
7
9
6
9
,
C
E
R
T
I
F
Y
T
H
A
T
I
A
M
T
H
E
P
R
O
F
E
S
S
I
O
N
A
L
W
H
O
DE
S
I
G
N
E
D
T
H
E
S
E
P
L
A
N
S
A
N
D
T
H
E
C
O
M
P
L
E
M
E
N
T
A
R
Y
S
P
E
C
I
F
I
C
A
T
I
O
N
S
.
I
A
L
SO
CE
R
T
I
F
Y
T
H
A
T
I
U
N
D
E
R
S
T
A
N
D
T
H
A
T
S
U
C
H
P
L
A
N
S
A
N
D
S
P
E
C
I
F
I
C
A
T
I
O
N
S
CO
M
P
L
Y
W
I
T
H
T
H
E
A
P
P
L
I
C
A
B
L
E
P
R
O
V
I
S
I
O
N
S
O
F
T
H
E
J
O
I
N
T
R
E
G
U
L
A
T
I
O
N
A
ND
AP
P
L
I
C
A
B
L
E
P
R
O
V
I
S
I
O
N
S
O
F
T
H
E
R
E
G
U
L
A
T
I
O
N
S
A
N
D
C
O
D
E
S
O
F
T
H
E
AG
E
N
C
I
E
S
,
R
E
G
U
L
A
T
O
R
Y
B
O
A
R
D
S
O
R
P
U
B
L
I
C
C
O
R
P
O
R
A
T
I
O
N
S
W
I
T
H
JU
R
I
S
D
I
C
T
I
O
N
S
.
I
A
C
K
N
O
W
L
E
D
G
E
T
H
A
T
A
N
Y
F
A
L
S
E
D
E
C
L
A
R
A
T
I
O
N
O
R
FA
L
S
I
F
I
C
A
T
I
O
N
O
F
T
H
E
F
A
C
T
S
T
H
A
T
H
A
V
E
B
E
E
N
P
R
O
D
U
C
E
D
W
I
T
H
O
U
T
KN
O
W
L
E
D
G
E
O
R
B
Y
N
E
G
L
I
G
E
N
C
E
,
E
I
T
H
E
R
B
Y
M
E
,
M
Y
A
G
E
N
T
S
O
R
EM
P
L
O
Y
E
E
S
,
O
R
B
Y
O
T
H
E
R
P
E
R
S
O
N
S
W
I
T
H
M
Y
K
N
O
W
L
E
D
G
E
,
M
A
K
E
M
E
RE
S
P
O
N
S
I
B
L
E
F
O
R
A
N
Y
D
I
S
C
L
A
I
M
E
R
O
T
H
E
R
C
O
M
P
E
T
E
N
T
A
U
T
H
O
R
I
T
I
E
S
,
IN
C
L
U
D
I
N
G
,
B
U
T
N
O
T
L
I
M
I
T
E
D
T
O
,
T
H
E
T
E
R
M
I
N
A
T
I
O
N
O
F
P
A
R
T
I
C
I
P
A
T
I
O
N
I
N
T
H
E
PR
O
F
E
S
S
I
O
N
A
L
C
E
R
T
I
F
I
C
A
T
I
O
N
P
R
O
C
E
D
U
R
E
S
I
N
T
H
E
C
A
B
G
U
I
D
E
L
I
N
E
S
.
AD
D
R
E
S
S
:
2
5
6
A
L
D
E
R
G
A
T
E
S
T
.
PH
O
N
E
:
3
2
3
.
6
7
8
.
1
4
6
3
EM
A
I
L
:
N
I
D
A
L
@
H
A
M
I
D
A
-
A
R
C
H
I
T
E
C
T
S
.
C
O
M
2/23/2026 4:24:01 PM
Project Number
A0.2
SL
O
P
E
B
A
N
D
A
N
A
L
Y
S
I
S
0226-061-68
0226-061-69
PROJECT # :
D
R
A
W
I
N
G
T
I
T
L
E
:
DE
C
L
I
F
F
D
R
.
RA
N
C
H
O
C
U
C
A
M
O
N
G
A
91
7
5
9
S C A L E
NOTE: THIS DRAWING IS 24"X36". DO NOT SCALE
DRAWINGS. USE FIGURED DIMENSIONS ONLY, OR SEEK
CLARIFICATION FROM ARCHITECT FOR MEASUREMENTS
THAT ARE NOT INDICATED.
D A T E I S S U E
I,
N
I
D
A
L
H
A
M
I
D
A
,
L
I
C
#
3
7
9
6
9
,
C
E
R
T
I
F
Y
T
H
A
T
I
A
M
T
H
E
P
R
O
F
E
S
S
I
O
N
A
L
W
H
O
DE
S
I
G
N
E
D
T
H
E
S
E
P
L
A
N
S
A
N
D
T
H
E
C
O
M
P
L
E
M
E
N
T
A
R
Y
S
P
E
C
I
F
I
C
A
T
I
O
N
S
.
I
A
L
SO
CE
R
T
I
F
Y
T
H
A
T
I
U
N
D
E
R
S
T
A
N
D
T
H
A
T
S
U
C
H
P
L
A
N
S
A
N
D
S
P
E
C
I
F
I
C
A
T
I
O
N
S
CO
M
P
L
Y
W
I
T
H
T
H
E
A
P
P
L
I
C
A
B
L
E
P
R
O
V
I
S
I
O
N
S
O
F
T
H
E
J
O
I
N
T
R
E
G
U
L
A
T
I
O
N
A
ND
AP
P
L
I
C
A
B
L
E
P
R
O
V
I
S
I
O
N
S
O
F
T
H
E
R
E
G
U
L
A
T
I
O
N
S
A
N
D
C
O
D
E
S
O
F
T
H
E
AG
E
N
C
I
E
S
,
R
E
G
U
L
A
T
O
R
Y
B
O
A
R
D
S
O
R
P
U
B
L
I
C
C
O
R
P
O
R
A
T
I
O
N
S
W
I
T
H
JU
R
I
S
D
I
C
T
I
O
N
S
.
I
A
C
K
N
O
W
L
E
D
G
E
T
H
A
T
A
N
Y
F
A
L
S
E
D
E
C
L
A
R
A
T
I
O
N
O
R
FA
L
S
I
F
I
C
A
T
I
O
N
O
F
T
H
E
F
A
C
T
S
T
H
A
T
H
A
V
E
B
E
E
N
P
R
O
D
U
C
E
D
W
I
T
H
O
U
T
KN
O
W
L
E
D
G
E
O
R
B
Y
N
E
G
L
I
G
E
N
C
E
,
E
I
T
H
E
R
B
Y
M
E
,
M
Y
A
G
E
N
T
S
O
R
EM
P
L
O
Y
E
E
S
,
O
R
B
Y
O
T
H
E
R
P
E
R
S
O
N
S
W
I
T
H
M
Y
K
N
O
W
L
E
D
G
E
,
M
A
K
E
M
E
RE
S
P
O
N
S
I
B
L
E
F
O
R
A
N
Y
D
I
S
C
L
A
I
M
E
R
O
T
H
E
R
C
O
M
P
E
T
E
N
T
A
U
T
H
O
R
I
T
I
E
S
,
IN
C
L
U
D
I
N
G
,
B
U
T
N
O
T
L
I
M
I
T
E
D
T
O
,
T
H
E
T
E
R
M
I
N
A
T
I
O
N
O
F
P
A
R
T
I
C
I
P
A
T
I
O
N
I
N
T
H
E
PR
O
F
E
S
S
I
O
N
A
L
C
E
R
T
I
F
I
C
A
T
I
O
N
P
R
O
C
E
D
U
R
E
S
I
N
T
H
E
C
A
B
G
U
I
D
E
L
I
N
E
S
.
AD
D
R
E
S
S
:
2
5
6
A
L
D
E
R
G
A
T
E
S
T
.
PH
O
N
E
:
3
2
3
.
6
7
8
.
1
4
6
3
EM
A
I
L
:
N
I
D
A
L
@
H
A
M
I
D
A
-
A
R
C
H
I
T
E
C
T
S
.
C
O
M
2/23/2026 4:24:01 PM
Project Number
A0.3
US
G
S
F
A
U
L
T
L
I
N
E
A
N
A
L
Y
S
I
S
1FAULT LINE ANALYSIS PLAN
NO SCALE
2FAULT LINE ANALYSIS SECTIONS
NO SCALE 1" = 200'-0"1 USGS FAULT LINE ANALYSIS
LOT 3LOT 2LOT 13LOT 12LOT 11LOT 10LOT 7LOT 6LOT 9LOT 8LOT 4LOT 1LOT 5LOT ALOT 15PHASE 1CLOT 16PHASE 2LOT 17PHASE 3LOT 18PHASE 4PHASE 1BLOT 14PHASE 1ABLDG5BLDG6BLDG8BLDG1BLDG2BLDG3BLDG4DWYDWYDWYDWYDWYDWYDWYBLDG7AMBLESIDE PLACE20' PAVED ROADAND 5' SHOULDER20' PAVED ROADAND 5' SHOULDER20' PAVED ROADAND 5' SHOULDER20' PAVED ROADAND 5' SHOULDER30'30'30'30'42'32'10'100'76'24'100'24'10'EXISTING SITE GRADING PERMASS GRADING PLAN-GP1458EX. SEWERPROTECT IN PLACEBASIN CTEMP. INFILTRATIONBASINEX. PORK CHOPTO BE REMOVEDEXIST. R/WEXIST. R/WPROP. R/WJOIN EXIST.SLOT IN BERMFLWATER SURFACE(WS) ELEV.WATER SURFACE(WS) ELEV.12" STORMDRAINHYDRODYNAMICSEPARATORBASIN BU.G. INFILTRATION BASINPROP.12" S.D.PROP.12" S.D.JOIN EXIST.LIMIT OFCONSTRUCTIONLIMIT OFCONSTRUCTIONLIMIT OFCONSTRUCTIONLIMIT OFCONSTRUCTIONLIMIT OFCONSTRUCTIONPARCEL BDRYPARCEL BDRYPROPOSEDPARCEL BDRYPARCEL BDRYSEE NOTES 1 & 2LIMIT OFCONSTRUCTIONFENCE PERSEPERATE PLANSPROP. INFILTRATIONBASINEX. 10' TO 12'AC PAVED ROADEX. 10' TO 12'AC PAVED ROADEX. 12"W(CVWD OWNED)EX. 16"W(CVWD OWNED)EX. 12"W(CVWD OWNED)EX. 16"W(CVWD OWNED)CONNECT TOEXISTING 12"WPROPOSED 8"WATERLINEPROPOSED 8"WATERLINE1" WM1" WM1" WM1" WM1" WMPROP. 1"WPROP. 1,500 GALSEPTIC TANK ANDLEACH FIELDPROP. 1,500 GALSEPTIC TANK ANDLEACH FIELDPROP. 1,500 GALSEPTIC TANK ANDLEACH FIELDPROP. 1,500 GALSEPTIC TANK ANDLEACH FIELDFIREHYDRANTEX. 60'EASEMENTEX. 40'EASEMENTEX. 12"W(CVWD OWNED)EX. 16"W(CVWD OWNED)EX. ±20'AC PAVED ROADEX. ±28'AC PAVED ROADEX. GATE (NOPUBLIC ACCESS)EX. ±28'AC PAVED ROADPROP. 50' DEDICATION ROADWAY(SHARE ACCESS AGREEMENT REQUIRED)PROP. 50' DEDICATIONTO CITY OFRANCHO CUCAMONGAFIREHYDRANTR=25'R=25'R=28'(TYP.)R=28'(TYP.)PARCEL 2PARCEL MAP NO. 8086P.M.B. 84/63-64PARCEL MAP NO. 14282P.M.B. 176/38-39PARCEL MAP NO. 13742P.M.B. 161/23-24PARCEL 2PARCEL 1PARCEL MAP NO. 16382P.M.B. 211/93-95TRACT MAP NO. 12666-3M.B. 220/43-45TRACT MAP NO. 18218M.B. 319/81-892.32 ACRES(101,216 SF)0.83 ACRES(35,949 SF)PARCEL MAP 17603PARCEL 9NOT-A-PART1.67 ACRES(72,868 SF)3.33 ACRES(145,422 SF)1.10 ACRES(47,917 SF)0.55 ACRES(23,813 SF)0.69 ACRES(30,315 SF)0.61 ACRES(26,378 SF)1.00 ACRES(43,696 SF)0.59 ACRES(25,889 SF)0.89 ACRES(38,928 SF)0.69 ACRES(30,189 SF)3.47 ACRES(151,129 SF)0.04 ACRES(1,640 SF)2.21 ACRES(96,337 SF)3.19 ACRES(138,882 SF)4.18 ACRES(181,824 SF)1.50 ACRES(65,496 SF)5.92 ACRES(258,046 SF)R/W VACATIONBY CITY9-FT R/W DEDICATIONBY SEPERATE INSTRUMENT70' WIDE EASEMENT TO CALIFORNIA ELECTRICPOWER COMPANY FOR ELECTRIC TRANSMISSIONAND DISTRIBUTION LINES AND INCIDENTALPURPOSES PER BOOK 4128, PAGE 146, O.R.70' WIDE EASEMENT TO CALIFORNIA ELECTRICPOWER COMPANY FOR ELECTRIC TRANSMISSIONAND DISTRIBUTION LINES AND INCIDENTALPURPOSES PER BOOK 4128, PAGE 146, O.REX.30' DRAINAGE EASEMENTDEDICATED HEREON TOTHE CITY OF VICTORVILLE(TO REMAIN)EX. 30' DRAINAGE EASEMENTDEDICATED HEREON TOTHE CITY OF VICTORVILLE(TO REMAIN)EX. 30' DRAINAGE EASEMENTDEDICATED HEREON TOTHE CITY OF VICTORVILLE(TO REMAIN)EX. 30' DRAINAGE EASEMENTDEDICATED HEREON TOTHE CITY OF VICTORVILLE(TO REMAIN)150.0'58.0'24.0'68.0'150.0'58.0'24.0'68.0'32.0'10.0'40.0'82.0'32.0'10.0'32.0'74.0'32.0'10.0'32.0'84.0'10.0'32.0'10.0'32.0'84.0'30.0'35.0'30.0'35.0'30.0'30.0'150.0'58.0'24.0'68.0'150.0'58.0'24.0'68.0'32.0'10.0'40.0'82.0'32.0'10.0'32.0'74.0'32.0'10.0'32.0'84.0'10.0'32.0'10.0'32.0'84.0'30.0'35.0'30.0'35.0'30.0'30.0'60'60'10'10'10'10'10'10'10'10'10'10'10'42'42'10'16'16'16'16'16'16'16'16'40'40'40'40'40'40'40'40'40'40'40'40'40'40'40'40'40'40'40'40'40'40'BEAR VALLEY ROAD3RD AVENUE50'50'50'33523PPPPPP77554433PPPPPP338832999993356310666510636551010734563111141313131312121212N62°53'18"E68.86'42.10'26.76'Δ=64°26'20"R=25.00'L=28.12'T=14.06'136.68'507.74'153.17'94.13'123.45'301.44'75.72'119.67'314.91'917.90'225.74'53.85'88.40'119.95'103.02'33.00'133.04'187.61'78.06'131.78'158.95'28.11'33.00'97.14'S88°28'01"W56.01'N01°31'59"W35.41'N01°42'36"W 25.67'N01°31'27"W89.87'N88°28'37"E21.04'160.34'270.43'249.06'676.89'310.27'N01°44'15"W30.18'N88°16'03"E29.83'S42°39'55"W100.03'186.63'N64°57'14"E31.32'N86°53'16"E11.66'N62°53'18"E68.86'42.10'26.76'Δ=64°26'20"R=25.00'L=28.12'T=14.06'136.68'507.74'153.17'94.13'123.45'301.44'75.72'119.67'314.91'917.90'225.74'53.85'88.40'119.95'103.02'33.00'133.04'187.61'78.06'131.78'158.95'28.11'33.00'97.14'S88°28'01"W56.01'N01°31'59"W35.41'N01°42'36"W 25.67'N01°31'27"W89.87'N88°28'37"E21.04'160.34'270.43'249.06'676.89'310.27'N01°44'15"W30.18'N88°16'03"E29.83'S42°39'55"W100.03'186.63'N64°57'14"E31.32'N86°53'16"E11.66'S00°52'13"E 82.15'SETBACKSETBACKSETBACKSETBACKSETBACKSETBACKSETBACKSETBACKN89°01'51"E39.91'S00°58'10"E 193.16'N89°07'41"E 171.60'N00°52'19"W 116.56'N00°54'29"W 127.49'S89°06'38"W 139.84'N89°08'06"E 155.10'N44°09'20"E 56.98'N00°40'00"W 129.68'S00°40'00"E 275.23'N00°38'22"W 445.23'N89°07'41"E 83.96'N59°07'40"E 106.84'N00°54'29"W42.51'N89°07'41"E21.59'S89°06'38"W 152.58'572.54'572.54'SETBACKSETBACKSETBACKSETBACKSETBACKSETBACKSETBACKSETBACKSETBACKSETBACKSETBACKSETBACKSETBACKSETBACKSETBACKSETBACKSETBACKSETBACKSETBACKSETBACKSETBACKPRIVATE ROAD WAYLOT 3LOT 2LOT 13LOT 12LOT 11LOT 10LOT 7LOT 6LOT 9LOT 8LOT 4LOT 1LOT 5LOT ALOT 15PHASE 1CLOT 16PHASE 2LOT 17PHASE 3LOT 18PHASE 4PHASE 1BLOT 14PHASE 1ABLDG5BLDG6BLDG8BLDG1BLDG2BLDG3BLDG4DWYDWYDWYDWYDWYDWYDWYBLDG7AMBLESIDE PLACE20' PAVED ROADAND 5' SHOULDER20' PAVED ROADAND 5' SHOULDER20' PAVED ROADAND 5' SHOULDER20' PAVED ROADAND 5' SHOULDER30'30'30'30'42'32'10'100'76'24'100'24'10'EXISTING SITE GRADING PERMASS GRADING PLAN-GP1458EX. SEWERPROTECT IN PLACEBASIN CTEMP. INFILTRATIONBASINEX. PORK CHOPTO BE REMOVEDEXIST. R/WEXIST. R/WPROP. R/WJOIN EXIST.SLOT IN BERMFLWATER SURFACE(WS) ELEV.WATER SURFACE(WS) ELEV.12" STORMDRAINHYDRODYNAMICSEPARATORBASIN BU.G. INFILTRATION BASINPROP.12" S.D.PROP.12" S.D.JOIN EXIST.LIMIT OFCONSTRUCTIONLIMIT OFCONSTRUCTIONLIMIT OFCONSTRUCTIONLIMIT OFCONSTRUCTIONLIMIT OFCONSTRUCTIONPARCEL BDRYPARCEL BDRYPROPOSEDPARCEL BDRYPARCEL BDRYSEE NOTES 1 & 2LIMIT OFCONSTRUCTIONFENCE PERSEPERATE PLANSPROP. INFILTRATIONBASINEX. 10' TO 12'AC PAVED ROADEX. 10' TO 12'AC PAVED ROADEX. 12"W(CVWD OWNED)EX. 16"W(CVWD OWNED)EX. 12"W(CVWD OWNED)EX. 16"W(CVWD OWNED)CONNECT TOEXISTING 12"WPROPOSED 8"WATERLINEPROPOSED 8"WATERLINE1" WM1" WM1" WM1" WM1" WMPROP. 1"WPROP. 1,500 GALSEPTIC TANK ANDLEACH FIELDPROP. 1,500 GALSEPTIC TANK ANDLEACH FIELDPROP. 1,500 GALSEPTIC TANK ANDLEACH FIELDPROP. 1,500 GALSEPTIC TANK ANDLEACH FIELDFIREHYDRANTEX. 60'EASEMENTEX. 40'EASEMENTEX. 12"W(CVWD OWNED)EX. 16"W(CVWD OWNED)EX. ±20'AC PAVED ROADEX. ±28'AC PAVED ROADEX. GATE (NOPUBLIC ACCESS)EX. ±28'AC PAVED ROADPROP. 50' DEDICATION ROADWAY(SHARE ACCESS AGREEMENT REQUIRED)PROP. 50' DEDICATIONTO CITY OFRANCHO CUCAMONGAFIREHYDRANTR=25'R=25'R=28'(TYP.)R=28'(TYP.)PARCEL 2PARCEL MAP NO. 8086P.M.B. 84/63-64PARCEL MAP NO. 14282P.M.B. 176/38-39PARCEL MAP NO. 13742P.M.B. 161/23-24PARCEL 2PARCEL 1PARCEL MAP NO. 16382P.M.B. 211/93-95TRACT MAP NO. 12666-3M.B. 220/43-45TRACT MAP NO. 18218M.B. 319/81-892.32 ACRES(101,216 SF)0.83 ACRES(35,949 SF)PARCEL MAP 17603PARCEL 9NOT-A-PART1.67 ACRES(72,868 SF)3.33 ACRES(145,422 SF)1.10 ACRES(47,917 SF)0.55 ACRES(23,813 SF)0.69 ACRES(30,315 SF)0.61 ACRES(26,378 SF)1.00 ACRES(43,696 SF)0.59 ACRES(25,889 SF)0.89 ACRES(38,928 SF)0.69 ACRES(30,189 SF)3.47 ACRES(151,129 SF)0.04 ACRES(1,640 SF)2.21 ACRES(96,337 SF)3.19 ACRES(138,882 SF)4.18 ACRES(181,824 SF)1.50 ACRES(65,496 SF)5.92 ACRES(258,046 SF)R/W VACATIONBY CITY9-FT R/W DEDICATIONBY SEPERATE INSTRUMENT70' WIDE EASEMENT TO CALIFORNIA ELECTRICPOWER COMPANY FOR ELECTRIC TRANSMISSIONAND DISTRIBUTION LINES AND INCIDENTALPURPOSES PER BOOK 4128, PAGE 146, O.R.70' WIDE EASEMENT TO CALIFORNIA ELECTRICPOWER COMPANY FOR ELECTRIC TRANSMISSIONAND DISTRIBUTION LINES AND INCIDENTALPURPOSES PER BOOK 4128, PAGE 146, O.REX.30' DRAINAGE EASEMENTDEDICATED HEREON TOTHE CITY OF VICTORVILLE(TO REMAIN)EX. 30' DRAINAGE EASEMENTDEDICATED HEREON TOTHE CITY OF VICTORVILLE(TO REMAIN)EX. 30' DRAINAGE EASEMENTDEDICATED HEREON TOTHE CITY OF VICTORVILLE(TO REMAIN)EX. 30' DRAINAGE EASEMENTDEDICATED HEREON TOTHE CITY OF VICTORVILLE(TO REMAIN)150.0'58.0'24.0'68.0'150.0'58.0'24.0'68.0'32.0'10.0'40.0'82.0'32.0'10.0'32.0'74.0'32.0'10.0'32.0'84.0'10.0'32.0'10.0'32.0'84.0'30.0'35.0'30.0'35.0'30.0'30.0'150.0'58.0'24.0'68.0'150.0'58.0'24.0'68.0'32.0'10.0'40.0'82.0'32.0'10.0'32.0'74.0'32.0'10.0'32.0'84.0'10.0'32.0'10.0'32.0'84.0'30.0'35.0'30.0'35.0'30.0'30.0'60'60'10'10'10'10'10'10'10'10'10'10'10'42'42'10'16'16'16'16'16'16'16'16'40'40'40'40'40'40'40'40'40'40'40'40'40'40'40'40'40'40'40'40'40'40'BEAR VALLEY ROAD3RD AVENUE50'50'50'33523PPPPPP77554433PPPPPP338832999993356310666510636551010734563111141313131312121212N62°53'18"E68.86'42.10'26.76'Δ=64°26'20"R=25.00'L=28.12'T=14.06'136.68'507.74'153.17'94.13'123.45'301.44'75.72'119.67'314.91'917.90'225.74'53.85'88.40'119.95'103.02'33.00'133.04'187.61'78.06'131.78'158.95'28.11'33.00'97.14'S88°28'01"W56.01'N01°31'59"W35.41'N01°42'36"W 25.67'N01°31'27"W89.87'N88°28'37"E21.04'160.34'270.43'249.06'676.89'310.27'N01°44'15"W30.18'N88°16'03"E29.83'S42°39'55"W100.03'186.63'N64°57'14"E31.32'N86°53'16"E11.66'N62°53'18"E68.86'42.10'26.76'Δ=64°26'20"R=25.00'L=28.12'T=14.06'136.68'507.74'153.17'94.13'123.45'301.44'75.72'119.67'314.91'917.90'225.74'53.85'88.40'119.95'103.02'33.00'133.04'187.61'78.06'131.78'158.95'28.11'33.00'97.14'S88°28'01"W56.01'N01°31'59"W35.41'N01°42'36"W 25.67'N01°31'27"W89.87'N88°28'37"E21.04'160.34'270.43'249.06'676.89'310.27'N01°44'15"W30.18'N88°16'03"E29.83'S42°39'55"W100.03'186.63'N64°57'14"E31.32'N86°53'16"E11.66'S00°52'13"E 82.15'SETBACKSETBACKSETBACKSETBACKSETBACKSETBACKSETBACKSETBACKN89°01'51"E39.91'S00°58'10"E 193.16'N89°07'41"E 171.60'N00°52'19"W 116.56'N00°54'29"W 127.49'S89°06'38"W 139.84'N89°08'06"E 155.10'N44°09'20"E 56.98'N00°40'00"W 129.68'S00°40'00"E 275.23'N00°38'22"W 445.23'N89°07'41"E 83.96'N59°07'40"E 106.84'N00°54'29"W42.51'N89°07'41"E21.59'S89°06'38"W 152.58'572.54'572.54'SETBACKSETBACKSETBACKSETBACKSETBACKSETBACKSETBACKSETBACKSETBACKSETBACKSETBACKSETBACKSETBACKSETBACKSETBACKSETBACKSETBACKSETBACKSETBACKSETBACKSETBACKPRIVATE ROAD WAYLOT 3LOT 2LOT 13LOT 12LOT 11LOT 10LOT 7LOT 6LOT 9LOT 8LOT 4LOT 1LOT 5LOT ALOT 15PHASE 1CLOT 16PHASE 2LOT 17PHASE 3LOT 18PHASE 4PHASE 1BLOT 14PHASE 1ABLDG5BLDG6BLDG8BLDG1BLDG2BLDG3BLDG4DWYDWYDWYDWYDWYDWYDWYBLDG7AMBLESIDE PLACE20' PAVED ROADAND 5' SHOULDER20' PAVED ROADAND 5' SHOULDER20' PAVED ROADAND 5' SHOULDER20' PAVED ROADAND 5' SHOULDER30'30'30'30'42'32'10'100'76'24'100'24'10'EXISTING SITE GRADING PERMASS GRADING PLAN-GP1458EX. SEWERPROTECT IN PLACEBASIN CTEMP. INFILTRATIONBASINEX. PORK CHOPTO BE REMOVEDEXIST. R/WEXIST. R/WPROP. R/WJOIN EXIST.SLOT IN BERMFLWATER SURFACE(WS) ELEV.WATER SURFACE(WS) ELEV.12" STORMDRAINHYDRODYNAMICSEPARATORBASIN BU.G. INFILTRATION BASINPROP.12" S.D.PROP.12" S.D.JOIN EXIST.LIMIT OFCONSTRUCTIONLIMIT OFCONSTRUCTIONLIMIT OFCONSTRUCTIONLIMIT OFCONSTRUCTIONLIMIT OFCONSTRUCTIONPARCEL BDRYPARCEL BDRYPROPOSEDPARCEL BDRYPARCEL BDRYSEE NOTES 1 & 2LIMIT OFCONSTRUCTIONFENCE PERSEPERATE PLANSPROP. INFILTRATIONBASINEX. 10' TO 12'AC PAVED ROADEX. 10' TO 12'AC PAVED ROADEX. 12"W(CVWD OWNED)EX. 16"W(CVWD OWNED)EX. 12"W(CVWD OWNED)EX. 16"W(CVWD OWNED)CONNECT TOEXISTING 12"WPROPOSED 8"WATERLINEPROPOSED 8"WATERLINE1" WM1" WM1" WM1" WM1" WMPROP. 1"WPROP. 1,500 GALSEPTIC TANK ANDLEACH FIELDPROP. 1,500 GALSEPTIC TANK ANDLEACH FIELDPROP. 1,500 GALSEPTIC TANK ANDLEACH FIELDPROP. 1,500 GALSEPTIC TANK ANDLEACH FIELDFIREHYDRANTEX. 60'EASEMENTEX. 40'EASEMENTEX. 12"W(CVWD OWNED)EX. 16"W(CVWD OWNED)EX. ±20'AC PAVED ROADEX. ±28'AC PAVED ROADEX. GATE (NOPUBLIC ACCESS)EX. ±28'AC PAVED ROADPROP. 50' DEDICATION ROADWAY(SHARE ACCESS AGREEMENT REQUIRED)PROP. 50' DEDICATIONTO CITY OFRANCHO CUCAMONGAFIREHYDRANTR=25'R=25'R=28'(TYP.)R=28'(TYP.)PARCEL 2PARCEL MAP NO. 8086P.M.B. 84/63-64PARCEL MAP NO. 14282P.M.B. 176/38-39PARCEL MAP NO. 13742P.M.B. 161/23-24PARCEL 2PARCEL 1PARCEL MAP NO. 16382P.M.B. 211/93-95TRACT MAP NO. 12666-3M.B. 220/43-45TRACT MAP NO. 18218M.B. 319/81-892.32 ACRES(101,216 SF)0.83 ACRES(35,949 SF)PARCEL MAP 17603PARCEL 9NOT-A-PART1.67 ACRES(72,868 SF)3.33 ACRES(145,422 SF)1.10 ACRES(47,917 SF)0.55 ACRES(23,813 SF)0.69 ACRES(30,315 SF)0.61 ACRES(26,378 SF)1.00 ACRES(43,696 SF)0.59 ACRES(25,889 SF)0.89 ACRES(38,928 SF)0.69 ACRES(30,189 SF)3.47 ACRES(151,129 SF)0.04 ACRES(1,640 SF)2.21 ACRES(96,337 SF)3.19 ACRES(138,882 SF)4.18 ACRES(181,824 SF)1.50 ACRES(65,496 SF)5.92 ACRES(258,046 SF)R/W VACATIONBY CITY9-FT R/W DEDICATIONBY SEPERATE INSTRUMENT70' WIDE EASEMENT TO CALIFORNIA ELECTRICPOWER COMPANY FOR ELECTRIC TRANSMISSIONAND DISTRIBUTION LINES AND INCIDENTALPURPOSES PER BOOK 4128, PAGE 146, O.R.70' WIDE EASEMENT TO CALIFORNIA ELECTRICPOWER COMPANY FOR ELECTRIC TRANSMISSIONAND DISTRIBUTION LINES AND INCIDENTALPURPOSES PER BOOK 4128, PAGE 146, O.REX.30' DRAINAGE EASEMENTDEDICATED HEREON TOTHE CITY OF VICTORVILLE(TO REMAIN)EX. 30' DRAINAGE EASEMENTDEDICATED HEREON TOTHE CITY OF VICTORVILLE(TO REMAIN)EX. 30' DRAINAGE EASEMENTDEDICATED HEREON TOTHE CITY OF VICTORVILLE(TO REMAIN)EX. 30' DRAINAGE EASEMENTDEDICATED HEREON TOTHE CITY OF VICTORVILLE(TO REMAIN)150.0'58.0'24.0'68.0'150.0'58.0'24.0'68.0'32.0'10.0'40.0'82.0'32.0'10.0'32.0'74.0'32.0'10.0'32.0'84.0'10.0'32.0'10.0'32.0'84.0'30.0'35.0'30.0'35.0'30.0'30.0'150.0'58.0'24.0'68.0'150.0'58.0'24.0'68.0'32.0'10.0'40.0'82.0'32.0'10.0'32.0'74.0'32.0'10.0'32.0'84.0'10.0'32.0'10.0'32.0'84.0'30.0'35.0'30.0'35.0'30.0'30.0'60'60'10'10'10'10'10'10'10'10'10'10'10'42'42'10'16'16'16'16'16'16'16'16'40'40'40'40'40'40'40'40'40'40'40'40'40'40'40'40'40'40'40'40'40'40'BEAR VALLEY ROAD3RD AVENUE50'50'50'33523PPPPPP77554433PPPPPP338832999993356310666510636551010734563111141313131312121212N62°53'18"E68.86'42.10'26.76'Δ=64°26'20"R=25.00'L=28.12'T=14.06'136.68'507.74'153.17'94.13'123.45'301.44'75.72'119.67'314.91'917.90'225.74'53.85'88.40'119.95'103.02'33.00'133.04'187.61'78.06'131.78'158.95'28.11'33.00'97.14'S88°28'01"W56.01'N01°31'59"W35.41'N01°42'36"W 25.67'N01°31'27"W89.87'N88°28'37"E21.04'160.34'270.43'249.06'676.89'310.27'N01°44'15"W30.18'N88°16'03"E29.83'S42°39'55"W100.03'186.63'N64°57'14"E31.32'N86°53'16"E11.66'N62°53'18"E68.86'42.10'26.76'Δ=64°26'20"R=25.00'L=28.12'T=14.06'136.68'507.74'153.17'94.13'123.45'301.44'75.72'119.67'314.91'917.90'225.74'53.85'88.40'119.95'103.02'33.00'133.04'187.61'78.06'131.78'158.95'28.11'33.00'97.14'S88°28'01"W56.01'N01°31'59"W35.41'N01°42'36"W 25.67'N01°31'27"W89.87'N88°28'37"E21.04'160.34'270.43'249.06'676.89'310.27'N01°44'15"W30.18'N88°16'03"E29.83'S42°39'55"W100.03'186.63'N64°57'14"E31.32'N86°53'16"E11.66'S00°52'13"E 82.15'SETBACKSETBACKSETBACKSETBACKSETBACKSETBACKSETBACKSETBACKN89°01'51"E39.91'S00°58'10"E 193.16'N89°07'41"E 171.60'N00°52'19"W 116.56'N00°54'29"W 127.49'S89°06'38"W 139.84'N89°08'06"E 155.10'N44°09'20"E 56.98'N00°40'00"W 129.68'S00°40'00"E 275.23'N00°38'22"W 445.23'N89°07'41"E 83.96'N59°07'40"E 106.84'N00°54'29"W42.51'N89°07'41"E21.59'S89°06'38"W 152.58'572.54'572.54'SETBACKSETBACKSETBACKSETBACKSETBACKSETBACKSETBACKSETBACKSETBACKSETBACKSETBACKSETBACKSETBACKSETBACKSETBACKSETBACKSETBACKSETBACKSETBACKSETBACKSETBACKPRIVATE ROAD WAYLOT 3LOT 2LOT 13LOT 12LOT 11LOT 10LOT 7LOT 6LOT 9LOT 8LOT 4LOT 1LOT 5LOT ALOT 15PHASE 1CLOT 16PHASE 2LOT 17PHASE 3LOT 18PHASE 4PHASE 1BLOT 14PHASE 1ABLDG5BLDG6BLDG8BLDG1BLDG2BLDG3BLDG4DWYDWYDWYDWYDWYDWYDWYBLDG7AMBLESIDE PLACE20' PAVED ROADAND 5' SHOULDER20' PAVED ROADAND 5' SHOULDER20' PAVED ROADAND 5' SHOULDER20' PAVED ROADAND 5' SHOULDER30'30'30'30'42'32'10'100'76'24'100'24'10'EXISTING SITE GRADING PERMASS GRADING PLAN-GP1458EX. SEWERPROTECT IN PLACEBASIN CTEMP. INFILTRATIONBASINEX. PORK CHOPTO BE REMOVEDEXIST. R/WEXIST. R/WPROP. R/WJOIN EXIST.SLOT IN BERMFLWATER SURFACE(WS) ELEV.WATER SURFACE(WS) ELEV.12" STORMDRAINHYDRODYNAMICSEPARATORBASIN BU.G. INFILTRATION BASINPROP.12" S.D.PROP.12" S.D.JOIN EXIST.LIMIT OFCONSTRUCTIONLIMIT OFCONSTRUCTIONLIMIT OFCONSTRUCTIONLIMIT OFCONSTRUCTIONLIMIT OFCONSTRUCTIONPARCEL BDRYPARCEL BDRYPROPOSEDPARCEL BDRYPARCEL BDRYSEE NOTES 1 & 2LIMIT OFCONSTRUCTIONFENCE PERSEPERATE PLANSPROP. INFILTRATIONBASINEX. 10' TO 12'AC PAVED ROADEX. 10' TO 12'AC PAVED ROADEX. 12"W(CVWD OWNED)EX. 16"W(CVWD OWNED)EX. 12"W(CVWD OWNED)EX. 16"W(CVWD OWNED)CONNECT TOEXISTING 12"WPROPOSED 8"WATERLINEPROPOSED 8"WATERLINE1" WM1" WM1" WM1" WM1" WMPROP. 1"WPROP. 1,500 GALSEPTIC TANK ANDLEACH FIELDPROP. 1,500 GALSEPTIC TANK ANDLEACH FIELDPROP. 1,500 GALSEPTIC TANK ANDLEACH FIELDPROP. 1,500 GALSEPTIC TANK ANDLEACH FIELDFIREHYDRANTEX. 60'EASEMENTEX. 40'EASEMENTEX. 12"W(CVWD OWNED)EX. 16"W(CVWD OWNED)EX. ±20'AC PAVED ROADEX. ±28'AC PAVED ROADEX. GATE (NOPUBLIC ACCESS)EX. ±28'AC PAVED ROADPROP. 50' DEDICATION ROADWAY(SHARE ACCESS AGREEMENT REQUIRED)PROP. 50' DEDICATIONTO CITY OFRANCHO CUCAMONGAFIREHYDRANTR=25'R=25'R=28'(TYP.)R=28'(TYP.)PARCEL 2PARCEL MAP NO. 8086P.M.B. 84/63-64PARCEL MAP NO. 14282P.M.B. 176/38-39PARCEL MAP NO. 13742P.M.B. 161/23-24PARCEL 2PARCEL 1PARCEL MAP NO. 16382P.M.B. 211/93-95TRACT MAP NO. 12666-3M.B. 220/43-45TRACT MAP NO. 18218M.B. 319/81-892.32 ACRES(101,216 SF)0.83 ACRES(35,949 SF)PARCEL MAP 17603PARCEL 9NOT-A-PART1.67 ACRES(72,868 SF)3.33 ACRES(145,422 SF)1.10 ACRES(47,917 SF)0.55 ACRES(23,813 SF)0.69 ACRES(30,315 SF)0.61 ACRES(26,378 SF)1.00 ACRES(43,696 SF)0.59 ACRES(25,889 SF)0.89 ACRES(38,928 SF)0.69 ACRES(30,189 SF)3.47 ACRES(151,129 SF)0.04 ACRES(1,640 SF)2.21 ACRES(96,337 SF)3.19 ACRES(138,882 SF)4.18 ACRES(181,824 SF)1.50 ACRES(65,496 SF)5.92 ACRES(258,046 SF)R/W VACATIONBY CITY9-FT R/W DEDICATIONBY SEPERATE INSTRUMENT70' WIDE EASEMENT TO CALIFORNIA ELECTRICPOWER COMPANY FOR ELECTRIC TRANSMISSIONAND DISTRIBUTION LINES AND INCIDENTALPURPOSES PER BOOK 4128, PAGE 146, O.R.70' WIDE EASEMENT TO CALIFORNIA ELECTRICPOWER COMPANY FOR ELECTRIC TRANSMISSIONAND DISTRIBUTION LINES AND INCIDENTALPURPOSES PER BOOK 4128, PAGE 146, O.REX.30' DRAINAGE EASEMENTDEDICATED HEREON TOTHE CITY OF VICTORVILLE(TO REMAIN)EX. 30' DRAINAGE EASEMENTDEDICATED HEREON TOTHE CITY OF VICTORVILLE(TO REMAIN)EX. 30' DRAINAGE EASEMENTDEDICATED HEREON TOTHE CITY OF VICTORVILLE(TO REMAIN)EX. 30' DRAINAGE EASEMENTDEDICATED HEREON TOTHE CITY OF VICTORVILLE(TO REMAIN)150.0'58.0'24.0'68.0'150.0'58.0'24.0'68.0'32.0'10.0'40.0'82.0'32.0'10.0'32.0'74.0'32.0'10.0'32.0'84.0'10.0'32.0'10.0'32.0'84.0'30.0'35.0'30.0'35.0'30.0'30.0'150.0'58.0'24.0'68.0'150.0'58.0'24.0'68.0'32.0'10.0'40.0'82.0'32.0'10.0'32.0'74.0'32.0'10.0'32.0'84.0'10.0'32.0'10.0'32.0'84.0'30.0'35.0'30.0'35.0'30.0'30.0'60'60'10'10'10'10'10'10'10'10'10'10'10'42'42'10'16'16'16'16'16'16'16'16'40'40'40'40'40'40'40'40'40'40'40'40'40'40'40'40'40'40'40'40'40'40'BEAR VALLEY ROAD3RD AVENUE50'50'50'33523PPPPPP77554433PPPPPP338832999993356310666510636551010734563111141313131312121212N62°53'18"E68.86'42.10'26.76'Δ=64°26'20"R=25.00'L=28.12'T=14.06'136.68'507.74'153.17'94.13'123.45'301.44'75.72'119.67'314.91'917.90'225.74'53.85'88.40'119.95'103.02'33.00'133.04'187.61'78.06'131.78'158.95'28.11'33.00'97.14'S88°28'01"W56.01'N01°31'59"W35.41'N01°42'36"W 25.67'N01°31'27"W89.87'N88°28'37"E21.04'160.34'270.43'249.06'676.89'310.27'N01°44'15"W30.18'N88°16'03"E29.83'S42°39'55"W100.03'186.63'N64°57'14"E31.32'N86°53'16"E11.66'N62°53'18"E68.86'42.10'26.76'Δ=64°26'20"R=25.00'L=28.12'T=14.06'136.68'507.74'153.17'94.13'123.45'301.44'75.72'119.67'314.91'917.90'225.74'53.85'88.40'119.95'103.02'33.00'133.04'187.61'78.06'131.78'158.95'28.11'33.00'97.14'S88°28'01"W56.01'N01°31'59"W35.41'N01°42'36"W 25.67'N01°31'27"W89.87'N88°28'37"E21.04'160.34'270.43'249.06'676.89'310.27'N01°44'15"W30.18'N88°16'03"E29.83'S42°39'55"W100.03'186.63'N64°57'14"E31.32'N86°53'16"E11.66'S00°52'13"E 82.15'SETBACKSETBACKSETBACKSETBACKSETBACKSETBACKSETBACKSETBACKN89°01'51"E39.91'S00°58'10"E 193.16'N89°07'41"E 171.60'N00°52'19"W 116.56'N00°54'29"W 127.49'S89°06'38"W 139.84'N89°08'06"E 155.10'N44°09'20"E 56.98'N00°40'00"W 129.68'S00°40'00"E 275.23'N00°38'22"W 445.23'N89°07'41"E 83.96'N59°07'40"E 106.84'N00°54'29"W42.51'N89°07'41"E21.59'S89°06'38"W 152.58'572.54'572.54'SETBACKSETBACKSETBACKSETBACKSETBACKSETBACKSETBACKSETBACKSETBACKSETBACKSETBACKSETBACKSETBACKSETBACKSETBACKSETBACKSETBACKSETBACKSETBACKSETBACKSETBACKPRIVATE ROAD WAY
155.54 ft 40.00 ft 70.00 ft
F.Y. SETBACK
40.00 ft
13
6
.
8
7
f
t
S.
Y
.
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
40
.
0
0
f
t
70
.
0
0
f
t
40
.
0
0
f
t
150.00 ft
LOT 1
2 ACRES
87,120 SF
.5 ACRE HOMESITE
LOCATION OF SFD
306.50 ft
28
6
.
0
0
f
t
LOT 2
2 ACRES
87,120 SF
.5 ACRE HOMESITE
319.82 ft
LOCATION OF SFD
13
6
.
0
0
f
t
S.
Y
.
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
40
.
0
0
f
t
70
.
0
0
f
t
S.
Y
.
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
40
.
0
0
f
t
F.Y. SETBACK
40.00 ft 70.00 ft 40.00 ft
150.00 ft 170.78 ft
15
0
.
0
0
f
t
28
6
.
0
0
f
t
LOT 4
2 ACRES
87,120 SF
.5 ACRE HOMESITE
HOMESITE
150.00 ft 155.54 ft
LOCATION OF SFD
S.
Y
.
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
40
.
0
0
f
t
70
.
0
0
f
t
S.
Y
.
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
40
.
0
0
f
t
13
6
.
0
0
f
t
F.Y. SETBACK
40.00 ft 67.58 ft 42.42 ft
13
6
.
0
0
f
t
HO
M
E
S
I
T
E
15
0
.
0
0
f
t
.5 ACRE HOMESITE
28
6
.
0
0
f
t
306.50 ft
LOT 3
2 ACRES
87,120 SF
.5 ACRE HOMESITE
LOCATION OF SFD
S.
Y
.
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
40
.
0
0
f
t
70
.
0
0
f
t
S.
Y
.
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
40
.
0
0
f
t
13
6
.
0
0
f
t
157.48 ft
R.Y. SETBACK
40.00 ft 70.00 ft
F.Y. SETBACK
40.00 ft
HO
M
E
S
I
T
E
15
0
.
0
0
f
t
HOME SITE
150.00 ft
28
6
.
0
0
f
t
306.50 ft
PROJECT # :
D
R
A
W
I
N
G
T
I
T
L
E
:
DE
C
L
I
F
F
D
R
.
RA
N
C
H
O
C
U
C
A
M
O
N
G
A
91
7
5
9
S C A L E
NOTE: THIS DRAWING IS 24"X36". DO NOT SCALE
DRAWINGS. USE FIGURED DIMENSIONS ONLY, OR SEEK
CLARIFICATION FROM ARCHITECT FOR MEASUREMENTS
THAT ARE NOT INDICATED.
D A T E I S S U E
I,
N
I
D
A
L
H
A
M
I
D
A
,
L
I
C
#
3
7
9
6
9
,
C
E
R
T
I
F
Y
T
H
A
T
I
A
M
T
H
E
P
R
O
F
E
S
S
I
O
N
A
L
W
H
O
DE
S
I
G
N
E
D
T
H
E
S
E
P
L
A
N
S
A
N
D
T
H
E
C
O
M
P
L
E
M
E
N
T
A
R
Y
S
P
E
C
I
F
I
C
A
T
I
O
N
S
.
I
A
L
SO
CE
R
T
I
F
Y
T
H
A
T
I
U
N
D
E
R
S
T
A
N
D
T
H
A
T
S
U
C
H
P
L
A
N
S
A
N
D
S
P
E
C
I
F
I
C
A
T
I
O
N
S
CO
M
P
L
Y
W
I
T
H
T
H
E
A
P
P
L
I
C
A
B
L
E
P
R
O
V
I
S
I
O
N
S
O
F
T
H
E
J
O
I
N
T
R
E
G
U
L
A
T
I
O
N
A
ND
AP
P
L
I
C
A
B
L
E
P
R
O
V
I
S
I
O
N
S
O
F
T
H
E
R
E
G
U
L
A
T
I
O
N
S
A
N
D
C
O
D
E
S
O
F
T
H
E
AG
E
N
C
I
E
S
,
R
E
G
U
L
A
T
O
R
Y
B
O
A
R
D
S
O
R
P
U
B
L
I
C
C
O
R
P
O
R
A
T
I
O
N
S
W
I
T
H
JU
R
I
S
D
I
C
T
I
O
N
S
.
I
A
C
K
N
O
W
L
E
D
G
E
T
H
A
T
A
N
Y
F
A
L
S
E
D
E
C
L
A
R
A
T
I
O
N
O
R
FA
L
S
I
F
I
C
A
T
I
O
N
O
F
T
H
E
F
A
C
T
S
T
H
A
T
H
A
V
E
B
E
E
N
P
R
O
D
U
C
E
D
W
I
T
H
O
U
T
KN
O
W
L
E
D
G
E
O
R
B
Y
N
E
G
L
I
G
E
N
C
E
,
E
I
T
H
E
R
B
Y
M
E
,
M
Y
A
G
E
N
T
S
O
R
EM
P
L
O
Y
E
E
S
,
O
R
B
Y
O
T
H
E
R
P
E
R
S
O
N
S
W
I
T
H
M
Y
K
N
O
W
L
E
D
G
E
,
M
A
K
E
M
E
RE
S
P
O
N
S
I
B
L
E
F
O
R
A
N
Y
D
I
S
C
L
A
I
M
E
R
O
T
H
E
R
C
O
M
P
E
T
E
N
T
A
U
T
H
O
R
I
T
I
E
S
,
IN
C
L
U
D
I
N
G
,
B
U
T
N
O
T
L
I
M
I
T
E
D
T
O
,
T
H
E
T
E
R
M
I
N
A
T
I
O
N
O
F
P
A
R
T
I
C
I
P
A
T
I
O
N
I
N
T
H
E
PR
O
F
E
S
S
I
O
N
A
L
C
E
R
T
I
F
I
C
A
T
I
O
N
P
R
O
C
E
D
U
R
E
S
I
N
T
H
E
C
A
B
G
U
I
D
E
L
I
N
E
S
.
AD
D
R
E
S
S
:
2
5
6
A
L
D
E
R
G
A
T
E
S
T
.
PH
O
N
E
:
3
2
3
.
6
7
8
.
1
4
6
3
EM
A
I
L
:
N
I
D
A
L
@
H
A
M
I
D
A
-
A
R
C
H
I
T
E
C
T
S
.
C
O
M
2/23/2026 4:24:04 PM
Project Number
A1.1
EN
L
A
R
G
E
D
L
O
T
P
L
A
N
S
-
LO
T
S
1
,
2
,
3
,
4
1/32" = 1'-0"1LOT 1
1/32" = 1'-0"2LOT 2
1/32" = 1'-0"4LOT 4
1/32" = 1'-0"3LOT 3
LOT 3LOT 2LOT 13LOT 12LOT 11LOT 10LOT 7LOT 6LOT 9LOT 8LOT 4LOT 1LOT 5LOT ALOT 15PHASE 1CLOT 16PHASE 2LOT 17PHASE 3LOT 18PHASE 4PHASE 1BLOT 14PHASE 1ABLDG5BLDG6BLDG8BLDG1BLDG2BLDG3BLDG4DWYDWYDWYDWYDWYDWYDWYBLDG7AMBLESIDE PLACE20' PAVED ROADAND 5' SHOULDER20' PAVED ROADAND 5' SHOULDER20' PAVED ROADAND 5' SHOULDER20' PAVED ROADAND 5' SHOULDER30'30'30'30'42'32'10'100'76'24'100'24'10'EXISTING SITE GRADING PERMASS GRADING PLAN-GP1458EX. SEWERPROTECT IN PLACEBASIN CTEMP. INFILTRATIONBASINEX. PORK CHOPTO BE REMOVEDEXIST. R/WEXIST. R/WPROP. R/WJOIN EXIST.SLOT IN BERMFLWATER SURFACE(WS) ELEV.WATER SURFACE(WS) ELEV.12" STORMDRAINHYDRODYNAMICSEPARATORBASIN BU.G. INFILTRATION BASINPROP.12" S.D.PROP.12" S.D.JOIN EXIST.LIMIT OFCONSTRUCTIONLIMIT OFCONSTRUCTIONLIMIT OFCONSTRUCTIONLIMIT OFCONSTRUCTIONLIMIT OFCONSTRUCTIONPARCEL BDRYPARCEL BDRYPROPOSEDPARCEL BDRYPARCEL BDRYSEE NOTES 1 & 2LIMIT OFCONSTRUCTIONFENCE PERSEPERATE PLANSPROP. INFILTRATIONBASINEX. 10' TO 12'AC PAVED ROADEX. 10' TO 12'AC PAVED ROADEX. 12"W(CVWD OWNED)EX. 16"W(CVWD OWNED)EX. 12"W(CVWD OWNED)EX. 16"W(CVWD OWNED)CONNECT TOEXISTING 12"WPROPOSED 8"WATERLINEPROPOSED 8"WATERLINE1" WM1" WM1" WM1" WM1" WMPROP. 1"WPROP. 1,500 GALSEPTIC TANK ANDLEACH FIELDPROP. 1,500 GALSEPTIC TANK ANDLEACH FIELDPROP. 1,500 GALSEPTIC TANK ANDLEACH FIELDPROP. 1,500 GALSEPTIC TANK ANDLEACH FIELDFIREHYDRANTEX. 60'EASEMENTEX. 40'EASEMENTEX. 12"W(CVWD OWNED)EX. 16"W(CVWD OWNED)EX. ±20'AC PAVED ROADEX. ±28'AC PAVED ROADEX. GATE (NOPUBLIC ACCESS)EX. ±28'AC PAVED ROADPROP. 50' DEDICATION ROADWAY(SHARE ACCESS AGREEMENT REQUIRED)PROP. 50' DEDICATIONTO CITY OFRANCHO CUCAMONGAFIREHYDRANTR=25'R=25'R=28'(TYP.)R=28'(TYP.)PARCEL 2PARCEL MAP NO. 8086P.M.B. 84/63-64PARCEL MAP NO. 14282P.M.B. 176/38-39PARCEL MAP NO. 13742P.M.B. 161/23-24PARCEL 2PARCEL 1PARCEL MAP NO. 16382P.M.B. 211/93-95TRACT MAP NO. 12666-3M.B. 220/43-45TRACT MAP NO. 18218M.B. 319/81-892.32 ACRES(101,216 SF)0.83 ACRES(35,949 SF)PARCEL MAP 17603PARCEL 9NOT-A-PART1.67 ACRES(72,868 SF)3.33 ACRES(145,422 SF)1.10 ACRES(47,917 SF)0.55 ACRES(23,813 SF)0.69 ACRES(30,315 SF)0.61 ACRES(26,378 SF)1.00 ACRES(43,696 SF)0.59 ACRES(25,889 SF)0.89 ACRES(38,928 SF)0.69 ACRES(30,189 SF)3.47 ACRES(151,129 SF)0.04 ACRES(1,640 SF)2.21 ACRES(96,337 SF)3.19 ACRES(138,882 SF)4.18 ACRES(181,824 SF)1.50 ACRES(65,496 SF)5.92 ACRES(258,046 SF)R/W VACATIONBY CITY9-FT R/W DEDICATIONBY SEPERATE INSTRUMENT70' WIDE EASEMENT TO CALIFORNIA ELECTRICPOWER COMPANY FOR ELECTRIC TRANSMISSIONAND DISTRIBUTION LINES AND INCIDENTALPURPOSES PER BOOK 4128, PAGE 146, O.R.70' WIDE EASEMENT TO CALIFORNIA ELECTRICPOWER COMPANY FOR ELECTRIC TRANSMISSIONAND DISTRIBUTION LINES AND INCIDENTALPURPOSES PER BOOK 4128, PAGE 146, O.REX.30' DRAINAGE EASEMENTDEDICATED HEREON TOTHE CITY OF VICTORVILLE(TO REMAIN)EX. 30' DRAINAGE EASEMENTDEDICATED HEREON TOTHE CITY OF VICTORVILLE(TO REMAIN)EX. 30' DRAINAGE EASEMENTDEDICATED HEREON TOTHE CITY OF VICTORVILLE(TO REMAIN)EX. 30' DRAINAGE EASEMENTDEDICATED HEREON TOTHE CITY OF VICTORVILLE(TO REMAIN)150.0'58.0'24.0'68.0'150.0'58.0'24.0'68.0'32.0'10.0'40.0'82.0'32.0'10.0'32.0'74.0'32.0'10.0'32.0'84.0'10.0'32.0'10.0'32.0'84.0'30.0'35.0'30.0'35.0'30.0'30.0'150.0'58.0'24.0'68.0'150.0'58.0'24.0'68.0'32.0'10.0'40.0'82.0'32.0'10.0'32.0'74.0'32.0'10.0'32.0'84.0'10.0'32.0'10.0'32.0'84.0'30.0'35.0'30.0'35.0'30.0'30.0'60'60'10'10'10'10'10'10'10'10'10'10'10'42'42'10'16'16'16'16'16'16'16'16'40'40'40'40'40'40'40'40'40'40'40'40'40'40'40'40'40'40'40'40'40'40'BEAR VALLEY ROAD3RD AVENUE50'50'50'33523PPPPPP77554433PPPPPP338832999993356310666510636551010734563111141313131312121212N62°53'18"E68.86'42.10'26.76'Δ=64°26'20"R=25.00'L=28.12'T=14.06'136.68'507.74'153.17'94.13'123.45'301.44'75.72'119.67'314.91'917.90'225.74'53.85'88.40'119.95'103.02'33.00'133.04'187.61'78.06'131.78'158.95'28.11'33.00'97.14'S88°28'01"W56.01'N01°31'59"W35.41'N01°42'36"W 25.67'N01°31'27"W89.87'N88°28'37"E21.04'160.34'270.43'249.06'676.89'310.27'N01°44'15"W30.18'N88°16'03"E29.83'S42°39'55"W100.03'186.63'N64°57'14"E31.32'N86°53'16"E11.66'N62°53'18"E68.86'42.10'26.76'Δ=64°26'20"R=25.00'L=28.12'T=14.06'136.68'507.74'153.17'94.13'123.45'301.44'75.72'119.67'314.91'917.90'225.74'53.85'88.40'119.95'103.02'33.00'133.04'187.61'78.06'131.78'158.95'28.11'33.00'97.14'S88°28'01"W56.01'N01°31'59"W35.41'N01°42'36"W 25.67'N01°31'27"W89.87'N88°28'37"E21.04'160.34'270.43'249.06'676.89'310.27'N01°44'15"W30.18'N88°16'03"E29.83'S42°39'55"W100.03'186.63'N64°57'14"E31.32'N86°53'16"E11.66'S00°52'13"E 82.15'SETBACKSETBACKSETBACKSETBACKSETBACKSETBACKSETBACKSETBACKN89°01'51"E39.91'S00°58'10"E 193.16'N89°07'41"E 171.60'N00°52'19"W 116.56'N00°54'29"W 127.49'S89°06'38"W 139.84'N89°08'06"E 155.10'N44°09'20"E 56.98'N00°40'00"W 129.68'S00°40'00"E 275.23'N00°38'22"W 445.23'N89°07'41"E 83.96'N59°07'40"E 106.84'N00°54'29"W42.51'N89°07'41"E21.59'S89°06'38"W 152.58'572.54'572.54'SETBACKSETBACKSETBACKSETBACKSETBACKSETBACKSETBACKSETBACKSETBACKSETBACKSETBACKSETBACKSETBACKSETBACKSETBACKSETBACKSETBACKSETBACKSETBACKSETBACKSETBACKPRIVATE ROAD WAY
LOT 5
2 ACRES
87,120 SF
FI
R
E
B
U
F
F
E
R
20
0
.
0
0
f
t
.5 ACRE HOMESITE
LOCATION OF SFD
40.00 ft 70.00 ft 40.00 ft
15
0
.
0
0
f
t
40
.
0
0
f
t
67
.
5
8
f
t
42
.
4
2
f
t
100' FAULT ZONE
FAULT LINE PER USGS
150.00 ft
PROJECT # :
D
R
A
W
I
N
G
T
I
T
L
E
:
DE
C
L
I
F
F
D
R
.
RA
N
C
H
O
C
U
C
A
M
O
N
G
A
91
7
5
9
S C A L E
NOTE: THIS DRAWING IS 24"X36". DO NOT SCALE
DRAWINGS. USE FIGURED DIMENSIONS ONLY, OR SEEK
CLARIFICATION FROM ARCHITECT FOR MEASUREMENTS
THAT ARE NOT INDICATED.
D A T E I S S U E
I,
N
I
D
A
L
H
A
M
I
D
A
,
L
I
C
#
3
7
9
6
9
,
C
E
R
T
I
F
Y
T
H
A
T
I
A
M
T
H
E
P
R
O
F
E
S
S
I
O
N
A
L
W
H
O
DE
S
I
G
N
E
D
T
H
E
S
E
P
L
A
N
S
A
N
D
T
H
E
C
O
M
P
L
E
M
E
N
T
A
R
Y
S
P
E
C
I
F
I
C
A
T
I
O
N
S
.
I
A
L
SO
CE
R
T
I
F
Y
T
H
A
T
I
U
N
D
E
R
S
T
A
N
D
T
H
A
T
S
U
C
H
P
L
A
N
S
A
N
D
S
P
E
C
I
F
I
C
A
T
I
O
N
S
CO
M
P
L
Y
W
I
T
H
T
H
E
A
P
P
L
I
C
A
B
L
E
P
R
O
V
I
S
I
O
N
S
O
F
T
H
E
J
O
I
N
T
R
E
G
U
L
A
T
I
O
N
A
ND
AP
P
L
I
C
A
B
L
E
P
R
O
V
I
S
I
O
N
S
O
F
T
H
E
R
E
G
U
L
A
T
I
O
N
S
A
N
D
C
O
D
E
S
O
F
T
H
E
AG
E
N
C
I
E
S
,
R
E
G
U
L
A
T
O
R
Y
B
O
A
R
D
S
O
R
P
U
B
L
I
C
C
O
R
P
O
R
A
T
I
O
N
S
W
I
T
H
JU
R
I
S
D
I
C
T
I
O
N
S
.
I
A
C
K
N
O
W
L
E
D
G
E
T
H
A
T
A
N
Y
F
A
L
S
E
D
E
C
L
A
R
A
T
I
O
N
O
R
FA
L
S
I
F
I
C
A
T
I
O
N
O
F
T
H
E
F
A
C
T
S
T
H
A
T
H
A
V
E
B
E
E
N
P
R
O
D
U
C
E
D
W
I
T
H
O
U
T
KN
O
W
L
E
D
G
E
O
R
B
Y
N
E
G
L
I
G
E
N
C
E
,
E
I
T
H
E
R
B
Y
M
E
,
M
Y
A
G
E
N
T
S
O
R
EM
P
L
O
Y
E
E
S
,
O
R
B
Y
O
T
H
E
R
P
E
R
S
O
N
S
W
I
T
H
M
Y
K
N
O
W
L
E
D
G
E
,
M
A
K
E
M
E
RE
S
P
O
N
S
I
B
L
E
F
O
R
A
N
Y
D
I
S
C
L
A
I
M
E
R
O
T
H
E
R
C
O
M
P
E
T
E
N
T
A
U
T
H
O
R
I
T
I
E
S
,
IN
C
L
U
D
I
N
G
,
B
U
T
N
O
T
L
I
M
I
T
E
D
T
O
,
T
H
E
T
E
R
M
I
N
A
T
I
O
N
O
F
P
A
R
T
I
C
I
P
A
T
I
O
N
I
N
T
H
E
PR
O
F
E
S
S
I
O
N
A
L
C
E
R
T
I
F
I
C
A
T
I
O
N
P
R
O
C
E
D
U
R
E
S
I
N
T
H
E
C
A
B
G
U
I
D
E
L
I
N
E
S
.
AD
D
R
E
S
S
:
2
5
6
A
L
D
E
R
G
A
T
E
S
T
.
PH
O
N
E
:
3
2
3
.
6
7
8
.
1
4
6
3
EM
A
I
L
:
N
I
D
A
L
@
H
A
M
I
D
A
-
A
R
C
H
I
T
E
C
T
S
.
C
O
M
2/23/2026 4:24:05 PM
Project Number
A1.2
EN
L
A
R
G
E
D
L
O
T
P
L
A
N
-
L
O
T
5
1/32" = 1'-0"1LOT 5
LOT 3LOT 2LOT 13LOT 12LOT 11LOT 10LOT 7LOT 6LOT 9LOT 8LOT 4LOT 1LOT 5LOT ALOT 15PHASE 1CLOT 16PHASE 2LOT 17PHASE 3LOT 18PHASE 4PHASE 1BLOT 14PHASE 1ABLDG5BLDG6BLDG8BLDG1BLDG2BLDG3BLDG4DWYDWYDWYDWYDWYDWYDWYBLDG7AMBLESIDE PLACE20' PAVED ROADAND 5' SHOULDER20' PAVED ROADAND 5' SHOULDER20' PAVED ROADAND 5' SHOULDER20' PAVED ROADAND 5' SHOULDER30'30'30'30'42'32'10'100'76'24'100'24'10'EXISTING SITE GRADING PERMASS GRADING PLAN-GP1458EX. SEWERPROTECT IN PLACEBASIN CTEMP. INFILTRATIONBASINEX. PORK CHOPTO BE REMOVEDEXIST. R/WEXIST. R/WPROP. R/WJOIN EXIST.SLOT IN BERMFLWATER SURFACE(WS) ELEV.WATER SURFACE(WS) ELEV.12" STORMDRAINHYDRODYNAMICSEPARATORBASIN BU.G. INFILTRATION BASINPROP.12" S.D.PROP.12" S.D.JOIN EXIST.LIMIT OFCONSTRUCTIONLIMIT OFCONSTRUCTIONLIMIT OFCONSTRUCTIONLIMIT OFCONSTRUCTIONLIMIT OFCONSTRUCTIONPARCEL BDRYPARCEL BDRYPROPOSEDPARCEL BDRYPARCEL BDRYSEE NOTES 1 & 2LIMIT OFCONSTRUCTIONFENCE PERSEPERATE PLANSPROP. INFILTRATIONBASINEX. 10' TO 12'AC PAVED ROADEX. 10' TO 12'AC PAVED ROADEX. 12"W(CVWD OWNED)EX. 16"W(CVWD OWNED)EX. 12"W(CVWD OWNED)EX. 16"W(CVWD OWNED)CONNECT TOEXISTING 12"WPROPOSED 8"WATERLINEPROPOSED 8"WATERLINE1" WM1" WM1" WM1" WM1" WMPROP. 1"WPROP. 1,500 GALSEPTIC TANK ANDLEACH FIELDPROP. 1,500 GALSEPTIC TANK ANDLEACH FIELDPROP. 1,500 GALSEPTIC TANK ANDLEACH FIELDPROP. 1,500 GALSEPTIC TANK ANDLEACH FIELDFIREHYDRANTEX. 60'EASEMENTEX. 40'EASEMENTEX. 12"W(CVWD OWNED)EX. 16"W(CVWD OWNED)EX. ±20'AC PAVED ROADEX. ±28'AC PAVED ROADEX. GATE (NOPUBLIC ACCESS)EX. ±28'AC PAVED ROADPROP. 50' DEDICATION ROADWAY(SHARE ACCESS AGREEMENT REQUIRED)PROP. 50' DEDICATIONTO CITY OFRANCHO CUCAMONGAFIREHYDRANTR=25'R=25'R=28'(TYP.)R=28'(TYP.)PARCEL 2PARCEL MAP NO. 8086P.M.B. 84/63-64PARCEL MAP NO. 14282P.M.B. 176/38-39PARCEL MAP NO. 13742P.M.B. 161/23-24PARCEL 2PARCEL 1PARCEL MAP NO. 16382P.M.B. 211/93-95TRACT MAP NO. 12666-3M.B. 220/43-45TRACT MAP NO. 18218M.B. 319/81-892.32 ACRES(101,216 SF)0.83 ACRES(35,949 SF)PARCEL MAP 17603PARCEL 9NOT-A-PART1.67 ACRES(72,868 SF)3.33 ACRES(145,422 SF)1.10 ACRES(47,917 SF)0.55 ACRES(23,813 SF)0.69 ACRES(30,315 SF)0.61 ACRES(26,378 SF)1.00 ACRES(43,696 SF)0.59 ACRES(25,889 SF)0.89 ACRES(38,928 SF)0.69 ACRES(30,189 SF)3.47 ACRES(151,129 SF)0.04 ACRES(1,640 SF)2.21 ACRES(96,337 SF)3.19 ACRES(138,882 SF)4.18 ACRES(181,824 SF)1.50 ACRES(65,496 SF)5.92 ACRES(258,046 SF)R/W VACATIONBY CITY9-FT R/W DEDICATIONBY SEPERATE INSTRUMENT70' WIDE EASEMENT TO CALIFORNIA ELECTRICPOWER COMPANY FOR ELECTRIC TRANSMISSIONAND DISTRIBUTION LINES AND INCIDENTALPURPOSES PER BOOK 4128, PAGE 146, O.R.70' WIDE EASEMENT TO CALIFORNIA ELECTRICPOWER COMPANY FOR ELECTRIC TRANSMISSIONAND DISTRIBUTION LINES AND INCIDENTALPURPOSES PER BOOK 4128, PAGE 146, O.REX.30' DRAINAGE EASEMENTDEDICATED HEREON TOTHE CITY OF VICTORVILLE(TO REMAIN)EX. 30' DRAINAGE EASEMENTDEDICATED HEREON TOTHE CITY OF VICTORVILLE(TO REMAIN)EX. 30' DRAINAGE EASEMENTDEDICATED HEREON TOTHE CITY OF VICTORVILLE(TO REMAIN)EX. 30' DRAINAGE EASEMENTDEDICATED HEREON TOTHE CITY OF VICTORVILLE(TO REMAIN)150.0'58.0'24.0'68.0'150.0'58.0'24.0'68.0'32.0'10.0'40.0'82.0'32.0'10.0'32.0'74.0'32.0'10.0'32.0'84.0'10.0'32.0'10.0'32.0'84.0'30.0'35.0'30.0'35.0'30.0'30.0'150.0'58.0'24.0'68.0'150.0'58.0'24.0'68.0'32.0'10.0'40.0'82.0'32.0'10.0'32.0'74.0'32.0'10.0'32.0'84.0'10.0'32.0'10.0'32.0'84.0'30.0'35.0'30.0'35.0'30.0'30.0'60'60'10'10'10'10'10'10'10'10'10'10'10'42'42'10'16'16'16'16'16'16'16'16'40'40'40'40'40'40'40'40'40'40'40'40'40'40'40'40'40'40'40'40'40'40'BEAR VALLEY ROAD3RD AVENUE50'50'50'33523PPPPPP77554433PPPPPP338832999993356310666510636551010734563111141313131312121212N62°53'18"E68.86'42.10'26.76'Δ=64°26'20"R=25.00'L=28.12'T=14.06'136.68'507.74'153.17'94.13'123.45'301.44'75.72'119.67'314.91'917.90'225.74'53.85'88.40'119.95'103.02'33.00'133.04'187.61'78.06'131.78'158.95'28.11'33.00'97.14'S88°28'01"W56.01'N01°31'59"W35.41'N01°42'36"W 25.67'N01°31'27"W89.87'N88°28'37"E21.04'160.34'270.43'249.06'676.89'310.27'N01°44'15"W30.18'N88°16'03"E29.83'S42°39'55"W100.03'186.63'N64°57'14"E31.32'N86°53'16"E11.66'N62°53'18"E68.86'42.10'26.76'Δ=64°26'20"R=25.00'L=28.12'T=14.06'136.68'507.74'153.17'94.13'123.45'301.44'75.72'119.67'314.91'917.90'225.74'53.85'88.40'119.95'103.02'33.00'133.04'187.61'78.06'131.78'158.95'28.11'33.00'97.14'S88°28'01"W56.01'N01°31'59"W35.41'N01°42'36"W 25.67'N01°31'27"W89.87'N88°28'37"E21.04'160.34'270.43'249.06'676.89'310.27'N01°44'15"W30.18'N88°16'03"E29.83'S42°39'55"W100.03'186.63'N64°57'14"E31.32'N86°53'16"E11.66'S00°52'13"E 82.15'SETBACKSETBACKSETBACKSETBACKSETBACKSETBACKSETBACKSETBACKN89°01'51"E39.91'S00°58'10"E 193.16'N89°07'41"E 171.60'N00°52'19"W 116.56'N00°54'29"W 127.49'S89°06'38"W 139.84'N89°08'06"E 155.10'N44°09'20"E 56.98'N00°40'00"W 129.68'S00°40'00"E 275.23'N00°38'22"W 445.23'N89°07'41"E 83.96'N59°07'40"E 106.84'N00°54'29"W42.51'N89°07'41"E21.59'S89°06'38"W 152.58'572.54'572.54'SETBACKSETBACKSETBACKSETBACKSETBACKSETBACKSETBACKSETBACKSETBACKSETBACKSETBACKSETBACKSETBACKSETBACKSETBACKSETBACKSETBACKSETBACKSETBACKSETBACKSETBACKPRIVATE ROAD WAY
LOT 3
LOT 1
LOT 4
LOT 2
LOT 5
HOMESITE SITE WALLS
LOT 3
HOMESITE SITE WALLS
LOT 5
HOMESITE SITE WALLS
LOT 1
HOMESITE SITE WALLS
LOT 4
HOMESITE SITE WALLS
LOT 2
PROJECT # :
D
R
A
W
I
N
G
T
I
T
L
E
:
DE
C
L
I
F
F
D
R
.
RA
N
C
H
O
C
U
C
A
M
O
N
G
A
91
7
5
9
S C A L E
NOTE: THIS DRAWING IS 24"X36". DO NOT SCALE
DRAWINGS. USE FIGURED DIMENSIONS ONLY, OR SEEK
CLARIFICATION FROM ARCHITECT FOR MEASUREMENTS
THAT ARE NOT INDICATED.
D A T E I S S U E
I,
N
I
D
A
L
H
A
M
I
D
A
,
L
I
C
#
3
7
9
6
9
,
C
E
R
T
I
F
Y
T
H
A
T
I
A
M
T
H
E
P
R
O
F
E
S
S
I
O
N
A
L
W
H
O
DE
S
I
G
N
E
D
T
H
E
S
E
P
L
A
N
S
A
N
D
T
H
E
C
O
M
P
L
E
M
E
N
T
A
R
Y
S
P
E
C
I
F
I
C
A
T
I
O
N
S
.
I
A
L
SO
CE
R
T
I
F
Y
T
H
A
T
I
U
N
D
E
R
S
T
A
N
D
T
H
A
T
S
U
C
H
P
L
A
N
S
A
N
D
S
P
E
C
I
F
I
C
A
T
I
O
N
S
CO
M
P
L
Y
W
I
T
H
T
H
E
A
P
P
L
I
C
A
B
L
E
P
R
O
V
I
S
I
O
N
S
O
F
T
H
E
J
O
I
N
T
R
E
G
U
L
A
T
I
O
N
A
ND
AP
P
L
I
C
A
B
L
E
P
R
O
V
I
S
I
O
N
S
O
F
T
H
E
R
E
G
U
L
A
T
I
O
N
S
A
N
D
C
O
D
E
S
O
F
T
H
E
AG
E
N
C
I
E
S
,
R
E
G
U
L
A
T
O
R
Y
B
O
A
R
D
S
O
R
P
U
B
L
I
C
C
O
R
P
O
R
A
T
I
O
N
S
W
I
T
H
JU
R
I
S
D
I
C
T
I
O
N
S
.
I
A
C
K
N
O
W
L
E
D
G
E
T
H
A
T
A
N
Y
F
A
L
S
E
D
E
C
L
A
R
A
T
I
O
N
O
R
FA
L
S
I
F
I
C
A
T
I
O
N
O
F
T
H
E
F
A
C
T
S
T
H
A
T
H
A
V
E
B
E
E
N
P
R
O
D
U
C
E
D
W
I
T
H
O
U
T
KN
O
W
L
E
D
G
E
O
R
B
Y
N
E
G
L
I
G
E
N
C
E
,
E
I
T
H
E
R
B
Y
M
E
,
M
Y
A
G
E
N
T
S
O
R
EM
P
L
O
Y
E
E
S
,
O
R
B
Y
O
T
H
E
R
P
E
R
S
O
N
S
W
I
T
H
M
Y
K
N
O
W
L
E
D
G
E
,
M
A
K
E
M
E
RE
S
P
O
N
S
I
B
L
E
F
O
R
A
N
Y
D
I
S
C
L
A
I
M
E
R
O
T
H
E
R
C
O
M
P
E
T
E
N
T
A
U
T
H
O
R
I
T
I
E
S
,
IN
C
L
U
D
I
N
G
,
B
U
T
N
O
T
L
I
M
I
T
E
D
T
O
,
T
H
E
T
E
R
M
I
N
A
T
I
O
N
O
F
P
A
R
T
I
C
I
P
A
T
I
O
N
I
N
T
H
E
PR
O
F
E
S
S
I
O
N
A
L
C
E
R
T
I
F
I
C
A
T
I
O
N
P
R
O
C
E
D
U
R
E
S
I
N
T
H
E
C
A
B
G
U
I
D
E
L
I
N
E
S
.
AD
D
R
E
S
S
:
2
5
6
A
L
D
E
R
G
A
T
E
S
T
.
PH
O
N
E
:
3
2
3
.
6
7
8
.
1
4
6
3
EM
A
I
L
:
N
I
D
A
L
@
H
A
M
I
D
A
-
A
R
C
H
I
T
E
C
T
S
.
C
O
M
2/23/2026 4:24:06 PM
Project Number
A2
LI
G
H
T
I
N
G
&
F
E
N
C
E
S
P
E
C
S
All exterior lighting shall be designed so that all site and building-mounted luminaires produce
a maximum initial illuminance value no greater than 0.01 horizontal and vertical footcandles
(0.1 horizontal and vertical lux) at the boundary of the Homesite and beyond. Document that
0% of the total initial designed fixture lumens (sum total of all fixtures on site) are emitted at
an angle of 90 degrees or higher from nadir (straight down). Street light fixtures shall be
limited to intersections and shall be International Dark-Sky Association (IDA) approved Dark
Sky Friendly Fixtures.
A. Street and Open Space Lighting Streets and other public spaces throughout the Plan area
must be carefully scaled and detailed for the safety and comfort of pedestrians. For Etiwanda
Heights, very simple, light-scale, modern fixtures with high efficiency LED sources
and down-directed “dark sky” cutoff distribution patterns are appropriate.
1. On major streets, existing cobra-head lights will remain, with new lights illustrated here
located between them at approximately 60 feet on center. This is about twice the tree
spacing, located at the midpoints between trees.
2. On neighborhood streets, lights should be located mid-point between every fourth tree (120
feet), staggered in such a way that there is one light every 60 linear feet of street,alternatively
on one side or the other, not both.
3. Along streets fronting a park or greenway, single-headlights must be located along the built
edge of the street at about 90’ on center (at about every third tree), unless specified
otherwise.
4. Any lights in park areas should be integral to the park
design.
1LIGHTING NOTES
NO SCALE
2SITE WALL NOTES
NO SCALE
1. Materials
a. General. All site walls should use materials that complement the architectural character of the
adjacent building.
b. Primary Materials. Garden walls and retaining walls exposed to public view, should be made of
or clad in smooth plaster (with or without decorative tile or terra cotta elements),
fine concrete block, brick, stone (which may be mounted in Gabions), or weathering steel
compatible with the design of the Primary Building. Fences and trellises should be made
of finished wood, steel, or wrought iron.
c. Discouraged Wall Materials. Materials to avoid include simulated finishes (such as artificial
stone), plywood siding, EIFS (Exterior Insulation & Finish System) and split-flace
block.
d. Reflective Materials. Reflective materials, such as mirrored glass, shiny metal, and chrome,
should only be used if they are applied to small areas, and do not cause a nuisance to automobile
traffic, pedestrians, and neighboring buildings.
e. Organic Materials. Green wall installations planted with Sedums may be used where
appropriate.
2. Configurations
f. Garden Walls. Garden walls should be no less than 6 inches wide and capped. The cap on
walls related to traditional building styles should overlap the wall below – caps for modern
buildings need not. Caps can be the same width as the wall when they are the
same material as the supporting wall.
g. Fences. Wood fences and gates on within Primary and Secondary Setbacks should be
made of vertical pickets or lattice with no more than 3-inch gaps in between. Wrought iron
fences and gates for traditional styles should be made of true wrought iron, steel bar or tube
faithfully simulating true wrought iron, with bars with no less than a 4 inch space between.
Wood fences and gates are not recommended on frontages in the Shops & Restaurants Zone.
h. Front Yard Wall Height. Fences and Garden walls within Primary and Secondary Setback
areas should be between 30 and 36 inches in height.
i. Wall Setbacks. Fences built parallel to the Primary Lot Line between the houses or other
structures should be set back an additional 2 to 5 feet behind the Façade line of the house,
except walls that are an integral part of the architecture of the house. In such case the wall
may be flush with the Façade, or set back any dimension from it as deemed appropriate.
j. Retaining Walls. Retaining walls within the Primary Setback area – and to the line of the
side yard enclosing fence or wall – should be made of or clad in materials as specified in
these Guidelines. Retaining walls behind the fence line and substantially obscured from
views from the public way may be relieved of this requirement by the Design Committee
Review.
k. Service Screen Walls. Trash receptacles should be screened from public view by opaque
walls or fences meeting the requirements of this Plan.
l. Parking Walls. Parking areas should be screened with walls up to 48 inches, where
appropriate.
3. Methods
m. Brick and Cut Stone Patterns. Brick, concrete block, and cut stone should be laid in true
bonding pattern for traditional styles, and may be laid in stack bond for modern styles.
n. Mortar Joints. Brick, concrete block, and cut stone mortar joints should be struck.
o. Rubble Stone. Rubble Stone should be laid in a natural, horizontal direction in horizontal
courses with smooth or beaded mortar joints
p. Wood Siding. Walls clad in wood or cement fiber board siding should be stained or painted
with colors approved by the Design Review process.
q. Wood Siding Patterns. Clapboard should not exceed 6 inches to the weather. Shingles
should not exceed 8 inches to the weather. Dropsiding should not exceed 12 inches and
4 inches, alternately.
1" = 160'-0"1ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN - SITE WALL
3LIGHTING SPECS
NO SCALE
4SITE WALL SPECS
NO SCALE
LOT 3
LOT 1
LOT 4
LOT 2
2 ACRES
87,120 SF
UTILITY CORRIDOR
100' FAULT ZONE
FAULT LINE PER USGS
15.00 ft
20.00 ft
306.30
50.00 ft
306.55
15.00 ft
DECLIFF DRIVE
2 ACRES
87,120 SF
2 ACRES
87,120 SF 2 ACRES
87,120 SF
.5 ACRE HOMESITE
5.2 ACRES
227,660 SF
LOT 5
RESIDENCERESIDENCE
RESIDENCE
RESIDENCERESIDENCE
ZONE 0
ZONE 0
ZONE 0
ZONE 1
0-5' NON-COMBUSTABLE
0-5' NON-COMBUSTABLE
0-5' NON-COMBUSTABLE
ZONE 0
0-5' NON-COMBUSTABLE
ZONE 00-5' NON-COMBUSTABLE
5'-30' OPTION 1- LANDSCAPED
30' TYP
5' TYP
ZONE 15'-30' OPTION 1- LANDSCAPEDZONE 15'-30' OPTION 1- LANDSCAPED
ZONE 1
5'-30' OPTION 1- LANDSCAPED
ZONE 15'-30' OPTION 1- LANDSCAPED
.5 ACRE HOME SITE
.5 ACRE HOME SITE
.5 ACRE HOME SITE
.5 ACRE HOME SITE
.5 ACRE HOME SITE
ZONE 2
31'- 100' OPTION 1- LANDSCAPED
ZONE 2
31'- 100' OPTION 1- LANDSCAPED
ZONE 2
31'- 100' OPTION 1- LANDSCAPED
100' TYP
5
7
812
3
4 6
PHOTO LEGEND
ROADWAY ACCESS
30' CLEAR OF
VEGETATION
30' TYP
RO
A
D
W
A
Y
RO
A
D
W
A
Y
31'- 100' OPTION 1- LANDSCAPED
EASEMENT ON LOT 3
ZONE 2
SC
A
L
E
:
1
"
=
5
0
'
OLWYN KINGERY
FU
E
L
M
O
D
L1
DATE:
REVISIONS:
PRINT DATE:
5/12/25
DE
C
L
I
F
F
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
I
E
S
L
L
C
DE
C
L
I
F
F
D
R
I
V
E
R
A
N
C
H
O
C
U
C
A
M
O
N
G
A
,
C
A
.
9
1
7
3
9
DECLIFF PROP. LLC
L1 FUEL MODIFICATION
DRAWINGS, REPORTS AND OTHER WORK PRODUCT OF OLWYN KINGERY ARE
INSTRUMENTS OF SERVICE AND REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF THE DESIGNER.
ANY AND ALL INFORMATION CONTAINED WITHIN THESE DOCUMENTS ARE
INTENDED FOR THE USE OF OUR CLIENT ONLY FOR THE BENEFIT OF A
SPECIFIC PROJECT AND SHALL NOT BE USED FOR OTHER PROJECTS. PLANS
REPORTS AND OTHER INSTRUMENTS MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED COPIED, IN
PART OR IN WHOLE, WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE DESIGNER.
INFORMATION PROVIDED TO OTHERS IN ELECTRONIC FORMAT FOR ANY
REASON OR PURPOSE, DO NOT CONSTITUTE THE DELIVERY OF OUR
PROFESSIONAL WORK PRODUCT. WITHOUT PRIOR REVIEW AND WRITTEN
APPROVAL, THE DESIGNER SHALL NOT BE HELD RESPONSIBLE, IN ANY WAY,
FOR MODIFICATION OF THE DATA TRANSMITTED IN ELECTRONIC FORMAT.
NOTICEN
10/26
5/12/25
VICINITY MAP FUEL MODIFICATION NOTES
0 25 50 100
GRAPHIC SCALE
JA
M
E
S
C
H
E
S
T
E
R
M
A
N
A
G
I
N
G
M
E
M
B
E
R
EXISTING PLANT SPECIES
SCALE: 1'= 50'
OPTION 1 APPLIED
THESE NATIVE/ NON NATIVE PLANTS
SPECIES WERE OBSERVED ON THE SITE
DATED APRIL 3RD, 2025
TARGET SPECIES FOR REMOVAL
1. ERIOGONUM FASCICULATUM-
CALIFORNIA BUCKWHEAT
2. BROMUS RUBENS-
RED BROMEGRASS
3. CENTAUREA MELITENSIS
MALTESE STAR THISTLE
4. VARIOUS INVASIVE GRASS SPECIES
SPECIES TO BE REMOVED /THINNED PER
PLAN OR STANDARDS
5. ARTEMESIA CALIFORNICA-
CALIFORNIA SAGEBRUSH
6. ENCELIA FARINESA-
BRITTLEBUSH
7. ACMISPON GLABER VAR. GLABER
COMMON DEERWEED
8. HELIANTHUS PETIOLARIS-
PRAIRIE SUNFLOWER
3533 OLD CONEJO ROAD SUITE 113
NEWBURY PARK, CALIFORNIA 91319
EMAIL: OLWYNKINGERY@YAHOO.COM PHONE: 805.279.9119
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT
STREET A
ST
R
E
E
T
B
LOT B2.27 ACRES(99,022 SF)
ON USGS D
A
T
A
LOT 22.00 ACRES(87,120 SF)
LOT 53.31 ACRES(144,020SF)
LOT A2.30 ACRES(100,021 SF)
LOT D1.05 ACRES(45,618 SF)
LOT 12.00 ACRES(87,120 SF)
LOT 32.00 ACRES(87,120 SF)
LOT 42.00 ACRES(87,120 SF)
LOT E3.16 ACRES(137,697 SF)
LOT C0.76 ACRES(33,136 SF)
PROPOSED PLANT PALETTE
DATE:
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:
SCALE:
REVISION #1:
REVISION #2:
REVISION #3:
REVISION #4:
REVISION #5:
SHEET NUMBER:
SH
E
E
T
N
A
M
E
:
CL
I
E
N
T
N
A
M
E
:
PR
O
J
E
C
T
T
I
T
L
E
:
5716 CORSA AVE
SUITE 201
WESTLAKE VILLAGE,
CALIFORNIA, 91362
STAMP:
(T
T
M
2
0
6
5
3
)
DE
C
L
I
F
F
R
O
A
D
LINDSAY LEON
AN
I
S
A
S
H
A
R
I
F
De
c
l
i
f
f
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
L
L
C
KEVIN KOHAN
A-1.0
04-19-2024
SCALE
REVISION#1
REVISION#2
REVISION#3
REVISION#4
REVISION#5
RA
N
C
H
O
C
U
C
A
M
O
N
G
A
,
C
A
DE
C
L
I
F
F
R
E
S
I
D
E
N
T
I
A
L
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
PR
E
L
I
M
I
N
A
R
Y
F
U
E
L
MO
D
I
F
I
C
A
T
I
O
N
P
L
A
N
STREET A
ST
R
E
E
T
B
LOT B2.27 ACRES(99,022 SF)
ON USGS D
A
T
A
LOT 22.00 ACRES(87,120 SF)
LOT 53.31 ACRES(144,020SF)
LOT A2.30 ACRES(100,021 SF)
LOT D1.05 ACRES(45,618 SF)
LOT 12.00 ACRES(87,120 SF)
LOT 32.00 ACRES(87,120 SF)
LOT 42.00 ACRES(87,120 SF)
LOT E3.16 ACRES(137,697 SF)
LOT C0.76 ACRES(33,136 SF)
FUEL MODIFICATION PLAN NOTES:
DATE:
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:
SCALE:
REVISION #1:
REVISION #2:
REVISION #3:
REVISION #4:
REVISION #5:
SHEET NUMBER:
SH
E
E
T
N
A
M
E
:
CL
I
E
N
T
N
A
M
E
:
PR
O
J
E
C
T
T
I
T
L
E
:
5716 CORSA AVE
SUITE 201
WESTLAKE VILLAGE,
CALIFORNIA, 91362
STAMP:
PR
E
L
I
M
I
N
A
R
Y
F
U
E
L
(T
T
M
2
0
6
5
3
)
DE
C
L
I
F
F
R
O
A
D
LINDSAY LEON
AN
I
S
A
S
H
A
R
I
F
KEVIN KOHAN
A-1.1
04-19-2024
SCALE
REVISION#1
REVISION#2
REVISION#3
REVISION#4
REVISION#5
RA
N
C
H
O
C
U
C
A
M
O
N
G
A
,
C
A
DE
C
L
I
F
F
R
E
S
I
D
E
N
T
I
A
L
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
MO
D
I
F
I
C
A
T
I
O
N
P
L
A
N
De
c
l
i
f
f
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
L
L
C
NO
S
C
A
L
E
OLWYN KINGERY
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT
SI
T
E
C
O
N
D
.
L2
DATE:
REVISIONS:
PRINT DATE:
5/12/25
L2 SITE CONDITIONS
DRAWINGS, REPORTS AND OTHER WORK PRODUCT OF OLWYN KINGERY ARE
INSTRUMENTS OF SERVICE AND REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF THE DESIGNER.
ANY AND ALL INFORMATION CONTAINED WITHIN THESE DOCUMENTS ARE
INTENDED FOR THE USE OF OUR CLIENT ONLY FOR THE BENEFIT OF A
SPECIFIC PROJECT AND SHALL NOT BE USED FOR OTHER PROJECTS. PLANS
REPORTS AND OTHER INSTRUMENTS MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED COPIED, IN
PART OR IN WHOLE, WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE DESIGNER.
INFORMATION PROVIDED TO OTHERS IN ELECTRONIC FORMAT FOR ANY
REASON OR PURPOSE, DO NOT CONSTITUTE THE DELIVERY OF OUR
PROFESSIONAL WORK PRODUCT. WITHOUT PRIOR REVIEW AND WRITTEN
APPROVAL, THE DESIGNER SHALL NOT BE HELD RESPONSIBLE, IN ANY WAY,
FOR MODIFICATION OF THE DATA TRANSMITTED IN ELECTRONIC FORMAT.
NOTICE
1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8
SITE PHOTOS
EXISTING PLANT COMMUNITY PHOTOS
ARTEMESIA CALIFORNICA-
CALIFORNIA SAGEBRUSH
HELIANTHUS PETIOLARIS-
PRAIRIE SUNFLOWER
VARIETY OF INVASIVE
GRASS SPECIES
BROMUS RUBENS
RED BROMEGRASS
ERIOGONUM FASCICULATUM-
CALIFORNIA BUCKWHEAT
ENCELIA FARINESA-
BRITTLEBUSH
ACMISPON GLABER VAR. GLABER
COMMON DEERWEED
CENTAUREA MELITENSIS
MALTESE STAR THISTLE
TARGET SPECIES TO BE REMOVED
SPECIES TO BE REMOVED /THINNED PER PLAN OR STANDARDS
DE
C
L
I
F
F
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
I
E
S
L
L
C
DE
C
L
I
F
F
D
R
I
V
E
R
A
N
C
H
O
C
U
C
A
M
O
N
G
A
,
C
A
.
9
1
7
3
9
DECLIFF PROP. LLC
10/26
5/12/25
JA
M
E
S
C
H
E
S
T
E
R
M
A
N
A
G
I
N
G
M
E
M
B
E
R
3533 OLD CONEJO ROAD SUITE 113
NEWBURY PARK, CALIFORNIA 91319
EMAIL: OLWYNKINGERY@YAHOO.COM PHONE: 805.279.9119
LO
T
5
AP
N
-
0
2
2
6
0
6
1
6
8
AP
N
-
0
2
2
6
0
6
1
6
9
D E
C
L
I
F
F
D
R
I
V
E
VICINITY MAP
SI TE
DECLIFF DR
TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY
COVER
BOUNDARY NOTE
THE PLAT SHOWN HEREON REPRESENTS A
BEST FIT OF THE RECORD BOUNDARY TO THE
FOUND MONUMENTS AND LINES OF
OCCUPATION. IT SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED
THE FINAL BOUNDARY AND A BOUNDARY
SURVEY IS RECOMMENDED PRIOR TO DESIGN
OR CONSTRUCTION OF IMPROVEMENTS
ABBREVIATIONS
BASIS OF BEARING: (NAD83: EPOCH 2011)
BASIS OF ELEVATIONS: (NAVD 1988)
BENCH MARK
MONUMENTS
LS-1
LS-2
LS-3
LS-4
LS-5
LS-6
LS-7
LS-8
LS-9
LS-10
LS-11
LS-12
TERWILLIGER
LAND SURVEY ENGINEERS
14 MONARCH BAY PLAZA, #231
DANA POINT, CA 92629
310.666.2510
LS
-
1
3
LS
-
1
4
DATA NOTE
AREAS OF HEAVY VEGETATIVE OBSTRUCTION
CAN BE DISRUPTIVE TO THE COLLECTION OF
SURVEY DATA, ELEVATIONS WITHIN SUCH
AREAS MAY CONTAIN ARTIFACTS AND ARE
FOR THAT REASON TO BE CONSIDERED
APPROXIMATE. ADDITIONAL STRUCTURES
MAY BE PRESENT WITHIN THESE AREAS.
VICINITY MAP
SI TE
DECLIFF DR
TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY
LS-1
ABBREVIATIONS
BASIS OF BEARING: (NAD83: EPOCH 2011)
BASIS OF ELEVATIONS: (NAVD 1988)
BENCH MARK
MONUMENTS
TERWILLIGER
LAND SURVEY ENGINEERS
14 MONARCH BAY PLAZA, #231
DANA POINT, CA 92629
310.666.2510
DATA NOTE
AREAS OF HEAVY VEGETATIVE OBSTRUCTION
CAN BE DISRUPTIVE TO THE COLLECTION OF
SURVEY DATA, ELEVATIONS WITHIN SUCH
AREAS MAY CONTAIN ARTIFACTS AND ARE
FOR THAT REASON TO BE CONSIDERED
APPROXIMATE. ADDITIONAL STRUCTURES
MAY BE PRESENT WITHIN THESE AREAS.
VICINITY MAP
SI TE
DECLIFF DR
TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY
LS-2
ABBREVIATIONS
BASIS OF BEARING: (NAD83: EPOCH 2011)
BASIS OF ELEVATIONS: (NAVD 1988)
BENCH MARK
MONUMENTS
TERWILLIGER
LAND SURVEY ENGINEERS
14 MONARCH BAY PLAZA, #231
DANA POINT, CA 92629
310.666.2510
DATA NOTE
AREAS OF HEAVY VEGETATIVE OBSTRUCTION
CAN BE DISRUPTIVE TO THE COLLECTION OF
SURVEY DATA, ELEVATIONS WITHIN SUCH
AREAS MAY CONTAIN ARTIFACTS AND ARE
FOR THAT REASON TO BE CONSIDERED
APPROXIMATE. ADDITIONAL STRUCTURES
MAY BE PRESENT WITHIN THESE AREAS.
VICINITY MAP
SI TE
DECLIFF DR
TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY
LS-3
ABBREVIATIONS
BASIS OF BEARING: (NAD83: EPOCH 2011)
BASIS OF ELEVATIONS: (NAVD 1988)
BENCH MARK
MONUMENTS
TERWILLIGER
LAND SURVEY ENGINEERS
14 MONARCH BAY PLAZA, #231
DANA POINT, CA 92629
310.666.2510
DATA NOTE
AREAS OF HEAVY VEGETATIVE OBSTRUCTION
CAN BE DISRUPTIVE TO THE COLLECTION OF
SURVEY DATA, ELEVATIONS WITHIN SUCH
AREAS MAY CONTAIN ARTIFACTS AND ARE
FOR THAT REASON TO BE CONSIDERED
APPROXIMATE. ADDITIONAL STRUCTURES
MAY BE PRESENT WITHIN THESE AREAS.
VICINITY MAP
SI TE
DECLIFF DR
TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY
LS-4
ABBREVIATIONS
BASIS OF BEARING: (NAD83: EPOCH 2011)
BASIS OF ELEVATIONS: (NAVD 1988)
BENCH MARK
MONUMENTS
TERWILLIGER
LAND SURVEY ENGINEERS
14 MONARCH BAY PLAZA, #231
DANA POINT, CA 92629
310.666.2510
DATA NOTE
AREAS OF HEAVY VEGETATIVE OBSTRUCTION
CAN BE DISRUPTIVE TO THE COLLECTION OF
SURVEY DATA, ELEVATIONS WITHIN SUCH
AREAS MAY CONTAIN ARTIFACTS AND ARE
FOR THAT REASON TO BE CONSIDERED
APPROXIMATE. ADDITIONAL STRUCTURES
MAY BE PRESENT WITHIN THESE AREAS.
VICINITY MAP
SI TE
DECLIFF DR
TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY
LS-5
ABBREVIATIONS
BASIS OF BEARING: (NAD83: EPOCH 2011)
BASIS OF ELEVATIONS: (NAVD 1988)
BENCH MARK
MONUMENTS
TERWILLIGER
LAND SURVEY ENGINEERS
14 MONARCH BAY PLAZA, #231
DANA POINT, CA 92629
310.666.2510
DATA NOTE
AREAS OF HEAVY VEGETATIVE OBSTRUCTION
CAN BE DISRUPTIVE TO THE COLLECTION OF
SURVEY DATA, ELEVATIONS WITHIN SUCH
AREAS MAY CONTAIN ARTIFACTS AND ARE
FOR THAT REASON TO BE CONSIDERED
APPROXIMATE. ADDITIONAL STRUCTURES
MAY BE PRESENT WITHIN THESE AREAS.
VICINITY MAP
SI TE
DECLIFF DR
TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY
LS-6
ABBREVIATIONS
BASIS OF BEARING: (NAD83: EPOCH 2011)
BASIS OF ELEVATIONS: (NAVD 1988)
BENCH MARK
MONUMENTS
TERWILLIGER
LAND SURVEY ENGINEERS
14 MONARCH BAY PLAZA, #231
DANA POINT, CA 92629
310.666.2510
DATA NOTE
AREAS OF HEAVY VEGETATIVE OBSTRUCTION
CAN BE DISRUPTIVE TO THE COLLECTION OF
SURVEY DATA, ELEVATIONS WITHIN SUCH
AREAS MAY CONTAIN ARTIFACTS AND ARE
FOR THAT REASON TO BE CONSIDERED
APPROXIMATE. ADDITIONAL STRUCTURES
MAY BE PRESENT WITHIN THESE AREAS.
VICINITY MAP
SI TE
DECLIFF DR
TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY
LS-7
ABBREVIATIONS
BASIS OF BEARING: (NAD83: EPOCH 2011)
BASIS OF ELEVATIONS: (NAVD 1988)
BENCH MARK
MONUMENTS
TERWILLIGER
LAND SURVEY ENGINEERS
14 MONARCH BAY PLAZA, #231
DANA POINT, CA 92629
310.666.2510
DATA NOTE
AREAS OF HEAVY VEGETATIVE OBSTRUCTION
CAN BE DISRUPTIVE TO THE COLLECTION OF
SURVEY DATA, ELEVATIONS WITHIN SUCH
AREAS MAY CONTAIN ARTIFACTS AND ARE
FOR THAT REASON TO BE CONSIDERED
APPROXIMATE. ADDITIONAL STRUCTURES
MAY BE PRESENT WITHIN THESE AREAS.
VICINITY MAP
SI TE
DECLIFF DR
TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY
LS-8
ABBREVIATIONS
BASIS OF BEARING: (NAD83: EPOCH 2011)
BASIS OF ELEVATIONS: (NAVD 1988)
BENCH MARK
MONUMENTS
TERWILLIGER
LAND SURVEY ENGINEERS
14 MONARCH BAY PLAZA, #231
DANA POINT, CA 92629
310.666.2510
D E C L I F F D R I V E
DATA NOTE
AREAS OF HEAVY VEGETATIVE OBSTRUCTION
CAN BE DISRUPTIVE TO THE COLLECTION OF
SURVEY DATA, ELEVATIONS WITHIN SUCH
AREAS MAY CONTAIN ARTIFACTS AND ARE
FOR THAT REASON TO BE CONSIDERED
APPROXIMATE. ADDITIONAL STRUCTURES
MAY BE PRESENT WITHIN THESE AREAS.
VICINITY MAP
SI TE
DECLIFF DR
TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY
LS-9
ABBREVIATIONS
BASIS OF BEARING: (NAD83: EPOCH 2011)
BASIS OF ELEVATIONS: (NAVD 1988)
BENCH MARK
MONUMENTS
TERWILLIGER
LAND SURVEY ENGINEERS
14 MONARCH BAY PLAZA, #231
DANA POINT, CA 92629
310.666.2510
D E C L I F F D R I V E
DATA NOTE
AREAS OF HEAVY VEGETATIVE OBSTRUCTION
CAN BE DISRUPTIVE TO THE COLLECTION OF
SURVEY DATA, ELEVATIONS WITHIN SUCH
AREAS MAY CONTAIN ARTIFACTS AND ARE
FOR THAT REASON TO BE CONSIDERED
APPROXIMATE. ADDITIONAL STRUCTURES
MAY BE PRESENT WITHIN THESE AREAS.
VICINITY MAP
SI TE
DECLIFF DR
TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY
LS-10
ABBREVIATIONS
BASIS OF BEARING: (NAD83: EPOCH 2011)
BASIS OF ELEVATIONS: (NAVD 1988)
BENCH MARK
MONUMENTS
TERWILLIGER
LAND SURVEY ENGINEERS
14 MONARCH BAY PLAZA, #231
DANA POINT, CA 92629
310.666.2510
DATA NOTE
AREAS OF HEAVY VEGETATIVE OBSTRUCTION
CAN BE DISRUPTIVE TO THE COLLECTION OF
SURVEY DATA, ELEVATIONS WITHIN SUCH
AREAS MAY CONTAIN ARTIFACTS AND ARE
FOR THAT REASON TO BE CONSIDERED
APPROXIMATE. ADDITIONAL STRUCTURES
MAY BE PRESENT WITHIN THESE AREAS.
VICINITY MAP
SI TE
DECLIFF DR
TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY
LS-11
ABBREVIATIONS
BASIS OF BEARING: (NAD83: EPOCH 2011)
BASIS OF ELEVATIONS: (NAVD 1988)
BENCH MARK
MONUMENTS
TERWILLIGER
LAND SURVEY ENGINEERS
14 MONARCH BAY PLAZA, #231
DANA POINT, CA 92629
310.666.2510
DATA NOTE
AREAS OF HEAVY VEGETATIVE OBSTRUCTION
CAN BE DISRUPTIVE TO THE COLLECTION OF
SURVEY DATA, ELEVATIONS WITHIN SUCH
AREAS MAY CONTAIN ARTIFACTS AND ARE
FOR THAT REASON TO BE CONSIDERED
APPROXIMATE. ADDITIONAL STRUCTURES
MAY BE PRESENT WITHIN THESE AREAS.
VICINITY MAP
SI TE
DECLIFF DR
TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY
LS-12
ABBREVIATIONS
BASIS OF BEARING: (NAD83: EPOCH 2011)
BASIS OF ELEVATIONS: (NAVD 1988)
BENCH MARK
MONUMENTS
TERWILLIGER
LAND SURVEY ENGINEERS
14 MONARCH BAY PLAZA, #231
DANA POINT, CA 92629
310.666.2510
DATA NOTE
AREAS OF HEAVY VEGETATIVE OBSTRUCTION
CAN BE DISRUPTIVE TO THE COLLECTION OF
SURVEY DATA, ELEVATIONS WITHIN SUCH
AREAS MAY CONTAIN ARTIFACTS AND ARE
FOR THAT REASON TO BE CONSIDERED
APPROXIMATE. ADDITIONAL STRUCTURES
MAY BE PRESENT WITHIN THESE AREAS.
VICINITY MAP
SI TE
DECLIFF DR
TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY
LS-13
ABBREVIATIONS
BASIS OF BEARING: (NAD83: EPOCH 2011)
BASIS OF ELEVATIONS: (NAVD 1988)
BENCH MARK
MONUMENTS
TERWILLIGER
LAND SURVEY ENGINEERS
14 MONARCH BAY PLAZA, #231
DANA POINT, CA 92629
310.666.2510
Firewise2000, LLC FPP TTM 20653 Decliff Dr_ V3.0 16May25 Page | 2
FIRE PROTECTION PLAN
Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District
TTM 20653 APN’s 226-061-68, 69
13702 Decliff Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, CA
County of San Bernardino, California
22 April 2024, Amended 16May25
Prepared for:
Decliff Properties LLC
1800 Western Ave N 302
San Bernardino, CA 92411
EXHIBIT B
Firewise2000, LLC FPP TTM 20653 Decliff Dr_ V3.0 16May25 Page | 3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
California Government Code Section 51178 requires the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection
(CAL FIRE) to identify and map very high fire hazard areas statewide, referred to as “Very High Fire Hazard
Severity Zones”.
The Project site is in Local Responsibility Area (LRA) and is currently mapped as Very High,
The purpose of this Government Code chapter is to classify lands in accordance with whether a very high fire hazard
severity is present, so that public officials are able to identify measures that will mitigate the rate of spread and
reduce the potential intensity of uncontrolled fires that threaten to destroy resources, life, or property, and to require
that those measures be taken. The purpose and reality of these actions are related to;
The climate crisis is a significant factor contributing to the escalating wildfire danger in California. According to
recent assessments by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (Cal Fire), over 85% of the
state’s rural and unincorporated land now falls within “high” or “very high” severity zones for wildfire.
This classification considers factors such as fuel loading, slope, fire weather, and wind patterns. The zones are
referred to as Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZ), and they classify wildland areas based on their average hazard
level.
In fact, nearly 55% of California’s State Responsibility Areas (SRA) acreage is now categorized as “very high”
fire hazard. The situation underscores the urgent need for wildfire preparedness and mitigation efforts.
Chapter 49 of the 2022 Fire Code provides requirements for a Fire Protection Plan in development areas
that are within VHFHZs. If a location is not in Very High, Local Government may require a Fire Protection
Plan if they deem a location is at risk due to proximity of a high classification.
The 2022 Code provided major revision and has added additional requirements.
This FPP will highlight the most important plan improvements and requirements throughout the document.
In short, the plan will follow the guidelines stated in Section 4903.
Sec 4903
The fire protection plan shall be based on a project-specific wildfire hazard assessment that includes considerations
of location, topography, aspect, and climatic and fire history.
The plan shall identify conformance with all applicable state wildfire protection regulations, statutes, and applicable
local ordinances, whichever are more restrictive.
The plan shall address fire department access, egress, road and address signage, water supply in addition to fuel
reduction in accordance with Public Resources Code (PRC) 4290; the defensible space requirements in accordance
with PRC 4291 or Government Code 51182; and the applicable building codes and standards for wildfire safety.
The plan shall identify mitigation measures to address the project’s specific wildfire risk and shall include the
information required in Section 4903.2.1.
These requirements exist in Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Fire District Standard 49-1 as adopted.
Finally, this FPP and its requirements will be incorporated by reference into the final project Conditions of
Approval to ensure future compliance with Rancho Cucamonga codes/regulations and significance standards.
Firewise2000, LLC FPP TTM 20653 Decliff Dr_ V3.0 16May25 Page | 4
FIRE PROTECTION PLAN
TTM 20653
Decliff Dr.
Table of Contents
Section Page
1.0 GENERAL DESCRIPTION 3
1.1 Project Description 5
1.2 Project Location 6
1.3 General Information 8
2.0 WILDLAND FIRE HAZARD AND RISK ASSESSMENT 9
2.1 On and Off-Site Fire Hazard and Risk Assessment 9
2.2 Climate 10
2.3 Predicting Wildland Fire Behavior 12
2.4 Wildland Fire Behavior Calculations for the Off-Site Hazardous Vegetation 15
3.0 ASSESSING STRUCTURE IGNITIONS IN THE WILDLAND/URBAN INTERFACE 19
3.1 Firebrands 19
3.2 Radiant Heat/Direct Flame Impingement 19
3.3 Fire Resistant Plant Palette 19
4.0 FIRE DEPARTMENT RESPONSE TIMES 20
5.0 VEGETATION MANAGEMENT ZONE DESCRIPTIONS & REQUIRED 20
TREATMENTS
5.1 RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT 21
STANDARD 49-1 WILDLAND-URBAN INTERFACE ZONE
PLANTING REQUIREMENTS
5.2 Roadside Treatments 25
5.3 Construction Standard 25
6.0 INFRASTRUCTURE 25
6.1 Water Supply 26
6.2 Access Roads/Driveways and Gates 26
7.0 EMEGENCY EVACUATION PLANNING 27
8.0 OWNER EDUCATION 28
APPENDICES Acceptable Plant List APPENDIX ‘A’ Undesirable Plant Species APPENDIX ‘B’
Literature Referenced APPENDIX ‘C’
Non-combustible & Fire-Resistant Building Materials APPENDIX ‘D’
Ignition Resistant Construction Requirements APPENDIX ‘E’
Fuel Treatment Exhibit APPENDIX ‘F’
Fire Master Plan APPENDIX ‘G’
Firewise2000, LLC FPP TTM 20653 Decliff Dr_ V3.0 16May25 Page | 5
FIRE PROTECTION PLAN
Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District
APN’s 226-061-68, 69
Rancho Cucamonga, California 91739
1.0 GENERAL DESCRIPTION
1.1 Project Description
The proposed development TTM20653 is planned as a parcel split of APN 226-061-69 into (5) parcels each 2Ac
or greater. A parcel line adjustment to APN 226-061-68 the southern area will take place to accommodate the
fuel treatment area for lot 5. The entire property is within the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Figure 1
Lot design, size and layout Figure 2.
The San Bernardino National Forest is located north of the project site and is separated by properties
designated as Open Space and Resource Conservation. Residential communities within the City of
Rancho Cucamonga lie south of the project site, separated by vacant property as a utility corridor
owned by Southern California Edison (SCE).
Firewise2000, LLC FPP TTM 20653 Decliff Dr_ V3.0 16May25 Page | 6
1.2 Project Location:
The property is within The City of Rancho Cucamonga . Figure 3
The proposed development is within LRA and is within a Very High Fire Severity Zone.
Firewise2000, LLC FPP TTM 20653 Decliff Dr_ V3.0 16May25 Page | 7
Figure 4 provides an overview of Hazard Classification that surrounds the future project.
Firewise2000, LLC FPP TTM 20653 Decliff Dr_ V3.0 16May25 Page | 8
Figure 5 provides a view of the topographic relief of the site, which is mostly flat with hilly topography to
the north of Lot 5.
Refer to the APPENDIX ‘F’ Vegetation Management Map for the illustration of property lines, structures, and
related Vegetation Management Zones
A Fire Protection Plan (FPP) must be submitted to and approved by Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District
(RCFPD). The approved FPP shall be recorded against all buildable lots. The FPP assesses the overall (on-site and
off-site) wildland fire hazards and risks that may threaten life and property associated with the proposed
Development. In addition, the FPP establishes both short-term and long-term vegetation management actions
needed to minimize any projected wildland fire hazards and assigns annual maintenance responsibilities for each of
the required Vegetation Management actions.
1.3 General Information
Owner: Decliff Properties LLC
1800 Western Ave N 302
San Bernardino, CA 92411
Approving Departments:
Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District
Water Distribution System: Cucamonga Valley Water District
Prepared By: Monty Kalin
Firewise2000, LLC
Associate Planner
Email
Monty.Kalin@Firewise2000.com
Firewise2000, LLC FPP TTM 20653 Decliff Dr_ V3.0 16May25 Page | 9
The purpose of this FPP is to provide Vegetation Management Zone treatment and construction feature direction
for developers, architects, builders, and the individual lot owner. The document will be used in making the
structures in the proposed project safe from future wildfires.
Requirements of this FPP are based upon requirements listed in the 2022 California Fire Code, Chapter 49, Public
Resources Code, Sections 4201 through 4204, and Government Code, Sections 51175 through 51189, or other areas
designated by the enforcing agency to be at a significant risk from wildfires. It is also based on other codes and
standards with Local Amendments as required; Chapter 7A-California Building Code; 2022 California Residential
Code Section R337; National Fire Protection Association Standards (NFPA) 13-D, 2022 Edition, the California
State and Local Responsibility Area Fire Hazard Severity Zone Map; and NFPA Standard 1140; Rancho
Cucamonga Fire Protection District (RCFPD) Ordinance FD 58 adopting the 2022 California Building Code and
California Fire Codes; RCFPD Standards 5-1, 5-2, 5-3, 5-9, 5-10, 9-3, 9-5, 33-1, 33-2, and 33-3.
Hazardous vegetation and fuels around all applicable buildings and structures shall be maintained by the
following laws and/or regulations:
The following laws and regulations regarding hazardous vegetation guide the requirements for Fire
Protection. These include the following: Public Resources Code, Section 4291. California Code of
Regulations, Title 14, Division 1.5, Chapter 7, Subchapter 3, Section 1299 (see guidance for
implementation “General Guideline to Create Defensible Space”). California Government Code, Section
51182. California Code of Regulations, Title 19, Division 1, Chapter 7, Subchapter 1, Section 3.07, and
RCFPD Standards 3-1, 3-5, and 49-1.
2.0 WILDLAND FIRE HAZARD AND RISK ASSESSMENT
In assessing the wildland fire hazard, it is necessary to consider natural plant succession and the climax plant
communities. The vegetation described below is the most likely the climax plant community that will exist without
human intervention and the one utilized for planning purposes.
2.1 On and Off-Site Fire Hazards and Risk Assessment
Situated between the National Forest boundary and an expanding residential/commercial community to the south,
the project is within the wildland /urban interface area designated by the State as a ‘Very High Fire Hazard Severity
Zone’ (VHFHSZ). Fire history shows that the Cajon Pass corridor has some of the most destructive wildfires in
southern California. A strong high-pressure gradient usually develops over the high desert pushing gusty northeast
winds down the pass into the San Bernardino basin. Ignitions come from roadside starts from vehicle fires, railway
fires and other sources. This is a common occurrence for the area and fire agencies are always on high alert
throughout the year. Figure 6 provides a view of the site 300 ft out.
On-Site within the Buildable Area: The development area for the project will be limited primarily to a gentle
sloping parcel that will not overly contribute to the fire behavior. Vegetation maps of the area show that most of the
project site is identified as sparse, low growing vegetation composed of early successional stage herbaceous
plants such as non-native weeds and grasses. The existing fuel load is considered light to moderate and will
eventually be replaced by irrigated landscaping or hardscape (roads, parking lots, sidewalks) around the facility.
Vegetation surrounding the buildings (100 feet) will be limited to a more fire-resistant landscaping accompanied
by an automatic irrigation system.
Off-Site outside of Buildable Area: The surrounding natural vegetation outside the project area poses the
greatest wildland fire threat. Vegetation surrounding the project site still shows the effects of the 2003 Grand Prix
Fire that consumed 60,000 acres and burned more than 198 homes and commercial properties. The San Bernardino
Firewise2000, LLC FPP TTM 20653 Decliff Dr_ V3.0 16May25 Page | 10
Most of the area surrounding the project is heavily infested with invasive weeds and non-native grasses (annual
grass, mustard, fiddleneck, telegraph weed and common sunflower). Regardless of the plant species existing off-
site, the fire behavior would be consistent with a Fuel Model SH2 Moderate load, dry climate shrub (S) (142).
Under gusty northeast wind conditions, this fuel bed would produce moderate rates of fire spread, short duration
intensity and high resistance-to-control for firefighters.
Under these extreme conditions (80 mph NE winds) and with this fuel model, the predicted flame lengths
are projected to be 23.4 feet along all areas impacted by a northeast wind. The BehavePlus 6.0 fire behavior
modeling program was used to project the expected fire intensity (Btu/ft/s), rate of spread (ROS) and flame lengths
(FL) with a reasonable degree of certainty for fire protection planning purposes. Of these two fire behavior
projections, flame length is the most critical in determining structure protection requirements. The fire behavior
projections were made under the most extreme fire conditions expected for the area to create a “worst case scenario”
to determine the width of the vegetation management zones needed to protect the structures from wildfire.
Figure 6 provides a view of the landscape within 300 feet of the project site.
Surrounding open space has been affected by years of drought, with areas of increased dead fuel loading. Also
effecting fuel loading is the local Mediterranean climate, where warm wet winters promote abundant new growth,
and long, hot, and very dry summer seasons frequently occur. Occasionally, multi-year droughts cause significant
parts of these plants to die back.
See Section 2.4 for Fire Behavior Modeling results in flame length distances and rates of spread.
2.2 Climate
The climate within the project area would be characterized as Mediterranean. It has generally mild and wet (14 to
16 inches per year) winters, the bulk of the annual precipitation falling between January and March. Long, hot, and
very dry summer seasons frequently occur with occasional multi-year droughts.
Firewise2000, LLC FPP TTM 20653 Decliff Dr_ V3.0 16May25 Page | 11
The most critical weather pattern is a hot, dry offshore wind, typically called Santa Ana. Such wind conditions are
usually associated with strong (>70 MPH), hot, dry winds with very low (<15%) relative humidity. Santa Ana
winds originate over the dry desert land and can occur anytime of the year; however, they generally occur in the
late fall (September through November). This is also when non-irrigated vegetation is at its lowest moisture content.
The undeveloped land in proximity can contribute to a damaging wildland fire event. Any wind or topography
driven wildfire burning under a northeastern (Santa Ana) wind pattern through areas to the north would create a
wildland fire hazard to the proposed project. Wildland fires starting west of the proposed site, on a typical fire day
with a southwest wind will likely burn up to the fuel treatment areas and be controlled. Figure 7 provides a snapshot
of Fire History around the site.
The typical prevailing summertime wind pattern is out of the south or southwest and normally is of a much lower
velocity (5-19 MPH) with occasional gusts to 30-MPH) and is associated with higher relative humidity readings.
All other (west around to north) wind directions may be occasionally strong and gusty. However, they are generally
associated with cooler moist air and often have higher relative humidity (> 40%). They are considered a serious
wildland fire weather condition when wind speeds reach > 20-MPH.
Firewise2000, LLC FPP TTM 20653 Decliff Dr_ V3.0 16May25 Page | 12
2.3 Predicting Wildland Fire Behavior
The BEHAVE 6 (build 626) Fire Behavior Prediction and Fuel Modeling System developed by USDA–Forest
Service research scientists Patricia L. Andrews and Collin D. Bevins at the Intermountain Forest Fire Laboratory,
Missoula, Montana, is one of the best systematic methods for predicting wildland fire behavior. The BEHAVE fire
behavior computer modeling system is utilized by wildland fire experts and managers nationwide. The program
projects the expected spotting distance, rate-of-spread and flame lengths with a reasonable degree of certainty for
use in Fire Protection Planning purposes. FIREWISE 2000, LLC. used the BEHAVE 6 Fire Behavior Prediction
Model to make the fire behavior assessments discussed below.
SITE PHOTOS
The following annotated images from various locations provide a view of the hazardous vegetation.
Firewise2000, LLC FPP TTM 20653 Decliff Dr_ V3.0 16May25 Page | 13
Firewise2000, LLC FPP TTM 20653 Decliff Dr_ V3.0 16May25 Page | 14
Firewise2000, LLC FPP TTM 20653 Decliff Dr_ V3.0 16May25 Page | 15
2.4 Wildland Fire Behavior Calculations for the Off-Site Hazardous Vegetative Fuels
Wildland fire behavior calculations have been projected for the hazardous vegetative fuels on the undeveloped
areas in proximity to the site. These projections are based on fire scenarios that are considered ‘worst case.’
Local environmental assumptions in the vicinity of the project area were used in the model process.
For Fire Behavior planning purposes model, SH2 Moderate load, dry climate shrub (S) (142)
was selected based on the site survey.
Table 2.4.1 provides Behave Plus Inputs; fuel moisture values are at critical, and the fuel bed is unsheltered. All
scenario outputs provide the expected Flame Length (expressed in feet), Rate of Fire Spread (expressed in ft/min),
and Fireline Intensity (as btu/ft/s).
Firewise2000, LLC FPP TTM 20653 Decliff Dr_ V3.0 16May25 Page | 16
Scenario 1; Fire start to the east of the Project Site pushed towards the boundary.
SH2 Moderate load, dry climate shrub (S) (142)
Flame Lengths for no wind included in outputs as a topographically driven fire.
This flaming front would affect the entire eastern development area.
Firewise2000, LLC FPP TTM 20653 Decliff Dr_ V3.0 16May25 Page | 17
Scenario 2; Fire start to the southwest of the Project Site pushed towards the boundary.
SH2 Moderate load, dry climate shrub (S) (142)
Flame Lengths for no wind included in outputs as a topographically driven fire.
This flaming front would affect the entire western and southern development area
Firewise2000, LLC FPP TTM 20653 Decliff Dr_ V3.0 16May25 Page | 18
Scenario 3; Fire start to the west of the Project Site pushed towards the Decliff Rd.
SH2 Moderate load, dry climate shrub (S) (142)
Flame Lengths for no wind included in outputs as a topographically driven fire.
Expect same along entire Decliff Rd.
Firewise2000, LLC FPP TTM 20653 Decliff Dr_ V3.0 16May25 Page | 19
3.0 ASSESSING STRUCTURE IGNITIONS IN THE WILDLAND/URBAN INTERFACE
Structure ignitions from wildland wildfires basically come from three sources of heat: convective firebrands (flying
embers), direct flame impingement, and radiant heat. However, even though ignition resistant exterior building
materials will be used in the construction process, the less significant problem of radiant heat will be mitigated.
The significance of wind driven embers is addressed in this FPP.
3.1 Firebrands
Firebrands are pieces of burning materials that detach from burning fuel due to the strong convection drafts in the
flaming zone. Firebrands may also be referred to as embers. Firebrands can be carried a long distance (one mile or
more) by fire drafts and strong winds. Severe wildland/urban interface fires can produce hea vy showers of
firebrands. The chance of these firebrands igniting a structure will depend on the size and number of the firebrands,
how long each ember burns after contact, and the type of building materials, building design, and construction
features of the structure. Firebrands landing on combustible roofing and decks are common sources for structure
ignition. They can also enter a structure through unscreened vents, decks and chimneys, unprotected skylights and
overhangs.
Even with non-combustible roofing, firebrands landing on leaves, pine needles and other combustibles located on
a roof (due to lack of maintenance) can cause structure ignition. Any open windows, doors or other types of
unscreened openings are sources for embers to enter a structure during a wildland fire. If these maintenance issues
are addressed on a regular basis, firebrands should not be a concern.
3.2 Radiant Heat/Direct Flame Impingement
Radiation and convection involve the transfer of heat directly from the flame. Unlike radiation heat transfer,
convection requires that the flames or heat column has contact with the structure. In the case of TTM 20653, radiant
heat/direct flame impingement is not a factor since adequate clearance (>100 feet) from the surrounding wildland
fuels will be maintained according to the Fuel Modification Zone Map (see APPENDIX C).
However, the property owner will be required to maintain the project site to Zone 0-1-2 vegetation management
standards including routine maintenance to keep the roofs and rain gutters free of leaves and other combustible
debris. This will eliminate any adjacent combustible fuels that could cause ignitions and result in direct flame
impingement. All combustible materials must be properly stored away from the structures so that burning embers
falling on or near the structures have no suitable host.
3.3 Fire Resistant Plant Palette
Wildland fire research has shown that some types of plants, including many natives, are more fire resistant than
others. These low fuel volume, non-oily, non-resinous plants are commonly referred to as “fire resistant”. This term
comes with the provision that each year these plants are pruned, all dead wood is removed, and all grasses or other
plant material are removed from beneath the circumference of their canopies. Some native species are not
considered “undesirable” from a wildfire risk management perspective provided they are properly maintained year-
round (refer to APPENDIX B for a list of Undesirable Tree and Plant Species). Landscape plans were developed
for the project with a plant list (see APPENDIX A). The proposed plans show that all of the area with the buildable
zone will eventually be fully landscaped with irrigation thus potentially eliminating the need for a thinning zone.
The 100ft of fuel modification will be achieved by landscaping from the structure envelope outwards to 100ft.
Firewise2000, LLC FPP TTM 20653 Decliff Dr_ V3.0 16May25 Page | 20
4.0 FIRE DEPARTMENT RESPONSE TIMES
The project site is within the response area of the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District. The closest engine
to the project is located at the RCFPD East Avenue Fire Station at 5840 East Avenue; approximately 2.8 miles
south of the site and 7 minutes travel time to the project site. The second closest engine is located at RCFPD Banyan
Fire Station, approximately 5.4 miles southwest of the site and 12 minutes travel time to the project site. The nearest
fire station for the San Bernardino County Fire Department is 6 miles away in the City of Fontana – Station #78
with a response time of 13 minutes. Additional agencies such as CAL FIRE and other nearby fire departments
would also likely respond to equipment under mutual aid agreements, but they would likely arrive after RCFPD
engines were on-scene.
There is no assurance that the closest fire station (East Avenue Engine Company) will be in its station when a
wildfire threatens the project site from an ignition in the adjacent wildland. Engines may respond from other stations
located further away or to other incidents. On high/extreme fire danger days there often may be multiple fire starts
and engine companies may be already deployed on other incidents. This is why FIREWISE 2000, Inc. planned
projects use “defensible space”, ignition-resistant building features, and key fuel treatment strategies that enable
people to substantially increase their ability to survive a wildfire on their own and without the loss of structures.
5.0 VEGETATION MANAGEMENT ZONE DESCRIPTIONS AND REQUIRED
TREATMENTS
Below are the RCFPD descriptions and required treatments for the vegetation management zones. All
distances in this report are measured horizontally. These distances are displayed on the attached Fuel
Modification Zone Map Exhibit - APPENDIX ‘F’.
It should be noted that the development has a conceptual landscape plan which shows all of the
buildable area will eventually be landscaped with irrigation and/or hardscaped. (See APPENDIX F –
Conceptual Landscape Plan).
The Vegetation Management Zone descriptions listed below identify the RCFPD required vegetation
management zones for each phase of the project. These landscape requirements are provided in Fire
District Standard 49-1.
Firewise2000, LLC FPP TTM 20653 Decliff Dr_ V3.0 16May25 Page | 21
5.1 RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT
STANDARD 49-1 WILDLAND-URBAN INTERFACE
ZONE PLANTING REQUIREMENTS
A. Acceptable Vegetation Palette. The trees, plants, shrubs, vines, and ground covers,
including native vegetation, proposed for use as landscaping in the Wildland-Urban
Interface Fire Area are required to be in accordance with the following:
i. Appropriate for Climate Zones 18 and 19 as determined by Western Garden
published by Sunset Books.
ii. Appropriate for California Irrigation Management Information System (CIMIS)
Evapotranspiration Zone 9.
iii. Have a Region 4 Water Use Classification of Landscape Species (WUCOLS)
classification of Low or Very Low based on WUCOLS IV, 2014.
iv. Not determined by any standard or classification to be invasive.
v. Not included on the Rancho Cucamonga Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Area
Undesirable Plants and Trees list unless proposed for use in accordance with this
Standard. See Appendix A.
B. Combustible Exclusion Zone 0 (0-5 feet from the structure). This zone is closest to
a building or structure. It is measured from the exterior walls or from the most distal
point of a combustible projection, an attached accessory structure, or a detached
accessory structure within 10 feet of an occupiable building. It provides a zone
immediately adjacent to buildings and structures that is free from combustible materials
that could be ignited by embers produced during a wildfire event. For the purposes of
this zone, combustible materials include:
i. All vegetation.
ii. Natural fiber, wood, and rubber mulch.
iii. Artificial turf.
iv. Wood fences and gates.
v. Combustible decorative items and outdoor furniture.
vi. Firewood piles regardless of the diameter or dimension of the wood stored.
vii. Yard maintenance equipment.
viii. Vehicles of any kind.
ix. Exercise or fitness equipment with combustible components.
x. Any item that in whole or in part has an ignition temperature less than 900 degrees
F or 500 degrees
C. Fuel Modification Zone 1, Option 1 (5-30 feet from the structure). This zone begins
at the outer boundary of the combustible exclusion zone. It provides the best protection
against the high radiant heat produced by a wildfire burning in dense vegetation. It
provides an area that is designed and landscaped to be less vulnerable to vegetation
ignition by embers during a wildfire event. It also provides a generally open area in
which fire suppression forces can operate during wildfire events. This zone is generally
a level or level-graded area around the structure. Vegetation in this zone is limited to
ground covers, lawns, and a small number of ornamental plants and trees that are not
on the Undesirable Plants and Tree list. Specific requirements and recommendations
for this zone include:
xi. Complete removal of fire-prone, undesirable plant species is required. See
Firewise2000, LLC FPP TTM 20653 Decliff Dr_ V3.0 16May25 Page | 22
Appendix B for the complete Undesirable Plants and Trees list.
xii. Xeriscape™ designs, where compatible, and hardscape such as concrete, rock,
pavers, and similar non-combustible features are encouraged.
xiii. Focus should be on approved ground covers and lawns that are maintained at a
height that does not exceed 4 inches.
xiv. Plants that are low-growing and well-irrigated and not included on the Undesirable
Plants and Trees list and arranged and selected such that:
1) Plants are single specimens or a grouping not exceeding 3 plants that will have
a mature diameter or linear measurement that does not exceed 5 feet.
2) Mature height of plants does not exceed 18 inches.
3) At mature growth, single plants or groupings of plants are required to be
separated from each other by at least 15 feet.
4) Plants are not located under the canopies anticipated for mature trees.
xv. Single specimens of trees or groupings of not more than 3 that are appropriate for
the climate zone and not included on the Undesirable Plants and Trees list. Trees
are to be planted such that the mature canopies will be at least 10 feet from any
building, structure, or projection constructed with combustible materials. Trees are
required to be spaced such that the perimeters of the mature canopies of single
specimens or the mature combined canopy of a grouping will be at least 20 feet
from other tree canopies. Mature combined canopies cannot exceed 20 feet in
diameter or spread in any direction.
xvi. Trees are required to be maintained such that the branches and limbs closest to the
ground are pruned to a height from the ground that is equal to 1/3 the overall height
of the tree or 6 feet from the ground, whichever is higher. This provision does not
apply to newly installed trees that could be damaged by adherence to this provision.
xvii. The use of natural fiber, wood, or rubber mulch is prohibited.
xviii. An automatic irrigation system is required to be installed and extended to provide
water to all landscaping in the zone, except for areas inside the drip line of trees
that could be damaged by routine irrigation.
xix. Continual maintenance including ongoing removal of seasonal grasses and invasive
weeds, removal of dead woody material and dead and dry leaves from the plants,
replacement of dead or dying plantings, functional tests of the irrigation system,
and regular trimming and pruning to reduce fuel and to inhibit the creation of a fuel
ladder are required in this zone.
D. Fuel Modification Zone 1, Option 2 (5-50 feet from the structure). This zone
begins at the outer boundary of the combustible exclusion zone. It provides the best
protection against the high radiant heat produced by a wildfire burning in dense
vegetation. It provides an area that is designed and landscaped to be less vulnerable to
vegetation ignition by embers during a wildfire event due to the use of native species
for landscaping that are arranged in an open design. It also provides a generally open
area in which fire suppression forces can operate during wildfire events.
This zone is generally a level or level-graded area around the structure. This option
provides wildfire protection and fire propagation prevention equivalent to Zone 1, Option
1 while preserving the native environment and habitat. Specific requirements for this zone
include:
Firewise2000, LLC FPP TTM 20653 Decliff Dr_ V3.0 16May25 Page | 23
• A plant palette comprised primarily of selected native vegetation with a species mix that
supports (the subterranean health of the plants in the zone).
• Ground coverage that does not exceed 50% when plants reach maturity or are maintained
in accordance with the approved defensible space landscaping plan.
• Plant species that can survive and remain healthy if irrigation is limited to the most
severe water use restrictions imposed in the past 10 years.
• Regular complete removal of seasonal grasses and invasive weeds.
• The use of selected trees that are not included on the Undesirable Plants and Trees list,
but which are compatible with the native plant species and anticipated reduced irrigation
requirements for this vegetation management option. Trees are limited to single
specimens located such that the mature canopies will be separated by at least 20 feet.
• Plants are prohibited under the canopies of trees to prevent creating a fuel ladder.
• The use of natural fiber or wood mulch to a depth of not more than 4 inches is allowed.
The use of rubber mulch is prohibited.
E. Fuel Reduction Zone 2, Option 1 (31-100 feet from the structure). Maintain a
reasonably open character in this area. This is a transition area between the strict
requirements of Zone 1, Option 1 and the undisturbed native vegetation. The
requirements for this zone are:
i. Irrigated landscaping with trees and plants suitable for the climate zone.
Distribution of trees and plants should maintain an open arrangement.
ii. Groupings of plants and shrubs cannot form an aggregate diameter or linear
distance at maturity that is more than 10 feet. Hedges and groupings of plants and
shrubs are required to be separated from other hedges, groupings of plants and
shrubs, and tree canopies by a minimum of 20 linear feet.
iii. Mature trees cannot create a continuous canopy that is more than 30 feet in diameter
or spread in any direction.
iv. Arrangement of plants, shrubs, and trees and selection of species cannot create fuel
ladder opportunities. Generally, plants and shrubs are prohibited under tree
canopies.
v. The use of natural fiber or wood mulch to a depth of not more than 4 inches is
allowed. The use of rubber mulch is prohibited
vi. Mature coverage of all landscaping cannot exceed 50% of the ground. Turf grasses
and mulch are excluded from this limitation.
vii. Native vegetation is allowed in this zone when it is maintained such that the overall
ground coverage produced by the mature or maintained plant growth does not
exceed 50% and plants are not located under tree canopies.
viii. Plants, shrubs, and trees on the Undesirable Plants and Trees list will be considered on a
case-by-case basis for use as landscaping in this zone when they are proposed to be installed
more than 50 feet from buildings, structures, and projections constructed with combustible
materials.
ix. Regular maintenance includes the removal of all dropped debris, dead or dying
material, seasonal grasses, and invasive weeds.
Note: Allowances for the needs of protected species and habitats will be considered in this zone.
Firewise2000, LLC FPP TTM 20653 Decliff Dr_ V3.0 16May25 Page | 24
F. Fuel Reduction Zone 2, Option 2 (51-100 feet from the structure). Maintain a reasonably
open character in this area. This is a transition area between the strict requirements of Zone 1,
Option 2 and the undisturbed native vegetation. The requirements for this zone are the same as
those for Zone 1, Option 2 but with the following modifications:
• Ground coverage cannot exceed 70% when plants reach maturity or are maintained in
accordance with the approved defensible space landscaping plan.
• The use of selected trees that are included on the Undesirable Plants and Trees list and
which are compatible with the native plant species and anticipated reduced irrigation
requirements for this vegetation management option will be considered on a case-by-case
basis. Trees are limited to single specimens located such that the mature canopies will be
separated by at least 20 feet.
G. Existing Mature Trees. Existing mature trees located within a Fuel Modification Zone where
the property lines of the parcel do not abut native vegetation are required to be in accordance
with this section.
i. Trees that are classified as fire-resistant are required to be maintained in accordance with
all the following:
1. Branches and limbs closest to the ground are required to be pruned to a height from the
ground that is equal to 1/3 the overall height of the tree or 6 feet from the ground,
whichever is higher.
2. No part of a tree is allowed to extend within 10 feet of an outlet for a chimney,
stovepipe, or other heat vent.
3. Any part of a tree is prohibited from overhanging any portion of a habitable building,
combustible projection, attached accessory structure, or detached accessory structure
within 10 feet of a habitable building.
4. The mature canopy of a fire-resistant tree is required to be separated from the mature
canopy of another fire-resistant tree by a distance of at least 10 feet and from the mature
canopy of a non-fire-resistant tree by a distance of at least 20 feet.
5. Plants, shrubs, and groundcovers are prohibited within the drip line of the canopy to
prevent creating a fuel ladder.
ii. Trees that are not classified as fire-resistant are required to be maintained in accordance
with all the following:
1. Branches and limbs closest to the ground shall be pruned to a height from the ground
that is equal to 1/3 the overall height of the tree or 6 feet from the ground, whichever
is higher.
2. No part of a tree is allowed to extend within 30 feet of an outlet for a chimney,
stovepipe, or other heat vent.
3. Any part of a tree is prohibited from being within 10 feet of any portion or element of
a habitable building, combustible projection, attached accessory structure, or detached
accessory structure within 10 feet of a habitable building.
4. The mature canopy of a non-fire-resistant tree is required to be separated from the
mature canopy of all other trees by a distance of at least 30 feet.
5. Plants, shrubs, and groundcovers are prohibited within the drip line of the canopy
to prevent creating a fuel ladder.
Responsibility. Persons owning, leasing, controlling, operating, or maintaining buildings
or structures are responsible for maintenance of the vegetation management zones.
Vegetation management zones are required to be continuously maintained year-round
and kept in compliance with this Standard or the approved fire protection plan, whichever
is more restrictive. Maintenance is required to include:
• Removing vegetation that is not included in the approved landscaping plan, including
Firewise2000, LLC FPP TTM 20653 Decliff Dr_ V3.0 16May25 Page | 25
but not limited to seasonal grasses, invasive weeds, native vegetation, and fugitive
vegetation.
• Keeping leaves, needles, and other dead vegetative material regularly removed from
trees, shrubs, ground covers, native vegetation, roofs, and rain gutters of buildings and
structures, and from under decks and other concealed spaces.
• Regularly inspecting the irrigation system to ensure proper operation and coverage as designed
and approved and making repairs and adjustments as needed.
5.2 Roadside Treatment Zone
Vegetation treatment will be required along all access routes. Areas within 30 feet on each side of portions of fire
apparatus access roads and driveways shall be maintained free of all flammable vegetation. It is critical that all
access routes are maintained to a safe level to allow safe evacuations if necessary.
Required Maintenance for Roadside Brushing:
• A minimum of 30 feet of mowed or cleared vegetation on both sides of roadways
would provide additional fire protection for both the public and fire crews from direct
flame impingement and radiated heat (RCFPD Standard 49-1).
• Vegetation would be cut down and maintained to a 4-inch stubble height;
maintenance to occur biannually or as needed as required by Rancho Cucamonga Fire
Protection District
5.3 Construction Standards
All structures designed and built within the project shall meet all wildland/interface standards to the satisfaction
of the RCFPD and be designed and constructed with ignition-resistant construction requirements. All construction
and ignition-resistant requirements shall meet the 2022 California Fire Code; 2022 California Building Code (CBC)
(including Chapter 7a); 2022 California Residential Code; and current RCFPD applicable construction standards
and guidelines, including all doors must be automatically closing.
All habitable buildings will have automatic interior fire sprinklers installed conforming to NFPA 13-D for single-
family dwellings - 2022 Edition - Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems.
All non-habitable accessory structures such as decks, balconies, patios, covers, gazebos and fences shall be built
from non-combustible, ignition resistant or heavy timber materials. Property owners are not restricted from having
concrete patios, concrete walkways or swimming pools within the vegetation management zones in compliance
with other codes.
Construction or building permits shall not be issued until the fire code official inspects and approves required fire
apparatus access and water supply for the construction site. The issuance of building permits with regard to these
requirements shall be in accordance with RCFPD Standard. Prior to the delivery of combustible building
construction materials to the project site, the following conditions shall be completed to the satisfaction of the
RCFPD:
• All wet and dry utilities shall be installed and approved by the appropriate
inspecting department or agency.
• Vegetation Management Zones shall be provided prior to combustible material
arriving on the site and shall be maintained throughout the duration of construction.
Fire code officials may require additional vegetation management and/or
defensible space when warranted.
• All fire apparatus access roads shall be constructed and available for use.
Firewise2000, LLC FPP TTM 20653 Decliff Dr_ V3.0 16May25 Page | 26
6.0 INFRASTRUCTURE
6.1Water Supply
Water source for the property will be supplied by the Cucamonga Valley Water District (CVWD) service area.
All hydrants shall have a minimum fire flow of 1500 gpm at 20 psi residual pressure since all of the buildings
will be equipped with automatic fire sprinklers in accordance with NFPA 13. Fire hydrants shall be located
adjacent to fire apparatus access roads. Before building permits are issued, the fire water supply system must be
deemed reliable and available by the RCFPD and CVWD.
6.2Fire Access Roads
The primary access to the development will be from Decliff Dr. This access from Decliff is east of Ambleside PL.
Fire apparatus access routes planned for the development are displayed on the site plan. Appendix F
Fire access roads shall be maintained for clear access for emergency vehicles (no vehicle storage allowed). All
fire apparatus access must comply with RCFPD - Fire Apparatus Access Roads Standard 5-1 dated Feb23. Some
of those requirements are as follows:
• Fire apparatus access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than
20 feet (by Permission of the FM) and an unobstructed vertical clearance of
not less than 14 feet 6 inches.
• Fire apparatus roads shall be designed to withstand 80,000 pounds of gross
vehicle weight and surfaced to provide all-weather driving capabilities.
• Fire apparatus accessing road dead-ends more than 150 feet shall be
provided with an approved means to turn around as an approved cul-de-sac,
bulb design, or hammerhead.
• Fire apparatus access roads shall be identified as a “FIRE LANE” using at
least one of the following methods listed in RCFPD Standard 5-1 dated
Feb23. Those methods include curb painting, sign posting and/or pavement
marking.
7.0 EMERGENCY EVACUATION PLAN
The site vicinity has been subject to numerous wildfires originating east of the location from the Cajon
Pass area under extreme northeast wind conditions (Santa Ana winds) burning through the San Bernardino
National Forest down into residential areas. As long as those areas remain as fuel beds, the area is expected
to continue to be affected by destructive wildfires. Of significant importance is that the development
incorporates a series of design features into the plans, which will provide for a residential development
that has the capacity to withstand the threat of a wildland fire and to provide the means and methods
necessary to protect the property. Every safety feature identified by the fire experts within Rancho
Cucamonga Fire Protection District, and CAL FIRE have been implemented and adopted in the planning
process.
An example is interlocking Fuel Modification Zones, designed to ensure that all (5) five homes are
internally and externally surrounded by defensible space.
Firewise2000, LLC FPP TTM 20653 Decliff Dr_ V3.0 16May25 Page | 27
Evacuation Concepts in the Wildland Urban Interface
There are numerous concepts used throughout the world relating to evacuations of people from wildfire.
Throughout the United States and particularly in Southern California the most popular and commonly
used concept in areas subject to wildfires is the implementation of a program known as “Ready! Set!
Go!”. This national program is jointly sponsored through a partnership of the U.S. Forest Service, the
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Land Management,
Firewise Communities, and the International Association of Fire Chiefs Association. The concept has been
adopted and promoted by CAL FIRE and most other southern California fire agencies.
The focus of the program is on the public’s awareness and preparedness, especially for those living in the
WUI areas. The program is designed to incorporate the local fire protection agency as part of the training
and education process to ensure that evacuation preparedness information is disseminated to those subject
to the impact from a wildfire. Most fire safety experts agree that this program provides for the greatest
level of survivability from a wildfire. By virtue of the name of the program, there are three simple
components:
READY – Preparing for the Fire Threat: Be ready, be firewise. Take
personal responsibility and prepare long before the threat of a wildfire so you
and your home are ready when a wildfire occurs. Use fire-resistant landscaping
and harden the structures with fire-safe construction measures. Assemble
emergency supplies and belongings in a safe spot. For more information about
how to be ready for wildland fires, visit: www.firewise.org, and Ready Rancho
Cucamonga https://www.cityofrc.us/readyrc
SET – Situational Awareness When a Fire Starts: Pack your vehicle with
your emergency items. Stay aware of the latest news from local media and your
local fire department for updated information on the fire. If you are
uncomfortable, leave the area.
GO – Leave Early! Following your Action Plan makes you prepared and by
leaving early, well before a wildfire is threatening your community, firefighters
are now able to better maneuver, protect structures, evacuate other residents,
and focus on citizen safety.
“READY! SET! GO!” is predicated on the fact that not being prepared and
attempting to flee an impending fire late (such as when the fire is physically
close to your community) is dangerous and most often leads to death or injury.
Firewise2000, LLC FPP TTM 20653 Decliff Dr_ V3.0 16May25 Page | 28
8.0 OWNER EDUCATION
For emergency preparedness, property owners should review the “Ready RC Guide”
https://www.cityofrc.us/readyrc prepared by the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District.
This guide provides references and contacts to assist property owners to prepare for all risk hazards
that may affect public safety. Developing an evacuation plan for your home in case of wildfire
emergencies would be a key component to ensure a timely and safe exit from your property.
APPENDICES Acceptable Plant List APPENDIX ‘A’ Undesirable Plant Species APPENDIX ‘B’
Literature Referenced APPENDIX ‘C’
Non-combustible & Fire-Resistant Building Materials APPENDIX ‘D’
Ignition Resistant Construction Requirements APPENDIX ‘E’
Fuel Treatment Exhibit APPENDIX ‘F’
Site Plan
Firewise2000, LLC FPP TTM 20653 Decliff Dr_ V3.0 16May25 Page | 29
“INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK”
Firewise2000, LLC FPP TTM 20653 Decliff Dr_ V3.0 16May25 Page | 30
APPENDIX ‘A’
Acceptable Plant List
Various lists of plant species are available, Firewise2000, LLC will provide a list of
acceptable species if required. A Landscape Architect will be able to provide various
listings as needed.
The project Landscape Architect will have various species that qualify within the
fire resistive/drought tolerant categories.
If a local area has a preferred plant list, it shall be used in accordance with the
requirements.
Chapter 49 of the Fire Code provides this information; The following sources
contain examples of types of vegetation that can be considered fire-resistant
vegetation. (Fire-resistant Plants for Home Landscapes, A Pacific Northwest
Extension publication; Home Landscaping for Fire, University of California
Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources; Sunset Western Garden Book.
Firewise2000, LLC FPP TTM 20653 Decliff Dr_ V3.0 16May25 Page | 31
APPENDIX “B”
Undesirable Plant List
Wildland Urban Interface Fire Area Undesirable Plants and Trees
Botanical Name Common Name Comment B
Trees C
Abies species Fir F
Acacia species (numerous) Acacia F, I
Agonis juniperina Juniper Myrtle F
Araucaria species (A. heterophylla,
A. araucana, A. bidwillii)
Araucaria (Norfolk Island Pine,
Monkey Puzzle Tree, Bunya Bunya)
F
Callistemon species (C. citrinus, C.
rosea, C. viminalis)
Bottlebrush (Lemon, Rose,
Weeping)
F
Calocedrus decurrens Incense Cedar F
Casuarina cunninghamiana River She-Oak F
Cedrus species (C. atlantica, C.
deodara)
Cedar (Atlas, Deodar) F
Chamaecyparis species (numerous) False Cypress F
Cinnamomum camphora Camphor F
Cryptomeria japonica Japanese Cryptomeria F
Cupressocyparis leylandii Leyland Cypress F
Cupressus species (C. fobesii, C.
glabra, C. sempervirens,)
Cypress (Tecate, Arizona, Italian,
others)
F
Eucalyptus species (numerous) Eucalyptus F, I
Juniperus species (numerous) Juniper F
Larix species (L. decidua, L.
occidentalis, L. kaempferi)
Larch (European, Japanese,
Western)
F
Leptospermum species (L.
laevigatum, L. petersonii)
Tea Tree (Australian, Tea) F
Lithocarpus densiflorus Tan Oak F
Melaleuca species (M. linariifolia, M.
nesophila, M. quinquenervia)
Melaleuca (Flaxleaf, Pink, Cajeput
Tree)
F, I
Metrosideros excelsus New Zealand Christmas tree FR
Olea europea Olive I
Picea (numerous) Spruce F
Palm species (numerous) Palm F, I, FR
Pinus species (P. brutia, P.
canariensis, P. b. eldarica, P.
halepensis, P. pinea, P. radiata,
numerous others)
Pine (Calabrian, Canary Island,
Mondell, Aleppo, Italian Stone,
Monterey)
F
Platycladus orientalis Oriental Arborvitae F
Firewise2000, LLC FPP TTM 20653 Decliff Dr_ V3.0 16May25 Page | 32
Podocarpus species (P. gracilior, P.
macrophyllus, P. latifolius)
Fern Pine (Fern, Yew, Podocarpus) F
Pseudotsuga menziesii Douglas Fir F
Schinus species (S. molle, S.
terebenthifolius)
Pepper (California and Brazilian) F, I
Botanical Name Common Name Comment B
Tamarix species (T. africana, T.
aphylla, T. chinensis, T. parviflora)
Tamarix (Tamarisk, Athel Tree, Salt
Cedar, Tamarisk)
F, I
Taxodium species (T. ascendens, T.
distichum, T. mucronatum)
Cypress (Pond, Bald, Monarch,
Montezuma)
F
Taxus species (T. baccata, T.
brevifolia, T. cuspidata)
Yew (English, Western, Japanese) F
Thuja species (T. occidentalis, T.
plicata)
Arborvitae/Red Cedar F
Tsuga species (T. heterophylla, T.
mertensiana)
Hemlock (Western, Mountain) F
Groundcovers, Shrubs & Vines
Acacia species Acacia F, I
Adenostoma fasciculatum Chamise F
Adenostoma sparsifolium Red Shanks F
Aeonium decorum Aeonium FR
Aeonium simsii No common name FR
Agave attenuata No common name FR
Agave victoriae-reginae No common name FR
Agropyron repens Quackgrass F, I
Alogyne huegeii Blue Hibiscus FR
Anthemis cotula Mayweed F, I
Arbutus menziesii Madrone F
Arctostaphylos species Manzanita. Also note that Eastwood
Manzanita grows to 8 feet.
F
Arundo donax Giant Reed F, I
Artemisia species (A. abrotanium, A.
absinthium, A. californica, A.
caucasica, A. dracunculus, A.
tridentata, A. pynocephala)
Sagebrush (Southernwood,
Wormwood, California, Silver, True
tarragon, Big, Sandhill)
F
Atriplex species (numerous) Saltbush F, I
Avena fatua Wild Oat F
Baccharis pilularis Coyote Bush F
Bambusa species Bamboo F, I
Bougainvillea species Bougainvillea F, I, FR
Brassica species (B. campestris, B.
nigra, B. rapa)
Mustard (Field, Black, Yellow) F, I
Bromus rubens Foxtail, Red Brome F, I
Firewise2000, LLC FPP TTM 20653 Decliff Dr_ V3.0 16May25 Page | 33
Bromus carinatus California Brome Grows to 5’, Dies if cut
Castanopsis chrysophylla Giant Chinquapin F
Cardaria draba Hoary Cress I
Carpobrotus species Ice Plant, Hottentot Fig I
Carissa macrocarpa Green Carpet Natal Plum FR
Ceonothus griseus “ Louis Edmunds Louis Edmunds Ceanothus Grows higher than 18”
Ceonothus griseus var. horizontalis Carmel Creeper Ceonothus Grows higher than 18”
Botanical Name Common Name Comment B
Ceonothus griseus var. horizontalis
“yankee point”
Yankee Point Ceonothus Grows higher than 18”
Ceonothus megacarpus Big Pod Ceonothus Grows higher than 18”
Cirsium vulgare Wild Artichoke F,I
Conyza bonariensis Horseweed F
Coprosma pumila Prostrate Coprosma F
Cortaderia selloana Pampas Grass F, I
Cynara Cardunculus Atichoke Thistle F
Cytisus scoparius Scotch Broom F, I
Delosperma “alba” White Trailing Ice Plant F
Dodonaea viscosa Hopseed Bush F
Drosanthemum Floribundum Rosea Ice plant F
Eriodictyon californicum Yerba Santa F
Eriogonum species (E. fasciculatum) Buckwheat (California) F
Fremontodendron species Flannel Bush F
Hakea suaveolens Sweet Hakea FR
Hedera species (H. canariensis, H.
helix)
Ivy (Algerian, English) I
Helix Canariensis English Ivy F
Heterotheca grandiflora Telegraph Plant F
Hordeum leporinum Wild Barley F, I
Juniperus species Juniper F
Lactuca serriola Prickly Lettuce I
Lamprathus aurantiacus Bush Ice Plant F
Lamprathus spectabilis Trailing Ice Plant F
Larix species (numerous) Larch F
Larrea tridentata Creosote Bush F
Leymus condensatus Giant Wild Rye Grows to 9’ tall
Lolium multiflorum Ryegrass F, I
Lonicera japonica Japanese Honeysuckle F
Mahonia species Mahonia F
Mimulus aurantiacus Sticky Monkeyflower F
Firewise2000, LLC FPP TTM 20653 Decliff Dr_ V3.0 16May25 Page | 34
Miscanthus species Eulalie Grass F
Muhlenbergia species Deer Grass F
Nassella ( stipa)leprida Foothill Needlegrass Grows higher than 18”
Nassella (stipa) pulchra Purple Needlegrass Grows higher than 18”
Nerium Oleander Oleander Toxic
Nicotiana species (N. bigelovii, N.
glauca)
Tobacco (Indian, Tree) F, I
Pennisetum setaceum Fountain Grass F, I
Perovskia atroplicifolia Russian Sage F
Phoradendron species Mistletoe F
Botanical Name Common Name Comment B
Pickeringia montana Chaparral Pea F
Rhus (R. diversiloba, R. laurina, R.
lentii)
Sumac (Poison oak, Laurel, Pink
Flowering)
F
Ricinus communis Castor Bean F, I
Rhus Lentii Pink Flowering Sumac F
Rosmarinus species Rosemary ( except dwarf/prostrate
variety)
F
Salvia species (numerous) Sage F, I
Salsola australis Russian Thistle F, I
Senecio serpens No common name FR
Solanum Xantii Purple Nightshade (toxic) I, Toxic
Solanum Douglasii Douglas Nightshade Toxic
Silybum marianum Milk Thistle F, I
Strelizia nicolae Giant Bird of Paradise FR
Strelizia reginae Bird of Paradise FR
Thuja species Arborvitae F
Urtica urens Burning Nettle F
Vinca major Periwnkle I
Notes:
A. Use of plants and trees on this list must be specifically approved by the
Fire Code Official. Use of the Fire District’s 50/50/50 defensible space
fire protection provisions are required when anyplant(s) and/or tree(s)
on this list is/are proposed for landscaping. Plants and trees on this list
shall not be located within the 0-50 feet zone (Zone 1). Use of any of
the plants or trees on this list is subject to periodic, ongoing inspections
by the Fire District to ensure proper maintenance.Inspections may incur
fees payable by the property owner. Failure to maintain the plants and
trees on this list in accordance with plan approvals could result in the
Firewise2000, LLC FPP TTM 20653 Decliff Dr_ V3.0 16May25 Page | 35
plants and/or trees being ordered to be removed at the expense of the
property owner. See Appendix B for information about the 50/50/50
defensible space plan.
B. F = Flammable, I = Invasive, FR = Freezes.
C. The Fire District has a list of approved trees that can be used for street trees.
Information:
1. Plants on this list that are considered invasive are a partial list of
commonly found plants. Thereare many other plants considered
invasive that should not be planted in a fuel modification zone and
they can be found on The California Invasive Plant Council’s
Website www.cal- ipc.org/ip/inventory/index.php.
2. For the purpose of using this list as a guide in selecting plant
material, it is stipulated that all plant material will burn under
various conditions.
3. The absence of a particular plant, shrub, groundcover, or tree from this
list does not necessarily mean it is fire resistive and does not imply that a
particular plant, shrub, groundcover, or tree will be approved by the Fire
Code Official for landscaping in the Wildland Urban Interface Fire Area.
4. All vegetation used in Vegetation Management Zones and
elsewhere in the Wildland Urban Interface Fire Area shall be
subject to approval of the Fire Code Official.
5. Landscape architects may submit proposals for use of certain
vegetation on a project specific basis. They shall also submit
justifications as to the fire resistivity of the proposed vegetation.
6. Rancho Cucamonga is in Climate Zones 18 and 19 as defined in
the Sunset Western Gardenbook. Plants, shrubs, groundcover, or
trees recommended for the climate zone in which the project is
located can be submitted for approval as landscaping.
7. Native and/or drought tolerant plants are encouraged.
8. Notwithstanding the type of plant included or not included on this list,
spacing and configuration of plantings, which are critical to stopping fire
spread, shall be in accordance with the Fire District’s standards.
9. This list was compiled with the assistance of wildland urban interface
landscape consultants. It has been reviewed and approved by the Fire
District’s fire code official and may be revised from time to time.
Firewise2000, LLC FPP TTM 20653 Decliff Dr_ V3.0 16May25 Page | 36
APPENDIX ‘C’
REFERENCE MATERIAL
Literature References
1. Standard Fire Behavior Fuel Models: A Comprehensive Set for Use with Rothermel’s Surface Fire Spread Model ,
General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-153. June 2005. Joe H. Scott, Robert E. Burgan, United States Department of
Agriculture - Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Missoula, Montana.
2. BEHAVEPlus: Fire Modeling System, version 6 build 626: Variables. (Not Revised upon release of V6)General
Technical Report RMRS-GTR-213WWW Revised. September 2009. Patricia L. Andrews, United States Department
of Agriculture - Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Missoula, Montana.
3. BEHAVEPlus Fire Modeling System, Version 5.0.0 General Technical Report RMRS-GRT-106WWW Revised. June
2008. Patricia L. Andrews, Collin D. Bevins and Robert C. Seli. United States Department of Agriculture - Forest
Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Missoula, Montana.
4. BEHAVEPlus Fire Modeling System, Version 5.0 User’s Guide. General Technical Report RMRS-GRT-106WWW
Revised. July 2009. Patricia L. Andrews, Collin D. Bevins, Robert C. Seli. United States Department of Agriculture -
Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Missoula, Montana.
5. The 2022 California Fire Code Chapter 49
6. The 2022 California Fire Code with Local Amendments
7. The 2022 California Residential Code, Section R337.
8. Chapter 7A-California of the 2022 Building Code
9. National Fire Protection Association - NFPA 13 Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems in One – and Two-
Family Dwellings and Manufactured Homes, 13 -R &13-D, 2022 Editions
10. National Fire Protection Association - NFPA 1144 Standard for Reducing Structure Ignition Hazards from Wildfire
(2018).
11. National Fire Protection Association - NFPA 1710, 2020 Edition. Response and Staffing
12. The California State and Local Responsibility Area Fire Hazard Severity Zone Map – Fire and Resource Assessment
Program FRAP at CAL FIRE
Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Standards found at
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/86zjfacfxqh8oeo/AABYEQ81w5vL7WZ7e1zBiu25a?e=1&dl=0
Firewise2000, LLC FPP TTM 20653 Decliff Dr_ V3.0 16May25 Page | 37
APPENDIX ‘D’
Non-combustible & Ignition Resistant
Building Materials
Non-Combustible & Ignition Resistant Building Materials
For Balconies, Carports, Decks, Patio Covers and Floors
Examples of non-combustible & fire-resistant building materials for balconies, carports decks, patio covers, and
floors are as follow:
I. NON-COMBUSTIBLE HEAVY GAGE ALUMINUM MATERIALS - Metals USA Building Products
Group - Ultra-Lattice
Ultra-Lattice Stand Alone Patio Cover
Ultra-Lattice Attached Patio Cover
Firewise2000, LLC FPP TTM 20653 Decliff Dr_ V3.0 16May25 Page | 38
Ultra-Lattice Solid Patio Cover
Ultra-Lattice Vs. Wood
II. FRX Exterior Fire-Retardant Treated Wood
FRX® fire retardant treated wood may be used in exterior applications permitted by
the codes where: public safety is critical, other materials would transfer heat or
allow fires to spread, sprinkler systems cannot easily be installed, corrosive
atmospheres necessitate excessive maintenance of other materials, or fire
protection is inadequate or not readily available. The International Building,
Residential and Urban-Wildland Interface Codes and regulations permit the use of
fire-retardant treated wood in specific instances. See below for typical exterior uses
and typical residential uses.
Typical Exterior Uses
• Balconies
• Decks
Homeowners and Residential
Architects: See this 2-minute video
and the diagram below.
Firewise2000, LLC FPP TTM 20653 Decliff Dr_ V3.0 16May25 Page | 39
III. TREX COMPANY, INC –“Trex Accents ®: Fire Defense ™ ” wood and polyethylene composite
deck board, nominal 5/4” thick x 5-1/2” width, nominal density of 0.036 lb./in3.
Trex Accents®: Fire Defense™
The perfect blend of beauty and brawn.
Trex's #1 selling platform, Trex Accents®, exceeds the strict fire regulations set by the State of California
and San Diego County.
• Offers superior safety performance:
o Exceeds ASTM E84 Class B Flame Spread.
o Exceeds 12-7A-4 Part A (under flame) and Part B (Burning Brand).
• Self-extinguishing even under extreme fire exposure.
Approved for use by the California State Fire Marshal's Office and San Diego County. Read the
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, Office of the State Fire Marshal WILDLAND
URBAN INTERFACE (WUI)PRODUCTS Report. (PDF)
IV. SOLID “WOOD” DECKING
For information on fire retardant treated wood for exterior uses, visit
www.frxwood.com.
Firewise2000, LLC FPP TTM 20653 Decliff Dr_ V3.0 16May25 Page | 40
Company Name: Various Manufacturers
Product Description: Solid “Wood” decking: “Redwood”, “Western Red Cedar”, “Incense Cedar”, “Port
Orford Cedar”, and “Alaska Yellow Cedar”.
Sizes: Minimum nominal 2” thickness (American Softwood Lumber Standard PS 20).
Lumber grades: Construction Common and better grades for Redwood, 3 Common and better grades for
Cedars, and commercial decking or better grades for both Redwood and Cedars.
Special Instructions: Solid wood decking shall be installed over solid wood joists spacing 24” or less on
center.
Decking (SFM Standard 12-7A-4)
V. Vents
Examples of Approved Vents
Brandguard
O’Hagin Fire & Ice® Line – Flame and Ember Resistant
An available option for all O’Hagin attic ventilation products, this attic vent not only features all the same
design, construction elements and color choices as the O’Hagin Standard Line, but also features an
interior stainless-steel matrix that resists the intrusion of flames and embers. This patent-pending attic
vent is accepted for use by many local fire officials for installation in Wildland Urban Interface (WUI)
zones.
Firewise2000, LLC FPP TTM 20653 Decliff Dr_ V3.0 16May25 Page | 41
Vulcan Vents
The founders of Gunter Manufacturing have been working closely over the last two years, with the
scientists and inventors of Vulcan Technologies to bring to market this incredible product.
Combining our quality vent products with the fire-stopping honeycomb matrix core designed by Vulcan
has produced unique and remarkable results.
Gunter manufacturing has over 50 years of combined sheet metal manufacturing experience. Special
orders are not a problem. Their vent frames are industry standard frames so there is little or no learning
curve for installers and contractors. Their stated goal is to provide people with the vents they need to
secure their homes with additional safety against wildfires and give them piece of mind from knowing
that their home or structure is protected by a product that works!
The core of their fire and ember safe vents are manufactured out of hi-grade aluminum honeycomb and coated
with an intumescent coating made by FireFree Coatings. The intumescent coating is designed to quickly swell up
and close off when exposed to high heat. The expanded material acts as an insulator to heat, fire, and embers
Firewise2000, LLC FPP TTM 20653 Decliff Dr_ V3.0 16May25 Page | 42
Before After
After the cells close off, they are extremely well insulated, and fire or embers cannot penetrate.
Even before the cells close off, the vent is designed to protect against flying embers. In many cases embers will attack a
structure before fire ever comes near, so this feature is especially important.
Close-up of the coated honeycomb matrix.
Fire easily passes through a standard vent, on the left, but stops cold when it comes up against a Vulcan Vent
shown on right.
Firewise2000, LLC FPP TTM 20653 Decliff Dr_ V3.0 16May25 Page | 43
Non Combustible walls as mitigation measures.
In cases where a radiant heat barrier is required as a mitigtion measure this product may be allowed by
the Jurisdicaiton in place of CMU
Appendix ‘E’
Firewise2000, LLC FPP TTM 20653 Decliff Dr_ V3.0 16May25 Page | 44
Ignition Resistant Construction
The following is a summary of the current requirements for ignition resistant construction for high fire hazard areas
under Chapter 7A of the California Building Code (CBC) 2019 edition. However the requirements listed below are
not all inclusive and all exterior building construction including roofs, eaves, exterior walls, doors, windows, decks,
and other attachments must meet the current CBC Chapter 7A ignition resistance requirements, the California Fire
Code, and any additional County and/or City codes in effect at the time of building permit application. See the
currrent applicable codes for a detailed description of these requirements and any exceptions.
1. All structures will be built with a Class A Roof Assembly and shall comply with the requirements
of Chapter 7A and Chapter 15 of the California Fire Code. Roofs shall have a roofing assembly installed in
accordance with its listing and the manufacturer’s installation instructions.
2. Roof valley flashings shall be not less than 0.019-inch (0.48 mm) No. 26 gage galvanized sheet corrosion-
resistant metal installed over not less than one layer of minimum 72-pound (32.4 kg) mineral-surfaced
nonperforated cap sheet complying with ASTM D3909, at least 36-inch-wide (914 mm) running the full
length of the valley.
3. Attic or foundation ventilation louvers or ventilation openings in vertical walls shall be covered with a
minimum of 1/16-inch and shall not exceed 1/8-inch mesh corrosion-resistant metal screening or other
approved material that offers equivalent protection.
4. Where the roof profile allows a space between the roof covering and roof decking, the spaces shall be
constructed to resist the intrusion of flames and embers, be fire stopped with approved materials or have
one layer of a minimum 72 pound (32.4 kg) mineral-surfaced nonperforated cap sheet complying with
ASTM D3909 installed over the combustible decking.
5. Enclosed roof eaves and roof eave soffits with a horizontal underside, sloping rafter tails with an exterior
covering applied to the under-side of the rafter tails, shall be protected by one of the following:
• noncombustible material
• Ignition-resistant material
• One layer of 5/8-inch Type X gypsum sheathing applied behind an exterior covering on the
underside of the rafter tails or soffit
• The exterior portion of a 1-hour fire resistive exterior wall assembly applied to the underside of
the rafter tails or soffit including assemblies using the gypsum panel and sheathing products listed
in the Gypsum Association Fire Resistance Design Manual
• Boxed-in roof eave soffit assemblies with a horizontal underside that meet the performance
criteria in Section 707A.10 when tested in accordance with the test procedures set forth in ASTM
E2957.
• Boxed-in roof eave soffit assemblies with a horizontal underside that meet the performance
criteria in accordance with the test procedures set forth in SFM Standard 12-7A-3.
Exceptions: The following materials do not require protection:
1. Gable end overhangs and roof assembly projections beyond an exterior wall other than at the
lower end of the rafter tails.
2. Fascia and other architectural trim boards.
6. The exposed roof deck on the underside of unenclosed roof eaves shall consist of one of the following:
• Noncombustible material, or
• Ignition-resistant material, or
• One layer of 5/8-inch Type X gypsum sheathing applied behind an exterior covering on the
underside exterior of the roof deck, or
Firewise2000, LLC FPP TTM 20653 Decliff Dr_ V3.0 16May25 Page | 45
• The exterior portion of a 1-hour fire resistive exterior wall assembly applied to the underside of
the roof deck designed for exterior fire exposure including assemblies using the gypsum panel
and sheathing products listed in the Gypsum Association fire Resistance Design Manual.
Exceptions: The following materials do not require protection:
1. Solid wood rafter tails on the exposed underside of open roof eaves having a minimum
nominal dimension of 2 inch (50.8 mm).
2. Solid wood blocking installed between rafter tails on the exposed underside of open roof eaves
having a minimum nominal dimension of 2 inch (50.8 mm).
3. Gable end overhangs and roof assembly projections beyond an exterior wall other than at the
lower end of the rafter tails.
4. Fascia and other architectural trim boards.
7. Vents - ventilation openings for enclosed attics, enclosed eave soffit spaces, enclosed rafter spaces formed
where ceilings are applied directly to the underside of roof rafters, and underfloor ventilation openings shall
be fully covered with metal wire mesh, vents, other materials or other devices that meet one of the following
requirements:
A. Vents listed to ASTM E2886 and complying with all the following:
i. There shall be no flaming ignition of the cotton material during the Ember Intrusion Test.
ii. There shall be no flaming ignition during the Integrity Test portion of the Flame Intrusion
Test.
iii. The maximum temperature of the unexposed side of the vent shall not exceed 662°F (350°C).
B. Vents shall comply with all the following:
i. The dimensions of the openings therein shall be a minimum of 1/16-inch (1.6 mm) and shall
not exceed 1/8-inch (3.2 mm).
ii. The materials used shall be noncombustible.
Exception: Vents located under the roof covering, along the ridge of roofs, with the exposed
surface of the vent covered by noncombustible wire mesh, may be of combustible materials.
iii. The materials used shall be corrosion resistant.
8. Vents shall not be installed on the underside of eaves and cornices.
Exceptions:
1. Vents listed to ASTM E2886 and complying with all the following:
• There shall be no flaming ignition of the cotton material during the Ember Intrusion Test.
• There shall be no flaming ignition during the Integrity Test portion of the Flame Intrusion Test.
• The maximum temperature of the unexposed side of the vent shall not exceed 662°F (350°C).
2. The enforcing agency shall be permitted to accept or approve special eave and cornice vents that resist
the intrusion of flame and burning embers.
3. Vents complying with the requirements of Section 706A.2 shall be permitted to be installed on the
underside of eaves and cornices in accordance with either one of the following conditions:
3.1. The attic space being ventilated is fully protected by an automatic sprinkler system installed in
accordance with Section 903.3.1.1 or,
3.2. The exterior wall covering, and exposed underside of the eave are of noncombustible materials,
or ignition-resistant materials, as determined in accordance with SFM Standard 12-7A-5 Ignition-
Resistant Material and the requirements.
9. All chimney, flue or stovepipe openings that will burn solid wood will have an approved spark arrester. An
approved spark arrester is defined as a device constructed of nonflammable materials, having a heat and
corrosion resistance equivalent to 12-gauge wire, 19-game galvanized steel or 24-gage stainless steel. or
other material found satisfactory by the Fire Protection District, having ½-inch perforations for arresting
burning carbon or sparks nor block spheres having a diameter less than 3/8 inch (9.55 m m). It shall be
installed to be visible for the purposes of inspection and maintenance and removeable to allow for cleaning
of the chimney flue.
Firewise2000, LLC FPP TTM 20653 Decliff Dr_ V3.0 16May25 Page | 46
10. All residential structures will have automatic interior fire sprinklers installed according to the National Fire
Protection Association (NFPA) 13D 2019 edition - Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems in
One and Two-family Dwellings and Manufactured Homes. Fire sprinklers are not required in unattached
non-habitable structures greater than 50 feet from the residence.
11. The exterior wall covering, or wall assembly shall comply with one of the following requirements:
• Noncombustible material, or
• Ignition resistant material, or
• Heavy timber exterior wall assembly, or
• Log wall construction assembly, or
• Wall assemblies that have been tested in accordance with the test procedures for a 10 -minute direct
flame contact expose test set forth in ASTM E2707 with the conditions of acceptance shown in Section
707A.3.1 of the California Building Code, or
• Wall assemblies that meet the performance criteria in accordance with the test procedures for a 10-
minute direct flame contact exposure test set forth in SFM Standard 12-7A-1.
Exception: Any of the following shall be deemed to meet the assembly performance criteria and intent
of this section including;
• One layer of 5/8-inch Type X gypsum sheathing applied behind the exterior covering
or cladding on the exterior side of the framing, or
• The exterior portion of a 1-hour fire resistive exterior wall assembly designed for
exterior fire exposure includes assemblies using the gypsum panel and sheathing
products listed in the Gypsum Associate Fire Resistance Design Manual.
12. Exterior walls shall extend from the top of the foundation to the roof and terminate at 2-inch nominal solid
blocking between rafters at all roof overhangs, or in the case of enclosed eaves, terminate at the enclosure.
13. Gutters shall be provided with the means to prevent the accumulation of leaf litter and debris within the
gutter that contribute to roof edge ignition.
14. No attic ventilation openings or ventilation louvers shall be permitted in soffits, in eave overhangs, between
rafters at eaves, or in other overhanging areas.
15. All projections (exterior balconies, decks, patio covers, unenclosed roofs and floors, and similar architectural
appendages and projections) or structures less than five feet from a building shall be of non -combustible
material, one-hour fire resistive construction on the underside, heavy timber construction or pressure-treated
exterior fire-retardant wood. When such appendages and projections are attached to exterior fire -resistive
walls, they shall be constructed to maintain same fire-resistant standards as the exterior walls of the structure.
16. Deck Surfaces shall be constructed with one of the following materials:
• Material that complies with the performance requirements of Section 709A.4 when tested in
accordance with both ASTM E2632 and ASTM E2726, or
• Ignition-resistant material that complies with the performance requirements of 704A.3 when
tested in accordance with ASTM E84 or UL 723, or
• Material that complies with the performance requirements of both SFM Standard 12-7A-4 and
SFM Standard 12-7A-5, or
• Exterior fire retardant treated wood, or
• Noncombustible material, or
• Any material that complies with the performance requirements of SFM Standard 12-7A-4A when the
attached exterior wall covering is also composed of noncombustible or ignition-resistant material.
Firewise2000, LLC FPP TTM 20653 Decliff Dr_ V3.0 16May25 Page | 47
17. Accessory structures attached to buildings with habitable spaces and projections shall be in accordance with
the Building Code. When the attached structure is located and constructed so that the structure or any portion
thereof projects over a descending slope surface greater than 10 percent, the area below the structure shall
have all underfloor areas and exterior wall construction in accordance with Chapter 7A of the Building Code.
18. Exterior windows, skylights and exterior glazed door assemblies shall comply with one of the following
requirements:
• Be constructed of multiplane glazing with a minimum of one tempered pane meeting the
requirements of Section 2406 Safety Glazing, or
• Be constructed of glass block units, or
• Have a fire-resistance rating of not less than 20 minutes when tested according to NFPA 257, or
• Be tested to meet the performance requirements of SFM Standard 12-7A-2.
19. All eaves, fascia and soffits will be enclosed (boxed) with non-combustible materials. This shall apply to
the entire perimeter of each structure. Eaves of heavy timber construction are not required to be enclosed if
attic venting is not installed in the eaves. For the purposes of this section, heavy timber construction shall
consist of a minimum of 4x6 rafter ties and 2x decking.
20. Detached accessory buildings that are less than 120 square feet in floor area and are located more than 30
feet but less than 50 feet from an applicable building shall be constructed of noncombustible materials or
of ignition-resistant materials as described in Section 704A.2 of the California Building Code.
Exception: Accessory structures less than 120 square feet in floor area located at least 30 feet from a building
containing a habitable space.
21. All rain gutters, down spouts and gutter hardware shall be constructed from metal or other noncombustible
material to prevent wildfire ignition along eave assemblies.
22. All side yard fence and gate assemblies (fences, gate and gate posts) when attached to the home shall be of
non-combustable material. The first five feet of fences and other items attached to a structure shall be of
non-combustible material.
23. Exterior garage doors shall resist the intrusion of embers from entering by preventing gaps between doors
and door openings, at the bottom, sides and tops of doors, from exceeding 1/8 inch. Gaps between doors
and door openings shall be controlled by one of the methods listed in this section.
• Weather-stripping products made of materials that:
(a) have been tested for tensile strength in accordance with ASTM D638 (Standard Test Method for
Tensile Properties of Plastics) after exposure to ASTM G155 (Standard Practice for Operating Xenon
Arc Light Apparatus for Exposure of Non-Metallic Materials) for a period of 2,000 hours, where the
maximum allowable difference in tensile strength values between exposed and non-exposed samples
does not exceed 10%; and (b) exhibit a V-2 or better flammability rating when tested to UL 94,
Standard for Tests for Flammability of Plastic Materials for Parts in Devices and Appliances.
• Door overlaps onto jambs and headers.
• Garage door jambs and headers covered with metal flashing.
24. Exterior doors shall comply with one of the following:
1. The exterior surface or cladding shall be of noncombustible material or,
2. The exterior surface or cladding shall be of ignition-resistant material or,
3. The exterior door shall be constructed of solid core wood that complies with the following
requirements:
3.1. Stiles and rails shall not be less than 1-3/8 inches thick.
3.2. Panels shall not be less than 1-1/4 inches thick, except for the exterior perimeter of the panel that
shall be permitted to taper to a tongue not less than 3/8 inch thick.
Firewise2000, LLC FPP TTM 20653 Decliff Dr_ V3.0 16May25 Page | 48
4. The exterior door assembly shall have a fire-resistance rating of not less than 20 minutes when tested
according to NFPA 252 or,
5. The exterior surface or cladding shall be tested to meet the performance requirements of Section
707A.3.1 when tested in accordance with ASTM E2707 or,
6. The exterior surface or cladding shall be tested to meet the performance requirements of SFM Standard
12-7A-1.
Door Note
All structure and garage doors shall be self-closing and latching. RCFPD requirement.
This will minimize the potential for blowing embers to enter the structure should a door be left open during
an approaching fire.
Garage Door Note
All garage doors installed shall have the security auto closure functionality. All garage doors shall have a seal
to prevent the intrusion of firebrands and embers.
Garage Door Battery Backup SB969, requires an automatic garage door opener that is manufactured for sale,
sold, offered for sale, or installed in a residence to have a battery backup function that is designed to operate
when activated because of an electrical outage.
Firewise2000, LLC FPP TTM 20653 Decliff Dr_ V3.0 16May25 Page | 49
APPENDIX ‘F’
SITE PLAN
AND
FIRE PROTECTION PLAN EXHIBIT
Exhibit shall be scalable and is considered a part of the Fire Protection Plan.
LOT 3
LOT 1
LOT 4
LOT 2
2 ACRES
87,120 SF
UTILITY CORRIDOR
100' FAULT ZONE
FAULT LINE PER USGS
15.00 ft
20.00 ft
306.30
50.00 ft
306.55
15.00 ft
DECLIFF DRIVE
2 ACRES
87,120 SF
2 ACRES
87,120 SF 2 ACRES
87,120 SF
.5 ACRE HOMESITE
5.2 ACRES
227,660 SF
LOT 5
RESIDENCERESIDENCE
RESIDENCE
RESIDENCERESIDENCE
ZONE 0
ZONE 0
ZONE 0
ZONE 1
0-5' NON-COMBUSTABLE
0-5' NON-COMBUSTABLE
0-5' NON-COMBUSTABLE
ZONE 0
0-5' NON-COMBUSTABLE
ZONE 00-5' NON-COMBUSTABLE
5'-30' OPTION 1- LANDSCAPED
30' TYP
5' TYP
ZONE 15'-30' OPTION 1- LANDSCAPEDZONE 15'-30' OPTION 1- LANDSCAPED
ZONE 1
5'-30' OPTION 1- LANDSCAPED
ZONE 15'-30' OPTION 1- LANDSCAPED
.5 ACRE HOME SITE
.5 ACRE HOME SITE
.5 ACRE HOME SITE
.5 ACRE HOME SITE
.5 ACRE HOME SITE
ZONE 2
31'- 100' OPTION 1- LANDSCAPED
ZONE 2
31'- 100' OPTION 1- LANDSCAPED
ZONE 2
31'- 100' OPTION 1- LANDSCAPED
100' TYP
5
7
812
3
4 6
PHOTO LEGEND
ROADWAY ACCESS
30' CLEAR OF
VEGETATION
30' TYP
RO
A
D
W
A
Y
RO
A
D
W
A
Y
31'- 100' OPTION 1- LANDSCAPED
EASEMENT ON LOT 3
ZONE 2
SC
A
L
E
:
1
"
=
5
0
'
OLWYN KINGERY
FU
E
L
M
O
D
L1
DATE:
REVISIONS:
PRINT DATE:
5/12/25
DE
C
L
I
F
F
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
I
E
S
L
L
C
DE
C
L
I
F
F
D
R
I
V
E
R
A
N
C
H
O
C
U
C
A
M
O
N
G
A
,
C
A
.
9
1
7
3
9
DECLIFF PROP. LLC
L1 FUEL MODIFICATION
DRAWINGS, REPORTS AND OTHER WORK PRODUCT OF OLWYN KINGERY ARE
INSTRUMENTS OF SERVICE AND REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF THE DESIGNER.
ANY AND ALL INFORMATION CONTAINED WITHIN THESE DOCUMENTS ARE
INTENDED FOR THE USE OF OUR CLIENT ONLY FOR THE BENEFIT OF A
SPECIFIC PROJECT AND SHALL NOT BE USED FOR OTHER PROJECTS. PLANS
REPORTS AND OTHER INSTRUMENTS MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED COPIED, IN
PART OR IN WHOLE, WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE DESIGNER.
INFORMATION PROVIDED TO OTHERS IN ELECTRONIC FORMAT FOR ANY
REASON OR PURPOSE, DO NOT CONSTITUTE THE DELIVERY OF OUR
PROFESSIONAL WORK PRODUCT. WITHOUT PRIOR REVIEW AND WRITTEN
APPROVAL, THE DESIGNER SHALL NOT BE HELD RESPONSIBLE, IN ANY WAY,
FOR MODIFICATION OF THE DATA TRANSMITTED IN ELECTRONIC FORMAT.
NOTICEN
10/26
5/12/25
VICINITY MAP FUEL MODIFICATION NOTES
0 25 50 100
GRAPHIC SCALE
JA
M
E
S
C
H
E
S
T
E
R
M
A
N
A
G
I
N
G
M
E
M
B
E
R
EXISTING PLANT SPECIES
SCALE: 1'= 50'
OPTION 1 APPLIED
THESE NATIVE/ NON NATIVE PLANTS
SPECIES WERE OBSERVED ON THE SITE
DATED APRIL 3RD, 2025
TARGET SPECIES FOR REMOVAL
1. ERIOGONUM FASCICULATUM-
CALIFORNIA BUCKWHEAT
2. BROMUS RUBENS-
RED BROMEGRASS
3. CENTAUREA MELITENSIS
MALTESE STAR THISTLE
4. VARIOUS INVASIVE GRASS SPECIES
SPECIES TO BE REMOVED /THINNED PER
PLAN OR STANDARDS
5. ARTEMESIA CALIFORNICA-
CALIFORNIA SAGEBRUSH
6. ENCELIA FARINESA-
BRITTLEBUSH
7. ACMISPON GLABER VAR. GLABER
COMMON DEERWEED
8. HELIANTHUS PETIOLARIS-
PRAIRIE SUNFLOWER
3533 OLD CONEJO ROAD SUITE 113
NEWBURY PARK, CALIFORNIA 91319
EMAIL: OLWYNKINGERY@YAHOO.COM PHONE: 805.279.9119
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT
NO
S
C
A
L
E
OLWYN KINGERY
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT
SI
T
E
C
O
N
D
.
L2
DATE:
REVISIONS:
PRINT DATE:
5/12/25
L2 SITE CONDITIONS
DRAWINGS, REPORTS AND OTHER WORK PRODUCT OF OLWYN KINGERY ARE
INSTRUMENTS OF SERVICE AND REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF THE DESIGNER.
ANY AND ALL INFORMATION CONTAINED WITHIN THESE DOCUMENTS ARE
INTENDED FOR THE USE OF OUR CLIENT ONLY FOR THE BENEFIT OF A
SPECIFIC PROJECT AND SHALL NOT BE USED FOR OTHER PROJECTS. PLANS
REPORTS AND OTHER INSTRUMENTS MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED COPIED, IN
PART OR IN WHOLE, WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE DESIGNER.
INFORMATION PROVIDED TO OTHERS IN ELECTRONIC FORMAT FOR ANY
REASON OR PURPOSE, DO NOT CONSTITUTE THE DELIVERY OF OUR
PROFESSIONAL WORK PRODUCT. WITHOUT PRIOR REVIEW AND WRITTEN
APPROVAL, THE DESIGNER SHALL NOT BE HELD RESPONSIBLE, IN ANY WAY,
FOR MODIFICATION OF THE DATA TRANSMITTED IN ELECTRONIC FORMAT.
NOTICE
1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8
SITE PHOTOS
EXISTING PLANT COMMUNITY PHOTOS
ARTEMESIA CALIFORNICA-
CALIFORNIA SAGEBRUSH
HELIANTHUS PETIOLARIS-
PRAIRIE SUNFLOWER
VARIETY OF INVASIVE
GRASS SPECIES
BROMUS RUBENS
RED BROMEGRASS
ERIOGONUM FASCICULATUM-
CALIFORNIA BUCKWHEAT
ENCELIA FARINESA-
BRITTLEBUSH
ACMISPON GLABER VAR. GLABER
COMMON DEERWEED
CENTAUREA MELITENSIS
MALTESE STAR THISTLE
TARGET SPECIES TO BE REMOVED
SPECIES TO BE REMOVED /THINNED PER PLAN OR STANDARDS
DE
C
L
I
F
F
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
I
E
S
L
L
C
DE
C
L
I
F
F
D
R
I
V
E
R
A
N
C
H
O
C
U
C
A
M
O
N
G
A
,
C
A
.
9
1
7
3
9
DECLIFF PROP. LLC
10/26
5/12/25
JA
M
E
S
C
H
E
S
T
E
R
M
A
N
A
G
I
N
G
M
E
M
B
E
R
3533 OLD CONEJO ROAD SUITE 113
NEWBURY PARK, CALIFORNIA 91319
EMAIL: OLWYNKINGERY@YAHOO.COM PHONE: 805.279.9119
OWNER / DEVELOPER:
ENGINEER:
PEARL CITY ENGINEERING, INC.
SOOD KISRA
ANISA SHARIF
KAMIL MUHYIEDDEEN
LEGEND:ABBREVIATIONS:
ZONING
Firewise2000, LLC FPP TTM 20653 Decliff Dr_ V3.0 16May25 Page | 50
DECLIFF DRIVE LOT SUBDIVISION
PROJECT
California Environmental Quality Act
Compliance Memorandum
Prepared for City of Rancho Cucamonga
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730
Prepared by Lilburn Corporation
1905 Business Center Drive
San Bernardino, CA 92408
February 2026
EXHIBIT C
Decliff Drive Lot Subdivision
Project
CEQA Compliance Memorandum
City of Rancho Cucamonga February 2026 i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PURPOSE .............................................................................................................................................. 1
PROJECT BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................... 4
PROJECT SETTING .............................................................................................................................. 5
PROJECT LOCATION .............................................................................................................................. 5
SURROUNDING LAND USES .................................................................................................................... 5
PROJECT DESCRIPTION ..................................................................................................................... 6
FINDINGS FROM THE PREVIOUS ANALYSIS .................................................................................... 8
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS ........................................................................................................... 15
INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................... 15
AESTHETICS ........................................................................................................................................ 16
AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY ............................................................................................................. 18
AIR QUALITY ....................................................................................................................................... 20
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ..................................................................................................................... 26
CULTURAL RESOURCES ....................................................................................................................... 31
ENERGY ............................................................................................................................................. 33
GEOLOGY AND SOILS ........................................................................................................................... 35
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ............................................................................................................. 40
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ................................................................................................ 43
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ....................................................................................................... 47
LAND USE AND PLANNING .................................................................................................................... 51
MINERAL RESOURCES ......................................................................................................................... 53
NOISE ................................................................................................................................................. 54
POPULATION AND HOUSING .................................................................................................................. 60
PUBLIC SERVICES ................................................................................................................................ 62
RECREATION ....................................................................................................................................... 65
TRANSPORTATION ............................................................................................................................... 67
TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES ............................................................................................................ 72
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS ......................................................................................................... 76
WILDFIRE ............................................................................................................................................ 79
CONCLUSION ...................................................................................................................................... 81
Decliff Drive Lot Subdivision
Project
CEQA Compliance Memorandum
City of Rancho Cucamonga February 2026 ii
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Applicable Conditions of Approval
Appendix B: CalEEMod Outputs
Appendix C: Biological Resources Assessment
Appendix C-1: Non-Breeding Season Surveys for California Gnatcatcher
Appendix C-2: Trapping Studies for the San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat and Los
Angeles Pocket Mouse
Appendix D: Phase I Cultural Resources
Appendix E: Geotechnical Engineering Investigation
Appendix E-1: Paleontological Assessment
Appendix F: Preliminary Hydrology Study
Appendix G: Transportation Screening Assessment
Decliff Drive Lot Subdivision
Project
CEQA Compliance Memorandum
City of Rancho Cucamonga February 2026 1
PURPOSE
Decliff Properties LLC (“Applicant”) is requesting the City of Rancho Cucamonga’s consideration to
approve Tentative Tract Map 20653 to subdivide a 39.58-acre site located north and south of Decliff
Drive, east of Wardman Bullock Road and west of Ambleside Place (see Figure 1 Regional Map and
Figure 2 Vicinity Map). The southern parcel, consisting of 19.94 acres, would be subdivided into five
lots for future single-family residences, and four (4) lettered lots (Lots A, B, C and E) for electrical,
ingress and egress easements. The Project Site occurs within the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood
and Conservation Plan (EHNCP). The EHNCP (adopted October 2019) was established through the
authority granted to the City of Rancho Cucamonga by California Government Code, Title 7, Division
1, Chapter 3, Article 8, Sections 65450 through 65457 (Plans). The Proposed Project would be within
allowable land use with the EHNCP and City’s certified General Plan which would allow for the
development of the five-lot subdivision single-family residential project.
The purpose of this California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Compliance Memorandum,
prepared under CEQA Section 15183, is to determine whether the environmental impacts of the
Project were previously addressed and evaluated in the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and
Conservation Plan EIR (SCH No 2017091027), and to determine if any of the conditions requiring
subsequent environmental documentation consistent with the provisions of State CEQA Guidelines
Section 15183 are present.
Environmental documents, such as relevant technical analyses, have been prepared as part of this
CEQA Section 15183 review.
STATUTORY AUTHORITY
California CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 allows for a streamlined environmental review process
for projects that are consistent with the development density established by existing zoning,
community plan, or general plan policies for which an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was
certified. Key points include:
• Projects must meet specific criteria to qualify for this exemption, such as being consistent
with the densities and use characteristics of the EIR.
• The review is limited to project-specific significant effects that are peculiar to the project or
its site, and off-site impacts that were not analyzed in the prior EIR.
• If an impact is not peculiar to the project or has been addressed in the prior EIR, an additional
EIR may not be required.
CEQA mandates that projects which are consistent with the development density established by
existing zoning, community plan, or general plan policies for which an EIR was certified shall not
require additional environmental review, except as might be necessary to examine whether there are
project-specific significant effects which are peculiar to the project or its site. This streamlines the
review of such projects and reduces the need to prepare repetitive environmental studies.
LILBURN
C O R P O R A T I O N FIGURE 1
DeCliff Drive Subdivision, TTM
City of Rancho Cucamonga, CaliforniaMile
10
PROJECT SITE
REGIONAL VICINITY
LILBURN
C O R P O R A T I O N FIGURE 2
DeCliff Drive Subdivision, TTM
City of Rancho Cucamonga, CaliforniaFeet
5000
PROJECT SITE
W Lugonia Ave
VICINITY MAP
Redlands Freeway 10 E
C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
S
t
r
e
e
t
Redlands Freeway 10 W
Decliff Drive Lot Subdivision
Project
CEQA Compliance Memorandum
City of Rancho Cucamonga February 2026 4
Additionally, Section 15183(d) of the State CEQA Guidelines states that:
This section shall apply only to projects which meet the following conditions:
(1) The project is consistent with:
(A) A community plan adopted as part of a general plan,
(B) A zoning action which zoned or designated the parcel on which the project would be
located to accommodate a particular density of development, or a general plan of a
local agency.
(2) An EIR was certified by the lead agency for the zoning action, the community plan, or the
general plan.
Regarding peculiar impacts, Section 15183(c) of the State CEQA Guidelines states that:
If an impact is not peculiar to the parcel or to the project, has been addressed as a significant effect
in the prior EIR, or can be substantially mitigated by the imposition of uniformly applied development
policies or standards, as contemplated by subdivision (e) below, then an additional EIR need not be
prepared for the project solely on the basis of that impact.
Additionally, Section 15183(f) of the State CEQA Guidelines states that:
An effect of a project on the environment shall not be considered peculiar to the project or the parcel
if uniformly applied development policies or standards have been previously adopted by the City with
a finding that the development policies or standard s will substantially mitigate that environmental
effect when applied to future projects, unless substantial new information shows that the policies or
standards will not substantially mitigate the environmental effect.
PROJECT BACKGROUND
The Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood & Conservation Plan (EHNCP) was adopted in October 2019
and established through the authority granted to the City of Rancho Cucamonga by California
Government Code, Title 7, Division 1, Chapter 3, Article 8, Sections 65450 through 65457.
The EHNCP is a regulatory plan that provides the vision and zoning for the parcels in the Plan Area.
Subsequent tract or parcel maps, development agreements, local public work projects, zoning text
or map amendments, and any action requiring ministerial or discretionary approval related to
Etiwanda Heights must be consistent with the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood & Conservation Plan.
The EHNCP has been prepared in compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA). Pursuant to State and Local CEQA Guidelines, the City of Rancho Cucamonga
has prepared an environmental impact report (EIR).
The General Plan EIR was also utilized to evaluate and identify mitigation measures that could avoid
or reduce the magnitude of those impacts determined to be significant. The environmental impacts
evaluated in the General Plan EIR concerned several subject areas, including aesthetics, agriculture
and forestry, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, energy, geology and soils,
greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use
Decliff Drive Lot Subdivision
Project
CEQA Compliance Memorandum
City of Rancho Cucamonga February 2026 5
and planning, mineral resources, noise, population, housing, and employment, public services,
recreation, transportation, tribal cultural resources, utilities and service systems, and wildfire.
PROJECT SETTING
PROJECT LOCATION
The Project Site occurs within the EHNCP and has a land use designation of Open Space (OS)
General Open Space and Facilities, and OS Rural Open Space and contains three regulating sub-
zones including Rural Hillside (R-H), Rural Open Space (R-OS) and Rural Flood Control/Utility
Corridor (R-FC/UC).1 The Project Site also occurs within the Equestrian Overlay District and Hillside
Overlay District. As stated in the EHNCP, the sub-zone R-OS allows limited development
(i.e. 1 dwelling unit/acre) due to steep terrain and areas of high fire, geologic, seismic, or flood
hazards through restriction of intensive uses. The sub-zone Rural Hillside (R-H) may be developed
with 1 dwelling unit/2 acres, and the Rural Flood Control/Utility Corridor (R-FC/UC) does not permit
residential development.
The Project Site is located on the northeast corner of the intersection of Decliff Drive and Ambleside
Place. The Project Site is within a relatively undeveloped area of the City of Rancho Cucamonga and
surrounded by rural developments to the east and west, with undeveloped parcels to the north and
south. The southern parcel would be subdivided into five lots to allow for the construction of five
single-family residences while the northern parcel would remain undisturbed. The Project includes
two parcels; Assessor Parcel Numbers (APNs): 0226-061-69 (southern parcel), 0226-061-68
(northern parcel). Regional access to the Project Site would be provided via Interstate (I-15) Freeway,
located approximately 2.4 miles east of the Project Site and the 210 Freeway, located approximately
2.1 miles south of the Project Site.
SURROUNDING LAND USES
The Project Site is currently vacant and is surrounded by vacant land and a single-family residence
to the west, vacant land and Ling Yen Mountain Temple to the east, vacant land to the north, and
vacant land to the south. Table 1, Surrounding Land Uses, Designations and Zoning summarizes
the Project Site and surrounding property land use and zoning designation as well as existing uses.
Table 1: Surrounding Land Uses, Designations and Zoning
Direction Land Use
Designation Regulating Sub -Zones Existing Uses
Project Site
OS General Open
Space and Facilities;
OS Rural Open
Space
Rural Hillside 1 DU/2 acres (R-H);
Rural Open Space 1 DU/10 acres (R-OS);
and Rural Flood Control/Utility Corridor
(R-FC/UC)
Vacant
North OS General Open
Space and Facilities;
Rural Hillside 1 DU/2 acres (R-H);
Rural Flood Control/Utility Corridor
(R-FC/UC)
Vacant
1 Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan Figure 5.9.3B: Regulating Plan-Regulating Sub-
Zones.
Decliff Drive Lot Subdivision
Project
CEQA Compliance Memorandum
City of Rancho Cucamonga February 2026 6
Direction Land Use
Designation Regulating Sub -Zones Existing Uses
OS Rural Open
Space
Rural Open Space (R-OS)
South
OS General Open
Space and Facilities;
Flood Control/Utility Corridor (FC/UC) Vacant
East
OS General Open
Space and Facilities;
OS Rural Open
Space
Rural Hillside 1 DU/2 acres (R-H);
Rural Open Space 1 DU/10 acres (R-OS);
and Rural Flood Control/Utility Corridor
(R-FC/UC)
Ling Yen Temple
Vacant
West
OS General Open
Space and Facilities;
OS Rural Open
Space
Rural Hillside 1 DU/2 acres (R-H);
Rural Open Space 1 DU/10 acres (R-OS);
and Rural Flood Control/Utility Corridor
(R-FC/UC)
Single Family
Residence;
Vacant
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Proposed Project includes the request to approve Tentative Tract Map 20653 to subdivide a
39.58-acre site located north and south of Decliff Drive, east of Wardman Bullock Road and west of
Ambleside Place (see Figure 1 Regional Map and Figure 2 Vicinity Map). The Project Site occurs within
the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan (EHNCP) and is composed of two
parcels including Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 0226-061-68 (northern parcel) which is
approximately 19.60 acres and APN 0226-061-69 (southern parcel) which is 19.94 acres. The
Applicant requests to subdivide the southern parcel into five numbered lots (approximate 2 acres
each) with the remaining area that is currently zoned R-FC/UC would be divided into lettered lots.
The five numbered lots occur within an area zoned R -H which allows for 1 dwelling unit per 2 areas.
The northern parcel would remain as a lettered lot(see Figure 3 – Site Plan).
The Project Site is currently vacant and is surrounded by vacant land and a single-family residence
to the west, vacant land and Ling Yen Mountain Temple to the east, vacant land to the north, and
vacant land to the south. Vehicle access to the Project Site would be provided by Decliff Drive.
The Project would be consistent with the land uses analyzed within the EHNCP EIR, and within the
General Plan Update EIR and would comply with all development standards identified in the EHNCP
and General Plan.
LILBURN
C O R P O R A T I O N
FIGURE 3
DeCliff Drive Subdivision, TTM
City of Rancho Cucamonga, California
SITE PLAN
LOT
5
APN
-
0226
061
68
APN
-
0226
061
69
OWNER / DEVELOPER:
ENGINEER:
PEARL CITY ENGINEERING, INC.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
ZONING
SOOD KISRA
ANISA SHARIF
KAMIL MUHYIEDDEEN
PLOTTED EASEMENTS PER TITLE REPORT:
Decliff Drive Lot Subdivision
Project
CEQA Compliance Memorandum
City of Rancho Cucamonga February 2026 8
FINDINGS FROM THE PREVIOUS ANALYSIS
The EHNCP EIR and General Plan Update EIR identified the following environmental impacts as less
than significant, no impact, or potentially significant impacts that would be reduced to less than
significant with the implementation of standard Conditions of Approval (COAs) or mitigation
identified in the EIRs:
Aesthetics:
⚫ Development in accordance with the EHNCP and General Plan Update, would not
substantially alter or damage scenic vistas or substantially damage scenic resources,
including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state
scenic highway. [Thresholds AE-1 and AE-2]
⚫ Buildout in accordance with the EHNCP and General Plan Update and Development Code,
would alter the existing visual appearance of a portion of the Rural Conservation and
Neighborhood Area, but would not substantially degrade its existing visual character or
quality. [Threshold AE-3]
⚫ Development in accordance with the EHNCP and General Plan Update, would not generate
substantial additional light and glare. [Threshold AE-4]
Agriculture and Forestry Resources:
⚫ The EHNCP and General Plan Update would include the conversion of agricultural lands to
non-agricultural uses but would not result in the conversion of forest land to non -forest
uses. [Thresholds AG-1 and AG-5]
⚫ The Project Site would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson
Act contract. [Threshold AG-2]
⚫ The Project Site would not conflict with zoning for forest land or timberlands and would not
result in the loss of forest land. [Thresholds AG-3 and AG-4]
Air Quality:
⚫ The EHNCP and General Plan Update would not conflict with or obstruct implementation
of the 2022 Air Quality Management Plan. [Threshold AQ -1]
⚫ The EHNCP and General Plan Update would cause construction-generated criteria air
pollutant or precursor emissions to exceed South Coast AQMD-recommended thresholds.
[Threshold AQ-2
⚫ The EHNCP and General Plan Update would result in a net increase in long-term
operational criteria air pollutant and precursor emissions that exceed South Coast AQMD -
recommended thresholds. [Threshold AQ-2]
⚫ The EHNCP and General Plan Update would not result in short- or long-term increases in
localized CO emissions that would exceed South Coast AQMD-recommended thresholds.
[Threshold AQ-2]
⚫ The EHNCP and General Plan Update would expose sensitive receptors to substantial
increases in toxic air contaminant emissions. [Threshold AQ-3]
Decliff Drive Lot Subdivision
Project
CEQA Compliance Memorandum
City of Rancho Cucamonga February 2026 9
Biological Resources:
⚫ Buildout of the EHNCP and General Plan Update would not impact sensitive plant and
animal species known to occur in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. [Threshold B -1]
⚫ Implementation of the proposed EHNCP and General Plan Update would not impact
sensitive natural communities, including wetlands and riparian habitat. [Thresholds B-2
and B-3]
⚫ Development pursuant to the proposed EHNCP and General Plan Update would not
adversely impact wildlife movement in and surrounding the Plan Area. [Thresholds B-4]
⚫ Implementation of the EHNCP and General Plan Update would not conflict with a
conservation plan and would be required to comply with applicable policies governing
biological resources. [Thresholds B-5 and B-6)
Cultural Resources:
⚫ Buildout of the EHNCP and General Plan Update could impact historic resources.
[Thresholds C-1]
⚫ Future development in the City consistent with the EHNCP and General Plan Update could
impact known and unknown archaeological resources. [Threshold C-2
⚫ Grading activities during developments consistent with the EHNCP and General Plan
Update could potentially disturb human remains. [Threshold C-3]
Energy:
⚫ Implementation of the EHNCP and General Plan Update would not result in potentially
significant environmental impacts due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of energy resources. [Threshold E-1]
⚫ The EHNCP and General Plan Update would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local
plan for renewable energy efficiency. [Threshold E-2]
Geology and Soils:
⚫ City occupants and visitors would be subject to potential seismic -related hazards as well
as developments consistent with the General Plan Update [Threshold G-1 i-iv])
⚫ Unstable geologic unit or soils conditions, including soil erosion, could result from
development of the project. [Thresholds G-2, G-3 and G-4]
⚫ Soil conditions could result in risks to life or property and potentially result in on - or off-site
landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse. [Thresholds G-3 and
G-4]
⚫ Soil conditions may not adequately support septic tanks. [Threshold G-5].
⚫ The EHNCP and General Plan Update would not directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or unique geologic feature. [Threshold G-6]
Decliff Drive Lot Subdivision
Project
CEQA Compliance Memorandum
City of Rancho Cucamonga February 2026 10
Greenhouse Gas Emissions:
⚫ The Proposed Project would not directly or indirectly result in a significant increase in GHG
emissions compared to existing conditions. [Threshold GHG-1]
⚫ The Proposed Project would not conflict with the SCAG region’s achievement of SB 375
emissions reduction targets. [Threshold GHG-2]
⚫ The EHNCP and General Plan Update would be consistent with the State’s ability to achieve
the 2030 reduction target of SB 32. [Threshold GHG-2]
Hazards and Hazardous Materials:
⚫ Implementation of the General Plan Update and EHNCP could involve the transport, use,
and/or disposal of hazardous materials; however, compliance with existing local, state, and
federal regulations would ensure impacts are minimized. [Thresholds H-1, H-2, and H-3]
⚫ Implementation of the General Plan Update and EHNCP would comply with existing laws
and regulations related to properties that are on a list of hazardous materials sites.
[Threshold H-4]
⚫ The General Plan Update and EHNCP does not contain properties which are located in the
vicinity of an airport or within the jurisdiction of an airport land use plan. [Threshold H -5]
⚫ Developments facilitated in the General Plan Update and EHNCP and City’s Local Hazard
Mitigation Plan, in keeping with City policies would not affect the implementation of an
emergency responder or evacuation plan. [Threshold H-6]
Hydrology and Water Quality:
⚫ Development pursuant to the General Plan Update and would not violate water quality
standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or
groundwater quality. [Threshold HYD-1]
⚫ Buildout of the General Plan Update and EHNCP would generate a substantial increase in
water demand but would not decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that the project would impede sustainable groundwater
management of the basin. [Threshold HYD-2]
⚫ Development pursuant to the General Plan Update and EHNCP would increase impervious
surfaces and therefore could alter drainage patterns but would not increase the potential
for erosion and siltation on- or off-site on a project-by-project basis or create runoff water
that would exceed the capacity of storm drain systems, or provide substantial additional
sources of polluted runoff, or impede or redirect flood flows. [Threshold HYD-3 (i), (ii), (iii),
and (iv)]
⚫ Implementation of the General Plan Update and EHNCP, in keeping with applicable
policies, would not result in flood hazards associated with flood zones, tsunami, or seiche
zones, or due to dam inundation. [Threshold HYD -4]
Decliff Drive Lot Subdivision
Project
CEQA Compliance Memorandum
City of Rancho Cucamonga February 2026 11
⚫ The buildout of the General Plan Update and EHNCP would not obstruct or conflict with the
implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management
plan. [Threshold HYD-5]
Land Use and Planning:
⚫ General Plan Update and EHNCP implementation would not divide an established
community. [Threshold LU-1]
⚫ General Plan Update and EHNCP implementation would not conflict with applicable plans
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. [Threshold LU-2]
Mineral Resources:
⚫ Implementation of the General Plan Update and EHNCP would not result in the loss of
availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the
residents of the state or Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral
resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, s EHNCP, or other land use plan.
[Threshold M-1 and M-2]
Noise:
⚫ Construction activities during development facilitated by the General Plan Update and
EHNCP would result in temporary noise increases in the vicinity of the future development
under the General Plan Update and EHNCP. [Threshold N-1]
⚫ The General Plan Update and EHNCP implementation could generate a substantial
permanent increase in traffic noise levels at noise-sensitive land uses in excess local
standards. [Threshold N-2]
⚫ The General Plan Update and EHNCP could generate a substantial permanent increase in
stationary noise at noise-sensitive uses that exceeds City standards. [Threshold N-3]
⚫ The General Plan Update and EHNCP could expose new sensitive land uses to noise levels
in excess of the noise compatibility standards identified in City Municipal Code Section
17.66.050. [Threshold N-4]
⚫ Future development facilitated by the General Plan Update and EHNCP could generate
short-term construction vibration or exposure to new sensitive land uses to long -term
operational vibration sources that exceed City thresholds. [Threshold N-5]
Population and Housing:
⚫ Development facilitated by the General Plan Update and EHNCP would not induce
substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by
proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of
roads or other infrastructure). [Threshold P-1]
Decliff Drive Lot Subdivision
Project
CEQA Compliance Memorandum
City of Rancho Cucamonga February 2026 12
⚫ Development facilitated by the General Plan Update and EHNCP would not displace
substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere. [Threshold PH-2]
Public Services:
⚫ The General Plan Update and EHNCP would allow for new structures, residents, and
workers into the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District’s service boundaries, thereby
increasing the requirement for fire protection facilities and personnel. [Threshold FP- 1]
⚫ The General Plan Update and EHNCP would facilitate development which would introduce
new structures, residents, and workers into San Bernardino Sheriff’s department service
boundaries, thereby increasing the requirement for police protection facilities and
personnel. [Threshold PP-1]
⚫ Implementation of the Proposed Project would have the potential to generate new students
who would impact the school enrollment capacities of area schools. [Threshold SS-1]
⚫ Implementation of the Proposed Project would not result in a substantial adverse physical
impact related to construction of facilities for the provision of library services. [Threshold
LS-1]
Recreation:
⚫ Implementation of the Proposed Project would generate additional residents that would
increase the use of existing park and recreational facilities. [Threshold R-1]
⚫ Implementation of the Proposed Project would result in environmental impacts to provide
new and/or expanded recreational facilities based on the facilities allowed for in the
General Plan Update and EHNCP. [Threshold R 2]
Transportation:
⚫ Implementation of the General Plan Update would not conflict with a program, plan,
ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle,
and pedestrian facilities [Threshold T-1]
⚫ The General Plan Update and EHNCP may be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section
15064.3, subdivision (b) regarding policies to reduce VMT. [Threshold T-2]
⚫ Implementation of the General Plan Update and EHNCP would not substantially increase
hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections)
or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment). [Threshold T-3]
⚫ The General Plan Update and EHNCP would not result in inadequate emergency access.
[Threshold T-4]
Tribal Cultural Resources:
⚫ Implementation of the General Plan Update and EHNCP would not cause a substantial
adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource that is listed or eligible for
Decliff Drive Lot Subdivision
Project
CEQA Compliance Memorandum
City of Rancho Cucamonga February 2026 13
listing in the California Register of Historical Resources or in a local register of historical
resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k). [Threshold TCR 1]
Utilities and Service Systems:
⚫ Sewer and wastewater treatment systems are adequate to meet the General Plan Update
and EHNCP buildout projections. [Thresholds U-1 (part) and U-3]
⚫ Water supply and delivery systems are adequate to meet the General Plan Update The and
EHNCP buildout projections. [Thresholds U-1 (part) and U-2]
⚫ Existing and/or proposed storm drainage systems are adequate to serve the General Plan
Update and EHNCP buildout projections. [Threshold U-1 (part)]
⚫ Existing and/or proposed facilities would be able to accommodate solid waste generated
through General Plan Update and EHNCP buildout. [Thresholds U-4]
⚫ Developments associated with the General Plan Update and EHNCP would comply with
federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. [Thresholds U-5]
Wildfire:
⚫ Buildout of the General Plan Update and EHNCP would not substantially impair an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. [Threshold W-1]
⚫ The Proposed Project would not exacerbate wildfire risks due to slope, prevailing winds,
and other factors, thereby exposing project occupants to elevated particulate
concentrations from a wildfire. [Threshold W-2]
⚫ The General Plan Update and EHNCP would require the installation and maintenance of
associated infrastructure in areas that are undeveloped or vacant, which could exacerbate
fire risk or result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment. [Threshold W-3]
⚫ The Proposed Project would not expose people or structures to significant risks, including
downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post -fire slope
instability, or drainage changes. [Threshold W-4]
The General Plan Update EIR determined that buildout of the General Plan area would result in the
following significant and unavoidable impacts:
Air Quality
⚫ The General Plan Update would cause construction-generated criteria air pollutant or
precursor emissions to exceed South Coast AQMD recommended thresholds. [Threshold
AQ- 2]
⚫ The General Plan Update would result in a net increase in long-term operational criteria air
pollutant and precursor emissions that exceed South Coast AQMD-recommended
thresholds. [Threshold AQ-2]
⚫ The General Plan Update would expose sensitive receptors to substantial increases in toxic
air contaminant emissions. [Threshold AQ-3]
Decliff Drive Lot Subdivision
Project
CEQA Compliance Memorandum
City of Rancho Cucamonga February 2026 14
Biological Resources
⚫ Buildout of the proposed Land Use Plan for the General Plan Update would impact sensitive
plant and animal species known to occur in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. [Threshold B-1]
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
⚫ The General Plan Update would be inconsistent with the State’s ability to achieve the long-
term reduction goals or Executive Orders S-3-05, B-30-15, and B-55-18. [Threshold GHG-2]
Land Use and Planning and Population and Housing
⚫ The General Plan Update and EHNCP would be result in unplanned population growth in
SCAG RTP/SCS
Mineral Resources
Upon implementation of regulatory requirements and standard conditions of approval, project-
specific impacts would be less than significant, but the updates to the General Plan would
contribute to cumulative impacts which are considered significant and unavoidable.
Transportation
⚫ The General Plan Update may be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3,
subdivision (b) regarding policies to reduce VMT. [Threshold B-2]
Decliff Drive Lot Subdivision
Project
CEQA Compliance Memorandum
City of Rancho Cucamonga February 2026 15
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
INTRODUCTION
This CEQA Compliance Memorandum will serve as the City’s environmental review of the Project as
required under CEQA. This analysis is limited to evaluating the environmental effects associated
with the Project in comparison to the EHNCP EIR and General Plan Update EIR. This memorandum
includes a determination as to whether the Proposed Project would result in any new and peculiar
impacts such as project characteristics which may be inconsistent with uniformly applied
development policies or standards adopted by the City.
Additionally, in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the Project will be analyzed
for the following:
⚫ Project consistency with density standards established within the EHNCP and General Plan;
⚫ Any peculiar effects which would be specific to the Project or Project Site;
⚫ Potentially significant off site or cumulative impacts not originally discussed in the EHNCP
and General Plan Update EIR; and
⚫ Previously identified significant effects which, as a result of substantial new information, may
generate a more severe adverse impact than discussed in the EHNCP and General Plan
Update EIR.
The study area for the EHNCP and General Plan is inclusive of the City and the City’s sphere of
influence. All areas surrounding the Project Site, along with potential cumulative impact areas are
within the City or the City’s sphere of influence. Therefore, the Project analysis would not generate
cumulative impacts or offsite impacts in areas which were not accounted for in the EHNCP EIR or
General Plan Update EIR.
Furthermore, this analysis will rely on and incorporate any applicable COAs presented and
approved through the EHNCP and General Plan Update EIR. Each applicable COA is listed at the
end of each environmental topic discussion.
Decliff Drive Lot Subdivision
Project
CEQA Compliance Memorandum
City of Rancho Cucamonga February 2026 16
AESTHETICS
Thresholds of Significance
AE-1 Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista.
AE-2 Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway, substantially
damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and
historic buildings within a state scenic highway.
AE-3 In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality
of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are
experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized
area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing
scenic quality.
AE-4 Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area.
Summary of Findings
Impact 5.1-1 Development in accordance with the General Plan Update and EHNCP, would
not substantially alter or damage scenic vistas or substantially damage
scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and
historic buildings within a state scenic highway. [Thresholds AE-1 and AE-2]
Impact 5.1-2 Buildout in accordance with the proposed land use would alter the existing
visual appearance of a portion of the City and SOI, but would not substantially
degrade its existing visual character or quality. [Threshold AE-3]
Impact 5.1-3 Development in accordance with the EHNCP and General Plan would not
generate substantial additional light and glare. [Threshold AE-4]
Project Analysis
The City of Rancho Cucamonga is located in the southwest corner of San Bernardino County,
along the southerly foot of the San Gabriel Mountains and the San Bernardino National Forest.
Views of the San Gabriel and San Bernardino Mountains are afforded from most of the city and
provide a backdrop for the community. Other scenic resources in the area include the North
Etiwanda Preserve and a diverse array of flora and fauna in flood-control channels and utility
corridors.2
There are no state-designated scenic highways within Rancho Cucamonga or its sphere of
influence (SOI). Therefore, the Project Site does not border, nor is in the proximity of, a state
2 Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood & Conservation Plan. Accessed June 12, 2024.
Decliff Drive Lot Subdivision
Project
CEQA Compliance Memorandum
City of Rancho Cucamonga February 2026 17
scenic highway.3 While the Project is adjacent to scenic resources such as the San Gabriel
Mountain range, the Project would not uniquely impair the visibility of these scenic vistas as it
would be developed according to allowed development standards of the area, including the
EHNCP City’s General Plan Update, and Municipal Code.
Furthermore, there are no scenic resources such as trees, rock outcroppings, or historic
buildings within the Project Site boundaries that would significantly impact the surrounding
scenic vista of the San Gabriel Mountain range. Therefore, the Proposed Project would be
anticipated to have a less than significant impact.
The Project Site is designated General Open Space and Facilities and Rural Open Space and
occurs within the Rural Hillside (R-H), Rural Open Space (R-OS) and Rural Flood Control/Utility
Corridor (R-FC/UC) sub-zones. The Proposed Project is a request to subdivide the 39.58-acre
parcel and create lettered lots for open space/easement purposes and five numbered lots
(approximately 2.0 acres each) for future residential development which would result in
1dwelling unit per 2 acres, in accordance with R-H allowable development of 1 dwelling
unit/2 acres or a total of 5 dwelling units within the 39.58-acre Project Site. The project would
utilize modern, visually appealing materials in its design which would not conflict with the visual
character of the surrounding area. Additionally, the Project would not include surfaces or
materials which would uniquely create additional light and glare in the area.
The proposed development would adhere to Title 17 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code,
which would ensure that development would continue to be maintained and be compatible with
the City’s visual character. Additionally, the Project would comply with all development
standards and guidelines presented in the EHNCP and would be required to comply with all local,
state, and federal codes, policies, or regulations governing aesthetic resources that were not
covered by the EHNCP.
In keeping with CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the Project would not generate aesthetic
impacts which are peculiar to the Project or Project Site, direct or cumulatively considerable
impacts not assessed in the EHNCP EIR or General Plan EIR, and no new or more significant
impacts beyond what was analyzed in the EHNCP.
Applicable Conditions of Approval:
General Plan Update EIR:
5.1-1: A detailed on-site lighting plan, including a photometric diagram, shall be
submitted by project applicants and reviewed and approved by the Planning Director and
Police Department prior to the issuance of building permits. Such plan shall indicate style,
illumination, location, height, and method of shielding so as not to adversely affect
adjacent properties.
3 CalTrans. n.d. State Scenic Highways System Map. Retrieved from:
https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46cc8e8057116f1aacaa
(Accessed June 11, 2024)
Decliff Drive Lot Subdivision
Project
CEQA Compliance Memorandum
City of Rancho Cucamonga February 2026 18
AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY
Thresholds of Significance
AG-1 Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance
(Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency to non-agricultural use.
AG-2 Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract.
AG-3 Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public
Resources Code Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code
Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code
Section 51104(g)).
AG-4 Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use.
AG-5 Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature,
could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to
non-forest use.
Summary of Findings
Impact 5.2-1 The proposed project would convert Farmland to non- agricultural uses but
would not result in the conversion of forest land to non-forest uses.
[Thresholds AG-1 and AG-5]
Impact 5.2-2 The proposed project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural
use, or a Williamson Act contract. [Threshold AG-2]
Impact 5.2-3 The proposed project would not conflict with zoning for forest land or
timberlands and would not result in the loss of forest land. [Thresholds AG-3
and AG-4]
Project Analysis
The EHNCP determined that the implementation of the current General Plan would have significant
and unavoidable impacts to agricultural resources because the development proposed in the
EHNCP would involve the conversion of farmland areas to nonagricultural uses in the City.
The Project Site is currently in an undeveloped and vacant area of the City. The City does not contain
agricultural land under commercial cultivation.4 The current EHNCP designations within the Project
area include conservation, open space, residential hillside, and flood control/ utility corridor. The
Proposed Project would not involve changes that would result in the conversion of Prime Farmland,
Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Important to nonagricultural uses. No impacts would
occur.5
4 City of Rancho Cucamonga, Rancho Cucamonga 2010 General Plan, “Managing Land Use, Community
Design and Historic Resources” (2010)
5 Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan Draft EIR. April 2019. Accessed June 13, 2024.
Decliff Drive Lot Subdivision
Project
CEQA Compliance Memorandum
City of Rancho Cucamonga February 2026 19
As previously noted, the Project Site and surrounding area are not currently used for agricultural
uses. The Plan area is not designated or zoned for agricultural use, used for agriculture, or subject to
a Williamson Act contract. Therefore, the Plan would not conflict with any uses zoned for agricultural
uses or subject to any Williamson Act contracts. No impacts would occur.
As defined by the Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 12220(g), forestland is land that can support
10 percent native tree cover of any species under natural conditions and that allows for management
of one or more forest resources. Given that the Project Site area is not zoned as forestland, the
Proposed Project would not affect any forestlands as defined by the PRC.
A Timberland Production Zone is defined by the Government Code Section 51104(g) as an area that
is zoned for the sole purpose of growing and harvesting timber. Because the Plan Area does not
contain any timber resources, nor is it zoned as a timberland or timberland production area, the Plan
would not conflict with timberland or Timberland Production areas. No impacts would occur.
The Project Site is located in an area not zoned or designated for forest or timberland, nor is it used
for forestry operations. Therefore, it would not result in the loss of forestland or result in the
conversion of forestland to non-forest uses. No impacts would occur.
As previously noted, the Project Site area does not contain any farmland or forestland. As such, there
would be no conversion of any existing farmland. Therefore, the Plan would not result in the loss of
Farmland or forestland or the conversion of Farmland or forestland to non -forest uses. Additionally,
significant and unavoidable impacts were addressed in the City’s certification of the EHNCP Final
EIR Statement of Findings and Overriding Considerations.
In keeping with CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the Project would not generate agricultural or
forestry impacts which are peculiar to the Project or Project Site, direct or cumulatively considerable
impacts not assessed in the EHNCP EIR or General Plan EIR, and no new or more significant impacts
beyond what was analyzed in the EHNCP.
Applicable Conditions of Approval:
None provided in the EHNCP EIR or General Plan Update EIR
Decliff Drive Lot Subdivision
Project
CEQA Compliance Memorandum
City of Rancho Cucamonga February 2026 20
AIR QUALITY
Thresholds of Significance
AQ-1 Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan.
AQ-2 Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the
project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality
standard.
AQ-3 Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.
AQ-4 Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial
number of people.
Summary of Findings (also see CalEEMod Outputs Appendix B)
Impact 5.3-1 The proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of
the 2016 Air Quality Management Plan. [Threshold AQ-1]
Impact 5.3-2 The proposed project would cause construction-generated criteria air
pollutant or precursor emissions to exceed South Coast AQMD’s
recommended thresholds. [Threshold AQ-2]
Impact 5.3-3 The proposed project would result in a net increase in long-term operational
criteria air pollutant and precursor emissions that exceed South Coast
AQMD-recommended thresholds. [Threshold AQ-2]
Impact 5.3-4 The proposed project would not result in short- or long-term increases in
localized CO emissions that would exceed South Coast AQMD -
recommended thresholds. [Threshold AQ-2]
Impact 5.3-5 The proposed project would expose sensitive receptors to substantial
increases in toxic air contaminant emissions. [Threshold AQ-3]
Impact 5.3-6 The proposed project would not result in other emissions (such as those
leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people.
[Threshold AQ-4].
Project Analysis
The Project Site occurs in the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB). The South Coast Air Quality Management
District (SCAQMD) has jurisdiction over air quality issues and regulations within the SCAB. The Air
Quality Management Plan (AQMP) for the SCAB establishes a program of rules and regulations
administered by the SCAQMD to obtain attainment of the state and federal ambient air quality
standards. The SCAB is classified as an “extreme” nonattainment area for the 2015 Ozone National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The most recent AQMP (AQMP 2022) was developed to
address the requirements for meeting this standard and was adopted by the SCAQMD on December
2, 2022. The 2022 AQMP incorporates the latest scientific and technological information and
planning assumptions, including transportation control measures developed by the Southern
California Association of Governments (SCAG) from the 2020 Regional Transportation
Decliff Drive Lot Subdivision
Project
CEQA Compliance Memorandum
City of Rancho Cucamonga February 2026 21
Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy, and updated emission inventory methodologies for various
source categories. Consistency with the AQMP 2022 for general development projects is determined
by demonstrating compliance with local land use plans and/or employment projections.
The Project Site is located within the City General Plan Planning area. The Proposed Project does not
include a General Plan Amendment, nor a Zone Change and is therefore consistent with the AQMP.
The emissions associated with the Proposed Project would not result in a conflict or obstruction to
the implementation of the AQMP. Therefore, project emissions are within those accounted for in the
AQMP and no significant inconsistency with the AQMP would occur. The impact would be less than
significant, and no mitigation measures are required.
The Proposed Project’s construction and operational emissions were screened using the California
Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) version 2022 prepared in collaboration with the SCAQMD
(model output included in Appendix B). CalEEMod was utilized to estimate the on-site and off-site
construction emissions. The emissions incorporate Rules 402 and 403 for fugitive dust by default as
required during construction. The criteria pollutants screened for include: reactive organic g ases
(ROG), nitrous oxides (NOx), carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and fine and respirable
particulates (PM10 and PM2.5). Two of the analyzed pollutants, ROG and NOx, are ozone precursors.
Construction Emissions
Construction activities associated with the Proposed Project would have the potential to generate air
emissions and toxic air contaminant emissions. The Proposed Project has been anticipated in the
modeling to start construction no sooner than January 2025 and to be operational later within the
year. The resulting emissions generated by construction of the Proposed Project are shown in Table 2,
below.
Table 2
Construction Emissions Summary
(Pounds per Day)
Equipment ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Summer-Daily Max 3.4 31.7 31.5 0.0 9.3 5.2
Winter-Daily Max 3.4 31.7 31.2 0.0 9.3 5.2
SDAQMD Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55
Significance No No No No No No
Source: CalEEMod 2022.1 Summer and Winter Construction Emissions.
Notes:
ROG = Reactive Organic Gases NOx = Nitrogen Oxides
CO = Carbon Monoxide SO2 = Sulfur Dioxides PM = Particulate Matter
SCAQMD = South Coast Air Quality Management District
Decliff Drive Lot Subdivision
Project
CEQA Compliance Memorandum
City of Rancho Cucamonga February 2026 22
As shown in Table 2, both summer and winter season construction emissions are below SCAQMD
thresholds. The Proposed Project does not exceed applicable SCAQMD regional thresholds during
construction activities. Regarding emissions that could lead to odors, minor odors from the use of
heavy-duty diesel-powered equipment during construction would be intermittent and temporary and
would not result in permanent odor sources. Therefore, impacts are considered less than significant.
Operational Emissions
The operational emissions are categorized as energy (generation and distribution of energy to the end
use), area (operational use of the project), and mobile (vehicle trips). Operational emissions were
estimated using the CalEEMod version 2022 and are listed in Table 3 and Table 4, below.
Table 3
Summer Operational Emissions Summary
(Pounds per Day)
Equipment ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Mobile 0.3 0.3 3.7 0.0 0.8 0.2
Area 1.5 0.1 2.8 0.0 0.3 0.3
Energy 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Emissions (lbs/day) 1.8 0.4 6.5 0.0 1.1 0.5
SCAQMD Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55
Significance No No No No No No
Table 4
Winter Operational Emissions Summary
(Pounds per Day)
Equipment ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Mobile 0.2 0.4 3.0 0.0 0.8 0.2
Area 1.5 0.1 2.5 0.0 0.3 0.3
Energy 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Emissions (lbs/day) 1.7 0.5 5.5 0.0 1.1 0.5
SCAQMD Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55
Significance No No No No No No
Notes:
ROG = Reactive Organic Gases NOx = Nitrogen Oxides
CO = Carbon Monoxide SO2 = Sulfur Dioxides PM = Particulate Matter
SCAQMD = South Coast Air Quality Management District
Decliff Drive Lot Subdivision
Project
CEQA Compliance Memorandum
City of Rancho Cucamonga February 2026 23
As shown in Tables 3 and 4, both summer and winter season operational emissions are below
SCAQMD thresholds. The Proposed Project does not exceed applicable SCAQMD regional
thresholds either during construction or operational activities. The Proposed Project would not
violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality
violation. Additionally, significant and unavoidable impacts were addressed in the City’s certification
of the EHNCP Final EIR Statement of Findings and Overriding Considerations. Therefore, no
significant adverse impacts are identified or are anticipated, and no mitigation measures are
required.
In keeping with CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the Project would not generate greenhouse gas
emission impacts which are peculiar to the Project or Project Site, direct or cumulatively
considerable impacts not assessed in the EHNCP EIR or General Plan EIR, and no new or more
significant impacts beyond what was analyzed in the EHNCP.
Applicable Conditions of Approval:
General Plan Update EIR:
5.3-1 The City shall ensure that discretionary development will incorporate best
management practices (BMPs) to reduce emissions to be less than applicable
thresholds. These BMPs include but are not limited to the most recent South Coast
AQMD recommendations for construction BMPs (per South Coast AQMD’s CEQA Air
Quality Handbook, South Coast AQMD’s Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan for
the 2016 AQMP, and SCAG’s Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan for the 2020-
2045 RTP/SCS, or as otherwise identified by South Coast AQMD).
5.3-2 Applicants for future discretionary development projects that would generate
construction- related emissions that exceed applicable thresholds, will include, but
are not limited to, the mitigation measures recommended by South Coast AQMD (in
its CEQA Air Quality Handbook or otherwise), to the extent feasible and applicable to
the project. The types of measures shall include but are not limited to: maintaining
equipment per manufacturer specifications; lengthening construction duration to
minimize number of vehicle and equipment operating at the same time; requiring use
of equipment rated by the EPA as having Tier 3 (model year 2006 or newer) or Tier 4
(model year 2008 or newer) emissions limits, applicable for engines between 50 and
750 horsepower; and using electric powered or other alternative-fueled equipment in
place of diesel-powered equipment (whenever feasible). Tier 3 equipment can
achieve average emissions reductions of 57 percent for Nox, 84 percent for VOC, and
50 percent for particulate matter compared to Tier 1 equipment. Tier 4 equipment can
achieve average emissions reductions of 71 percent for Nox, 86 percent for VOC, and
96 percent for particulate matter compared to Tier 1 equipment.
5.3-3 The City shall ensure that discretionary development that will generate fugitive dust
emissions during construction activities will, to the extent feasible, incorporate BMPs
that exceed South Coast AQMD’s Rule 403 requirements to reduce emissions to be
less than applicable thresholds.
Decliff Drive Lot Subdivision
Project
CEQA Compliance Memorandum
City of Rancho Cucamonga February 2026 24
5.3-4 Applicants for future discretionary development projects which will generate
construction related fugitive dust emissions that exceed applicable thresholds will
include, but are not limited to, the mitigation measures recommended by South
Coast AQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Handbook, to the extent feasible and applicable:
• The area disturbed by clearing, grading, earth moving, or excavation
operations shall be minimized to prevent excess amounts of dust.
• Pre-grading/excavation activities shall include watering the area to be graded
or excavated before commencement of grading or excavation operations.
Application of watering (preferably reclaimed, if available) should penetrate
sufficiently to minimize fugitive dust during grading activities. This measure
can achieve PM10 reductions of 61 percent through application of water every
three hours to disturbed areas.
• Fugitive dust produced during grading, excavation, and construction
activities shall be controlled by the following activities:
• All trucks shall be required to cover their loads as required by California
Vehicle Section 23114. Covering loads and maintaining a freeboard height of
12 inches can reduce PM10 emissions by 91 percent.
• All graded and excavated material, exposed soil areas, and active portions of
the construction site, including unpaved on-site roadways, shall be treated to
prevent fugitive dust. Treatment shall include, but not necessarily be limited
to, periodic watering, application of environmentally safe soil stabilization
materials, and/or roll-compaction as appropriate. Watering shall be done as
often as necessary and reclaimed water shall be used whenever possible.
Application of water every three hours to disturbed areas can reduce PM10
emissions by 61 percent.
• Graded and/or excavated inactive areas of the construction site shall be
monitored at least weekly for dust stabilization. Soil stabilization methods,
such as water and roll-compaction, and environmentally safe dust control
materials, shall be periodically applied to portions of the construction site
that are inactive for over four days. If no further grading or excavation
operations are planned for the area, the area should be seeded and watered
until grass growth is evident, or periodically treated with environmentally safe
dust suppressants, to prevent excessive fugitive dust. Replacement of ground
cover in disturbed areas can reduce PM10 emissions by 5 percent.
• Signs shall be posted on-site limiting traffic to 15 miles per hour or less. This
measure can reduce associated PM10 emissions by 57 percent.
• During periods of high winds (i.e., wind speed sufficient to cause fugitive dust
to impact adjacent properties), all clearing, grading, earth-moving, and
excavation operations shall be curtailed to the degree necessary to prevent
fugitive dust created by on-site activities and operations from being a
nuisance or hazard offsite or on-site. The site superintendent/supervisor shall
use his/her discretion in conjunction with South Coast AQMD when winds are
excessive.
Decliff Drive Lot Subdivision
Project
CEQA Compliance Memorandum
City of Rancho Cucamonga February 2026 25
• Adjacent streets and roads shall be swept at least once per day, preferably at
the end of the day, if visible soil material is carried over to adjacent streets
and roads.
• Personnel involved in grading operations, including contractors and
subcontractors, should be advised to wear respiratory protection in
accordance with California Division of Occupational Safety and Health
regulations.
Decliff Drive Lot Subdivision
Project
CEQA Compliance Memorandum
City of Rancho Cucamonga February 2026 26
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Thresholds of Significance
B-1 Have a substantial effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service.
B-2 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.
B-3 Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not
limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means.
B-4 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.
B-5 Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance.
B-6 Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan.
Summary of Findings from the Biological Resources Assessment dated May 2024 (Appendix C);
Results of 20204 Non-Breeding Season Surveys for California Gnatcatcher dated November 16,
2024 prepared by Kidd Biological, Inc (Appendix C-1); Trapping Studies for the San Bernardino
Kangaroo Rat and Los Angeles Pocket Mouse prepared by Envira, dated September 30, 2024
(Appendix C-2 ) EHNCP Draft EIR
Impact 5.4-1: Buildout of the proposed Land Use Plan would impact sensitive plant and
animal species known to occur in the City of Rancho Cucamonga.
[Threshold B-1]
Impact 5.4-2: Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update and EHNCP could
impact sensitive natural communities, including wetlands and riparian
habitat [Thresholds B-2and B-3]
Impact 5.4-3 Development pursuant to the proposed General Plan Update and EHNCP
would not adversely impact wildlife movement in and surrounding the Plan
Area. [Threshold B-4]
Impact 5.4-4 Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources,
such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance, adopted habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan or other approved
local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. [Thresholds B-5 and B-6]
Decliff Drive Lot Subdivision
Project
CEQA Compliance Memorandum
City of Rancho Cucamonga February 2026 27
Project Analysis
The Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan Draft EIR determined that the build out
of the General Plan Update would result in less than significant impacts to sensitive natural
communities, including wetlands, and riparian habitats; wildlife movement; and would not conflict
with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation
policy or ordinance, adopted habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or
other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. However, the General Plan Update
could have potential impacts to sensitive plant and animal species. The notes that future projects in
the City could impact sensitive species directly and/or indirectly through impacts on those species’
habitats and that these projects would be required to comply with existing laws and regulations
protecting biological resources. As such, the General Plan EIR prescribed COAs. These COAs are
intended to protect the City’s biological resources and entail provisions for preconstruction nesting
bird and pre-construction burrowing owl surveys.
A Biological Resources Assessment (BRA) was prepared for the Proposed Project by Jennings
Environmental, LLC dated May 2024 and is summarized herein (see Appendix C). As part of the BRA,
Jennings Environmental, LLC (Jennings) conducted a background data search for information on
plant and wildlife species known occurrences within the vicinity of the Project Site. The biological
resource assessment was designed to address the potential effects of the Proposed Project on
designated critical habitats and/or any species currently listed or formally prop osed for listing as
endangered or threatened under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the California
Endangered Species Act (CESA) or species designated as sensitivity by the California Department of
Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) or the California Native Plant Society (CNPS). Jennings evaluated the
Project Site in relation to the areas including criteria cells, core habitat, linkages, and areas proposed
for conservation. The data review included biological text on general and specific biological
resources, and resources considered to be sensitive by various wildlife agencies, local government
agencies and interest groups.
A general reconnaissance survey was conducted on April 12, 2024, to identify the potential for the
occurrence of special status species, vegetation communities, or habitats that could support
special status wildlife species. Below are the findings.
Field Survey Findings
Jennings Environmental conducted a field survey on April 12, 2024. The habitat on-site consists of
mixture of California sagebrush – black sage scrub (Artemisia californica – Salvia mellifera Shrubland
Alliance) and Wild oats and annual brome grasslands (Avena spp. – Bromus spp. Herbaceous Semi-
Natural Alliance). Surrounding land uses include undeveloped parcels and rural residential
development. Based on the literature review and personal observations made in the immediate
vicinity, no State and/or federally listed threatened or endangered species are documented/or
expected to occur within the Project Site. Additionally, no plant species with the California Rare Plant
Rank (CRPR) of 1 or 2 were observed on-site or documented to occur on-site in the relevant
databases. No other sensitive species were observed within the project area or buffer area.
Animal species observed or otherwise detected on or in the vicinity of the Project Site during the
surveys included: Several birds were seen or heard during the survey. Species observed or otherwise
Decliff Drive Lot Subdivision
Project
CEQA Compliance Memorandum
City of Rancho Cucamonga February 2026 28
detected on or in the vicinity of the Project Site during the surveys included common raven (Corvus
corax), house finch (Haemorhous mexicanus), and house sparrow (Passer domesticus).
The Project Site is located within a developed area of Rancho Cucamonga. Portions of Project Site,
mostly within the developed parcel, have been subject to ongoing disturbance in the form of
vegetation removal. Foot traffic was also evident within the bare ground portions of the undeveloped
area of the Project Site. There is no habitat within the Proposed Project footprint, as well as the
immediate surrounding area, that is suitable for the sensitive species identified in the CNDDB
search.
According to the CNDDB, CNPSEI, and other relevant literature and databases, 46 sensitive species,
8 of which are listed as threatened or endangered, and 5 sensitive habitats, have been documented
in the Cucamonga Peak quad. This list of sensitive species and habitats includes any State and/or
federally listed threatened or endangered species, CDFW designated Species of Special Concern
(SSC) and otherwise Special Animals. “Special Animals” is a general term that refers to all of the taxa
the CNDDB is interested in tracking, regardless of their legal or protection status. This list is also
referred to as the list of “species at risk” or “special status species.” The CDFW considers the taxa on
this list to be those of greatest conservation need.
An analysis of the likelihood of the occurrence of all CNDDB-sensitive species documented in the
Cucamonga Peak quad is provided in the study. This analysis takes into account species range as
well as documentation within the vicinity of the project area and includes the habitat requirements
for each species and the potential for their occurrence on the site, based on required habitat
elements and range relative to the current site conditions. According to the databases, no sensitive
habitat, including USFWS designated critical habitat, occurs within or adjacent to the Project Site.
Designated Critical Habitat
According to the USFWS Critical Habitat Mapper, 24.8 acres of the 39.58-acre Project Site are within
critical habitat for the Federal and State listed Endangered species, San Bernardino kangaroo rat
(Dipodomys merriami parvus).
Special Status Species Background
The only sensitive species observed on site during the survey was the Coastal California gnatcatcher
(Polioptila californica californica – Threatened (Federal), and the San Bernardino kangaroo rat
(Dipodomys merriami parvus)– Endangered (Federal and State).
Coastal California gnatcatcher
Kidd Biological, Inc. conducted a non-breeding season survey for the federally threatened Coastal
California gnatcatcher (CAGN). The report is included as Appendix C-1 and summarized below. The
survey found that the Project Site is not located within designated critical habitat for the CAGN.
Although the Project Site is outside the typical elevation limits for the species and there are a few
documented observations in the area, the habitat is suitable for CAGN. The habitat on site is
connected to larger areas of suitable habitat to the southeast, associated with the Etiwanda Wash
spreading grounds, and the larger Etiwanda Fan. As suitable habitats for the Coastal California
Decliff Drive Lot Subdivision
Project
CEQA Compliance Memorandum
City of Rancho Cucamonga February 2026 29
gnatcatcher become more fragmented and degraded from drought and climate change, this species
may become more reliant on these higher elevation areas that support suitable habitat.
Protocol non-breeding season surveys for the coastal California gnatcatcher were conducted by
permitted biologist Jason Berkley (USFWS 10a1A permit #009015-5). Methods employed were in
conformance with USFWS CAGN presence/absence survey guidelines for conducting non-breeding
season surveys (USFWS 1997). Accordingly, nine (9) surveys were conducted during the non -
breeding breeding season, at least two (2) weeks apart. Surveys were conducted between the hours
of 6:00 A.M. and 12:00 P.M. within all portions of the project site supporting potentially suitable
habitat.
The permitted biologist slowly walked through the project site while visually examining the area for
CAGN and stopping at appropriate intervals, uttering phishing sounds, and/or playing a digital
recording of CAGN vocalizations. The audio was played for several seconds at each interval, followed
by a brief pause to listen for a response. The location(s) of CAGN observations (if any) were mapped
with the use of a hand-held GPS unit.
Non-breeding season surveys were conducted by the USFWS permitted biologist noted above, in
accordance with USFWS guidelines within all suitable habitat on the site. No CAGN were detected
during the nine surveys. Blue-gray gnatcatchers, a species more commonly found in these higher
elevations, were on site. Brown-headed cowbirds (Molothrus ater), considered to be nest parasites
for CAGNs, were not observed during the surveys. Therefore, no impacts are identified or anticipated,
and no mitigation measures are required.
San Bernardino kangaroo rat
ENVIRA conducted a pre-construction San Bernardino kangaroo rat and Los Angeles pocket mouse
(SBKR and LAPM) trapping survey on an estimated 18.2+-acre property located on the Etiwanda Fan
foothills in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The report is dated September 30, 2024 and is included
herein as Appendix C-2. A total of four small mammal species were captured. Sensitive species that
were captured are the Northwestern San Diego Pocket Mouse and LAPM. No SBKR were captured
during the focused 2024 survey. The resident kangaroo rat species on site is the PKR. The SBKR was
not detected on site during the July 2024 surveys nor prior surveys. The potential impacts are limited
to loss of currently un-occupied Riversidian alluvial fan and sage scrub habitat within designated
critical habitat. Therefore, no impacts are identified or anticipated, and no mitigation measures are
required.
Nesting Birds
Since there is some habitat within the Project Site and adjacent area that is suitable for nesting birds
in general, the following mitigation measure should be implemented. The nesting bird nesting season
generally extends from February 1 through September 15 in southern California and specifically,
March 15 through August 31 for migratory passerine birds. To avoid impacts to nesting birds (common
and special status) during the nesting season, a qualified Avian Biologist will conduct pre‐
construction Nesting Bird Surveys (NBS) prior to project‐related disturbance to nestable vegetation
to identify any active nests. If no active nests are found, no further action will be required. If an active
nest is found, the biologist will set appropriate no‐work buffers around the nest which will be based
Decliff Drive Lot Subdivision
Project
CEQA Compliance Memorandum
City of Rancho Cucamonga February 2026 30
upon the nesting species, its sensitivity to disturbance, nesting stage and expected types, intensity
and duration of disturbance. The nests and buffer zones shall be field checked weekly by a qualified
biological monitor. The approved no‐work buffer zone shall be clearly marked in the field, within
which no disturbance activity shall commence until the qualified biologist has determined the young
birds have successfully fledged and the nest is inactive.
Additionally, the Project is not located within designated federal critical habitat; no wildlife
movement corridors were found to be present on the Project Site; the Project is not expected to
conflict with local policies or ordinance protecting biological resources; no impacts to any adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or Other Approved Local,
Regional, or State Habitat Conservation plan are anticipate; and the Project Site does not contain
any state or federal drainages, therefore no impacts to any jurisdictional drainages are expected.
However, the BRA determined that there is potential for impacts to nesting birds if ground disturbing
activities or vegetation removal occur during the bird nesting season of February 1 through
September 15. Implementation of the COA 5.4-4 identified in the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood
and Conservation Plan Draft EIR would reduce any potential impacts associated with
implementation of the Project on biological resources.
In keeping with CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the Project would not generate biological resource
impacts which are peculiar to the Project or Project Site, direct or cumulatively considerable impacts
not assessed in the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan Draft EIR, and no new or
more significant biological resources impacts beyond what was analyzed in the Etiwanda Heights
Neighborhood and Conservation Plan and General Plan Update.
Applicable Conditions of Approval:
General Plan Update EIR
5.4-4 To avoid conflicts with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Bald/Golden Eagle Protection Act,
construction activities involving vegetation removal shall be conducted between September
16 and March 14. If construction occurs inside the peak nesting season (between March 15
and September 15), a preconstruction survey (or possibly multiple surveys) by a qualified
biologist is recommended prior to construction activities to identify any active nesting
locations. If the biologist does not find any active nests within the Project Site, the
construction work shall be allowed to proceed. If the biologist finds an active nest within the
Project Site and determines that the nest may be impacted, the biologist shall delineate an
appropriate buffer zone around the nest; the size of the buffer zone shall depend on the
affected species and the type of construction activity. Any active nests observed during the
survey shall be mapped on an aerial photograph. Only construction activities (if any) that
have been approved by a biological monitor shall take place within the buffer zone until the
nest is vacated. The biologist shall serve as a construction monitor when construction
activities take place near active nest areas to ensure that no inadvertent impacts on these
nests occur. Results of the pre-construction survey and any subsequent monitoring shall be
provided to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and the City.
Decliff Drive Lot Subdivision
Project
CEQA Compliance Memorandum
City of Rancho Cucamonga February 2026 31
CULTURAL RESOURCES
Thresholds of Significance
C-1 Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to
Section 15064.5.
C-2 Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to Section 15064.5.
C-3 Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries.
Summary of Findings (see Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment prepared by BFSA on
April 25, 2024 Appendix D).
Impact 5.5-1 Buildout of the City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan and EHNCP could
impact historic resources. [Thresholds C-1]
Impact 5.5-2 Future development in the City that would be accommodated by the General
Plan Update and EHNCP could impact known and unknown archaeological
resources. [Threshold C-2]
Impact 5.5-3 Grading activities could potentially disturb human remains. [Threshold C-3]
Project Analysis
The majority of the previously recorded cultural resources located within the Etiwanda Heights
Neighborhood Conservation Plan Area consists of historic era homestead structures, water
conveyance systems, remnants of mining operations, and transmission lines. However, none of
these resources (isolates or sites) were found to contain information that would qualify them for a
finding of significance and/or eligibility for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources
(CRHR) under any significance criteria. Furthermore, the survey area was found to be highly
disturbed from high velocity colluvial events (flash floods and erosion) and thus resulting in a low
sensitivity for the potential discovery of significant archaeological resources. 6
A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment dated April 25, 2024, was prepared for the Proposed
Project by Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. (BFSA). The survey of the site did not identify any
resources within the boundaries of the Project. However, a Los Angeles Department of Water and
Power (LADWP) Boulder Transmission Line and dirt access/maintenance road (now Decliff Drive
does traverse the subject property. Although the transmission line within the site had previously been
evaluated as a National Register of Historic Places (NRHP)-eligible, the only existing element within
the project is Decliff Drive, which has already been paved and improved.
The paving of Decliff Drive within the property has impacted the integrity of the access/maintenance
road within the project. As such, all potentially significant contributing features of past NRHP-eligible
transmission line have been eliminated from the subject property. As such, any additional project
related improvements to Decliff Drive would not alter or create any new impacts to the previous
transmission line which could substantially change the integrity of the elements of the recorded
6 Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood Conservation Plan Draft EIR. April 2019. Accessed June 13, 2024.
Decliff Drive Lot Subdivision
Project
CEQA Compliance Memorandum
City of Rancho Cucamonga February 2026 32
resource within the Proposed Project area. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not create a
substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource under CEQA, and impacts to
the resource are not considered significant.
Since project related impacts to the previous transmission line are not considered significant, no
site-specific mitigation measures are necessary. The property was historically utilized for agriculture
and the records search only identified a limited number of prehistoric resources. However, given the
occurrence of natural water sources on the property, poor ground visibility during the survey, and
past agricultural use which may have masked resources, the potential for previously unidentified
archaeological resources within the property remains. Based upon this potential, it is recommended
that the project be conditioned with archaeological and Native American monitoring during all
earthwork required for the development of the property.
Based on the analysis of the EHNCP EIR and the Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment prepared
for the Project Site, the Proposed Project would have a less substantial effect on cultural resources.
However, implementation of General Plan Update EIR COA 5.5-1, 5.5-2, and 5.5-3 would reduce any
unknown potential impacts associated with implementation of the Project on cultural resources.
Additionally, significant and unavoidable impacts were addressed in the City’s certification of the
EHNCP Final EIR Statement of Findings and Overriding Considerations.
In keeping with CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the Project would not generate cultural resources
impacts which are peculiar to the Project or Project Site, direct or cumulatively considerable impacts
not assessed in the EHNCP EIR or General Plan EIR, and no new or more significant impacts beyond
what was analyzed in the EHNCP.
Applicable Conditions of Approval:
General Plan Update EIR:
5.5-1 If a future project pursuant to the EHNCP contains a designated Historical Landmark, the
site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the applicable Historic Landmark
Alteration Permit. Any further modifications to the site including, but not limited to, exterior
alterations and/or interior alterations which affect the exterior of the buildings or structures,
removal of landmark trees, demolition, relocation, reconstruction of buildings or
structures, or changes to the site, shall require a modification to the Certificate of
Appropriateness subject to Historic Preservation Commission review and approval.
5.5-3 If human remains or funerary objects are encountered during any activities associated with
the project, work in the immediate vicinity (within a 100-foot buffer of the find) shall cease
and the County Coroner shall be contacted pursuant to State Health and Safety Code
§7050.5 and that code enforced for the duration of the project.
Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment:
MM CUL-1: Based on the Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment prepared by BFSA, it is recommended
that the Proposed Project be conditioned with archaeological and Native American monitoring
during all earthwork required for the development of the property.
Decliff Drive Lot Subdivision
Project
CEQA Compliance Memorandum
City of Rancho Cucamonga February 2026 33
ENERGY
Thresholds of Significance
E-1 Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or
unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation.
E-2 Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency.
Summary of Findings (see CalEEMod Outputs Appendix B)
Impact 5.6-1 Implementation of the proposed project would not result in potentially significant
environmental impacts due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of
energy resources. [Threshold E-1]
Impact 5.6-2 The proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for
renewable energy efficiency. [Threshold E-2]
Project Analysis
Energy resources for the EHNCP would primarily be associated with expanding residential
development, including, but not limited to, heating/ventilating/air conditioning (HVAC); refrigeration;
lighting; and the use of electronics, equipment, and machinery. Energy would also be consumed
within the EHNCP area for utilities related to water usage, solid waste disposal, and vehicle trips. The
Plan’s new energy demand would be approximately 17,331,150 kWh of electricity per year,
99,911,504 thousand British thermal units (kBTU) of natural gas per year, 2,174,947 gallons of
gasoline per year, and 2,181,370 gallons of diesel fuel per year.7
Electricity
The Proposed Project is a Tentative Tract Map to allow for future development of five single-family
residential units. Currently, the Project Site is vacant and therefore, the Proposed Project would
result in a permanent increase in demand for electricity when compared to existing conditions.
Southern California Edison (SCE) provides electricity to the area of the Project Site. According to the
California Energy Commission, the residential Sector of the Southern California Edison planning area
consumed 6301.858375 GWh of electricity.8 The CalEEMod output estimates that the Proposed
Project would consume approximately 0.04 GWh annually. The increase in electricity demand from
the Project would represent 0.000604 percent of the overall 2022 SCE residential energy
consumption. Therefore, the projected electrical demand would not be anticipated to significantly
impact SCE’s level of service.
Natural Gas
Gas service to the City and the annexation area is provided by the Southern California Gas Company
(SoCalGas). The Project Site is currently vacant and does not have demand for natural gas. The
Proposed Project would therefore create a permanent increase demand for natural gas. The
7 Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan. Table 4.5 -2: Summary of Annual Energy Use During
Operation. April 2019. Accessed June 19, 2024.
8 California Energy Commission. https://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/Default.aspx . Accessed June 19, 2024.
Decliff Drive Lot Subdivision
Project
CEQA Compliance Memorandum
City of Rancho Cucamonga February 2026 34
Proposed Project’s estimated annual natural gas demand (CalEEMod Outputs) is 1,564.5 therms.
According to the California Energy Commission, the natural gas consumption of the SoCal Gas’s
residential sector was approximately 267.3 million therms in 2022.9 The Proposed Project’s
estimated annual natural gas consumption, compared to the 2022 annual natural gas consumption
of the overall residential sector in the SoCal Gas Planning Area would account for approximately
0.00058 percent of the total natural gas consumption. Therefore, projected natural gas demand
would not significantly impact SoCal Gas’s level of service.
The Proposed Project development would be consistent with the land uses planned for and analyzed
in the EHNCP and General Plan EIR for the site. The Project would be subject to regulatory
compliance which would increase building energy efficiency and increase vehicle fuel efficiency,
reducing building energy demand and transportation -related fuel usage. Compliance with pertinent
policies of the EHNCP and General Plan Update regulatory requirements would ensure that energy
demand associated with growth under the EHNCP would not be inefficient, wasteful, or
unnecessary. Therefore, energy impacts associated with the Proposed Project would also be less
than significant.
The land uses accommodated under the General Plan Update, including the Proposed Project, would
comply with the current and future iterations of the Building Energy Efficiency Standards and
CALGreen. The General Plan Update includes policies which would support the statewide goal of
transitioning the electricity grid to renewable sources. The Project would comply with regulatory
policies which would support the Statewide goal of transitioning the electricity grid to renewable
sources. Therefore, consistent with the General Plan EIR, the Project would not conflict or obstruct
implementation of California’s RPS Program, and impacts would be less than significant.
The Project, consistent with the EHNCP EIR and General Plan EIR, would increase building energy
efficiency and vehicle fuel efficiency through compliance with existing regulations. Compliance with
State regulations; including Building Energy Efficiency Standards, California Green Building
Standards Code, California Renewables Portfolio Standard, and Corporate Average Fuel Economy
standards would reduce building energy demand and transportation-related fuel usage. The Project
is consistent with the land use proposed in the General Plan Update and complies with all state and
federal regulations.
In keeping with CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the Project would not generate energy impacts
which are peculiar to the Project or Project Site, direct or cumulatively considerable impacts not
assessed in the EHNCP EIR or General Plan EIR, and no new or more significant impacts beyond what
was analyzed in the EHNCP.
Applicable Conditions of Approval:
None provided in the EHNCP or General Plan Update EIR
9California Energy Commission. https://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/Default.aspx . Accessed June 19, 2024.
Decliff Drive Lot Subdivision
Project
CEQA Compliance Memorandum
City of Rancho Cucamonga February 2026 35
GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Thresholds of Significance
G-1 Directly or indirectly cause 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.)
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking.
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction.
iv) Landslides.
G-2 Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil.
G-3 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 on - or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse.
G-4 Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1B of the Uniform Building Code (1994),
creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property.
G-5 Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative
wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater.
G-6 Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic
feature?
Summary of Findings (see Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Decliff Residential Project by
GeoSoils, Inc., dated February 17, 2025 Appendix E); Paleontological Assessment for the Decliff
Drive Lot Subdivision Project by BFSA Environmental Services, a Perennial Company dated May
15, 2024 (Appendix E-1)
Impact 5.7-1 Project occupants and visitors would be subject to potential seismic-related
hazards. [Threshold G-1 i-iv]
Impact 5.7-2 Unstable geologic unit or soils conditions, including soil erosion, could result
from development of the project. [Thresholds G-2, G-3 and G- 4]
Impact 5.7-3 Soil conditions could result in risks to life or property and potentially result in
on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or
collapse. [Thresholds G-3 and G-4]
Impact 5.7-4 Soil conditions may not adequately support septic tanks. [Threshold G- 5]
Impact 5.7-5 The project would not directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological
resource or unique geologic feature. [Threshold G-6]
Decliff Drive Lot Subdivision
Project
CEQA Compliance Memorandum
City of Rancho Cucamonga February 2026 36
Project Analysis
The General Plan EIR found that impacts to geology and soils to be less than significant with the
incorporation of COAs. The City is near several active faults. Like most of Southern California, the
area is subject to seismic activity from active, potentially, active, or blind thrust faults in the region,
including, but not limited to, the Etiwanda Avenue fault, Cucamonga fault, and the San Andreas fault
zone. The General Plan EIR determined that the implementation of the General Plan Update would
not exacerbate existing environmental conditions related to seismic ground shaking, liquefaction,
landslides, or the rupture of a known fault. The General Plan EIR determined that the implementation
of the General Plan Update would not have a significant impact rel ated to the loss of topsoil or soil
erosion as it would conform with the latest regulatory requirements such as California Building Code
(CBC), the City municipal code, and implementation of COAs.
A Geologic and Geotechnical Engineering Investigation report dated February 17, 2025, was
prepared for the Proposed Project by GeoSoils, Inc. The Project Site is located within an Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zone; however, as discussed below, there are no active faults on the property.
According to the report, there are no faults on the property, there are faults near the site that could
cause moderate to intense ground shaking during the lifetime of the proposed development.
Therefore, earthquake resistant design is recommended.
The Project Site is located within an established Earthquake Fault Zone. The Cucamonga Fault is
mapped to the north of the site. This complex fault system is part of the Sierra Madre Fault and is
approximately 100km long and runs along the southern boundary of the San Gabriel Mountains from
San Fernando Pass to the west and Cajon pass to the east.
Ground shaking produced during an earthquake can result in a number of potentially damaging
phenomena classified as secondary earthquake effects. These secondary effects include
landslides, seiches and tsunamis, seismically induced settlement, and liquefaction. Descriptions of
each of these phenomena and how it could potentially affect the proposed site are described as
follows:
Landslides are slope failures that occur where the horizontal seismic forces act to induce soil and/or
bedrock failures. The most common effect is reactivation or movement on a pre-existing landslide.
Typically, existing slides that are stable under static conditions (i.e., factor-of-safety above one)
become unstable and move during strong ground shaking. The site is relatively flat and not subject
to landslide Hazard.
A seiche is the resonant oscillation of a body of water, typically a lake or swimming pool caused by
earthquake shaking (waves). The hazard exists where water can be splashed out of the body of water
and impact nearby structures. No bodies of constant water are near the site, therefore, the hazards
associated with seiches are considered low. Tsunamis are seismic sea waves generated by undersea
earthquakes or landslides. When the ocean floor is offset or tilted during an earthquake, a set of
waves are generated similar to the concentric waves caused by an object dropped in water. Tsunamis
can have wavelengths of up to 120 miles and travel as fast as 500 miles per hour across hundreds of
miles of deep Ocean. Upon reaching shallow coastal waters, the once two -foot-high wave can
become up to 50 feet in height causing great devastation to structures within reach. Tsunamis can
Decliff Drive Lot Subdivision
Project
CEQA Compliance Memorandum
City of Rancho Cucamonga February 2026 37
generate seiches as well. Due to the distance and elevation of the site relative to the ocean, seiches
and tsunamis are not considered a hazard to the site.
Liquefaction is a soil softening dynamic response, by which an increase in the excess pore water
pressure results in partial to full loss of soil shear strength and post liquefaction dissipation of this
pore water pressure results in ground settlement shortly after the earthquake. In order for
liquefaction to occur, the following four factors are required: 1) saturated soil or soil situated below
the groundwater table; 2) undrained loading (strong ground shaking), such as by earthquake;
3) contractive soil response during shear loading, which is often the case for a soil which is initially
in a loose or uncompacted state; and 4) susceptible soil type; such as clean, uniformly graded sands,
non-plastic silts, or gravels. Based on site exploration, this site is considered to have very low
susceptibility to liquefaction. This is due primarily due to the finding of depth to groundwater
historically being deeper than 50 feet.
The development of the Project Site is considered feasible from a geologic and geotechnical
engineering viewpoint, provided that the recommendations presented in th e report and a final report
approved by the City Geologist are followed during grading and structure design.
A Paleontological Assessment for the Project site was conducted by BFSA Environmental Services,
a Perennial Company dated May 15, 2024 and is included as Appendix E-1. Research performed at
the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County during preparation of the General Plan Update
EIR indicated that the bulk of the City consists of surficial sedimentary or metamorphic rocks that
are unlikely to contain significant vertebrate fossils; however, there may be sedimentary deposits at
a greater depth. Alluvial deposits extend throughout the City. Though shallow excavations in the
younger Quaternary alluvium are unlikely to expose significant fossils, deeper excavations that
extend into older Quaternary deposits could encounter significant fossils.
The existence of early Pleistocene-aged very old alluvial fan deposits at the project, an undetermined
to high paleontological resource sensitivity assigned to these sediments, and the presence of a
previously recorded, significant fossil specimen located less than 1.9 miles west-northwest of the
Project Site support the recommendation that part-time paleontological monitoring be required.
Periodic monitoring will consist of approximately two to three scheduled site visits per week by a
paleontological monitor during construction ground disturbance. The project’s qualified
paleontologist shall have the ability to adjust monitoring based on the discovery of fossils or the
suitability of the strata to yield fossils. A Paleontological Resource Impact Mitigation Program (PRIMP)
is recommended for the project. The PRIMP must be consistent with the provisions of CEQA, the City
of Rancho Cucamonga (2010), and those of the guidelines of the EHNCP. If implemented, the PRIMP
would mitigate any adverse impacts (loss or destruction) to potential nonrenewable paleontological
resources (fossils), if present, to less than significant. Further, the implantation of COA 5.7-7 would
continue to reduce potential negative effects to paleontological resources through the
establishment of proper resource identification and handling practices. Therefore, this is considered
a potentially significant impact on paleontological resources. However, implementation of COAs
would reduce the potential impacts to paleontological resources or geologic formations that may be
encountered onsite.
The Project would be implemented on a portion of the same site analyzed within the General Plan
EIR. The existing geologic and soil conditions have not changed since these topical areas were
Decliff Drive Lot Subdivision
Project
CEQA Compliance Memorandum
City of Rancho Cucamonga February 2026 38
evaluated in the General Plan EIR. As such, the Project would be subject to the same soil conditions,
geologic hazards, and landslide risks as the General Plan Update and therefore the environmental
impacts to geology and soils associated with the Project would be similar to what was previously
analyzed under the General Plan EIR. Therefore, implementation of the recommendations included
within the Paleontological Assessment and COAs identified in the General Plan EIR would apply to
the Project and would reduce any potential impacts associated with implementation of the Project
on geological and paleontological resources.
In keeping with CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the Project would not generate geological impacts
which are peculiar to the Project or Project site, direct or cumulatively considerable impacts not
assessed in the General Plan Update EIR, and no new or more significant geological impacts beyond
what was analyzed in the General Plan Update EIR.
Applicable General Plan Update EIR Conditions of Approval:
5.7-1 Development of projects pursuant to the General Plan Update shall comply with the City’s
modifications to the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone Act that call for geotechnical
investigations for all proposed structures designed for human occupancy within the expanded AP
Zones, including a zone along a splay of the Cucamonga Fault and another zone along the scarp at
Red Hill. Also, geotechnical investigations are required for essential and critical facilities along the
buried/uncertain segment of the Red Hill Fault, with a setback requirement of at least 50 feet.
5.7-2 All future building pads shall be seeded and irrigated for erosion control. Detailed plans shall
be included in the landscape and irrigation plans to be submitted for Planning Department approval
prior to the issuance of building permits.
5.7-3 A geological report shall be prepared for an individual project by a qualified engineer or
geologist and submitted at the time of application for grading plan check.
5.7-4 The final grading 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.
5.7-5 A separate grading 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 plan shall be prepared, stamped, and signed by a California-
registered civil engineer.
5.7-6 A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer licensed by the State of California to
perform such work.
5.7-7 If any paleontological resource (i.e., plant or animal fossils) is encountered before or during
grading, the developer shall retain a qualified paleontologist to monitor construction activities and
take appropriate measures to protect or preserve them for study. The paleontologist shall submit a
report of findings that will also provide specific recommendations regarding further mitigation
Decliff Drive Lot Subdivision
Project
CEQA Compliance Memorandum
City of Rancho Cucamonga February 2026 39
measures (i.e., paleontological monitoring) that may be appropriate. Where mitigation monitoring is
appropriate, the program must include, but not be limited to, the following measures:
• Assign a paleontological monitor—trained and equipped to allow the rapid removal of fossils
with minimal construction delay—to the site full-time during the interval of earth-disturbing
activities.
• Should fossils be found within an area being cleared or graded, divert earth disturbing
activities elsewhere until the monitor has completed salvage. If construction personnel make
the discovery, the grading contractor shall immediately divert construction and notify the
monitor of the find.
• Prepare, identify, and curate all recovered fossils for documentation in the summary report
and transfer to the San Bernardino County Museum.
• Submit summary report to City of Rancho Cucamonga. Transfer collected specimens with a
copy to the report to San Bernardino County Museum.
Decliff Drive Lot Subdivision
Project
CEQA Compliance Memorandum
City of Rancho Cucamonga February 2026 40
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Thresholds of Significance
GHG-1 Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant
impact on the environment.
GHG-2 Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the
emissions of greenhouse gases.
Summary of Findings (see CalEEMod Outputs (Appendix B), Transportation Screening
Assessment Appendix G)
Impact 5.8-1 The proposed project would not directly or indirectly result in a significant
increase in GHG emissions compared to existing conditions. [Threshold
GHG-1]
Impact 5.8-2 The proposed project would not conflict with the SCAG region’s achievement
of SB 375 emissions reduction targets. [Threshold GHG-2]
Impact 5.8-3 The proposed project would be consistent with the State’s ability to achieve
the 2030 reduction target of SB 32. [Threshold GHG-2]
Project Analysis
Gases that absorb and re-emit infrared radiation in the atmosphere are called greenhouse gases
(GHGs). GHGs are present in the atmosphere naturally, are released by natural sources, or are
formed from secondary reactions taking place in the atmosphere. The gases that are widely seen as
the principal contributors to human-induced climate change include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane
(CH4), nitrous oxides (N2O), fluorinated gases such as hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) and
perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). Water vapor is excluded from the list of GHGs
because it is short lived in the atmosphere and its atmospheric concentrations are largely
determined by natural processes, such as oceanic evaporation.
The Project Site, which would allow for future development of five single-family residential units, is
currently vacant. Therefore, the development of the Proposed Project would result in a permanent
increase in greenhouse gas emissions within the Project Site.
The Project was assessed for its consistency with the significance thresholds presented by the
SCAQMD CEQA Significance Threshold Working Group. Additionally, the project’s greenhouse gas
emissions were screened using CalEEMod version 2022. The emissions incorporate certain design
reduction strategies. Design reduction strategies could include methods for improving the Projects
Site’s walkability by providing sidewalks. The CalEEMod outputs used to estimate construction and
operational greenhouse gas emissions are referred to in Table 5 and Table 6 below.
Decliff Drive Lot Subdivision
Project
CEQA Compliance Memorandum
City of Rancho Cucamonga February 2026 41
Table 5
Greenhouse Gas Construction Emissions
(Metric Tons Per Year)
Source/Phase CO2 CH4 N2O R1
2025 504 0.02 0.0 0.03
SCAQMD MTCO2e Thresholds 3,000
Total MTCO2e 506
Significance No
Source: CalEEMod 2022
Table 6
Greenhouse Gas Operational Emissions
(Metric Tons Per Year)
Source/Phase CO2 CH4 N2O R1
Mobile 153.0 0.0 0.0 0.26
Area 1.6 0.0 0.0 --
Energy 14.3 0.0 0.0 --
Water 1.3 0.0 0.0 --
Waste 0.4 0.0 0.0 --
Refrigeration -- -- -- 0.0
SCAQMD MTCO2e Thresholds 3,000
Total MTCO2e 175
Significant No
Source: CalEEMod 2022
Construction activity for the Proposed Project is estimated to occur at the start of 202 5 and be
operational later within the year. Based on the project’s CalEEMod (version 2022) results,
construction activity for the project would generate an estimated 506 metric tons of CO2e per year.
Therefore, the Proposed Project’s construction emissions would not exceed the 3,000 MT CO2e
annual screening threshold defined by SCAQMD.
The operational mobile emissions were calculated using a Trip Generation Analysis and Vehicle Miles
traveled Screening prepared by Ganddini Group Inc. on April 8, 2024. The Screening determined that
the Proposed Project would generate approximately 60 total daily trips per day.
As shown in Table 6, the Proposed Project’s operational emissions would not exceed SCAQMD’s
screening threshold. The Proposed Projects greenhouse gas emissions for both construction and
operation would not exceed the SCAQMD’s threshold of 3,000 MT CO2e annually. Therefore, the
Proposed Project would not directly or indirectly result in a significant increase in GHG emissions
compared to existing conditions given the SCAQMD’s screening thresholds.
To achieve Statewide goals, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) is in the process of
establishing and implementing regulations to reduce Statewide GHG emissions. Currently no
generally accepted methodology exists to determine whether GHG emissions associated with a
Decliff Drive Lot Subdivision
Project
CEQA Compliance Memorandum
City of Rancho Cucamonga February 2026 42
specific project represent new emissions or existing and/or displaced emissions. Therefore,
consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064h (3), the City has determined that the EHNCP’s
contribution to cumulative GHG emissions and global climate change would be less than significant
if the Plan is consistent with the applicable regulatory plans and polices to reduce GHG emissions.
Accordingly, the EHNCP with the incorporation of mitigation , would result in a potentially significant
impact, because it could be inconsistent with the applicable regulations, plans, and policies.
Significant and unavoidable impacts were addressed in the City’s certification of the EHNCP Final
EIR Statement of Findings and Overriding Considerations.
Nonetheless, because the Proposed Project’s anticipated greenhouse gas emissions are below the
SCAQMD screening thresholds, the project would be an allowable use. Additionally, with the
implementation of the EHNCP ‘s COAs, the Proposed Project would plan to further reduce potential
emissions.
In keeping with CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the Project would not generate greenhouse gas
emission impacts which are peculiar to the Project or Project Site, direct or cumulatively
considerable impacts not assessed in the EHNCP EIR or General Plan EIR, and no new or more
significant impacts beyond what was analyzed in the EHNCP.
Applicable Conditions of Approval:
EHNCP:
MM GHG-1 Require the use of electric lawn mowers and leaf blowers through the Electric Lawn
Mower Rebate Program established by the SCAQMD
MM GHG-2 Implement the Plan design with CALGreen Voluntary Measure for Energy efficiency that
exceed Title 24 requirements by 15 to 30 percent.
MM GHG-3 Implement the Plan design with CALGreen Voluntary Measure for water conservation to
reduce indoor potable water use by 20 percent by applying water saving fixtures and/or flow
restrictors
Decliff Drive Lot Subdivision
Project
CEQA Compliance Memorandum
City of Rancho Cucamonga February 2026 43
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Thresholds of Significance
H-1 Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport,
use, or disposal of hazardous materials.
H-2 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.
H-3 Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substance,
or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school.
H-4 Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment.
H-5 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 result in a safety
hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area.
H-6 Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan.
H-7 Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or
death involving wildland fires.
Summary of Findings
Impact 5.9-1 Project construction and operations of the proposed project could involve the
transport, use, and/or disposal of hazardous materials; however, compliance
with existing local, state, and federal regulations would ensure impacts are
minimized. [Thresholds H-1, H-2, and H-3]
Impact 5.9-2 The Project Site is not on a list of hazardous materials sites. [Threshold H-4]
Impact 5.9-3 The Project Site is located in the vicinity of an airport or within the jurisdiction
of an airport land use plan. [Threshold H-5]
Impact 5.9-4 Project development would not affect the implementation of an emergency
responder or evacuation plan. [Threshold H-6, H-7]
Project Analysis
The City of Rancho Cucamonga created and maintains a Local Hazard Mitigation Plan that addresses
the City’s planned response to extraordinary emergency situations including incidents involving
major hazardous material upset during transport. The plan provides operational concepts and
identifies sources of outside support that would be provided through mutual aid agreements, state
and federal agencies, and the private sector.
Decliff Drive Lot Subdivision
Project
CEQA Compliance Memorandum
City of Rancho Cucamonga February 2026 44
Construction of the Proposed Project would require the routine transport, use, storage, and disposal
of limited quantities of common hazardous materials such as gasoline, diesel fuel, oils, solvents,
paint, fertilizers, pesticides, and other similar materials. Any transport of hazardous materials to the
EHNCP area would be subject to the federal and state regulations. Potential impacts are less than
significant through compliance with standard state and federal regulatory requirements.
Through the construction process, any hazardous materials used on -site would be handled and
stored in accordance with all federal, State and City regulations. Future residences would store and
use various chemicals for routine housekeeping and landscaping maintenance. However, none of
these chemicals would be used in sufficient quantities to pose a threat to humans or the
environment. Because quantities of hazardous materials used and stored on-site would be minimal,
a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials is not anticipated. Additionally,
any hazardous materials would be delivered, handled and stored in compliance with all federal,
State, County and City regulations.
David W Long Elementary School is located approximately 1.3 miles southeast of the Project Site. As
noted above, the Project would construct five lots for future single-family residential development
that would use various chemicals for routine housekeeping and landscaping maintenance. Through
compliance with City, County, State, and federal regulations the Project would not emit hazardous
emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste that would
impact any schools or planned schools within one-quarter mile of the Project Site. Therefore, no
significant adverse impacts are identified or anticipated, and no mitigation measures are required.
The Project Site is not included on a list of hazardous material sites as compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and reported in the EnviroStor database.10 Therefore, no
significant adverse impacts are identified or anticipated, and no mitigation measures are required.
No private airports occur within two miles of the Project Site. The nearest airport to the Project Site
would be the Ontario International Airport, located approximately 9.3 miles southwest of the
Proposed Project. Therefore, the Project will have no impact regarding its location within an airport
land use plan or creating a significant safety hazard or result in excessive noise to the public or
environment. Therefore, no impacts are identified or anticipated, and no mitigation measures are
required.
The proposed five-unit residential development would provide access via a 50-foot road on Decliff
Drive. Decliff Drive is an existing street within the City’s established circulation system. The Proposed
Project would not alter the existing circulation pattern in the Project area. Therefore, emergency
access and evacuation routes would not be impacted by the Proposed Project. Additionally, the
Project provides adequate access for emergency vehicles, including adequate street widths and
vertical clearance. Implementation of federal, State, and local EHNCP regulations during the
construction of the Project would ensure potential impacts would be less than significant to an
adopted emergency response or evacuation plan.
10 Department of Toxic Substances Control. EnviroStor Database. https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/
. Accessed June 13, 2024.
Decliff Drive Lot Subdivision
Project
CEQA Compliance Memorandum
City of Rancho Cucamonga February 2026 45
Lastly, according to the City’s Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, the Project Site is within a Wildland
Urban Interface Area.11 Due to the project being within the City’s Wildland Urban Interface Area
(WUI), the project would be required to comply with the City’s fire safe requirements to ensure the
development is resilient against wildfire hazards. New construction within WUI are as is required to
comply with the California Building Code and the California Residential Code, including
requirements for fire retardant or ignition resistant construction materials at roofs, eaves, vents,
exterior walls, exterior windows, doors, and decks. California Government Code Section 51182 also
requires buildings within these areas to provide defensible space. With the adherence to the City’s
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan and applicable regulations pertaining to WUI areas, the Proposed
Project would not expose people or structures to significant risks associated with wildfires and
therefore, a less than significant impact would be anticipated.
In keeping with CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the Project would not generate hazardous or
hazardous materials impacts which are peculiar to the Project or Project Site, direct or cumulatively
considerable impacts not assessed in the EHNCP EIR or General Plan EIR, and no new or more
significant impacts beyond what was analyzed in the EHNCP.
Applicable Conditions of Approval:
General Plan Update EIR:
5.9-1 Future development shall prepare a Fire Protection Plan that includes measures consistent
with the unique problems resulting from the location, topography, geology, flammable vegetation,
and climate of the proposed development site. The Plan must also address water supply, access,
building ignition fire resistance, fire protection systems and equipment, defensible space, and
vegetation management. Maintenance requirements for incinerators, outdoor fireplaces, permanent
barbeques and grills, and firebreak fuel modification areas are imposed on new developments.
EHNCP:
MM HAZ-1: Future developers and/or contractor must coordinate in advance of construction with
the Rancho Cucamonga Fire District to ensure that road closures (temporary or permanent) are
identified that alternate access and evacuation routes are determined in the event of an emergency
and/or natural disaster.
MM HAZ-3: If previously unknown or unidentified soil and/or groundwater contamination that could
present a threat to human health or the environment is encountered during construction within the
Plan Area, construction activities in the immediate vicinity of the contamination must cease
immediately. If contamination is encountered, a Risk Management Plan must be prepared and
implemented that (1) identifies the contaminants of concern and the potential risk each contaminant
would pose to human health and the environment during construction and post-development and
(2) describes measures to be taken to protect workers, and the public from exposure to potential site
hazards. Such measures must include a range of options, including, but not limited to, physical site
controls during construction, remediation, long-term monitoring, post-development maintenance or
access limitations, or some combination thereof. Example soil remediation methods that may be
employed include, but are not limited to, one or more of the following: excavation and on-site
11 City of Rancho Cucamonga. 2021 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. Figure 3-7: Fire Hazard Zones.
Decliff Drive Lot Subdivision
Project
CEQA Compliance Memorandum
City of Rancho Cucamonga February 2026 46
treatment, such as above ground bioremediation, soil washing, soil stabilization, soil vapor
extraction, or high-temperature soil thermal desorption. Example groundwater remediation methods
that may be employed include, but are not limited to, pumping water to surface, treating, and
returning to aquifer; treating groundwater in place by injecting oxidizing agents; and placing
membrane in aquifer and using natural flows to trap contaminants. Depending on the nature of
contamination, if any, appropriate agencies must be notified (e.g., City of Rancho Cucamonga Fire
Protection District and San Bernardino County Environmental Health Division). If needed, a Site
Health and Safety Plan that meets Occupational Safety and Health Administration requirements
must be prepared and in place prior to commencement of work in any contaminated area.
MM HAZ-4: Fire Protection Plan
To address the risk to residential development, future developers shall prepare fire protection plans
that meet the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Development Standards and are
consistent with the Master Fire Protection Plan. The Fire Protection Plan shall describe all actions
that will be taken to reduce wildfire risks to the structure(s). The plan shall include (1) A copy of the
site plan that indicates topographic reference lines; (2) A copy of the approved landscape/vegetation
management plan;(3) Methods and timetables for controlling, changing or modifying areas on the
property (elements of the plan shall include removal of dead vegetation, litter, vegetation that may
grow into overhead electrical lines, certain ground fuels, and ladder fuels as well as the thinning of
live trees); and (4) A maintenance schedule for the landscape/vegetation management plan. The Fire
Protection Plan for a specific neighborhood or phase of construction shall be submitted to the
Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District and City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department
for review and approval prior to occupancy permits approval for the first residential structure.
MM HAZ-5: Fire Prevention Construction Techniques:
Construction within the designated Wildfire-Urban Interface Fire Area is required to be in accordance
with Chapter 7A of the California Building Code, the California Residential Code and Standard 49 -1
of the of the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District.
Decliff Drive Lot Subdivision
Project
CEQA Compliance Memorandum
City of Rancho Cucamonga February 2026 47
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Thresholds of Significance
HYD-1 Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise
substantially degrade surface or ground water quality.
HYD-2 Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater
recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the
basin.
HYD-3 Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in
a manner which would:
i) Result in a substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site.
ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which
would result in flooding on- or offsite.
iii) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing
or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional
sources of polluted runoff.
iv) Impede or redirect flood flows.
HYD-4 In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation.
HYD-5 Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable
groundwater management plan.
Summary of Findings (see Preliminary Hydrology Study prepared by Vertex Land Consulting,
LLC. Dated January 30, 2024 Appendix F).
Impact 5.10-1 Development pursuant to the EHNCP and General Plan would not violate
water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise
substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality. [Threshold HYD-1]
Impact 5.10-2 Buildout of the EHNCP and General Plan would generate a substantial
increase in water demand but would not decrease groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project would
impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin.
[Threshold HYD-2]
Impact 5.10-3 Development pursuant to the EHNCP and General Plan would increase
impervious surfaces and therefore could alter drainage patterns but would
not increase the potential for erosion and siltation on- or off-site on a project-
by-project basis or create runoff water that would exceed the capacity of
storm drain systems, or provide substantial additional sources of polluted
Decliff Drive Lot Subdivision
Project
CEQA Compliance Memorandum
City of Rancho Cucamonga February 2026 48
runoff, or impede or redirect flood flows. [Threshold HYD-3 (i), (ii), (iii), and
(iv)]
Impact 5.10-4 The proposed project would not result in flood hazards associated with flood
zones, tsunami, or seiche zones, or due to dam inundation.
[Threshold HYD-4]
Impact 5.10-5 Buildout of the EHNCP and General Plan would not obstruct or conflict with
the implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable
groundwater management plan. [Threshold HYD-5]
Project Analysis
Land development and building construction activities for the new neighborhoods the Neighborhood
Area (NA) of the EHNCP would involve the clearing and grading of the development area, the
maintenance/operation of construction equipment, and the handling/storage/disposal of materials
that could contribute to pollutant loading in stormwater runoff. Potential construction impa cts in the
Rural Conservation Area (RCA) would be limited, because a maximum of 100 homes could be built
on privately owned properties and a small area in the RCA where a water reservoir and water
pipelines would be constructed. In addition, these homes would be subject to the standards in the
City’s Rural Open Space Zone standards in the Plan Area. The basic purpose of the Hillside
Development Ordinance is to implement the City's General Plan, to minimize the adverse effects of
grading, to avoid grading in environmentally sensitive areas, and to provide for the safety and welfare
of the community while allowing for the reasonable development of the land.12
The Proposed Project would disturb more than 5 acres and therefore would be subject to the NPDES.
Construction activities require the use of heavy equipment and construction ‐related chemicals,
such as fuels, oils, grease, solvents and paints. Because construction will disturb more than one acre
of soil, any development under the General Plan Update will be required to comply with the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Construction General Permit. In compliance with
this permit, a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) will be prepared and implemented,
which will require erosion control, sediment control, non‐stormwater and waste and material
management best management practices (BMPs). As a result, the BMPs that comply with the SWPPP
requirements will reduce potential water quality impacts during construction to a less than
significant level.
The General Plan would generate a substantial increase in water demand but would not decrease
groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project
would impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin, as identified within the
Cucamonga Valley Water District’s (CVWD) 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP).13 The
policies of the proposed General Plan Update require the replenishment of groundwater and the
preservation and enhancement of stormwater capture systems for groundwater recharge. With the
implementation of the policies of the General Plan Update, buildout of the General Plan would not
12 City of Rancho Cucamonga, Hillside Development Ordinance Handout, updated August 8,2017.
13 Cucamonga Valley Water District. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. June 2021. Accessed June 28,
2024.
Decliff Drive Lot Subdivision
Project
CEQA Compliance Memorandum
City of Rancho Cucamonga February 2026 49
substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge,
and impacts would be less than significant.
The General Plan would not result in flood hazards associated with flood zones, tsunami, or seiche
zones, or due to dam inundation. Buildout of the General Plan Update would not substantially
decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge. The City is in an
adjudicated Chino Basin, established in 1978. The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act
contains reporting requirements for adjudicated basins. Because the General Plan is within an
adjudicated basin and is consistent with the Chino Basin Water Bank Strategic Plan, which manages
the basin, there would be no conflict with a sustainable groundwater management plan, and impacts
would be less than significant.
The Project would include onsite and offsite improvements to control storm water flow volumes and
to treat surface water such that impacts will be less than significant. Like the General Plan Update,
the Project would be required to comply with the NPDES Construction General Permit from RWQCB
and prepare and implement a SWPPP which will require erosion control, sediment control, non ‐
stormwater and waste and material management BMPs. The Project would be designed to
accommodate the 100-year storm event and would be subject to plan check and review processes
by the City.
A Hydrology Study was prepared for the Proposed Project (see Appendix F). The southerly portion of
the Project Site would be subdivided, and the northerly portion of the property will remain as is. A
Concrete V-ditch will be constructed to the north of the residential lots in order to intercept the runoff
coming from the north and prevent comingling with stormwater from the proposed development. On-
site improvements (consisting of individual lot swales) would be constructed to convey runoff flows
through the project to their historical flow locations along the southerly property boundary, which
would conduct potential runoff flows to the street. Additionally, two infiltration basins would be
constructed in the southern section of the property (see Appendix F and Figure 4). The Hydrology
Study concludes that the proposed development would not adversely affect the existing drainage
patterns in the area and would provide adequate protection for the proposed on-site improvements
and structures.
With the implementation of applicable measures during the construction and operational phases of
the Project, the implementation of the General Plan Update policies, and federal, state, and local
regulations, the Project would not generate substantial effects to hydrological resources compared
to those identified in the General Plan EIR.
In keeping with CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the Project would not generate hydrological or water
quality impacts which are peculiar to the Project or Project Site, direct or cumulatively considerable
impacts not assessed in the EHNCP EIR or General Plan EIR, and no new or more significant impacts
beyond what was analyzed in the EHNCP.
Decliff Drive Lot Subdivision
Project
CEQA Compliance Memorandum
City of Rancho Cucamonga February 2026 50
Applicable Conditions of Approval:
General Plan Update EIR:
5.10-1 A final drainage study shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer prior
to final map approval or the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. All
drainage facilities shall be installed as required by the City Engineer.
5.10-2 Adequate provisions shall be made for acceptance and disposal of surface drainage
entering the property from adjacent areas.
Decliff Drive Lot Subdivision
Project
CEQA Compliance Memorandum
City of Rancho Cucamonga February 2026 51
LAND USE AND PLANNING
Thresholds of Significance
LU-1 Physically divide an established community.
LU-2 Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or
regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.
Summary of Findings
Impact 5.11-1 Project implementation would not divide an established community.
[Threshold LU-1]
Impact 5.11-2 Project implementation would not conflict with applicable plans adopted for
the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.
[Threshold LU-2]
Project Analysis
The Rural Conservation Area (RCA) is largely undeveloped, with the exception of a number of large-
scale flood control facilities and power transmission lines, water supply storage tanks, several
private residences, and the Ling Yen Mountain Temple. At the center of the RCA lies the North
Etiwanda Preserve, a habitat preservation area including a trail network and picnic areas. Consistent
with its rural and natural character, the circulation network within this area is comprised of private
rural roads and trails.
The Project Site occurs within the EHNCP and has a land use designation of General Open Space and
Facilities, and Rural Open Space, and contains three regulating sub -zones including Rural Hillside
(R-H), Rural Open Space (R-OS) and Rural Flood Control/Utility Corridor (R-FC/UC). The Project Site
also occurs within the Equestrian Overlay and Hillside Overlay districts. As stated in the EHNCP, the
sub-zone R-OS allows limited development (i.e. 1 dwelling unit/acre) due to steep terrain and areas
of high fire, geologic, seismic, or flood hazards through restriction of intensive uses. The sub -zone
Rural Hillside (R-H) may be developed with 1 dwelling unit/2 acres, and the Rural Flood Control/Utility
Corridor (R-FC/UC) does not permit residential development.
The Project Site is composed of two parcels including APN 0226-061-69 (southern parcel), and 0226-
061-68 (northern parcel). The Project includes the subdivision of the southern parcel into five lots to
allow for the construction of five single-family residences while the northern parcel would remain
undisturbed. The area of the southern parcel that would allow for future residential development is
currently zoned R-H. In accordance with the EHNCP and the General Plan, the would Proposed
Project would subdivide the parcel into five, approximate 2-acre lots; allowing for 1 dwelling unit/2
acres; the remaining area within the southern parcel is zoned R -FC/UC, and in accordance with the
General Plan, would be recorded as letter lots to allow for the existing flood control easements.
The Project Site is surrounded by vacant land and a single-family residence to the west, vacant land
and Ling Yen Mountain Temple to the east, vacant land to the north and south. The Proposed Project
does not include the construction of new roadways and therefore would not divide an established
community.
Decliff Drive Lot Subdivision
Project
CEQA Compliance Memorandum
City of Rancho Cucamonga February 2026 52
The Rural Open Space (R-OS) sub-zone was established to limit development in steeper terrain and
areas of high fire, geologic, seismic, or flood hazards through restriction of intensive uses, and to
promote the retention and preservation of rural open spaces that protect natural features. Very
limited development is permitted in this subzone, with a maximum residential density of 1 unit for
every ten acres. The Proposed Project does not include residential lots within the portion of the
Project Site that is designated OS.
The intent of the Rural Hillside (R-H) sub-zone is to establish a limit on development, grading and
erosion, and to protect the unique character and resources of natural and rural open space. In
addition the sub-zone also allows for the protection against wildland fire, fault, and flooding hazards,
and protects natural resources such as water, plant, and animal life. Limited development is
permitted in this sub-zone, which is applied to some of the flatter areas within the sloping foothill
terrain, with a maximum residential density of 1 dwelling unit/2 acres.
The Rural Flood Control/Utility Corridor (R-FC/UC) sub-zone identifies land that is used for flood
control purposes and supports public utilities. Much of this area is owned by or within recorded
easements under the management of either the San Bernardino County Flood Control District or
public utilities, though some property is privately held. Some privately held property is within
floodway hazard zones, where no development is permitted, In accordance with EHNCP, no future
habitable structures or subdivision of land to allow for residential lots is proposed within the area of
the Project Site that is designated with this sub-zone. The Project would be required to comply with
the City’s Development Code, Chapter 16.16 Tentative Maps – Five or more parcels. Future
development of single-family homes would be required to comply with building standards
established in Section 5.9.4 Standards for Structures and Uses and Table 5.9.4 Building Standards
of the EHNCP. In addition, open space standards provided in Section 5.9.5 of the EHNCP would be
required. Future development of single-family homes would be required to comply with Section 5.10
Architectural & Landscape Guidelines of the EHNCP.
The Project would be consistent with the land use designations and sub-zones analyzed in the
General Plan EIR and EHNCP t. Additionally, due to the lack of residential development within the
site or the removal of vehicular connections through and around the site, the Project would not divide
an established community. The Project would comply with the development standards and design
guidelines presented within the General Plan and EHNCP and does not propose construction or
operations that are different than those assessed in the General Plan Update EIR and EHNCP.
In keeping with CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the Project would not generate land use or planning
impacts which are peculiar to the Project or Project Site, direct or cumulatively considerable impacts
not assessed in the EHNCP EIR or General Plan Update EIR, and no new or more significant impacts
beyond what was analyzed in the EHNCP and General Plan Update.
Applicable Conditions of Approval:
None provided in the EHNCP or General Plan Update EIR.
Decliff Drive Lot Subdivision
Project
CEQA Compliance Memorandum
City of Rancho Cucamonga February 2026 53
MINERAL RESOURCES
Thresholds of Significance
According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect
on the environment if the project would:
M-1 Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the
region and the residents of the state.
M-2 Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan.
Summary of Findings
Impact 5.12-1 Project implementation would not result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the
state or Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral
resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or
other land use plan. [Threshold M-1 and M-2]
Project Analysis
As identified in Figure 4.11-1 of the EHNCP Draft EIR, the Project Site occurs within an area identified
as Mineral Resource Zone-314. MRZ-3 zone indicates that the significance of mineral deposits cannot
be determined from the available data. Mining is not an allowable use within the EHNCP and
furthermore, property of this size would not be economically viable to mine. Moreover, the Proposed
Project’s demand for mineral resources will be considered less than significant due to the
abundance of available aggregate resources in the Southern California region. The Project Site is
designated as General Open Space and Facilities and Rural Open Space, and occurs within the sub -
zones of R-HS, R-OS, and R-FC/UC. The Proposed Project would be consistent with the EHNCP.
Although the Project Site is within an MRZ-3 zone and the extent of mineral occurrence is not known
the size of the property and designated and surrounding uses make the site unsuitable for mineral
resources extraction. Therefore, no significant impacts are identified or anticipated, and no
mitigation measures are required.
In keeping with CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the Project would not generate mineral resources
impacts which are peculiar to the Project or Project Site, direct or cumulatively considerable impacts
not assessed in the EHNCP EIR or General Plan EIR, and no new or more significant mineral resources
impacts beyond what was analyzed in the EHNCP.
Applicable Conditions of Approval:
None provided in the EHNCP or General Plan Update EIR
14 Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan Draft EIR. Mineral Resource Zones. Figure 4.11-1
Decliff Drive Lot Subdivision
Project
CEQA Compliance Memorandum
City of Rancho Cucamonga February 2026 54
NOISE
Thresholds of Significance
N-1 Generate a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels at noise-sensitive land uses
in excess of the following standards established by the City:
• For residential, schools, churches, or similar land uses, construction noise would result in a
significant impact if activities were to take place between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and
7:00 a.m. on weekdays, including Saturday, or at any time on Sunday or a national holiday,
and exceed the noise standard of 65 dBA Leq when measured at the adjacent property line.
• For a commercial or industrial use, construction noise would result in a significant impact if
activities were to take place between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. on weekdays,
including Saturday and Sunday, and exceed the noise standard of 70 dBA Leq when
measured at the adjacent property line.
N-2 Generate a substantial permanent increase in traffic noise levels at noise-sensitive land uses in
excess of the following standards:
• Where noise levels currently do not exceed applicable noise compatibility standards in the
proposed General Plan Update Noise Element Table N-1 (e.g., 60 dBA CNEL for low density
residential and 70 dBA for high-density/infill uses) but would exceed Table N-1 standards for
the same land use as a result of project implementation; or
• Where Table N-1 land use compatibility noise standards are currently exceeded, result in
substantial increases in noise (i.e., 3 dB where existing levels are below 65 dBA CNEL, 1 dB
where existing levels are between 70 dBA CNEL and 75 dBA and no increase when existing
levels are above 75 dBA CNEL).
N-3 Generate a substantial permanent increase in stationary noise at noise-sensitive uses in
excess of the following standards, as measured at adjacent property line (exterior) or within
a neighboring home (interior):
• Exterior: 60 dBA (10pm–7am), 65 dBA (7am–10pm)
• Interior: 45 dBA (10pm–7am), 50 dBA (7am–10pm)
N-4 Expose new sensitive land uses to noise levels in excess of the noise compatibility
standards identified in 2040 General Plan Noise Element Table N-1.
N-5 Generate short-term construction vibration or exposure to new sensitive land uses to long-
term operational vibration sources that exceed the following:
• Structural damage: 0.2 PPV in/sec,
• For frequent events (i.e., more than 70 events per day): 65 VdB,
• For occasional events (i.e., 30-70 events): 75 VdB, or
• For infrequent (i.e., fewer than 30 events per day): 80 VdB.
Decliff Drive Lot Subdivision
Project
CEQA Compliance Memorandum
City of Rancho Cucamonga February 2026 55
Summary of Findings
Impact 5.13-1 Construction activities would result in temporary noise increases in the
vicinity of the future development under the EHNCP and the General Plan.
[Threshold N-1]
Impact 5.13-2 Project implementation could generate a substantial permanent increase in
traffic noise levels at noise-sensitive land uses in excess local standards.
[Threshold N-2]
Impact 5.13-3 The project could generate a substantial permanent increase in stationary
noise at noise-sensitive uses that exceeds City standards. [Threshold N-3]
Impact 5.13-4 Expose new sensitive land uses to noise levels in excess of the noise
compatibility standards identified in2040 General Plan Noise Element
Table N-1. [Threshold N-4]
Impact 5.13-5 Future development under the General Plan could generate short-term
construction vibration or exposure to new sensitive land uses to long-term
operational vibration sources that exceed City thresholds. [Threshold N-5]
Project Analysis
The unit of measurement used to describe a noise level is the decibel (dB), which is a logarithmic
unit of noise level measurement that relates the energy of a noise source to that of a constant
reference level. The human ear, however, is not equally sensitive to all frequencies within the sound
spectrum. Therefore, the “A-weighted” noise scale, which weights the frequencies to which humans
are sensitive, is used for measurements. Noise levels using A-weighted measurements are written
as dBA. Average noise levels over a period of minutes or hours are usually expressed as dBA Leq, or
the equivalent noise level for that period of time. Noise standards for land use compatibility are
stated in terms of the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) and the Day -Night Average Noise
Level (Ldn). CNEL is a 24-hour weighted average measure of community noise. CNEL is obtained by
adding five decibels to sound levels in the evening (7:00 PM to 10:00 PM), and by ten decibels to
sound levels at night (10:00 PM to 7:00 AM). This weighting accounts for the increased human
sensitivity to noise during the evening and nighttime hours. Ldn is a similar 24 -hour average measure
that weighs only the nighttime hours.
Chapter 17.66.050 of the City’s Municipal Code states that noise generated by construction activities
adjacent to residential uses are allowed only if construction takes place between 7:00 AM and
8:00 PM on weekdays or Saturdays. Additionally, construction would be allowed if the construction
noise levels conform to all conditions specified by the general standards and would not exceed the
noise standard of 65 dBA when measured at the adjacent property line. The maximum noise level
limits within residential zones are between 60 dBA and 65 dBA for exterior locations and 45 dBA to
50 dBA for interior locations.
Decliff Drive Lot Subdivision
Project
CEQA Compliance Memorandum
City of Rancho Cucamonga February 2026 56
Construction
Onsite Construction Noise
Individual pieces of construction equipment that would most likely be used for construction within
the EHNCP area produce maximum noise levels of 74 dBA to 85 dBA at a reference distance of 50 feet
from the noise source. The construction equipment-reference noise levels presented in Table 7
below are based on measured noise data compiled by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA).
However, equipment used on construction sites typically operate at less than full power. The
acoustical usage factor is the percentage of time that each type of construction equipment is
anticipated to be in full power operation during a typical construction day. These values are estimates
and will vary based on the actual construction process and schedule.
Table 7
Typical Maximum Noise Levels for Construction Equipment15
Type of Equipment Maximum Noise Levels at
50 feet, dBA (Lmax)
Acoustical Usage
Factor (%)
Air Compressor 78 40
Cement and mortar mixer 80 50
Concrete mixer truck 79 40
Concrete pump 81 20
Crane 81 16
Dozer 82 40
Drill Rig 84 20
Excavator 81 40
Forklift 75 20
Generator 81 50
Grader 85 40
Dump/Haul truck 76 40
Paver 77 50
Rollers 80 20
Rubber-tire loader 79 40
Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 84 40
Delivery truck 74 40
Water truck 82 10
Welders 74 40
Source: Federal Highway Administration, Construction Noise Handbook, Table 7-3: Example of Possible
Construction Equipment Noise Emission Criteria Limits.
As shown in Table 7, the estimated noise exposure levels due to the Proposed Project construction
period range between 74 dBA and 85 dBA. Additionally, the EHNCP DEIR would require the use of
optimal muffler systems for all equipment and the break in line of sight to a sensitive receptor, which
would reduce construction noise levels by approximately 10 dB or more. This would also limit the
number of noise-generating heavy-duty off-road construction equipment (e.g., backhoes, dozers,
excavators, loaders, rollers, etc.) simultaneously used on the Plan Area within 50 feet of off-site noise
15 General Plan Update EIR, Table 5.13-5 Reference Noise Levels from Typical Construction Equipment.
Decliff Drive Lot Subdivision
Project
CEQA Compliance Memorandum
City of Rancho Cucamonga February 2026 57
sensitive receptors surrounding the site to no more than one or two pieces of heavy -duty off-road
equipment would further reduce construction noise levels by approximately 10 dBA. This would aim
to reduce existing construction noise by approximately 20 dBA and would assist in not exceeding the
construction noise standard of 65 dBA for residential uses when measured at the adjacent property
line.16
Construction Vibration
Construction activities can produce vibration that may be felt by adjacent land uses. Construction
equipment may result in vibration levels that are considered annoying at nearby sensitive receptors
when vibration causing equipment is within 100 feet of a receptor. The Proposed Project provides for
future construction of 5 residential dwelling units. However, vibration produced by construction
activities would be short-term and Section 17.66.050 of the Municipal Code allows construction-
related exceptions to be requested. Therefore, no significant impacts are identified or anticipated,
and no mitigation measures are required.
Operations
The Proposed Project would be conditioned to comply with the City’s Municipal Code for residential
noise limits. The Maximum allowable noise limits in residential areas is 60 dBA from 10:00 PM to 7:00
AM and 65 dBA from 7:00 AM to 10:00 PM for exterior locations, and 45 dBA from 10:00PM to 7:00 AM
and 50 dBA from 7:00 AM to 10:00 PM. In addition, Proposed Project operations that would generate
noise typically associated with residential uses. However, the Project Site is surrounded by existing
sources of noise generation, such as roads, and residences to the south. Therefore, noise generated
by the Proposed Project’s addition of five future residences is not anticipated to be substantial.
Significant and unavoidable impacts were addressed in the City’s certification of the EHNCP Final
EIR Statement of Findings and Overriding Considerations.
In keeping with CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the Project would not generate noise or vibration
impacts which are peculiar to the Project or Project Site, direct or cumulatively considerable impacts
not assessed in the EHNCP EIR or General Plan EIR, and no new or more significant impacts beyond
what was analyzed in the EHNCP.
Applicable Conditions of Approval:
General Plan Update EIR:
5.13-3 The City shall require that project applicants analyze and mitigate potential noise impacts
from new stationary noise sources (e.g., loading docks at commercial and industrial uses,
mechanical equipment associated with all building types), to, as determined by the City, comply with
the City’s daytime (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.) standards of 65 dBA Leq/50 dBA Leq (exterior/interior)
and nighttime (10:00 p.m.-7:00 a.m.) standards of 60 dBA Leq/45 dBA Leq (exterior/interior),
described in Development Code Section 17.66.050(F). The analysis shall be prepared by a qualified
acoustical engineer or noise specialist and completed prior to project approval and can be
completed as part of the environmental review process for projects subject to CEQA. Potential
16 Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan DEIR. April 2019. Accessed June 14, 2024.
Decliff Drive Lot Subdivision
Project
CEQA Compliance Memorandum
City of Rancho Cucamonga February 2026 58
project-specific actions that can feasibly achieve compliance include, but are not limited to, the use
of enclosures or screening materials (e.g., landscape buffers, parapets, masonry walls) around
stationary noise sources (e.g., heating, ventilation, and air conditioning systems, generators, heating
boilers, loading docks) or of noise suppression devices (e.g., acoustic louvers, mufflers).
5.13-4a The City shall, at the time of development project application submittal, evaluate the
compatibility of proposed noise sensitive uses (e.g., residences, lodging, schools, parks) with the
noise environment to ensure noise compatibility standards are met.
5.13-5a For development involving construction activities within 500 feet of existing sensitive land
uses (places where people sleep or buildings containing vibration -sensitive uses), the City shall
require applicants, at the time of application submittal, to prepare a project-specific vibration
analysis that identifies vibration-reducing measures to ensure the project construction does not
exceed applicable vibration criteria (e.g., FTA, Caltrans) for the purpose of preventing disturbance to
sensitive land uses and structural damage. The analysis shall include, but is not limited to, the
following requirements:
• Ground vibration-producing activities, such as pile driving, shall be limited to the daytime
hours between 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on weekdays and prohibited on Sundays and holidays.
• If pile driving is used, pile holes shall be predrilled to the maximum feasible depth to reduce
the number of blows required to seat a pile.
• Maximize the distance between construction equipment and vibration- sensitive land uses.
• Earthmoving, blasting and ground-impacting activities shall be prohibited from occurring at
the same time if simultaneous activity would result in exceedance of vibration criteria.
• Where pile driving is proposed, alternatives to traditional pile driving (e.g., sonic pile driving,
jetting, cast-in-place or auger cast piles, no displacement piles, pile cushioning, torque or
hydraulic piles) shall be implemented when the project cannot otherwise demonstrate
vibration levels in compliance with the structural damage threshold.
• Minimum setback requirements for different types of ground vibration - producing activities
(e.g., pile driving) for the purpose of preventing damage to nearby structures shall be
established. Factors to be considered include the specific nature of the vibration producing
activity (e.g., type and duration of pile driving), soil conditions, and the fragility/resiliency of
the nearby structures. Established setback requirements (100 feet for pile driving, 25 feet for
other construction activity) can be revised only if a project-specific analysis is conducted by
a qualified geotechnical engineer or ground vibration specialist that demonstrates, as
determined by the City, that the structural damage vibration threshold would not be
exceeded.
• Minimum setback requirements for different types of ground vibration producing activities
(e.g., pile driving) for the purpose of preventing negative human response shall be established
based on the specific nature of the vibration producing activity (e.g., type and duration of pile
driving), soil conditions, and the type of sensitive receptor. Established setback requirements
(500 for pile driving, 80 for other construction) can be revised only if a project-specific ground
Decliff Drive Lot Subdivision
Project
CEQA Compliance Memorandum
City of Rancho Cucamonga February 2026 59
vibration study demonstrates, as determined by the City, that receptors would not be
exposed to ground vibration levels in excess of negative human response vibration threshold
levels, depending on the frequency of the event and receiver type.
• All vibration-inducing activity within the established setback distances for preventing
structural damage and negative human response shall be monitored and documented to
compare recorded ground vibration noise and vibration noise levels at affected sensitive land
uses to the applicable vibration threshold values. The results included recorded vibration
data shall be submitted to the City.
EHNCP:
MM N-1: Prior to the issuance of each permit for grading, the Property Owner/Developer shall submit
construction related noise mitigation plan to the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department. The plan
shall depict the location of the construction equipment and how the noise from this equipment
would be mitigated during construction of the project. The plan shall demonstrate that the
construction plans and specifications include the following noise abatement, notification, and
control measures:
• All construction equipment, fixed or mobile, shall be equipped with properly operating and
maintained mufflers and other State-required noise-attenuation devices.
• Limiting the number of noise-generating heavy-duty off-road construction equipment
(e.g., backhoes, dozers, excavators, loaders, rollers, etc.) simultaneously within 50 feet of
off-site noise sensitive receptors surrounding the site.
• Stationary construction equipment shall be placed such that emitted noise is directed away
from sensitive noise receivers.
• On-site and off-site construction haul routes shall be designed to avoid noise sensitive uses,
as feasible.
• If a perimeter block wall is required for a project, the wall shall be constructed as early as
possible during the first phase of construction.
• A “Construction Noise Coordinator” shall be identified. The Construction Noise Coordinator
shall be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. When
a complaint is received, the Construction Noise Coordinator shall notify the City within 48
hours of the complaint and determine the cause of the noise complaint (e.g., starting too
early, bad muffler) and shall implement reasonable measures to resolve the compliant, as
deemed acceptable by the Planning Department. Signs shall b e posted at the construction
that include the contact information for the Construction Noise Coordinator.
Decliff Drive Lot Subdivision
Project
CEQA Compliance Memorandum
City of Rancho Cucamonga February 2026 60
POPULATION AND HOUSING
Thresholds of Significance
The following statements are from Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. As analyzed in the EIR, a
project would normally have a significant effect on the environment if the project would:
P-1 Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by
proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads
or other infrastructure).
P-2 Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction
of replacement housing elsewhere.
Summary of Findings
Impact 5.14-1 Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly
(for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for
example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure). [Threshold P-1]
Impact 5.14-2 Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating
the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. [Threshold PH-2]
Project Analysis
The EHNCP would involve development of up to a maximum of 3,000 residential units, with
approximately 9,090 new residents, and approximately 415 employment opportunities.
Approximately 48 percent of the population growth of 9,090 that would be generated by the Plan,
4,346 persons, is accounted for the SCAG RTP/SCS 2016-2040 Growth Forecasts. The remaining
population growth of 4,744 is not accounted for in the 2016-2040 Growth Forecasts. The draft 2020-
2045 RTP/SCS Growth Forecasts account for approximately 76 percent of the population growth that
would be generated by the Plan. The additional increment of population growth that would be
generated by the Plan not accounted for in the 2016-2040 RTP/SCS Growth Forecasts may result in
population growth exceeding current forecasts, which may contribute to cumulative impacts.
The City’s General Plan anticipates annexation of the Plan Area and accounts for growth in residential
units and population in the SOI Area based on the City’s General Plan land use designations for this
area. With approval of the Plan and annexation of this area to the City, this growth would occur in the
City under the Plan as opposed to occurring under the County’s jurisdiction. Additionally, the Plan’s
cumulative housing and population impact provides benefits for regional housing goals that promote
housing production, and General Plan Housing Element goals regarding the mixture of residential
densities.
Full development of the uses that would be permitted by the EHNCP would increase the City’s
resident population and housing stock within the City of Rancho Cucamonga. With the Plan’s
proposed development of up to a total of 3,000 dwelling units, the City’s population would increase
by approximately 9,090 residents based on an average household size of 3.03 persons per
household. The Proposed Project would therefore be expected to incorporate approximately
16 additional residents for the future five residential units. The Proposed Project would account for
Decliff Drive Lot Subdivision
Project
CEQA Compliance Memorandum
City of Rancho Cucamonga February 2026 61
approximately 0.17 percent of the projected 9,090 population growth based on the draft 2020-2045
SCAG RTP/SCS Growth Forecasts.
The Project Site is currently vacant, and would not displace any existing people or housing, within the
site boundaries, Additionally, the Proposed Project is an allowable use within the EHNCP. Therefore,
the population growth from the Proposed Project would be anticipated for the buildout of the
Planning Area. No significant adverse impacts are identified or anticipated.
In keeping with CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the Project would not generate population or
housing impacts which are peculiar to the Project or Project Site, direct or cumulatively considerable
impacts not assessed in the EHNCP EIR or General Plan EIR, and no new or more significant impacts
beyond what was analyzed in the EHNCP.
Applicable Conditions of Approval:
None provided in the EHNCP or General Plan Update EIR.
Decliff Drive Lot Subdivision
Project
CEQA Compliance Memorandum
City of Rancho Cucamonga February 2026 62
PUBLIC SERVICES
Thresholds of Significance
According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect
on the environment if the project would:
FP-1 Result in a substantial adverse physical impact associated with the provisions 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
fire protection services.
PP-1 Result in a substantial adverse physical impact associated with the provisions 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
police protection services.
SS-1 Result in a substantial adverse physical impact associated with the provisions 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
school services.
LS-1 Result in a substantial adverse physical impact associated with the provisions 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
library services.
Summary of Findings
Impact 5.15-1 The proposed project would introduce new structures, residents, and workers
into the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District’s service boundaries,
thereby increasing the requirement for fire protection facilities and personnel.
[Threshold FP- 1]
Impact 5.15-2 The proposed project would introduce new structures, residents, and workers
into San Bernardino Sheriff’s Department’s service boundaries in the City,
thereby increasing the requirement for police protection facilities and
personnel. [Threshold PP-1]
Impact 5.15-3 The Proposed Project would generate new students who would impact the
school enrollment capacities of area schools. [Threshold SS-1]
Impact 5.15-4 The proposed General Plan Update would not result in a substantial adverse
physical impact related to construction of facilities for the provision of library
services. [Threshold LS-1]
Decliff Drive Lot Subdivision
Project
CEQA Compliance Memorandum
City of Rancho Cucamonga February 2026 63
Project Analysis
Fire Protection
Fire protection and emergency medical services for the City, which includes the EHNCP Area, are
provided by the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District (RCFPD). RCFPD has primary
responsibility for structure fire suppression in the unincorporated areas north of the City and CAL
Fire has primary responsibility for wildland fire suppression in these areas. The RCFPD employs
approximately 120 full- and part-time employees, including 89 firefighters, who provide fire
protection, emergency medical response ser vices, fire prevention and inspection services, and
emergency management functions to more than 170,000 residents over a span of approximately
50 square miles in and around the City limits.17 Fire, rescue, emergency medical service (EMS), and
hazardous materials incidents are coordinated through an on-duty Battalion Chief supervising cross-
trained firefighter/paramedics and firefighter/emergency medical technicians (EMTs) responding
from seven fire stations.
The nearest fire station to the Project Site is the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Station 176, located
approximately 1.4 miles southwest of the Project Site. The increase of population in the project area
has been anticipated by the EHNCP and City General Plan. Therefore, the Proposed Project would be
expected to receive adequate fire protection services and would not result in the need for new or
physically altered fire protection facilities. Additionally, Developer Impact Fees would assist with the
provision of fire services are collected at the time of building permit issuance.
Police Protection:
The City contracts with the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department (SBSD) for law enforcement
services in the City, including the EHNCP Area, and the SBSD’s operations within the City are referred
to as the Rancho Cucamonga Police Department (RCPD). The closest police station to the Project
Site is the Rancho Cucamonga Police Station, located at 10510 Civic Center Drive, approximately
2.3 miles south of the Project Site. The RCPD provides patrol services, in addition to a full-service
traffic division, which includes motor units, a Major Accident Investigation Team (MAIT), a
commercial enforcement unit, and a parking enforcement unit. A Multiple Enforcement Team (MET),
including a Bicycle Enforcement Team (BET), provides a well-rounded, community-based policing
unit. In addition, the station also provides six School Resource Officers (SRO) (who service each of
the City’s high schools, middle schools and elementary schools), a crime prevention unit, a crime
analysis unit, and detective division.
Currently, there are 182 RCPD personnel, including 13 sergeants, 2 lieutenants, and one captain, in
nearly 38 square miles. As of January 2018, the City’s population was estimated at 176,671 residents.
With this existing population, the ratio of deputy sheriffs to residents is approximately 1 officer for
every 945 residents.18
The increase of population in the project area has been anticipated by the EHNCP and City General
Plan. Because the Proposed Project is consistent with both plans, it would be expected to receive
17 Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan DEIR. 4.14 public Services and Recreation. April
2019. Accessed June 14, 2024.
18 Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan DEIR. April 2019. Accessed June 17, 2024.
Decliff Drive Lot Subdivision
Project
CEQA Compliance Memorandum
City of Rancho Cucamonga February 2026 64
adequate police protection services and would not result in the need for additional or physically
altered police protection facilities. Development Impact Fees would also assist with the provision of
police services are collected at the time of building permit issuance.
Schools
The Project Site is within the Etiwanda School District. The student generation rates within the
Etiwanda school district for detached single family residences is approximately 0.5 students per
household.19 Therefore, with the implementation of the potential five single family dwelling units, the
Proposed Project would be estimated to generate three students.
The increase of population in the project area has been anticipated by the EHNCP, General Plan, and
Etiwanda School District master planning. Therefore, the Proposed Project would be expected to
receive adequate school district services and would not result in the need for additional or physically
altered school facilities.
The Project is consistent with the parameters of the EHNCP and therefore has been considered in
the City’s growth plan and service needs. Further, the Project design would be subject to plan
check/review to ensure compliance with all applicable laws, codes, ordinances, and standards.
In keeping with CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the Project would not generate public services
impacts which are peculiar to the Project or Project Site, direct or cumulatively considerable impacts
not assessed in the EHNCP EIR or General Plan EIR, and no new or more significant impacts beyond
what was analyzed in the EHNCP.
Applicable Conditions of Approval:
None provided in the EHNCP or General Plan Update EIR
19 Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan. Table 4.14 -2: School District Capacities and
Student Generation Factors Serving the Plan Area.
Decliff Drive Lot Subdivision
Project
CEQA Compliance Memorandum
City of Rancho Cucamonga February 2026 65
RECREATION
Thresholds of Significance
The following statements are from Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. A project would normally
have a significant effect on the environment if the project would:
R-1 Would 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.
R-2 Includes recreational facilities or requires the construction or expansion of recreational
facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment.
Summary of Findings
Impact 5.16-1 The proposed project would generate additional residents that would
increase the use of existing park and recreational facilities. [Threshold R-1]
Impact 5.16-2 Project implementation would result in environmental impacts to provide
new and/or expanded recreational facilities. [Threshold R 2]
Project Analysis
The County Regional Parks Department provides regional park services to all residents within the
County, including both incorporated and unincorporated areas. The closest regional park to the
Project Site is Cucamonga Guasti Regional Park, which has various recreation areas with amenities
for fishing, swimming, and picnicking. The park is located approximately 8 miles southwest of the
Project Site.
The Project Site is within the Rural/Conservation Area (RCA) identified in the EHNCP. The RCA
includes other recreational activity areas such as the existing North Etiwanda Preserve, which is
approximately one mile west of the Project Site. Existing and planned Regional Multi -Purpose Trails
and Community Trails traverse the RCA, including the North Etiwanda Preserve Trail. There are
existing trailheads within the Plan Area at the North Etiwanda Preserve, and two proposed trailheads
at Powerline Road and near the Day Creek Channel. In addition to the North Etiwanda Preserve, the
Plan would also include the new 337-acre Etiwanda Heights Preserve, Central Greenway, Milliken
Heights Greenway, as well as additional trailheads with limited parking for equestrians, hikers, and
bikers heading into the foothills.
Increased demands for parks and other recreation services primarily result from increases in the
permanent population. Based on the estimated population increase associated with the Plan (up to
approximately 9,090 individuals with the maximum 3,000 dwelling units), additional demands for
parks and other recreation facilities would result from implementation of the Plan. Based on the
estimated population generation for the Plan, approximately 45.5 acres of parkland would be needed
to meet the City’s established standard of 5.0 acres per 1,000 residents. The Property
Owner/Developer would be required to pay development impact fees, which are collected to fund
the expansion of park and recreation center assets and community and recreation center assets in
the city to serve new residential development.
Decliff Drive Lot Subdivision
Project
CEQA Compliance Memorandum
City of Rancho Cucamonga February 2026 66
The Project would not remove any recreation resources from the City. Additionally, the Project is
consistent with the parameters of the General Plan Update land use designation and therefore has
been considered in the City’s growth plan and service needs.
In keeping with CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the Project would not generate recreation impacts
which are peculiar to the Project or Project Site, direct or cumulatively considerable impacts not
assessed in the EHNCP EIR or General Plan EIR, and no new or more significant impacts beyond what
was analyzed in the EHNCP.
Applicable Conditions of Approval:
None provided in the EHNCP or General Plan Update EIR.
Decliff Drive Lot Subdivision
Project
CEQA Compliance Memorandum
City of Rancho Cucamonga February 2026 67
TRANSPORTATION
Thresholds of Significance
The City used Appendix G to ensure that all the CEQA topics were addressed in the General Plan
Update Program EIR. The following statements are from Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. A
project would normally have a significant effect on the environment if the project would:
T-1 Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system,
including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities.
T-2 Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines § 15064.3, subdivision (b) regarding
policies to reduce vehicle miles travelled (VMT).
T-3 Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment).
T-4 Result in inadequate emergency access.
Summary of Findings (see Transportation Screening Assessment by Ganddini Group, Inc.
dated April 8, 2024 Appendix G).
Impact 5.17-1 The proposed project potentially creates an inconsistency with the adopted
RTP/SCS which notes a future interchange at Arrow Route and I-15.
[Threshold T-1]
Impact 5.17-2 The project may be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3,
subdivision (b) regarding policies to reduce VMT. [Threshold T-2]
Impact 5.17-3 The project would not substantially increase hazards due to a geometric
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment). [Threshold T-3]
Impact 5.17-4 The project would not result in inadequate emergency access.
[Threshold T-4]
Project Analysis
A Transportation Screening Assessment, dated April 8, 2024, was completed by Ganddini Group, Inc
to assess potential transportation impacts resulting from development of the Proposed Project both
in context of CEQA and the EHNCP. The project has been screened for both level of service (LOS)
analysis and vehicle miles traveled (VMT) analysis using the established criteria as specified in the
EHNCP DEIR. The Proposed Project is forecast to generate a total of 60 daily trips, including 5 trips
during the AM peak hour and 6 trips during the PM peak hour. The trip generation satisfies the City -
established LOS screening criteria for projects generating fewer than 100 peak hour trips. Therefore,
the Proposed Project does not warrant the preparation of transportation impact study with LOS
analysis based on the County-established screening criteria.
Decliff Drive Lot Subdivision
Project
CEQA Compliance Memorandum
City of Rancho Cucamonga February 2026 68
VMT Screening Analysis
The Project Site would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the
circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities. However, although
the findings from the modeling indicate that the City’s Genera l Plan is beneficial from a VMT
efficiency perspective, the City is choosing to disclose a significant VMT impact due to speculative
influences of the uncertainty relating to future fuel prices, driving habits of residents and future
legislative policy. Significant and unavoidable impacts were addressed in the City’s certification of
the EHNCP Final EIR Statement of Findings and Overriding Considerations.
A Transportation Screening Assessment was prepared for the Project by Ganddini Group, Inc. The
City of Rancho Cucamonga Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines for CEQA include VMT analysis
methodology, impact thresholds, and screening thresholds to determine i f projects would require a
vehicle mile traveled (VMT) analysis. The City’s TIA Guidelines provide criteria for projects that would
be considered to have a less-than significant impact on VMT and therefore could be screened from
further VMT analysis. If a project meets one of the following criteria, then the VMT impact of the
project is considered less-than significant and no further analysis of VMT would be required:
1. Project is in a Transit Priority Area (TPA)
2. Project is in a Low VMT Area
3. Project Type Screening
Screening Criteria 1 –TPA: According to the City’s guidelines, projects located within a TPA may be
presumed to have a less than significant impact absent substantial evidence to the contrary. The
guidelines also state that this presumption may not be appropriate if the project:
1. Has a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of less than 0.75;
2. Includes more parking for use by residents, customers, or employees of the project than
required by the City (if the City requires the project to supply parking);
3. Is inconsistent with the applicable Sustainable Communities Strategy (as determined by
the lead agency, with input from the Metropolitan Planning Organization); or
4. Replaces affordable residential units with a smaller number of moderate- or high-income
residential units.
Screening Criteria 1 – The City TIA Guidelines note that this screening criteria may not apply the
project has a floor area ratio (FAR) less than 0.75, the project is inconsistent with applicable
Sustainable Communities Strategy, or the project constructs a smaller number of moderate or high-
income residential units than the existing number of affordable residential units. Based on a review
of the San Bernardino County Transportation Authority (SBCTA) VMT Screening Tool, the Proposed
Project is not located within a TPA; therefore, this screening criteria is not met.
Screening Criteria 2 – Low VMT Area: As prescribed in the City TIA Guidelines, the SBCTA VMT
Screening Tool was used to assess low VMT area screening for the project. The VMT Screening Tool
was developed using the County travel forecasting model to measure VMT performance for individual
jurisdictions and for individual traffic analysis zones (TAZs) within the County transportation region.
Decliff Drive Lot Subdivision
Project
CEQA Compliance Memorandum
City of Rancho Cucamonga February 2026 69
TAZs are geographic polygons similar to census block groups used to represent areas of homogenous
travel behavior. Total daily VMT per service population was estimated for each TAZ. This presumption
may not be appropriate if the project land uses would alter the existing built environment in such a
way as to increase the rate or length of vehicle trips.
Based on the VMT Screening Tool results for the Project Site, located within TAZ 53858101, the
baseline year (2024) VMT for the project TAZ is equal to 36.5, which is not less than the City baseline
(24.0 VMT). Therefore, the project does not satisfy the City-established screening criteria for projects
located in a low VMT area.
Screening Criteria 3 – Project Type Screening: The City TIA Guidelines identify the several types of
projects that may be presumed to have a less than significant VMT impact as they are local serving
and thus can be expected to reduce VMT or they are small enough to have a negligible impact:
▪ Projects consisting of local servicing land use:
□ Local parks
□ Day care centers
□ Local-serving retail less than 50,000 square feet
□ Local gas stations
□ Local banks
□ Student housing projects on or adjacent to college campuses
□ Local-serving assembly uses (places of worship, community organizations)
□ Community institutions (public libraries, fires stations, local government)
□ Local-serving community colleges that are consistent with the assumptions noted in
the RTP/SCS
□ Affordable or supportive housing
□ Assisted living facilities
□ Senior housing (as defined by HUD)
□ Projects generating with less than 250 daily vehicle trips (ADT
- 25 single-family residential dwelling units
- 36 multi-family residential dwelling units
- 23,000 square feet of office
- 34,000 square feet of light industrial
- 143,000 square feet of warehousing
-180,000 square feet of high cube transload and short-term storage warehouse
Decliff Drive Lot Subdivision
Project
CEQA Compliance Memorandum
City of Rancho Cucamonga February 2026 70
The project consists of five single family dwelling units which generate less than 250 daily trips.
Therefore, this screening criteria is met, and the project may be presumed to result in a less than
significant VMT impact.
In conclusion, based on the City of Rancho Cucamonga Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines (June
2020) and the Project trip generation, the Proposed Project would screen out of a VMT analysis based
on the Project being located within a low VMT generating area. As such, the Proposed Project would
be presumed to have a less than significant impact. Therefore, no further VMT analysis is required for
the Project. The Project is within the maximum allowed density noted for the Project Site in the City’s
General Plan Update and is therefore consistent with what was analyzed in the EHNCP.
Impacts as they pertain to the EHNCP substantially increasing hazards due to geometric design
features or incompatible uses were found to be less than significant. The City’s General Plan
roadways, ingress and egress, interior circulation elements, and improvements would be designed
in conformance with the development and design standards of the EHNCP policies, the County’s
Department of Public Works, Transportation Design Division standards, applicable San Bernardino
County Congestion Management Program procedures, and the California Public Utilities
Commission (CPUC). The Proposed Project does not include any redesign of or impact to local
roadways that would create dangerous intersections, or design hazards. Additionally, the EHNCP
project did not identify incompatible land uses, such as utilizing farm equipment, that would result
in a potential significant traffic safety hazard.
The proposed five-unit residential development would provide access via a 50-foot road from Decliff
Drive. Decliff Drive is an existing street within the City’s established circulation system. The Proposed
Project would not alter the existing circulation pattern in the Project area. Therefore, emergency
access and evacuation routes would not be impacted by the Proposed Project. Additionally, the
Project provides adequate access for emergency vehicles, including adequate street widths and
vertical clearance. Implementation of federal, State, and local EHNCP regulations during the
construction of the Project would ensure potential impacts would be less than significant to an
adopted emergency response or evacuation plan.
In keeping with CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the Project would not generate transportation
impacts which are peculiar to the Project or Project Site, direct or cumulatively considerable impacts
not assessed in the EHNCP EIR or General Plan EIR, and no new or more significant impacts beyond
what was analyzed in the EHNCP.
Applicable Conditions of Approval:
General Plan Update EIR:
5.17-1 Future development applications in the City shall be required to provide traffic impact
analyses for review and approval by the City during the permit process to identify the traffic impacts
of the project and the roadway and intersection improvements needed. Any identified on-site
improvements and improvements to abutting roadways would need to be made part of the
development. Coupled with the payment of DIF for the improvement of off-site roadways and
intersections, traffic impacts would be mitigated on a project-by-project basis.
Decliff Drive Lot Subdivision
Project
CEQA Compliance Memorandum
City of Rancho Cucamonga February 2026 71
5.17-2 Future developments with 250 employees or more shall comply with the SCAQMD Rule 2202,
which requires the implementation of trip reduction measures as a means of reducing pollutant
emission in the air basin. An employer subject to this Rule shall annually register with the SCAQMD
to implement an emission reduction program, in accordance with this Rule.
5.17-3 Individual projects shall provide the following, as determined applicable by City staff:
• Provide car-sharing, bike sharing, and ride-sharing programs;
• Improve or increase access to transit;
• Incorporate neighborhood electric vehicle networks into the project;
• Include project measures to reduce transportation requirements such
as work from home and flexible work schedules;
• Link to existing pedestrian or bicycle networks, or transit service; and/or
• Provide traffic calming.
Decliff Drive Lot Subdivision
Project
CEQA Compliance Memorandum
City of Rancho Cucamonga February 2026 72
TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Summary of Findings
Impact 5.18-1 Implementation of the EHNCP would not cause a substantial adverse change
in the significance of a tribal cultural resource that is listed or eligible for
listing in the California Register of Historical Resources or in a local register
of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section
5020.1(k). [Threshold TCR 1]
Project Analysis
The Proposed Project would be permitted to be used within the EHNCP. The construction period for
the Proposed Project would take place in 2025 and plans to be operational within the year. As such,
due to the grading and excavation anticipated to occur, the inadvertent find of TCRs could occur.
Therefore, the Project would comply with the COAs identified within the General Plan EIR and EHNCP.
In keeping with CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the Project would not generate tribal cultural
resources impacts which are peculiar to the Project or Project Site, direct or cumulatively
considerable impacts not assessed in the EHNCP EIR or General Plan EIR, and no new or more
significant impacts beyond what was analyzed in the EHNCP.
Applicable Conditions of Approval:
General Plan Update EIR:
5.18-1 Inadvertent Archeological Find. If during ground disturbance activities, cultural resources are
discovered that were not assessed by the archaeological report(s) and/or environmental assessment
conducted prior to project approval, the following procedures shall be followed. Cultural resources
are defined as being multiple artifacts in close association with each other, but also include fewer
artifacts if the area of the find is determined to be of significance due to its sacred or cultural
importance as determined in consultation with the Native American Tribe(s).
a. All ground disturbance activities within 100 feet of the discovered cultural resources shall be
halted until a meeting is convened between the developer, the archaeologist, the tribal
representative(s) and the Planning Director to discuss the significance of the find.
b. At the meeting, the significance of the discoveries shall be discussed and after consultation
with the tribal representative(s) and the archaeologist, a decision shall be made, with the
concurrence of the Planning Director, as to the appropriate mitigation (documentation,
recovery, avoidance, etc.) for the cultural resources.
c. Grading or further ground disturbance shall not resume within the area of the discovery until
an agreement has been reached by all parties as to the appropriate mitigation. Work shall be
allowed to continue outside of the buffer area and will be monitored by additional Tribal
monitors if needed.
d. Treatment and avoidance of the newly discovered resources shall be consistent with the
Cultural Resources Management Plan and Monitoring Agreements entered into with the
appropriate tribes. This may include avoidance of the cultural resources through project
Decliff Drive Lot Subdivision
Project
CEQA Compliance Memorandum
City of Rancho Cucamonga February 2026 73
design, in-place preservation of cultural resources located in native soils and/or re-burial on
the Project property so they are not subject to further disturbance in perpetuity as identified
in Non-Disclosure of Reburial Locations Condition.
e. If the find is determined to be significant and avoidance of the site has not been achieved, a
Phase III data recovery plan shall be prepared by the project archaeologist, in consultation
with the Tribe, and shall be submitted to the City for their review and approval prior to
implementation of the said plan.
f. Pursuant to Calif. Pub. Res. Code § 21083.2(b) avoidance is the preferred method of
preservation for archaeological resources and tribal cultural resources. If the landowner and
the Tribe(s) cannot agree on the significance or the mitigation for the archae ological or tribal
cultural resources, these issues will be presented to the Planning Director for decision. The
City’s Planning Director shall make the determination based on the provisions of the
California Environmental Quality Act with respect to archaeological and tribal cultural
resources, recommendations of the project archaeologist, and shall take into account the
cultural and religious principles and practices of the Tribe. Notwithstanding any other rights
available under the law, the decision of the City Planning Director shall be appealable to the
City Planning Commission and/or City Council.
5.18-2 Cultural Resources Disposition. In the event that Native American cultural resources are
discovered during the course of grading (inadvertent discoveries), the following procedures shall be
carried out for final disposition of the discoveries:
a. One or more of the following treatments, in order of preference, shall be employed with the
tribes. Evidence of such shall be provided to the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning
Department:
i. Preservation-In-Place of the cultural resources, if feasible. Preservation in place means
avoiding the resources, leaving them in the place where they were found with no
development affecting the integrity of the resources.
ii. Reburial of the resources on the Project property. The measures for reburial shall
include, at least, the following: Measures and provisions to protect the future reburial
area from any future impacts in perpetuity. Reburial shall not occur until all legally
required cataloging and basic recording has been completed, with an exception that
sacred items, burial goods, and Native American human remains are excluded. Any
reburial process shall be culturally appropriate. Listing of contents and location of the
reburial shall be included in the confidential Phase IV report. The Phase IV Report shall
be filed with the City under a confidential cover and not subject to Public Records
Request.
iii. If preservation in place or reburial is not feasible then the resources shall be curated in
a culturally appropriate manner at a San Bernardino County curation facility that meets
State Resources Department Office of Historic Preservation Guidelines for the Curation
of Archaeological Resources ensuring access and use pursuant to the Guidelines. The
collection and associated records shall be transferred, including title, and are to be
Decliff Drive Lot Subdivision
Project
CEQA Compliance Memorandum
City of Rancho Cucamonga February 2026 74
accompanied by payment of the fees by the Applicant necessary for permanent
curation. Evidence of curation in the form of a letter from the curation facility stating that
subject archaeological materials have been received and that all fees have been paid,
shall be provided by the landowner to the City. There shall be no destructive or invasive
testing on sacred items, burial goods, and Native American human remains, as defined
by the cultural and religious practices of the Most Likely Descendant. Results
concerning finds of any inadvertent discoveries shall be included in the Phase IV
monitoring report.
5.18-3 Archaeologist Retained. Prior to issuance of a grading permit the project applicant shall retain
a qualified Registered Professional Archaeologist (RPA), to monitor all ground disturbing activities in
an effort to identify any unknown archaeological resources. The Registered Professional
Archaeologist and the Tribal monitor(s) shall manage and oversee monitoring for all initial ground
disturbing activities and excavation of each portion of the Project Site including clearing, grubbing,
tree removals, mass or rough grading, trenching, stockpiling of materials, rock crushing, structure
demolition and etc. The Registered Professional Archaeologist and the Tribal monitor(s), shall
independently have the authority to temporarily divert, redirect, or halt the ground disturbance
activities to allow identification, evaluation, and potential recovery of cultural resources in
coordination with any required special interest or tribal monitors. The developer/permit holder shall
submit a fully executed copy of the contract to the Planning Department to ensure compliance with
this condition of approval. Upon verification, the Planning Department shall clear this condition. In
addition, the Registered Professional Archaeologist, in consultation with the Consulting Tribe(s), the
contractor, and the City, shall develop a Cultural Resources Management Plan (CRMP) in
consultation pursuant to the definition in AB 52 to address the details, timing, and responsibility of
all archaeological and cultural activities that will occur on the Project Site. A consulting tribe is
defined as a tribe that initiated the AB 52 tribal consultation process for the Project, has not opted
out of the AB 52 consultation process, and has completed AB 52 consultation with the City as
provided for in Cal Pub Res Code Section 21080.3.2(b)(1) of AB52. Details in the Plan shall include:
a. Project grading and development scheduling;
b. The Project archaeologist and the Consulting Tribes(s) shall attend the pre-grading meeting
with the City, the construction manager and any contractors, and will conduct a mandatory
Cultural Resources Worker Sensitivity Training to those in attendance. The Training will
include a brief review of the cultural sensitivity of the Project and the surrounding area; what
resources could potentially be identified during earthmoving activities; the requirements of
the monitoring program; the protocols that apply in the event inadvertent discoveries of
cultural resources are identified, including who to contact and appropriate avoidance
measures until the find(s) can be properly evaluated; and any other appropriate protocols.
All new construction personnel that will conduct earthwork or grading activities that begin
work on the Project following the initial Training must take the Cultural Sensitivity Training
prior to beginning work and the Project archaeologist and Consulting Tribe(s) shall make
themselves available to provide the training on an as-needed basis;
c. The protocols and stipulations that the contractor, City, Consulting Tribe(s) and Project
archaeologist will follow in the event of inadvertent cultural resources discoveries, including
Decliff Drive Lot Subdivision
Project
CEQA Compliance Memorandum
City of Rancho Cucamonga February 2026 75
any newly discovered cultural resource deposits that shall be subject to a cultural resources
evaluation.
5.18-4 Native American Monitoring. Tribal monitor(s) shall be required on-site during all ground-
disturbing activities, including grading, stockpiling of materials, engineered fill, rock crushing, etc.
The land divider/permit holder shall retain a qualified tribal monitor(s) from the requesting Tribe. Prior
to issuance of a grading permit, the developer shall submit a copy of a signed contract between the
Tribe and the land divider/permit holder for the monitoring of the project to the Planning Department
and to the Engineering Department. The Tribal Monitor(s) shall have the authority to temporarily
divert, redirect or halt the ground-disturbance activities to allow recovery of cultural resources, in
coordination with the Project Archaeologist.
5.18-6 Human Remains. If human remains are encountered, State Health and Safety Code Section
7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the San Bernardino County Coroner has
made the necessary findings as to origin. Further, pursuant to Public Resource Code Section
5097.98(b) remains shall be left in place and free from disturbance until a final decision as to the
treatment and disposition has been made. If the San Bernardino County Coroner determines the
remains to be Native American, the Native American Heritage Commission shall be contacted within
the period specified by law (24 hours). Subsequently, the Native American Heritage Commission
shall identify the "most likely descendant." The most likely descendant shall then make
recommendations and engage in consultation concerning the treatment of the remains as provided
in Public Resources Code Section 5097.98.
5.18-7 Non-Disclosure of Reburial Locations. It is understood by all parties that unless otherwise
required by law, the site of any reburial of Native American human remains or associated grave goods
shall not be disclosed and shall not be governed by public disclosure requirements of the California
Public Records Act. The Coroner, pursuant to the specific exemption set forth in California
Government Code 6254 (r)., parties, and Lead Agencies, will be asked to withhold public disclosure
information related to such reburial, pursuant to the specific exemption set forth in California
Government Code 6254 (r).
EHNCP:
MM TCUL-1 Unanticipated Discovery of Cultural Resources
In the unlikely event that cultural resources are exposed during construction activities for the
proposed EHNCP, all construction work occurring within 100 feet of the find shall immediately stop
until a qualified archaeologist, meeting the Secretary of th e Interior’s Professional Qualification
Standards, can evaluate the significance of the find and determine whether or not additional study
is warranted. Depending upon the significance of the find, the archaeologist may simply record the
find and allow work to continue. If the discovery proves significant under CEQA, additional work,
such as preparation of an archaeological treatment plan, testing, or data recovery, may be
warranted.
Decliff Drive Lot Subdivision
Project
CEQA Compliance Memorandum
City of Rancho Cucamonga February 2026 76
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Summary of Findings
Impact 5.19-1 Sewer and wastewater treatment systems are adequate to meet the EHNCP
buildout projections. [Thresholds U-1 (part) and U-3]
Impact 5.19-2 Water supply and delivery systems are adequate to meet The EHNCP buildout
projections. [Thresholds U-1 (part) and U-2]
Impact 5.19-3 Existing and/or proposed storm drainage systems are adequate to serve the
EHNCP buildout projections. [Threshold U-1 (part)]
Impact 5.19-4 Existing and/or proposed facilities would be able to accommodate solid
waste generated EHNCP buildout. [Thresholds U-4]
Impact 5.19-5 Developments associated with the EHNCP would comply with federal, state,
and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. [Thresholds U-5]
Project Analysis
The EHNCP determined that the implementation of the Project Site would have a less than significant
impact related to utilities and service systems with regulatory requirements and COAs implemented.
The EHNCP evaluated the potential impacts to wastewater treatment and wastewater facilities,
water supply and infrastructure, storm water drainage facilities, solid waste disposal and landfill
capacity, and energy use. The City has been heavily disturbed and has existing utilities and service
systems installed. However, services would need to be extended to individual projects within the
City. The EHNCP analyzed the impact that extending these utilities would have on the utility service
systems available in the City.
The Cucamonga Valley Water District (CVWD) service area covers approximately 47 square miles
(about 30,000 acres), including the incorporated City of Rancho Cucamonga and portion of the City’s
Sphere of Influence (SOI). CVWD currently serves a population of approximately 200,460 customers,
with over 48,000 water connections and 36,000 sewer connections. The District is divided into three
major watersheds. Approximately two thirds of the service area drain to Upper and Lower
Cucamonga Creek, with the remaining service area draining to Etiwanda Creek and to the Santa Ana
River. Cucamonga Creek eventually confluences with the Santa Ana River, which discharges to the
Pacific Ocean.
A Concrete V-ditch will be constructed to the north of the residential lots in order to intercept runoff
coming from the north which would prevent stormwater from intruding onto the proposed
development (see Figure 4). On-site improvements (consisting of individual lot swales) would be
constructed to convey runoff flows through the project to their historical flow locations along the
southerly property boundary, which would conduct potential runoff flows to the street. Additionally,
two infiltration basins would be constructed in the southern section of the property (see Appendix F
and Figure 4). With these site improvements, the proposed development would not adversely affect
the existing drainage patterns in the area and would provide adequate protection for the proposed
on-site improvements and structures.
Decliff Drive Lot Subdivision
Project
CEQA Compliance Memorandum
City of Rancho Cucamonga February 2026 77
The General Plan determined that the implementation of the EHNCP would have a less significant
impact related to utilities and service systems with regulatory requirements and COAs implemented.
The Project proposes the creation of storm drain facilities along the southern border of the Project
Site connecting to public facilities within Decliff Drive. Also, a proposed sewer line would connect
along the site’s Decliff Drive frontage. Furthermore, a new water line and fire line would connect from
the western portion of the Project to existing facilities within Decliff Drive. The development of new
utility facilities proposed for the Project would not create unique or peculiar impacts to the
environment different from those analyzed in the EHNCP.
The Project proposes the construction and operation of five-unit subdivision residential and would
allow for the development. The Project is consistent with the parameters of the EHNCP land use
designation and therefore has been considered in the City’s growth plan and service needs.
Additionally, the Project does not propose the development of land outside of the previously
analyzed areas of the General Plan and would not require the expansion of existing or construction
of new utility service systems not previously considered.
Further, the Project design would be subject to plan check/review to ensure compliance with all
applicable laws, codes, ordinances, and standards. Therefore, the Project is consistent with the
EHNCP.
Based on an average per capita water demand of 206 gallons per day (gpd)20, the Project is estimated
to generate a daily water demand of 214,652 gpd among the proposed 1,042 residents. However, this
would not indicate a peculiar impact as the General Plan concluded that the Cucamonga Valley
Water District (CVWD) Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) indicated that the water supply would
exceed the water demand for normal, single dry, and multiple dry years from 2025 through 2045.21
Also, the household population size of 3.03 used in the General Plan EIR is higher than the current
estimate of 2.92. Furthermore, assuming a similar rate of wastewater generation, the Project would
comprise approximately two percent of the 14 million gallon per day (MGD) Regional Plan 4
wastewater treatment facility. The facility was assessed as operating at an average of 10 MGD of
treatment, allowing for an increase in treatment by 4 MGD.
Lastly, the Project would generate solid waste at a rate consistent with the residential use proposed
for the site. This land use would be consistent with the anticipated uses of the site within the EHNCP
EIR and the General Plan Update EIR and would therefore be accounted for in demands for solid
waste services.
In keeping with CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the Project would not generate utilities impacts
which are peculiar to the Project or Project Site, direct or cumulatively considerable impacts not
assessed in the EHNCP EIR or General Plan EIR, and no new or more significant impacts beyond what
was analyzed in the EHNCP.
20 Cucamonga Valley Water District. 2021. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan Page 412. Retrieved from:
https://www.cvwdwater.com/DocumentCenter/View/4741/Final-Cucamonga-Valley-Water-District-2020-
UWMP. Accessed June 17, 2024.
21 Cucamonga Valley Water District. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. June 2021. Accessed June 28,
2024.
Decliff Drive Lot Subdivision
Project
CEQA Compliance Memorandum
City of Rancho Cucamonga February 2026 78
Applicable Conditions of Approval:
None provided in the EHNCP or General Plan Update EIR
Decliff Drive Lot Subdivision
Project
CEQA Compliance Memorandum
City of Rancho Cucamonga February 2026 79
WILDFIRE
Summary of Findings
Impact 5.20-1 Buildout of the EHNCP would not substantially impair an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan. [Threshold W-1]
Impact 5.20-2 The Proposed Project would not exacerbate wildfire risks due to slope,
prevailing winds, and other factors, thereby exposing project occupants to
elevated particulate concentrations from a wildfire. [Threshold W-2]
Impact 5.20-3 The EHNCP would require the installation and maintenance of associated
infrastructure in areas that are undeveloped or vacant, which could
exacerbate fire risk or result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the
environment. [Threshold W-3]
Impact 5.20-4 The Proposed Project would not expose people or structures to significant
risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result
of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes. [Threshold W-4]
Project Analysis
Urbanized areas that are located at the perimeter of wilderness and that are at higher risk for wildfire
are typically referred to as the Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI). Most of the land within the EHNCP
has been identified by Cal Fire as a very high fire hazard severity zone. The entire area of the EHNCP
is within the Rancho Cucamonga Fire District’s designated Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Area
(WUIFA). The region’s relatively high temperatures, low humidity, low precipitation, and Santa Ana
winds throughout the year create conditions conducive to wildfires.
As previously stated in the hazards analysis, based on the City’s Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, the
Project Site is within a WUI Area.22 Therefore, the project would be required to comply with the City’s
fire safe requirements to ensure the development is resilient against wildfire hazards. New
construction within WUI areas is required to comply with the California Building Code and the
California Residential Code, including requirements for fire retardant or ignition resistant
construction materials at roofs, eaves, vents, exterior walls, exterior windows, doors, and decks.
California Government Code Section 51182 also requires buildings within these areas to provide
defensible space. With the adherence to the City’s Local Hazard Mitigation Plan and applicable
regulations pertaining to WUI areas, the Proposed Project would not expose people or structures to
significant risks associated with wildfires and therefore, a less than significant impact would be
anticipated.
In keeping with CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the Project would not generate wildfire impacts
which are peculiar to the Project or Project Site, direct or cumulatively considerable impacts not
assessed in the EHNCP EIR or General Plan EIR, and no new or more significant impacts beyond what
was analyzed in the EHNCP.
22 City of Rancho Cucamonga. 2021 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. Figure 3-7: Fire Hazard Zones.
Decliff Drive Lot Subdivision
Project
CEQA Compliance Memorandum
City of Rancho Cucamonga February 2026 80
Applicable Conditions of Approval:
General Plan Update EIR:
5.9-1 Future development shall prepare a Fire Protection Plan that includes measures consistent
with the unique problems resulting from the location, topography, geology, flammable vegetation,
and climate of the proposed development site. The Plan must also address water supply, access,
building ignition fire resistance, fire protection systems and equipment, defensible space, and
vegetation management. Maintenance requirements for incinerators, outdoor fireplaces, permanent
barbeques and grills, and firebreak fuel modification areas are imposed on new developments.
EHNCP:
MM HAZ-4 Fire Protection Plan
To address the risk to residential development, future developers shall prepare fire protection plans
that meet the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Development Standards and are
consistent with the Master Fire Protection Plan. The Fire Protection Plan shall describe all actions
that will be taken to reduce wildfire risks to the structure(s). The plan shall include (1) A copy of the
site plan that indicates topographic reference lines; (2) A copy of the approved landscape/vegetation
management plan;(3) Methods and timetables for controlling, changing or modifying areas on the
property (elements of the plan shall include removal of dead vegetation, litter, vegetation that may
grow into overhead electrical lines, certain ground fuels, and ladder fuels as well as the thinning of
live trees); and (4) A maintenance schedule for the landscape/vegetation management plan. The Fire
Protection Plan for a specific neighborhood or phase of construction shall be submitted to the
Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District and City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department
for review and approval prior to occupancy permits approval for the first residential structure.
MM HAZ-5 Fire Prevention Construction Techniques
Construction within the designated Wildfire-Urban Interface Fire Area is required to be in accordance
with Chapter 7A of the California Building Code, the California Residential Code and Standard 49 -1
of the of the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District.
Decliff Drive Lot Subdivision
Project
CEQA Compliance Memorandum
City of Rancho Cucamonga February 2026 81
CONCLUSION
The Project was analyzed using parameters listed in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.
According to these parameters, a project requires subsequent environmental analysis if Project
impacts:
⚫ Are peculiar to the project or the parcel on which the project would be located;
⚫ Were not analyzed as significant effects in a prior EIR on the zoning action, EHNCP, General
Plan, or community plan, with which the project is consistent;
⚫ Are potentially significant off-site impacts and cumulative impacts which were not
discussed in the prior EIR prepared for the General Plan, community plan or zoning action;
or
⚫ Are previously identified significant effects which, as a result of substantial new information
which was not known at the time the EIR was certified, are determined to have a more severe
adverse impact than discussed in the prior EIR.
As described above and demonstrated in the analysis herein, the Proposed Project would be
consistent with the development pattern and land use anticipated and analyzed in the EHNCP and
General Plan Update. The Proposed Project would not conflict with the standards presented in the
City’s uniformly applied development policies. Subsequently, impacts associated with the project’s
implementation would not be peculiar to the Project in a manner not accounted for in the EHNCP EIR
or General Plan Update EIR. Additionally, the Project is within the Project area of the EHNCP and
would not generate impacts which would be off site of the EHNCP area or would be considered
cumulatively considerable. Finally, the Project would not generate impacts at a greater significance
than those assumed in the EHNCP or General Plan Update EIR and would not exasperate any
significant and unavoidable impacts noted within the EHNCP or General Plan Update EIR.
Decliff Drive Lot Subdivision
Project
CEQA Compliance Memorandum
City of Rancho Cucamonga February 2026 82
Appendices to the Decliff Subdivision Project
CEQA Compliance Memorandum
Appendix A
Applicable Conditions of Approval
Aesthetics:
5.1-1: A detailed on-site lighting plan, including a photometric diagram, shall be submitted by project
applicants and reviewed and approved by the Planning Director and Police Department prior
to the issuance of building permits. Such plan shall indicate style, illumination, location,
height, and method of shielding so as not to adversely affect adjacent properties.
Air Quality:
5.3-1 The City shall ensure that discretionary development will incorporate best management
practices (BMPs) to reduce emissions to be less than applicable thresholds. These BMPs
include but are not limited to the most recent South Coast AQMD recommendations for
construction BMPs (per South Coast AQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Handbook, South Coast
AQMD’s Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan for the 2016 AQMP, and SCAG’s Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Plan for the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS, or as otherwise identified by South
Coast AQMD).
5.3-2 Applicants for future discretionary development projects that would generate construction -
related emissions that exceed applicable thresholds, will include, but are not limited to, the
mitigation measures recommended by South Coast AQMD (in its CEQA Air Quality Handbook
or otherwise), to the extent feasible and applicable to the project. The types of measures
shall include but are not limited to: maintaining equipment per manufacturer specifications;
lengthening construction duration to minimize numb er of vehicle and equipment operating
at the same time; requiring use of equipment rated by the EPA as having Tier 3 (model year
2006 or newer) or Tier 4 (model year 2008 or newer) emissions limits, applicable for engines
between 50 and 750 horsepower; and using electric powered or other alternative-fueled
equipment in place of diesel-powered equipment (whenever feasible). Tier 3 equipment can
achieve average emissions reductions of 57 percent for Nox, 84 percent for VOC, and 50
percent for particulate matter compared to Tier 1 equipment. Tier 4 equipment can achieve
average emissions reductions of 71 percent for Nox, 86 percent for VOC, and 96 percent for
particulate matter compared to Tier 1 equipment.
5.3-3 The City shall ensure that discretionary development that will generate fugitive dust
emissions during construction activities will, to the extent feasible, incorporate BMPs that
exceed South Coast AQMD’s Rule 403 requirements to reduce emissions to be less than
applicable thresholds.
Decliff Drive Lot Subdivision
Project
CEQA Compliance Memorandum
City of Rancho Cucamonga February 2026 83
5.3-4 Applicants for future discretionary development projects which will generate construction
related fugitive dust emissions that exceed applicable thresholds will include, but are not
limited to, the mitigation measures recommended by South Coast AQMD’s CEQA Air Quality
Handbook, to the extent feasible and applicable:
• The area disturbed by clearing, grading, earth moving, or excavation operations shall be
minimized to prevent excess amounts of dust.
• Pre-grading/excavation activities shall include watering the area to be graded or
excavated before commencement of grading or excavation operations. Application of
watering (preferably reclaimed, if available) should penetrate sufficiently to minimize
fugitive dust during grading activities. This measure can achieve PM10 reductions of
61 percent through application of water every three hours to disturbed areas.
• Fugitive dust produced during grading, excavation, and construction activities shall be
controlled by the following activities:
• All trucks shall be required to cover their loads as required by California Vehicle Section
23114. Covering loads and maintaining a freeboard height of 12 inches can reduce PM10
emissions by 91 percent.
• All graded and excavated material, exposed soil areas, and active portions of the
construction site, including unpaved on-site roadways, shall be treated to prevent fugitive
dust. Treatment shall include, but not necessarily be limited to, periodic waterin g,
application of environmentally safe soil stabilization materials, and/or roll-compaction
as appropriate. Watering shall be done as often as necessary and reclaimed water shall
be used whenever possible. Application of water every three hours to disturbed areas can
reduce PM10 emissions by 61 percent.
• Graded and/or excavated inactive areas of the construction site shall be monitored at
least weekly for dust stabilization. Soil stabilization methods, such as water and roll-
compaction, and environmentally safe dust control materials, shall be periodically
applied to portions of the construction site that are inactive for over four days. If no further
grading or excavation operations are planned for the area, the area should be seeded and
watered until grass growth is evident, or periodically treated with e nvironmentally safe
dust suppressants, to prevent excessive fugitive dust. Replacement of ground cover in
disturbed areas can reduce PM10 emissions by 5 percent.
• Signs shall be posted on-site limiting traffic to 15 miles per hour or less. This measure can
reduce associated PM10 emissions by 57 percent.
• During periods of high winds (i.e., wind speed sufficient to cause fugitive dust to impact
adjacent properties), all clearing, grading, earth-moving, and excavation operations shall
be curtailed to the degree necessary to prevent fugitive dust created by on-site activities
and operations from being a nuisance or hazard offsite or on -site. The site
superintendent/supervisor shall use his/her discretion in conjunction with South Coast
AQMD when winds are excessive.
Decliff Drive Lot Subdivision
Project
CEQA Compliance Memorandum
City of Rancho Cucamonga February 2026 84
• Adjacent streets and roads shall be swept at least once per day, preferably at the end of
the day, if visible soil material is carried over to adjacent streets and roads.
• Personnel involved in grading operations, including contractors and subcontractors,
should be advised to wear respiratory protection in accordance with California Division
of Occupational Safety and Health regulations.
Biological Resources:
5.4-4 To avoid conflicts with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Bald/Golden Eagle Protection Act,
construction activities involving vegetation removal shall be conducted between September
16 and March 14. If construction occurs inside the peak nesting season (between March 15
and September 15), a preconstruction survey (or possibly multiple surveys) by a qualified
biologist is recommended prior to construction activities to identify any active nesting
locations. If the biologist does not find any active nests within the Project Site, the
construction work shall be allowed to proceed. If the biologist finds an active nest within the
Project Site and determines that the nest may be impacted, the biologist shall delineate an
appropriate buffer zone around the nest; the size of the buffer zone shall depend on the
affected species and the type of construction activity. Any active nests observed during the
survey shall be mapped on an aerial photograph. Only construction activities (if any) that
have been approved by a biological monitor shall take place within the buffer zone until the
nest is vacated. The biologist shall serve as a construction monitor when construction
activities take place near active nest areas to ensure that no inadvertent impacts on these
nests occur. Results of the pre-construction survey and any subsequent monitoring shall be
provided to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and the City.
Cultural Resources:
5.5-1 If a future project pursuant to the EHNCP contains a designated Historical Landmark, the
site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the applicable Historic Landmark
Alteration Permit. Any further modifications to the site including, but not limited to, exterior
alterations and/or interior alterations which affect the exterior of the buildings or
structures, removal of landmark trees, demolition, relocation, reconstruction of buildings
or structures, or changes to the site, shall require a modification to the Certificate of
Appropriateness subject to Historic Preservation Commission review and approval.
5.5-3 If human remains or funerary objects are encountered during any activities associated with
the project, work in the immediate vicinity (within a 100-foot buffer of the find) shall cease
and the County Coroner shall be contacted pursuant to State Health and Safety Code
§7050.5 and that code enforced for the duration of the project.
Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment:
MM CUL-1: Based on the Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment prepared by BFSA, it is
recommended that the Proposed Project be conditioned with archaeological and Native American
monitoring during all earthwork required for the development of the property.
Decliff Drive Lot Subdivision
Project
CEQA Compliance Memorandum
City of Rancho Cucamonga February 2026 85
Geology and Soils:
5.7-1 Development of projects pursuant to the General Plan Update shall comply with the City’s
modifications to the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone Act that call for geotechnical
investigations for all proposed structures designed for human occupancy within the
expanded AP Zones, including a zone along a splay of the Cucamonga Fault and another zone
along the scarp at Red Hill. Also, geotechnical investigations are required for essential and
critical facilities along the buried/uncertain segment of the Red Hill Fault, with a setback
requirement of at least 50 feet.
5.7-2 All future building pads shall be seeded and irrigated for erosion control. Detailed plans shall
be included in the landscape and irrigation plans to be submitted for Planning Department
approval prior to the issuance of building permits.
5.7-3 A geological report shall be prepared for an individual project by a qualified engineer or
geologist and submitted at the time of application for grading plan check.
5.7-4 The final grading 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.
5.7-5 A separate grading 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 plan shall be prepared, stamped, a nd signed by a
California- registered civil engineer.
5.7-6 A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer licensed by the State of California to
perform such work.
5.7-7 If any paleontological resource (i.e., plant or animal fossils) is encountered before or during
grading, the developer shall retain a qualified paleontologist to monitor construction
activities and take appropriate measures to protect or preserve them for study. The
paleontologist shall submit a report of findings that will also provide specific
recommendations regarding further mitigation measures (i.e., paleontological monitoring)
that may be appropriate. Where mitigation monitoring is appropriate, the program must
include, but not be limited to, the following measures:
• Assign a paleontological monitor—trained and equipped to allow the rapid removal of
fossils with minimal construction delay—to the site full-time during the interval of earth-
disturbing activities.
• Should fossils be found within an area being cleared or graded, divert earth disturbing
activities elsewhere until the monitor has completed salvage. If construction personnel
make the discovery, the grading contractor shall immediately divert construction and
notify the monitor of the find.
• Prepare, identify, and curate all recovered fossils for documentation in the summary
report and transfer to the San Bernardino County Museum.
Decliff Drive Lot Subdivision
Project
CEQA Compliance Memorandum
City of Rancho Cucamonga February 2026 86
• Submit summary report to City of Rancho Cucamonga. Transfer collected specimens
with a copy to the report to San Bernardino County Museum.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions:
MM GHG-1 Require the use of electric lawn mowers and leaf blowers through the Electric Lawn
Mower Rebate Program established by the SCAQMD
MM GHG-2 Implement the Plan design with CALGreen Voluntary Measure for Energy efficiency that
exceed Title 24 requirements by 15 to 30 percent.
MM GHG-3 Implement the Plan design with CALGreen Voluntary Measure for water conservation to
reduce indoor potable water use by 20 percent by applying water saving fixtures and/or flow
restrictors.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials:
5.9-1 Future development shall prepare a Fire Protection Plan that includes measures consistent
with the unique problems resulting from the location, topography, geology, flammable
vegetation, and climate of the proposed development site. The Plan must also address water
supply, access, building ignition fire resistance, fire protection systems and equipment,
defensible space, and vegetation management. Maintenance requirements for incinerators,
outdoor fireplaces, permanent barbeques and grills, and firebreak fuel modification areas
are imposed on new developments.
MM HAZ-1: Future developers and/or contractor must coordinate in advance of construction with
the Rancho Cucamonga Fire District to ensure that road closures (temporary or permanent) are
identified that alternate access and evacuation routes are determined in the event of an emergency
and/or natural disaster.
MM HAZ-3: If previously unknown or unidentified soil and/or groundwater contamination that could
present a threat to human health or the environment is encountered during construction within the
Plan Area, construction activities in the immediate vicinity of the contamination must cease
immediately. If contamination is encountered, a Risk Management Plan must be prepared and
implemented that (1) identifies the contaminants of concern and the potential risk each contaminant
would pose to human health and the environment during construction and post-development and
(2) describes measures to be taken to protect workers, and the public from exposure to potential site
hazards. Such measures must include a range of options, including, but not limited to, physical site
controls during construction, remediation, long-term monitoring, post-development maintenance or
access limitations, or some combination thereof. Example soil remediation methods that may be
employed include, but are not limited to, one or more of the following: excavation and on-site
treatment, such as above ground bioremediation, soil washing, soil stabilization, soil vapor
extraction, or high-temperature soil thermal desorption. Example groundwater remediation methods
that may be employed include, but are not limited to, pumping water to surface, treating, and
returning to aquifer; treating groundwater in place by injecting oxidizing agents; and placing
membrane in aquifer and using natural flows to trap contaminants. Depending on the nature of
contamination, if any, appropriate agencies must be notified (e.g., City of Rancho Cucamonga Fire
Protection District and San Bernardino County Environmental Health Division). If needed, a Site
Decliff Drive Lot Subdivision
Project
CEQA Compliance Memorandum
City of Rancho Cucamonga February 2026 87
Health and Safety Plan that meets Occupational Safety and Health Administration requirements
must be prepared and in place prior to commencement of work in any contaminated area.
MM HAZ-4: Fire Protection Plan
To address the risk to residential development, future developers shall prepare fire protection plans
that meet the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Development Standards and are
consistent with the Master Fire Protection Plan. The Fire Protection Plan shall describe all actions
that will be taken to reduce wildfire risks to the structure(s). The plan shall include (1) A copy of the
site plan that indicates topographic reference lines; (2) A copy of the approved landscape/vegetation
management plan;(3) Methods and timetables for controlling, changing or modifying areas on the
property (elements of the plan shall include removal of dead vegetation, litter, vegetation that may
grow into overhead electrical lines, certain ground fuels, and ladder fuels as well as the thinning of
live trees); and (4) A maintenance schedule for the landscape/vegetation management plan. The Fire
Protection Plan for a specific neighborhood or phase of construction shall be submitted to the
Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District and City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department
for review and approval prior to occupancy permits approval for the first residential structure.
MM HAZ-5: Fire Prevention Construction Techniques:
Construction within the designated Wildfire-Urban Interface Fire Area is required to be in accordance
with Chapter 7A of the California Building Code, the California Residential Code and Standard 49 -1
of the of the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District.
Hydrology and Water Quality:
5.10-1 A final drainage study shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer prior to final
map approval or the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. All drainage
facilities shall be installed as required by the City Engineer.
5.10-2 Adequate provisions shall be made for acceptance and disposal of surface drainage
entering the property from adjacent areas.
Noise:
5.13-3 The City shall require that project applicants analyze and mitigate potential noise impacts
from new stationary noise sources (e.g., loading docks at commercial and industrial uses,
mechanical equipment associated with all building types), to, as determined by the City,
comply with the City’s daytime (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.) standards of 65 dBA Leq/50 dBA Leq
(exterior/interior) and nighttime (10:00 p.m.-7:00 a.m.) standards of 60 dBA Leq/45 dBA Leq
(exterior/interior), described in Development Code Section 17.66.050(F). The analysis shall
be prepared by a qualified acoustical engineer or noise specialist and completed prior to
project approval and can be completed as part of the environmental review process for
projects subject to CEQA. Potential project-specific actions that can feasibly achieve
compliance include, but are not limited to, the use of enclosures or screening materials (e.g.,
landscape buffers, parapets, masonry walls) around stationary noise sources (e.g., heating,
ventilation, and air conditioning systems, generators, heating boilers, loading docks) or of
noise suppression devices (e.g., acoustic louvers, mufflers).
Decliff Drive Lot Subdivision
Project
CEQA Compliance Memorandum
City of Rancho Cucamonga February 2026 88
5.13-4a The City shall, at the time of development project application submittal, evaluate the
compatibility of proposed noise sensitive uses (e.g., residences, lodging, schools, parks)
with the noise environment to ensure noise compatibility standards are met.
5.13-5a For development involving construction activities within 500 feet of existing sensitive land
uses (places where people sleep or buildings containing vibration-sensitive uses), the City
shall require applicants, at the time of application submittal, to prepare a project-specific
vibration analysis that identifies vibration -reducing measures to ensure the project
construction does not exceed applicable vibration criteria (e.g., FTA, Caltrans) for the
purpose of preventing disturbance to sensitive land uses and structural damage. The
analysis shall include, but is not limited to, the following requirements:
• Ground vibration-producing activities, such as pile driving, shall be limited to the daytime
hours between 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on weekdays and prohibited on Sundays and
holidays.
• If pile driving is used, pile holes shall be predrilled to the maximum feasible depth to
reduce the number of blows required to seat a pile.
• Maximize the distance between construction equipment and vibration- sensitive land
uses.
• Earthmoving, blasting and ground-impacting activities shall be prohibited from occurring
at the same time if simultaneous activity would result in exceedance of vibration criteria.
• Where pile driving is proposed, alternatives to traditional pile driving (e.g., sonic pile
driving, jetting, cast-in-place or auger cast piles, no displacement piles, pile cushioning,
torque or hydraulic piles) shall be implemented when the project cannot otherwise
demonstrate vibration levels in compliance with the structural damage threshold.
• Minimum setback requirements for different types of ground vibration- producing
activities (e.g., pile driving) for the purpose of preventing damage to nearby structures
shall be established. Factors to be considered include the specific nature of the vibration
producing activity (e.g., type and duration of pile driving), soil conditions, and the
fragility/resiliency of the nearby structures. Established setback requirements (100 feet
for pile driving, 25 feet for other construction activity) can be revised only if a project-
specific analysis is conducted by a qualified geotechnical engineer or ground vibration
specialist that demonstrates, as determined by the City, that the structural damage
vibration threshold would not be exceeded.
• Minimum setback requirements for different types of ground vibration producing
activities (e.g., pile driving) for the purpose of preventing negative human response shall
be established based on the specific nature of the vibration producing activity (e.g., type
and duration of pile driving), soil conditions, and the type of sensitive receptor.
Established setback requirements (500 for pile driving, 80 for other construction) can be
revised only if a project-specific ground vibration study demonstrates, as determined by
the City, that receptors would not be exposed to ground vibration levels in excess of
Decliff Drive Lot Subdivision
Project
CEQA Compliance Memorandum
City of Rancho Cucamonga February 2026 89
negative human response vibration threshold levels, depending on the frequency of the
event and receiver type.
• All vibration-inducing activity within the established setback distances for preventing
structural damage and negative human response shall be monitored and documented to
compare recorded ground vibration noise and vibration noise levels at affected sensitive
land uses to the applicable vibration threshold values. The results included recorded
vibration data shall be submitted to the City.
MM N-1: Prior to the issuance of each permit for grading, the Property Owner/Developer shall submit
construction related noise mitigation plan to the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department. The plan
shall depict the location of the construction equipment and how th e noise from this equipment
would be mitigated during construction of the project. The plan shall demonstrate that the
construction plans and specifications include the following noise abatement, notification, and
control measures:
• All construction equipment, fixed or mobile, shall be equipped with properly operating
and maintained mufflers and other State-required noise-attenuation devices.
• Limiting the number of noise-generating heavy-duty off-road construction equipment
(e.g., backhoes, dozers, excavators, loaders, rollers, etc.) simultaneously within 50 feet
of off-site noise sensitive receptors surrounding the site.
• Stationary construction equipment shall be placed such that emitted noise is directed
away from sensitive noise receivers.
• On-site and off-site construction haul routes shall be designed to avoid noise sensitive
uses, as feasible.
• If a perimeter block wall is required for a project, the wall shall be constructed as early as
possible during the first phase of construction.
• A “Construction Noise Coordinator” shall be identified. The Construction Noise
Coordinator shall be responsible for responding to any local complaints about
construction noise. When a complaint is received, the Construction Noise Coordinator
shall notify the City within 48 hours of the complaint and determine the cause of the noise
complaint (e.g., starting too early, bad muffler) and shall implement reasonable
measures to resolve the compliant, as deemed acceptable by the Planning Department.
Signs shall be posted at the construction that include the contact information for the
Construction Noise Coordinator.
Transportation:
5.17-1 Future development applications in the City shall be required to provide traffic impact
analyses for review and approval by the City during the permit process to identify the traffic
impacts of the project and the roadway and intersection improvements needed. Any
identified on-site improvements and improvements to abutting roadways would need to be
made part of the development. Coupled with the payment of DIF for the improvement of off -
site roadways and intersections, traffic impacts would be mitigated on a project-by-project
basis.
Decliff Drive Lot Subdivision
Project
CEQA Compliance Memorandum
City of Rancho Cucamonga February 2026 90
5.17-2 Future developments with 250 employees or more shall comply with the SCAQMD Rule 2202,
which requires the implementation of trip reduction measures as a means of reducing
pollutant emission in the air basin. An employer subject to this Rule shall annually register
with the SCAQMD to implement an emission reduction program, in accordance with this
Rule.
5.17-3 Individual projects shall provide the following, as determined applicable by City staff:
• Provide car-sharing, bike sharing, and ride-sharing programs;
• Improve or increase access to transit;
• Incorporate neighborhood electric vehicle networks into the project;
• Include project measures to reduce transportation requirements such as work from
home and flexible work schedules;
• Link to existing pedestrian or bicycle networks, or transit service; and/or
• Provide traffic calming.
Tribal Cultural Resources:
5.18-1 Inadvertent Archeological Find. If during ground disturbance activities, cultural resources are
discovered that were not assessed by the archaeological report(s) and/or environmental
assessment conducted prior to project approval, the following procedures shall be followed.
Cultural resources are defined as being multiple artifacts in close association with each
other, but also include fewer artifacts if the area of the find is determined to be of significance
due to its sacred or cultural importance as determined in consultation with the Native
American Tribe(s).
a. All ground disturbance activities within 100 feet of the discovered cultural resources shall
be halted until a meeting is convened between the developer, the archaeologist, the tribal
representative(s) and the Planning Director to discuss the significance of the find.
b. At the meeting, the significance of the discoveries shall be discussed and after
consultation with the tribal representative(s) and the archaeologist, a decision shall be
made, with the concurrence of the Planning Director, as to the appropriate mitigation
(documentation, recovery, avoidance, etc.) for the cultural resources.
c. Grading or further ground disturbance shall not resume within the area of the discovery
until an agreement has been reached by all parties as to the appropriate mitigation. Work
shall be allowed to continue outside of the buffer area and will be monitored by additional
Tribal monitors if needed.
d. Treatment and avoidance of the newly discovered resources shall be consistent with the
Cultural Resources Management Plan and Monitoring Agreements entered into with the
appropriate tribes. This may include avoidance of the cultural resources through project
design, in-place preservation of cultural resources located in native soils and/or re-burial
Decliff Drive Lot Subdivision
Project
CEQA Compliance Memorandum
City of Rancho Cucamonga February 2026 91
on the Project property so they are not subject to further disturbance in perpetuity as
identified in Non-Disclosure of Reburial Locations Condition.
e. If the find is determined to be significant and avoidance of the site has not been achieved,
a Phase III data recovery plan shall be prepared by the project archaeologist, in
consultation with the Tribe, and shall be submitted to the City for their review and
approval prior to implementation of the said plan.
f. Pursuant to Calif. Pub. Res. Code § 21083.2(b) avoidance is the preferred method of
preservation for archaeological resources and tribal cultural resources. If the landowner
and the Tribe(s) cannot agree on the significance or the mitigation for the archae ological
or tribal cultural resources, these issues will be presented to the Planning Director for
decision. The City’s Planning Director shall make the determination based on the
provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act with respect to archaeological and
tribal cultural resources, recommendations of the project archaeologist, and shall take
into account the cultural and religious principles and practices of the Tribe.
Notwithstanding any other rights available under the law, the decision of t he City
Planning Director shall be appealable to the City Planning Commission and/or City
Council.
5.18-2 Cultural Resources Disposition. In the event that Native American cultural resources are
discovered during the course of grading (inadvertent discoveries), the following procedures
shall be carried out for final disposition of the discoveries:
a. One or more of the following treatments, in order of preference, shall be employed with
the tribes. Evidence of such shall be provided to the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning
Department:
i. Preservation-In-Place of the cultural resources, if feasible. Preservation in place
means avoiding the resources, leaving them in the place where they were found with
no development affecting the integrity of the resources.
ii. Reburial of the resources on the Project property. The measures for reburial shall
include, at least, the following: Measures and provisions to protect the future reburial
area from any future impacts in perpetuity. Reburial shall not occur until all legally
required cataloging and basic recording has been completed, with an exception that
sacred items, burial goods, and Native American human remains are excluded. Any
reburial process shall be culturally appropriate. Listing of contents and location of
the reburial shall be included in the confidential Phase IV report. The Phase IV Report
shall be filed with the City under a confidential cover and not subject to Public
Records Request.
iii. If preservation in place or reburial is not feasible then the resources shall be curated
in a culturally appropriate manner at a San Bernardino County curation facility that
meets State Resources Department Office of Historic Preservation Guidelines for the
Curation of Archaeological Resources ensuring access and use pursuant to the
Guidelines. The collection and associated records shall be transferred, including
Decliff Drive Lot Subdivision
Project
CEQA Compliance Memorandum
City of Rancho Cucamonga February 2026 92
title, and are to be accompanied by payment of the fees by the Applicant necessary
for permanent curation. Evidence of curation in the form of a letter from the curation
facility stating that subject archaeological materials have been received and that all
fees have been paid, shall be provided by the landowner to the City. There shall be no
destructive or invasive testing on sacred items, burial goods, and Native American
human remains, as defined by the cultural and religious practices of the Most Likely
Descendant. Results concerning finds of any inadvertent discoveries shall be
included in the Phase IV monitoring report.
5.18-3 Archaeologist Retained. Prior to issuance of a grading permit the project applicant shall retain
a qualified Registered Professional Archaeologist (RPA), to monitor all ground disturbing
activities in an effort to identify any unknown archaeological resources. The Registered
Professional Archaeologist and the Tribal monitor(s) shall manage and oversee monitoring
for all initial ground disturbing activities and excavation of each portion of the Project Site
including clearing, grubbing, tree removals, mass or rough grading, trenching, stockpiling of
materials, rock crushing, structure demolition and etc. The Registered Professional
Archaeologist and the Tribal monitor(s), shall independently have the authority to temporarily
divert, redirect, or halt the ground disturbance activities to allow identification, evaluation,
and potential recovery of cultural resources in coordination with any required special interest
or tribal monitors. The developer/permit holder shall submit a fully executed copy of the
contract to the Planning Department to ensure compliance with this condition of approval.
Upon verification, the Planning Department shall clear this condition. In addition, the
Registered Professional Archaeologist, in consultation with the Consulting Tri be(s), the
contractor, and the City, shall develop a Cultural Resources Management Plan (CRMP) in
consultation pursuant to the definition in AB 52 to address the details, timing, and
responsibility of all archaeological and cultural activities that will occur on the Project Site. A
consulting tribe is defined as a tribe that initiated the AB 52 tribal consultation process for
the Project, has not opted out of the AB 52 consultation process, and has completed AB 52
consultation with the City as provided for in Cal Pub Res Code Sec tion 21080.3.2(b)(1) of
AB52. Details in the Plan shall include:
a. Project grading and development scheduling;
b. The Project archaeologist and the Consulting Tribes(s) shall attend the pre-grading
meeting with the City, the construction manager and any contractors, and will conduct a
mandatory Cultural Resources Worker Sensitivity Training to those in attendance. The
Training will include a brief review of the cultural sensitivity of the Project and the
surrounding area; what resources could potentially be identified during earthmoving
activities; the requirements of the monitoring program; the protocols that apply in the
event inadvertent discoveries of cultural resources are identified, including who to
contact and appropriate avoidance measures until the find(s) can be properly evaluated;
and any other appropriate protocols. All new construction personnel that will conduct
earthwork or grading activities that begin work on the Project following the initial Training
must take the Cultural Sensitivity Training prior to beginning work and the Project
archaeologist and Consulting Tribe(s) shall make themselves available to provide the
training on an as-needed basis;
Decliff Drive Lot Subdivision
Project
CEQA Compliance Memorandum
City of Rancho Cucamonga February 2026 93
c. The protocols and stipulations that the contractor, City, Consulting Tribe(s) and Project
archaeologist will follow in the event of inadvertent cultural resources discoveries,
including any newly discovered cultural resource deposits that shall be subject to a
cultural resources evaluation.
5.18-4 Native American Monitoring. Tribal monitor(s) shall be required on-site during all ground-
disturbing activities, including grading, stockpiling of materials, engineered fill, rock
crushing, etc. The land divider/permit holder shall retain a qualified tribal monitor(s) from the
requesting Tribe. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the developer shall submit a copy of a
signed contract between the Tribe and the land divider/permit holder for the monitoring of
the project to the Planning Department and to the Engineering Department. The Tribal
Monitor(s) shall have the authority to temporarily divert, redirect or halt the ground-
disturbance activities to allow recovery of cultural resources, in coordination with the Project
Archaeologist.
5.18-6 Human Remains. If human remains are encountered, State Health and Safety Code Section
7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the San Bernardino County
Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin. Further, pursuant to Public Resource
Code Section 5097.98(b) remains shall be left in place and free from disturbance until a final
decision as to the treatment and disposition has been made. If the San Bernardino County
Coroner determines the remains to be Native American, the Native American Heritage
Commission shall be contacted within the period specified by law (24 hours). Subsequently,
the Native American Heritage Commission shall identify the "most likely descendant." The
most likely descendant shall then make recommendations and engage in consultation
concerning the treatment of the remains as provided in Public Resources Code Section
5097.98.
5.18-7 Non-Disclosure of Reburial Locations. It is understood by all parties that unless otherwise
required by law, the site of any reburial of Native American human remains or associated
grave goods shall not be disclosed and shall not be governed by public disc losure
requirements of the California Public Records Act. The Coroner, pursuant to the specific
exemption set forth in California Government Code 6254 (r)., parties, and Lead Agencies, will
be asked to withhold public disclosure information related to such reburial, pursuant to the
specific exemption set forth in California Government Code 6254 (r).
MM TCUL-1 Unanticipated Discovery of Cultural Resources: In the unlikely event that cultural
resources are exposed during construction activities for the proposed EHNCP, all construction work
occurring within 100 feet of the find shall immediately stop until a qual ified archaeologist, meeting
the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards, can evaluate the significance of
the find and determine whether or not additional study is warranted. Depending upon the
significance of the find, the archaeologist may simply record the find and allow work to continue. If
the discovery proves significant under CEQA, additional work, such as preparation of an
archaeological treatment plan, testing, or data recovery, may be warranted.
Appendix B:
CalEEMod Outputs
Decliff Drive Res. Detailed Report, 6/17/2024
1 / 52
Decliff Drive Res. Detailed Report
Table of Contents
1. Basic Project Information
1.1. Basic Project Information
1.2. Land Use Types
1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector
2. Emissions Summary
2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated
2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated
3. Construction Emissions Details
3.1. Demolition (2025) - Unmitigated
3.3. Site Preparation (2025) - Unmitigated
3.5. Grading (2025) - Unmitigated
3.7. Building Construction (2025) - Unmitigated
Decliff Drive Res. Detailed Report, 6/17/2024
2 / 52
3.9. Building Construction (2026) - Unmitigated
3.11. Building Construction (2027) - Unmitigated
3.13. Building Construction (2028) - Unmitigated
3.15. Paving (2028) - Unmitigated
3.17. Architectural Coating (2028) - Unmitigated
4. Operations Emissions Details
4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use
4.1.1. Unmitigated
4.2. Energy
4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
4.3. Area Emissions by Source
4.3.1. Unmitigated
4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use
4.4.1. Unmitigated
4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use
4.5.1. Unmitigated
Decliff Drive Res. Detailed Report, 6/17/2024
3 / 52
4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use
4.6.1. Unmitigated
4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type
4.7.1. Unmitigated
4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type
4.8.1. Unmitigated
4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type
4.9.1. Unmitigated
4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type
4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated
4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated
4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated
5. Activity Data
5.1. Construction Schedule
5.2. Off-Road Equipment
5.2.1. Unmitigated
5.3. Construction Vehicles
Decliff Drive Res. Detailed Report, 6/17/2024
4 / 52
5.3.1. Unmitigated
5.4. Vehicles
5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies
5.5. Architectural Coatings
5.6. Dust Mitigation
5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies
5.7. Construction Paving
5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors
5.9. Operational Mobile Sources
5.9.1. Unmitigated
5.10. Operational Area Sources
5.10.1. Hearths
5.10.1.1. Unmitigated
5.10.2. Architectural Coatings
5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
5.11. Operational Energy Consumption
Decliff Drive Res. Detailed Report, 6/17/2024
5 / 52
5.11.1. Unmitigated
5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption
5.12.1. Unmitigated
5.13. Operational Waste Generation
5.13.1. Unmitigated
5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment
5.14.1. Unmitigated
5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment
5.15.1. Unmitigated
5.16. Stationary Sources
5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps
5.16.2. Process Boilers
5.17. User Defined
5.18. Vegetation
5.18.1. Land Use Change
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type
Decliff Drive Res. Detailed Report, 6/17/2024
6 / 52
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
5.18.2. Sequestration
5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
6. Climate Risk Detailed Report
6.1. Climate Risk Summary
6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores
6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores
6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures
7. Health and Equity Details
7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores
7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores
7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
7.4. Health & Equity Measures
7.5. Evaluation Scorecard
7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures
8. User Changes to Default Data
Decliff Drive Res. Detailed Report, 6/17/2024
7 / 52
1. Basic Project Information
1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name Decliff Drive Res.
Construction Start Date 1/2/2025
Operational Year 2025
Lead Agency Rancho Cucamonga
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s)2.80
Precipitation (days)6.40
Location 34.168027836779245, -117.50431995170808
County San Bernardino-South Coast
City —
Air District South Coast AQMD
Air Basin South Coast
TAZ 5109
EDFZ 10
Electric Utility Southern California Edison
Gas Utility Southern California Gas
App Version 2022.1.1.24
1.2. Land Use Types
Land Use Subtype Size Unit Lot Acreage Building Area (sq ft)Landscape Area (sq
ft)
Special Landscape
Area (sq ft)
Population Description
Decliff Drive Res. Detailed Report, 6/17/2024
8 / 52
Single Family
Housing
5.00 Dwelling Unit 39.6 9,750 58,564 —17.0 —
1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector
No measures selected
2. Emissions Summary
2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Un/Mit.TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 4.03 3.39 31.7 31.5 0.06 1.37 7.89 9.26 1.26 3.99 5.25 — 6,881 6,881 0.28 0.06 1.05 6,908
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 4.02 3.39 31.7 31.2 0.05 1.37 7.89 9.26 1.26 3.99 5.25 — 5,521 5,521 0.23 0.05 0.02 5,542
Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 1.92 1.61 14.7 15.2 0.03 0.61 1.47 2.09 0.56 0.64 1.21 — 3,047 3,047 0.12 0.03 0.19 3,059
Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.35 0.29 2.69 2.78 0.01 0.11 0.27 0.38 0.10 0.12 0.22 — 504 504 0.02 < 0.005 0.03 506
2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Year TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Decliff Drive Res. Detailed Report, 6/17/2024
9 / 52
Daily -
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2025 4.03 3.39 31.7 31.5 0.06 1.37 7.89 9.26 1.26 3.99 5.25 — 6,881 6,881 0.28 0.06 1.05 6,908
2026 1.29 1.08 9.88 13.1 0.02 0.38 0.03 0.41 0.35 0.01 0.36 — 2,438 2,438 0.10 0.02 0.13 2,448
2027 1.24 1.04 9.41 13.1 0.02 0.34 0.03 0.36 0.31 0.01 0.32 — 2,437 2,437 0.10 0.02 0.11 2,447
2028 1.24 1.22 8.95 13.1 0.02 0.30 0.20 0.45 0.28 0.05 0.28 — 2,437 2,437 0.10 0.02 0.57 2,446
Daily -
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2025 4.02 3.39 31.7 31.2 0.05 1.37 7.89 9.26 1.26 3.99 5.25 — 5,521 5,521 0.23 0.05 0.02 5,542
2026 1.29 1.08 9.88 13.1 0.02 0.38 0.03 0.41 0.35 0.01 0.36 — 2,436 2,436 0.10 0.02 < 0.005 2,446
2027 1.24 1.04 9.42 13.0 0.02 0.34 0.03 0.36 0.31 0.01 0.32 — 2,435 2,435 0.10 0.02 < 0.005 2,445
2028 1.24 1.22 8.95 13.0 0.02 0.30 0.03 0.33 0.28 0.01 0.28 — 2,435 2,435 0.10 0.02 < 0.005 2,444
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2025 1.92 1.61 14.7 15.2 0.03 0.61 1.47 2.09 0.56 0.64 1.21 — 3,047 3,047 0.12 0.03 0.19 3,059
2026 0.92 0.77 7.06 9.34 0.02 0.27 0.02 0.29 0.25 < 0.005 0.25 — 1,740 1,740 0.07 0.02 0.04 1,747
2027 0.89 0.74 6.73 9.32 0.02 0.24 0.02 0.26 0.22 < 0.005 0.23 — 1,740 1,740 0.07 0.02 0.04 1,746
2028 0.70 0.61 3.98 5.93 0.01 0.14 0.04 0.18 0.13 0.01 0.13 — 1,053 1,053 0.04 0.01 0.05 1,057
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2025 0.35 0.29 2.69 2.78 0.01 0.11 0.27 0.38 0.10 0.12 0.22 — 504 504 0.02 < 0.005 0.03 506
2026 0.17 0.14 1.29 1.70 < 0.005 0.05 < 0.005 0.05 0.05 < 0.005 0.05 — 288 288 0.01 < 0.005 0.01 289
2027 0.16 0.14 1.23 1.70 < 0.005 0.04 < 0.005 0.05 0.04 < 0.005 0.04 — 288 288 0.01 < 0.005 0.01 289
2028 0.13 0.11 0.73 1.08 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.02 < 0.005 0.02 — 174 174 0.01 < 0.005 0.01 175
2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Un/Mit.TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Decliff Drive Res. Detailed Report, 6/17/2024
10 / 52
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 2.03 1.85 0.53 6.57 0.02 0.37 0.82 1.19 0.36 0.21 0.57 49.9 1,163 1,213 0.49 0.04 3.75 1,242
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 1.99 1.80 0.55 5.57 0.02 0.37 0.82 1.19 0.36 0.21 0.57 49.9 1,100 1,150 0.50 0.05 0.17 1,176
Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.66 0.60 0.47 3.53 0.01 0.03 0.82 0.85 0.03 0.21 0.24 6.28 1,027 1,033 0.37 0.04 1.66 1,057
Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.12 0.11 0.09 0.64 < 0.005 0.01 0.15 0.16 0.01 0.04 0.04 1.04 170 171 0.06 0.01 0.27 175
2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Sector TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.33 0.29 0.38 3.73 0.01 0.01 0.82 0.83 0.01 0.21 0.21 — 979 979 0.04 0.04 3.68 996
Area 1.70 1.56 0.11 2.83 0.01 0.36 — 0.36 0.35 — 0.35 46.8 90.2 137 0.14 < 0.005 — 141
Energy < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 86.5 86.5 0.01 < 0.005 — 86.8
Water — — — — — — — — — — — 0.40 7.18 7.58 0.04 < 0.005 — 8.94
Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 2.68 0.00 2.68 0.27 0.00 — 9.36
Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.07 0.07
Total 2.03 1.85 0.53 6.57 0.02 0.37 0.82 1.19 0.36 0.21 0.57 49.9 1,163 1,213 0.49 0.04 3.75 1,242
Decliff Drive Res. Detailed Report, 6/17/2024
11 / 52
——————————————————Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Mobile 0.31 0.27 0.41 3.01 0.01 0.01 0.82 0.83 0.01 0.21 0.21 — 917 917 0.04 0.04 0.10 930
Area 1.67 1.53 0.10 2.54 0.01 0.36 — 0.36 0.35 — 0.35 46.8 89.5 136 0.14 < 0.005 — 140
Energy < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 86.5 86.5 0.01 < 0.005 — 86.8
Water — — — — — — — — — — — 0.40 7.18 7.58 0.04 < 0.005 — 8.94
Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 2.68 0.00 2.68 0.27 0.00 — 9.36
Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.07 0.07
Total 1.99 1.80 0.55 5.57 0.02 0.37 0.82 1.19 0.36 0.21 0.57 49.9 1,100 1,150 0.50 0.05 0.17 1,176
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.31 0.27 0.42 3.14 0.01 0.01 0.82 0.83 0.01 0.21 0.21 — 926 926 0.04 0.04 1.59 942
Area 0.34 0.33 0.01 0.37 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 3.21 6.65 9.86 0.01 < 0.005 — 10.1
Energy < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 86.5 86.5 0.01 < 0.005 — 86.8
Water — — — — — — — — — — — 0.40 7.18 7.58 0.04 < 0.005 — 8.94
Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 2.68 0.00 2.68 0.27 0.00 — 9.36
Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.07 0.07
Total 0.66 0.60 0.47 3.53 0.01 0.03 0.82 0.85 0.03 0.21 0.24 6.28 1,027 1,033 0.37 0.04 1.66 1,057
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.06 0.05 0.08 0.57 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.15 0.15 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 — 153 153 0.01 0.01 0.26 156
Area 0.06 0.06 < 0.005 0.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.53 1.10 1.63 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.68
Energy < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 14.3 14.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 14.4
Water — — — — — — — — — — — 0.07 1.19 1.26 0.01 < 0.005 — 1.48
Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 0.44 0.00 0.44 0.04 0.00 — 1.55
Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.01 0.01
Total 0.12 0.11 0.09 0.64 < 0.005 0.01 0.15 0.16 0.01 0.04 0.04 1.04 170 171 0.06 0.01 0.27 175
Decliff Drive Res. Detailed Report, 6/17/2024
12 / 52
3. Construction Emissions Details
3.1. Demolition (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
2.86 2.40 22.2 19.9 0.03 0.92 — 0.92 0.84 — 0.84 — 3,425 3,425 0.14 0.03 — 3,437
Demolitio
n
— — — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.39 0.33 3.04 2.73 < 0.005 0.13 — 0.13 0.12 — 0.12 — 469 469 0.02 < 0.005 — 471
Demolitio
n
— — — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.07 0.06 0.55 0.50 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 77.7 77.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 77.9
Demolitio
n
— — — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — —
Decliff Drive Res. Detailed Report, 6/17/2024
13 / 52
0.000.000.000.000.000.00—0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Onsite
truck
Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.07 0.06 0.07 0.88 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.05 — 194 194 0.01 0.01 0.02 196
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 26.9 26.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 27.3
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.46 4.46 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 4.52
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.3. Site Preparation (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Decliff Drive Res. Detailed Report, 6/17/2024
14 / 52
5,314—0.040.215,2955,295—1.26—1.261.37—1.370.0530.231.63.313.94Off-Road
Equipment
Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 7.67 7.67 — 3.94 3.94 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
3.94 3.31 31.6 30.2 0.05 1.37 — 1.37 1.26 — 1.26 — 5,295 5,295 0.21 0.04 — 5,314
Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 7.67 7.67 — 3.94 3.94 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.32 0.27 2.60 2.48 < 0.005 0.11 — 0.11 0.10 — 0.10 — 435 435 0.02 < 0.005 — 437
Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.63 0.63 — 0.32 0.32 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.06 0.05 0.47 0.45 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 72.1 72.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 72.3
Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.11 0.11 — 0.06 0.06 — — — — — — —
Decliff Drive Res. Detailed Report, 6/17/2024
15 / 52
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.09 0.08 0.08 1.36 0.00 0.00 0.23 0.23 0.00 0.05 0.05 — 247 247 0.01 0.01 0.91 250
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.08 0.08 0.08 1.03 0.00 0.00 0.23 0.23 0.00 0.05 0.05 — 226 226 0.01 0.01 0.02 229
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 18.8 18.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 19.1
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.12 3.12 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 3.16
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.5. Grading (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Decliff Drive Res. Detailed Report, 6/17/2024
16 / 52
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
3.80 3.20 29.7 28.3 0.06 1.23 — 1.23 1.14 — 1.14 — 6,599 6,599 0.27 0.05 — 6,622
Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 3.59 3.59 — 1.42 1.42 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.78 0.66 6.10 5.82 0.01 0.25 — 0.25 0.23 — 0.23 — 1,356 1,356 0.06 0.01 — 1,361
Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.74 0.74 — 0.29 0.29 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.14 0.12 1.11 1.06 < 0.005 0.05 — 0.05 0.04 — 0.04 — 224 224 0.01 < 0.005 — 225
Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.13 0.13 — 0.05 0.05 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Decliff Drive Res. Detailed Report, 6/17/2024
17 / 52
——————————————————Daily,
Summer
(Max)
Worker 0.10 0.09 0.09 1.56 0.00 0.00 0.26 0.26 0.00 0.06 0.06 — 282 282 0.01 0.01 1.05 286
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 53.8 53.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.09 54.6
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 8.91 8.91 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 9.04
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.7. Building Construction (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
1.35 1.13 10.4 13.0 0.02 0.43 — 0.43 0.40 — 0.40 — 2,398 2,398 0.10 0.02 — 2,406
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Decliff Drive Res. Detailed Report, 6/17/2024
18 / 52
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
1.35 1.13 10.4 13.0 0.02 0.43 — 0.43 0.40 — 0.40 — 2,398 2,398 0.10 0.02 — 2,406
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.38 0.32 2.94 3.67 0.01 0.12 — 0.12 0.11 — 0.11 — 676 676 0.03 0.01 — 678
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.07 0.06 0.54 0.67 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 112 112 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 112
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 25.4 25.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.09 25.7
Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 16.5 16.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 17.3
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 23.3 23.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 23.5
Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 16.5 16.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 17.3
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Decliff Drive Res. Detailed Report, 6/17/2024
19 / 52
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 6.65 6.65 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 6.74
Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.65 4.65 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 4.87
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.10 1.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.12
Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.77 0.77 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.81
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.9. Building Construction (2026) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
1.28 1.07 9.85 13.0 0.02 0.38 — 0.38 0.35 — 0.35 — 2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02 — 2,405
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
1.28 1.07 9.85 13.0 0.02 0.38 — 0.38 0.35 — 0.35 — 2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02 — 2,405
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.91 0.77 7.04 9.26 0.02 0.27 — 0.27 0.25 — 0.25 — 1,712 1,712 0.07 0.01 — 1,718
Decliff Drive Res. Detailed Report, 6/17/2024
20 / 52
0.000.000.000.000.000.00—0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Onsite
truck
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.17 0.14 1.28 1.69 < 0.005 0.05 — 0.05 0.05 — 0.05 — 283 283 0.01 < 0.005 — 284
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 24.8 24.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.09 25.2
Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 16.2 16.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 17.0
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 22.8 22.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 23.1
Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 16.2 16.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 17.0
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 16.5 16.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 16.7
Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 11.6 11.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 12.1
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.73 2.73 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.77
Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.92 1.92 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.01
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Decliff Drive Res. Detailed Report, 6/17/2024
21 / 52
3.11. Building Construction (2027) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
1.23 1.03 9.39 12.9 0.02 0.34 — 0.34 0.31 — 0.31 — 2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02 — 2,405
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
1.23 1.03 9.39 12.9 0.02 0.34 — 0.34 0.31 — 0.31 — 2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02 — 2,405
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.88 0.74 6.71 9.24 0.02 0.24 — 0.24 0.22 — 0.22 — 1,712 1,712 0.07 0.01 — 1,718
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.16 0.13 1.22 1.69 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 — 283 283 0.01 < 0.005 — 284
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Decliff Drive Res. Detailed Report, 6/17/2024
22 / 52
——————————————————Daily,
Summer
(Max)
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 24.3 24.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.08 24.7
Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 15.9 15.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 16.7
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 22.3 22.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 22.6
Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 15.9 15.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 16.7
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 < 0.005 0.01 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 16.2 16.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 16.4
Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 11.4 11.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 11.9
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.68 2.68 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.71
Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.88 1.88 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.97
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.13. Building Construction (2028) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Decliff Drive Res. Detailed Report, 6/17/2024
23 / 52
2,406—0.020.102,3972,397—0.28—0.280.30—0.300.0212.98.920.991.18Off-Road
Equipment
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
1.18 0.99 8.92 12.9 0.02 0.30 — 0.30 0.28 — 0.28 — 2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02 — 2,406
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.38 0.32 2.85 4.13 0.01 0.10 — 0.10 0.09 — 0.09 — 765 765 0.03 0.01 — 767
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.07 0.06 0.52 0.75 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 127 127 0.01 < 0.005 — 127
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 23.9 23.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 24.2
Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 15.5 15.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 16.3
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 21.9 21.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 22.2
Decliff Drive Res. Detailed Report, 6/17/2024
24 / 52
Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 15.6 15.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 16.3
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 7.09 7.09 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 7.18
Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.96 4.96 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 5.20
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.17 1.17 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.19
Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.82 0.82 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.86
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.15. Paving (2028) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.82 0.69 6.63 9.91 0.01 0.26 — 0.26 0.24 — 0.24 — 1,511 1,511 0.06 0.01 — 1,516
Paving 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Decliff Drive Res. Detailed Report, 6/17/2024
25 / 52
228—< 0.0050.01228228—0.04—0.040.04—0.04< 0.0051.491.000.100.12Off-Road
Equipment
Paving 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.02 0.02 0.18 0.27 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 37.7 37.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 37.8
Paving 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.93 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.05 — 199 199 < 0.005 0.01 0.57 202
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 27.9 27.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 28.3
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.62 4.62 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 4.68
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Decliff Drive Res. Detailed Report, 6/17/2024
26 / 52
3.17. Architectural Coating (2028) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.13 0.11 0.81 1.12 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.01 — 0.01 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134
Architect
ural
Coatings
1.11 1.11 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.13 0.11 0.81 1.12 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.01 — 0.01 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134
Architect
ural
Coatings
1.11 1.11 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.02 0.02 0.12 0.17 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 20.1 20.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 20.2
Architect
ural
Coatings
0.17 0.17 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Decliff Drive Res. Detailed Report, 6/17/2024
27 / 52
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 3.33 3.33 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.34
Architect
ural
Coatings
0.03 0.03 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.78 4.78 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 4.84
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.38 4.38 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 4.43
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.67 0.67 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.68
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.11 0.11 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.11
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Decliff Drive Res. Detailed Report, 6/17/2024
28 / 52
4. Operations Emissions Details
4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use
4.1.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
0.33 0.29 0.38 3.73 0.01 0.01 0.82 0.83 0.01 0.21 0.21 — 979 979 0.04 0.04 3.68 996
Total 0.33 0.29 0.38 3.73 0.01 0.01 0.82 0.83 0.01 0.21 0.21 — 979 979 0.04 0.04 3.68 996
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
0.31 0.27 0.41 3.01 0.01 0.01 0.82 0.83 0.01 0.21 0.21 — 917 917 0.04 0.04 0.10 930
Total 0.31 0.27 0.41 3.01 0.01 0.01 0.82 0.83 0.01 0.21 0.21 — 917 917 0.04 0.04 0.10 930
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
0.06 0.05 0.08 0.57 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.15 0.15 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 — 153 153 0.01 0.01 0.26 156
Total 0.06 0.05 0.08 0.57 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.15 0.15 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 — 153 153 0.01 0.01 0.26 156
4.2. Energy
4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Decliff Drive Res. Detailed Report, 6/17/2024
29 / 52
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — 36.3 36.3 < 0.005 <0.005 — 36.6
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 36.3 36.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 36.6
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — 36.3 36.3 < 0.005 <0.005 — 36.6
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 36.3 36.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 36.6
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — 6.02 6.02 < 0.005 <0.005 — 6.05
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 6.02 6.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 6.05
4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 50.1 50.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 50.3
Decliff Drive Res. Detailed Report, 6/17/2024
30 / 52
Total < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 50.1 50.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 50.3
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 50.1 50.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 50.3
Total < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 50.1 50.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 50.3
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 8.30 8.30 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 8.32
Total < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 8.30 8.30 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 8.32
4.3. Area Emissions by Source
4.3.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Source TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 1.45 1.31 0.10 2.54 0.01 0.36 — 0.36 0.35 — 0.35 46.8 89.5 136 0.14 < 0.005 — 140
Consum
er
Products
0.21 0.21 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coatings
0.02 0.02 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipme
nt
0.03 0.03 < 0.005 0.28 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 0.76 0.76 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.76
Decliff Drive Res. Detailed Report, 6/17/2024
31 / 52
Total 1.70 1.56 0.11 2.83 0.01 0.36 — 0.36 0.35 — 0.35 46.8 90.2 137 0.14 < 0.005 — 141
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 1.45 1.31 0.10 2.54 0.01 0.36 — 0.36 0.35 — 0.35 46.8 89.5 136 0.14 < 0.005 — 140
Consum
er
Products
0.21 0.21 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coatings
0.02 0.02 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total 1.67 1.53 0.10 2.54 0.01 0.36 — 0.36 0.35 — 0.35 46.8 89.5 136 0.14 < 0.005 — 140
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.53 1.01 1.55 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.59
Consum
er
Products
0.04 0.04 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coatings
< 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipme
nt
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 0.09 0.09 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.09
Total 0.06 0.06 < 0.005 0.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.53 1.10 1.63 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.68
4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use
4.4.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Decliff Drive Res. Detailed Report, 6/17/2024
32 / 52
——————————————————Daily,
Summer
(Max)
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.40 7.18 7.58 0.04 < 0.005 — 8.94
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 0.40 7.18 7.58 0.04 < 0.005 — 8.94
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.40 7.18 7.58 0.04 < 0.005 — 8.94
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 0.40 7.18 7.58 0.04 < 0.005 — 8.94
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.07 1.19 1.26 0.01 < 0.005 — 1.48
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 0.07 1.19 1.26 0.01 < 0.005 — 1.48
4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use
4.5.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 2.68 0.00 2.68 0.27 0.00 — 9.36
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 2.68 0.00 2.68 0.27 0.00 — 9.36
Decliff Drive Res. Detailed Report, 6/17/2024
33 / 52
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 2.68 0.00 2.68 0.27 0.00 — 9.36
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 2.68 0.00 2.68 0.27 0.00 — 9.36
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.44 0.00 0.44 0.04 0.00 — 1.55
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 0.44 0.00 0.44 0.04 0.00 — 1.55
4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use
4.6.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.07 0.07
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.07 0.07
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.07 0.07
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.07 0.07
Decliff Drive Res. Detailed Report, 6/17/2024
34 / 52
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.01 0.01
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.01 0.01
4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type
4.7.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Equipme
nt
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type
4.8.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Equipme
nt
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Decliff Drive Res. Detailed Report, 6/17/2024
35 / 52
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type
4.9.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Equipme
nt
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type
Decliff Drive Res. Detailed Report, 6/17/2024
36 / 52
4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Vegetatio
n
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Decliff Drive Res. Detailed Report, 6/17/2024
37 / 52
4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Species TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Decliff Drive Res. Detailed Report, 6/17/2024
38 / 52
Sequest — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
5. Activity Data
5.1. Construction Schedule
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Days Per Week Work Days per Phase Phase Description
Demolition Demolition 1/2/2025 3/13/2025 5.00 50.0 —
Site Preparation Site Preparation 3/14/2025 4/25/2025 5.00 30.0 —
Grading Grading 4/26/2025 8/9/2025 5.00 75.0 —
Building Construction Building Construction 8/10/2025 6/11/2028 5.00 740 —
Paving Paving 6/12/2028 8/28/2028 5.00 55.0 —
Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 8/29/2028 11/14/2028 5.00 55.0 —
5.2. Off-Road Equipment
5.2.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor
Demolition Concrete/Industrial
Saws
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 33.0 0.73
Demolition Excavators Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 367 0.40
Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 367 0.40
Decliff Drive Res. Detailed Report, 6/17/2024
39 / 52
Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backh Diesel Average 4.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Grading Excavators Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Grading Graders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 148 0.41
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.40
Grading Scrapers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 423 0.48
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Building Construction Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 367 0.29
Building Construction Forklifts Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 82.0 0.20
Building Construction Generator Sets Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 14.0 0.74
Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 3.00 7.00 84.0 0.37
Building Construction Welders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 46.0 0.45
Paving Pavers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 81.0 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 89.0 0.36
Paving Rollers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Architectural Coating Air Compressors Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 37.0 0.48
5.3. Construction Vehicles
5.3.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix
Demolition ————
Demolition Worker 15.0 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Demolition Vendor —10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Demolition Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Demolition Onsite truck ——HHDT
Site Preparation ————
Decliff Drive Res. Detailed Report, 6/17/2024
40 / 52
Site Preparation Worker 17.5 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Site Preparation Vendor —10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Site Preparation Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Site Preparation Onsite truck ——HHDT
Grading ————
Grading Worker 20.0 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Grading Vendor —10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Grading Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Grading Onsite truck ——HHDT
Building Construction ————
Building Construction Worker 1.80 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Building Construction Vendor 0.53 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Building Construction Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Building Construction Onsite truck ——HHDT
Paving ————
Paving Worker 15.0 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Paving Vendor —10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Paving Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Paving Onsite truck ——HHDT
Architectural Coating ————
Architectural Coating Worker 0.36 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Architectural Coating Vendor —10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Architectural Coating Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Architectural Coating Onsite truck ——HHDT
5.4. Vehicles
Decliff Drive Res. Detailed Report, 6/17/2024
41 / 52
5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies
Non-applicable. No control strategies activated by user.
5.5. Architectural Coatings
Phase Name Residential Interior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Residential Exterior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Non-Residential Interior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
Architectural Coating 19,744 6,581 0.00 0.00 —
5.6. Dust Mitigation
5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
Phase Name Material Imported (cy)Material Exported (cy)Acres Graded (acres)Material Demolished (sq. ft.)Acres Paved (acres)
Demolition 0.00 0.00 0.00 ——
Site Preparation ——45.0 0.00 —
Grading ——225 0.00 —
Paving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.06
5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies
Control Strategies Applied Frequency (per day)PM10 Reduction PM2.5 Reduction
Water Exposed Area 2 61%61%
5.7. Construction Paving
Land Use Area Paved (acres)% Asphalt
Single Family Housing 0.06 0%
5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors
Decliff Drive Res. Detailed Report, 6/17/2024
42 / 52
kWh per Year and Emission Factor (lb/MWh)
Year kWh per Year CO2 CH4 N2O
2025 0.00 349 0.03 < 0.005
2026 0.00 346 0.03 < 0.005
2027 0.00 346 0.03 < 0.005
2028 0.00 346 0.03 < 0.005
5.9. Operational Mobile Sources
5.9.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Year VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Year
Single Family
Housing
60.0 60.0 60.0 21,900 1,159 1,159 1,159 423,008
5.10. Operational Area Sources
5.10.1. Hearths
5.10.1.1. Unmitigated
Hearth Type Unmitigated (number)
Single Family Housing —
Wood Fireplaces 0
Gas Fireplaces 4
Propane Fireplaces 0
Electric Fireplaces 0
No Fireplaces 1
Conventional Wood Stoves 0
Catalytic Wood Stoves 0
Decliff Drive Res. Detailed Report, 6/17/2024
43 / 52
Non-Catalytic Wood Stoves 0
Pellet Wood Stoves 0
5.10.2. Architectural Coatings
Residential Interior Area Coated (sq ft)Residential Exterior Area Coated (sq ft)Non-Residential Interior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
19743.75 6,581 0.00 0.00 —
5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
Season Unit Value
Snow Days day/yr 0.00
Summer Days day/yr 250
5.11. Operational Energy Consumption
5.11.1. Unmitigated
Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr)
Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr)CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr)
Single Family Housing 38,048 349 0.0330 0.0040 156,449
5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption
5.12.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year)Outdoor Water (gal/year)
Single Family Housing 208,406 1,149,484
Decliff Drive Res. Detailed Report, 6/17/2024
44 / 52
5.13. Operational Waste Generation
5.13.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year)Cogeneration (kWh/year)
Single Family Housing 4.96 —
5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment
5.14.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg)Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced
Single Family Housing Average room A/C &
Other residential A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 2.50 2.50 10.0
Single Family Housing Householdrefrigerators
and/or freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.12 0.60 0.00 1.00
5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment
5.15.1. Unmitigated
Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor
5.16. Stationary Sources
5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number per Day Hours per Day Hours per Year Horsepower Load Factor
5.16.2. Process Boilers
Decliff Drive Res. Detailed Report, 6/17/2024
45 / 52
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number Boiler Rating (MMBtu/hr) Daily Heat Input (MMBtu/day) Annual Heat Input (MMBtu/yr)
5.17. User Defined
Equipment Type Fuel Type
5.18. Vegetation
5.18.1. Land Use Change
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres
5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres
5.18.2. Sequestration
5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year)Natural Gas Saved (btu/year)
6. Climate Risk Detailed Report
6.1. Climate Risk Summary
Cal-Adapt midcentury 2040–2059 average projections for four hazards are reported below for your project location. These are under Representation Concentration Pathway (RCP) 8.5 which assumes GHG
emissions will continue to rise strongly through 2050 and then plateau around 2100.
Decliff Drive Res. Detailed Report, 6/17/2024
46 / 52
Climate Hazard Result for Project Location Unit
Temperature and Extreme Heat 22.3 annual days of extreme heat
Extreme Precipitation 8.40 annual days with precipitation above 20 mm
Sea Level Rise —meters of inundation depth
Wildfire 25.4 annual hectares burned
Temperature and Extreme Heat data are for grid cell in which your project are located. The projection is based on the 98th historical percentile of daily maximum/minimum temperatures from observed
historical data (32 climate model ensemble from Cal-Adapt, 2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.
Extreme Precipitation data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The threshold of 20 mm is equivalent to about ¾ an inch of rain, which would be light to moderate rainfall if received over a full
day or heavy rain if received over a period of 2 to 4 hours. Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.
Sea Level Rise data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from Radke et al. (2017), as reported in Cal-Adapt (Radke et al., 2017, CEC-500-2017-008), and consider
inundation location and depth for the San Francisco Bay, the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta and California coast resulting different increments of sea level rise coupled with extreme storm events.
Users may select from four scenarios to view the range in potential inundation depth for the grid cell. The four scenarios are: No rise, 0.5 meter, 1.0 meter, 1.41 meters
Wildfire data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from UC Davis, as reported in Cal-Adapt (2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5), and consider historical data of climate,
vegetation, population density, and large (> 400 ha) fire history. Users may select from four model simulations to view the range in potential wildfire probabilities for the grid cell. The four simulations make
different assumptions about expected rainfall and temperature are: Warmer/drier (HadGEM2-ES), Cooler/wetter (CNRM-CM5), Average conditions (CanESM2), Range of different rainfall and temperature
possibilities (MIROC5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.
6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score
Temperature and Extreme Heat 2 0 0 N/A
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise N/A N/A N/A N/A
Wildfire 1 0 0 N/A
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation 0 0 0 N/A
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest
exposure.
The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the
greatest ability to adapt.
The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores do not include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.
Decliff Drive Res. Detailed Report, 6/17/2024
47 / 52
6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score
Temperature and Extreme Heat 2 1 1 3
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise N/A N/A N/A N/A
Wildfire 1 1 1 2
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation 1 1 1 2
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest
exposure.
The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the
greatest ability to adapt.
The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.
6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures
7. Health and Equity Details
7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores
The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state.
Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Exposure Indicators —
AQ-Ozone 97.6
AQ-PM 57.0
AQ-DPM 8.21
Drinking Water 98.2
Lead Risk Housing 54.6
Decliff Drive Res. Detailed Report, 6/17/2024
48 / 52
Pesticides 20.2
Toxic Releases 41.7
Traffic 48.8
Effect Indicators —
CleanUp Sites 53.4
Groundwater 0.00
Haz Waste Facilities/Generators 1.80
Impaired Water Bodies 12.5
Solid Waste 72.4
Sensitive Population —
Asthma 22.4
Cardio-vascular 32.8
Low Birth Weights 40.9
Socioeconomic Factor Indicators —
Education 37.3
Housing 27.2
Linguistic 13.3
Poverty 48.4
Unemployment 75.4
7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores
The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.
Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Economic —
Above Poverty 73.51469267
Employed 42.62799949
Median HI 38.72706275
Decliff Drive Res. Detailed Report, 6/17/2024
49 / 52
Education —
Bachelor's or higher 49.69844732
High school enrollment 100
Preschool enrollment 95.7141024
Transportation —
Auto Access 28.53843193
Active commuting 26.4724753
Social —
2-parent households 66.48274092
Voting 65.66149108
Neighborhood —
Alcohol availability 97.0101373
Park access 48.23559605
Retail density 2.219940973
Supermarket access 8.392146798
Tree canopy 78.58334403
Housing —
Homeownership 86.88566662
Housing habitability 64.18580778
Low-inc homeowner severe housing cost burden 41.55010907
Low-inc renter severe housing cost burden 37.44385987
Uncrowded housing 56.87155139
Health Outcomes —
Insured adults 44.20633902
Arthritis 68.4
Asthma ER Admissions 85.5
High Blood Pressure 64.8
Decliff Drive Res. Detailed Report, 6/17/2024
50 / 52
Cancer (excluding skin)63.4
Asthma 51.9
Coronary Heart Disease 81.5
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 71.2
Diagnosed Diabetes 68.9
Life Expectancy at Birth 58.3
Cognitively Disabled 18.3
Physically Disabled 10.0
Heart Attack ER Admissions 84.0
Mental Health Not Good 58.7
Chronic Kidney Disease 85.5
Obesity 54.0
Pedestrian Injuries 97.7
Physical Health Not Good 67.2
Stroke 80.6
Health Risk Behaviors —
Binge Drinking 20.5
Current Smoker 51.2
No Leisure Time for Physical Activity 70.0
Climate Change Exposures —
Wildfire Risk 63.7
SLR Inundation Area 0.0
Children 77.6
Elderly 27.3
English Speaking 52.1
Foreign-born 25.9
Outdoor Workers 13.0
Decliff Drive Res. Detailed Report, 6/17/2024
51 / 52
Climate Change Adaptive Capacity —
Impervious Surface Cover 97.3
Traffic Density 73.7
Traffic Access 23.0
Other Indices —
Hardship 37.6
Other Decision Support —
2016 Voting 82.0
7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
Metric Result for Project Census Tract
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Score for Project Location (a)39.0
Healthy Places Index Score for Project Location (b)59.0
Project Located in a Designated Disadvantaged Community (Senate Bill 535)No
Project Located in a Low-Income Community (Assembly Bill 1550)No
Project Located in a Community Air Protection Program Community (Assembly Bill 617)No
a: The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state.
b: The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.
7.4. Health & Equity Measures
No Health & Equity Measures selected.
7.5. Evaluation Scorecard
Health & Equity Evaluation Scorecard not completed.
7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures
No Health & Equity Custom Measures created.
8. User Changes to Default Data
Decliff Drive Res. Detailed Report, 6/17/2024
52 / 52
Screen Justification
Land Use Per Site Plan
Operations: Vehicle Data Per TIA
Appendix C:
Biological Resources Assessment
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT FOR THE DECLIFF DR. LOT
SUBDIVISION IN RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA
Prepared for:
Lilburn Corporation
1905 Business Center Drive
San Bernardino, CA 92408
909-890-1818
Prepared by:
Jennings Environmental, LLC
35414 Acacia Ave.
Yucaipa, CA 92399
909-534-4547
May 2024
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT FOR THE DECLIFF DR. LOT SUBDIVISION IN RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA
Jennings Environmental P a g e | 2
Contents
SECTION 1.0 - INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 3
1.1 PROJECT LOCATION .................................................................................................................. 3
1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................................ 3
2.0 – METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................................. 3
2.1 LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................................................................ 3
2.2 SOILS .................................................................................................................................................. 4
2.3 BIOLOGICAL RECONNAISSANCE-LEVEL SURVEY ........................................................................ 4
2.4 VEGETATION ...................................................................................................................................... 4
2.5 WILDLIFE ............................................................................................................................................ 4
2.6 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA TREE ORDINANCE 17.80 ......................................................... 5
SECTION 3.0 – RESULTS ............................................................................................................................. 5
3.1 LITERATURE REVIEW RESULTS ........................................................................................................ 5
3.1.1 SOILS ........................................................................................................................................... 6
3.1.2 SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES BACKGROUND ............................................................................. 6
3.1.3 WILDLIFE CORRIDORS AND HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN ....................................................... 8
3.1.4 CRITICAL HABITAT ........................................................................................................................ 8
3.2 FIELD STUDY RESULTS ..................................................................................................................... 8
3.2.1 VEGETATION .............................................................................................................................. 8
3.2.2 WILDLIFE .................................................................................................................................... 8
3.2.3 SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES ........................................................................................................ 8
3.2.4 NESTING BIRDS ......................................................................................................................... 9
3.2.5 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA TREE ORDINANCE 17.80 .................................................. 9
Section 4.0 - CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................... 10
Section 5 – REFERENCES ......................................................................................................................... 12
Appendix A - Figures .................................................................................................................................. 14
Appendix B - Photos .................................................................................................................................. 20
Appendix C – Tables .................................................................................................................................. 25
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT FOR THE DECLIFF DR. LOT SUBDIVISION IN RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA
Jennings Environmental P a g e | 3
SECTION 1.0 - INTRODUCTION
Jennings Environmental, LLC (Jennings) was retained by Lilburn Corporation (Lilburn) to conduct a
literature review and reconnaissance-level survey for the proposed DeCliff Dr Subdivision (Project),
within the City of Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County, California. The survey identified
vegetation communities, the potential for the occurrence of special status species, or habitats that
could support special status wildlife species, and recorded all plants and animals observed or
detected within the Project boundary. This biological resources assessment is designed to address
potential effects of the proposed project to designated critical habitats and/or any species currently
listed or formally proposed for listing as endangered or threatened under the federal Endangered
Species Act (ESA) and the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) or species designated as
sensitive by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) or the California Native Plant
Society (CNPS). Information contained in this document is in accordance with accepted scientific
and technical standards that are consistent with the requirements of the United States Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS) and (CDFW).
1.1 PROJECT LOCATION
The project is generally located in Section 15, Township 1 North, Range 6 West and is depicted on
the Cucamonga Peak U.S. Geological Survey’s (USGS) 7.5-minute topographic map. The Project Site
consists of two parcels (APNs 0226-061-68 and -69). More specifically, the Project site is located on
the northeast corner of the intersection of DeCliff Dr. and Wardman Bullock Rd. The Project Site is is
located in a relatively undeveloped area of Rancho Cucamonga, and surrounded rural developments
to the east and west, with undeveloped parcels to the north and south. (Figures 1 and 2 in Appendix
A).
1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed Project includes the subdivision of a 39.58-acre site composed of two parcels
including APN 0226-061-68 (northern parcel) and APN 0226-061-69 (southern parcel). The Project
Site occurs north and south of DeCliff Drive and is located within the Etiwanda Heights
Neighborhood and Conservation Plan (EHNCP). The southern parcel would be subdivided into 5 lots
to allow for the construction of five single-family residences while the northern parcel would remain
undisturbed. The property is currently vacant and is surrounded by a single-family residence to the
west, Ling Yen Temple to the east, vacant land to the north, and a residential subdivision to the south.
Vehicle access for the Project Site would be provided by DeCliff Drive.
2.0 – METHODOLOGY
2.1 LITERATURE REVIEW
Prior to performing the field survey, existing documentation relevant to the Project site was reviewed.
The most recent records were reviewed for the following quadrangle containing and surrounding the
Project site: Cucamonga Peak and Devore, USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle. The Devore quad was
included in this search due the site’s proximity to its’ border. These databases contain records of
reported occurrences of federal- or state-listed endangered or threatened species, California
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT FOR THE DECLIFF DR. LOT SUBDIVISION IN RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA
Jennings Environmental P a g e | 4
Species of Concern (SSC), or otherwise special status species or habitats that may occur within or
in the immediate vicinity of the Project site. These sources include:
• California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) managed by CDFW (CDFW 2023)
• USFWS Critical Habitat Mapper (USFWS 2023)
• California Native Plant Society’s Electronic Inventory (CNPSEI) of Rare and Endangered
Vascular Plants of California (CNPS 2023)
• U.S. Fish and Wildlife (USFWS) threatened and endangered species occurrence GIS
overlay;
• USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey;
• USGS National Map;
• Calwater Watershed Maps
• USFWS Designated Critical Habitat Maps
• Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code, RCMC 17.80
2.2 SOILS
Before conducting the surveys, soil maps for San Bernardino County were referenced online to
determine the types of soil found within the Project site. Soils were determined in accordance with
categories set forth by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Soil Conservation Service
and by referencing the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey
(USDA 2023).
2.3 BIOLOGICAL RECONNAISSANCE-LEVEL SURVEY
Jennings biologist, Gene Jennings, conducted the general reconnaissance survey within the Project
site to identify the potential for the occurrence of special status species, vegetation communities,
or habitats that could support special status wildlife species. The surveys were conducted on foot,
throughout the Project site between 0900 and 1030 hours on April 12, 2024. Weather conditions
during the survey included temperatures ranging from 62.5 to 66.8 degrees Fahrenheit, with clear
skies, no precipitation, and 1.4 to 5.1 mile per hour winds. Photographs of the Project site were taken
to document existing conditions (Appendix B).
2.4 VEGETATION
All plant species observed within the Project site were recorded. Vegetation communities within the
Project site were identified and qualitatively described. Plant communities were determined in
accordance with the Manual of California Vegetation, Second Edition (Sawyer et al. 2009). Plant
nomenclature follows that of The Jepson Manual, Second Edition (Baldwin et al. 2012). A
comprehensive list of the plant species observed during the survey is provided in Appendix C.
2.5 WILDLIFE
All wildlife and wildlife signs observed and detected, including tracks, scat, carcasses, burrows,
excavations, and vocalizations, were recorded. Additional survey time was spent in those habitats
most likely to be utilized by wildlife (native vegetation, wildlife trails, etc.) or in habitats with the
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT FOR THE DECLIFF DR. LOT SUBDIVISION IN RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA
Jennings Environmental P a g e | 5
potential to support state- and/or federally listed or otherwise special status species. Notes were
made on the general habitat types, species observed, and the conditions of the Project site. A
comprehensive list of the wildlife species observed during the survey is provided in Appendix C.
2.6 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA TREE ORDINANCE 17.80
The city of Rancho Cucamonga has a Tree Preservation Ordinance (Rancho Cucamonga Municipal
Code, RCMC 17.80) which recognizes trees as a valuable natural resource.
All "heritage trees" are protected under the City's ordinance, including those on
private property. "Heritage trees" means any tree, shrub, or plant that meets at least
one of the following criteria:
1. All Eucalyptus windrows; or
2. All woody plants in excess of 30 feet in height and having a single trunk
circumference of 20 inches or more, as measured four and a half feet (4.5’) from
ground level; or
3. Multi-trunk tree(s) having a total circumference of 30 inches or more, as measured
24 inches from ground level; or
4. A strand of trees the nature of which makes each dependent upon the others for
survival; or
5. Any other tree as may be deemed historically or culturally significant by the
Planning Director because of size, condition, location, or aesthetic qualities.
Exemptions: Fruit or nut bearing trees, trees in public right-of-way where their
removal or relocation is necessary to obtain adequate line-of-sight for motorists as
required by City Engineer, trees which City Engineer has determined will damage
existing public improvements, and trees which require maintenance or removal to
protect existing electrical power or communication lines or other utility property.
SECTION 3.0 – RESULTS
3.1 LITERATURE REVIEW RESULTS
According to the CNDDB, CNPSEI, and other relevant literature and databases, 46 sensitive species,
8 of which are listed as threatened or endangered, and 5 sensitive habitats, have been documented
in the Cucamonga Peak quad. This list of sensitive species and habitats includes any State and/or
federally listed threatened or endangered species, CDFW designated Species of Special Concern
(SSC) and otherwise Special Animals. “Special Animals” is a general term that refers to all of the taxa
the CNDDB is interested in tracking, regardless of their legal or protection status. This list is also
referred to as the list of “species at risk” or “special status species.” The CDFW considers the taxa
on this list to be those of greatest conservation need.
An analysis of the likelihood for the occurrence of all CNDDB sensitive species documented in the
Cucamonga Peak quad is provided in Table 2, in Appendix C. This analysis takes into account
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT FOR THE DECLIFF DR. LOT SUBDIVISION IN RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA
Jennings Environmental P a g e | 6
species range as well as documentation within the vicinity of the project area and includes the
habitat requirements for each species and the potential for their occurrence on the site, based on
required habitat elements and range relative to the current site conditions. According to the
databases, no sensitive habitat, including USFWS designated critical habitat, occurs within or
adjacent to the project site.
3.1.1 SOILS
After review of USDA Soil Conservation Service and by referencing the USDA NRCS Web Soil Survey
(USDA 2023), it was determined that the Project site is located within the San Bernardino County
Southwestern Part, California area CA677. Based on the results of the database search, three (3) soil
types are documented in the area (Figure 3 in Appendix A:
Cieneba-Rock outcrop complex, 30 to 50 percent slopes (Cr). This soil is somewhat excessively
drained with a very low to moderately low capacity to transmit water. This soil consists of residuum
weathered from granite, typically ranges in elevation from 500 to 5,500 feet above mean sea level
(amsl) and is not considered prime farmland.
Soboba stony loamy sand, 2 to 9 percent slopes (SpC). This soil is excessively drained with a high to
very high capacity to transmit water. This soil consists of alluvium derived from granite, typically
ranges in elevation from 960 to 3,690 feet amsl and is not considered prime farmland.
Tujunga gravelly loamy sand, 0 to 9 percent slopes (TvC). This soil is somewhat excessively drained
with a high to very high capacity to transmit water. This soil consists of alluvium derived from granite,
typically ranges in elevation from 10 to 1,500 feet amsl and is not considered prime farmland.
3.1.2 SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES BACKGROUND
Of the 51 species found within the Cucamonga Peak and Devore quads, eight (8) have a special
designation of either: federally listed, state listed, or a species of special concern (SSC) under
California Fish and Game Code. The discussion below provides the background information on
those species that have a potential to occur within the Project site.
Coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica – Threatened (Federal)
The coastal California gnatcatcher (CAGN) is the northernmost subspecies of California
gnatcatcher. It is a small, non-migratory songbird (passerine) that occurs along the Pacific coastal
regions of southern California and northern Baja California, Mexico. Coastal California gnatcatchers
occur in or near coastal scrub vegetation communities. Much of the species’ current range within
the United States is now or is anticipated to be covered by large, regional Habitat Conservation Plans
(HCPs) permitted under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and under the State of
California’s Natural Community Conservation Planning (NCCP) Act. These regional plans have made
substantive contributions to the species’ conservation.
The range and distribution of the gnatcatcher is closely aligned with coastal scrub vegetation. This
vegetation is typified by low (less than 1 meter (3 feet)) shrub and sub-shrub species that are often
drought deciduous. Starting at the United States–Mexico border and continuing southward, the
gnatcatcher associated plant communities increasingly include succulent species. The coastal
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT FOR THE DECLIFF DR. LOT SUBDIVISION IN RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA
Jennings Environmental P a g e | 7
scrub plant communities that overlap the range of the gnatcatcher include Venturan, Diegan, and
Riversidean coastal sage scrub communities, and Martirian and Vizcainan coastal succulent scrub
communities. This species also prefers larger patches of vegetation, 2+ acres in size, as they are
territorial.
USFWS designated critical habitat for the CAGN in 2007. The 2007 critical habitat rule for CAGN
defined four Primary Constituent Elements (PCEs) that are essential to the conservation of CAGN.
These PCEs are as follows:
1) Space for individual and population growth and for normal behavior;
2) Food, water, air, light, minerals, or other nutritional or physiological requirements;
3) Cover or shelter;
4) Sites for breeding, reproduction, or rearing (or development) of offspring; and
5) Habitats that are protected from disturbance or are representative of the historic,
geographical, and ecological distributions of a species.
San Bernardino kangaroo rat (Dipodomys merriami parvus)– Endangered (Federal and State)
The federally and state listed as endangered San Bernardino kangaroo rat (SBKR) is one of three
recognized subspecies of Merriam’s kangaroo rat (D. merriami) in California. The Merriam’s
kangaroo rat is a small, burrowing rodent species that can be found within inland valleys and deserts
of southwest United States of America and northern Mexico. The Dulzura kangaroo rat (Dipodomys
simulans)and the Stephens kangaroo rat (Dipodomys stephensi) can occur in areas occupied by
SBKR, but these other species have a wider geographical and habitat range. The SBKR is restricted
to inland valley alluvial fan sage scrub communities occurring along rivers, streams, and drainages
within the San Bernardino, Menifee, and San Jacinto valleys. Most of these drainages have been
historically altered due to a variety of reasons including, mining, off-road vehicle use, road and
housing development, and flood control efforts. This increased use and alteration of river floodplain
resources has resulted in increased fragmentation and a reduction in both the amount and quality
of habitat available for the SBKR.
The areas which the SBKR occupy are subjected to periodic flooding and hence, the dominant
vegetation type (alluvial fan sage scrub) is described in general terms as having three successional
phases: pioneer, intermediate, and mature as determined by elevation and distance from the main
channel and time since previous flooding. Vegetation cover generally increases with distance from
the active stream channel. The pioneer phase is subject to frequent flood disturbance. The
intermediate phase, defined as the area between the active channel and mature terraces, is subject
to periodic flooding at longer intervals. The vegetation on intermediate terraces is relatively open. As
alluvial fan scrub vegetation ages in the absence of flooding, the suitability of this habitat for the
SBKR declines.
USFWS designated critical habitat for the SBKR in 2002. The 2002 critical habitat rule for SBKR
defined four Primary Constituent Elements (PCEs) that are essential to the conservation of SBKR.
These PCEs are as follows:
1) Soil series consisting predominantly of sand, loamy sand, sandy loam, or loam;
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT FOR THE DECLIFF DR. LOT SUBDIVISION IN RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA
Jennings Environmental P a g e | 8
2) Alluvial sage scrub and associated vegetation, such as coastal sage scrub and chamise
chaparral, with a moderately open canopy;
3) River, creek, stream, and wash channels; alluvial fans; floodplains; floodplain benches
and terraces; and historic braided channels that are subject to dynamic
geomorphological and hydrological processes typical of fluvial systems within the
historical range of the San Bernardino kangaroo rat; and
4) Upland areas proximal to floodplains with suitable habitat.
3.1.3 WILDLIFE CORRIDORS AND HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN
According to the California Essential Habitat Connectivity Project, the Project Site, is mapped within
a moderately permeable to moderately high permeable area for wildlife movement. Additionally, the
Project site is not within or adjacent to a habitat conservation plan. Therefore, the proposed Project
will not have an impact on any current wildlife corridors or habitat conservation plans.
3.1.4 CRITICAL HABITAT
According to the USFWS Critical Habitat Mapper, 24.8 acres of the 39.58 acre Project site are within
critical habitat for the Federal and State listed Endangered species, San Bernardino kangaroo rat
(Dipodomys merriami parvus).
3.2 FIELD STUDY RESULTS
3.2.1 VEGETATION
The vegetation on-site consists of mixture of California sagebrush – black sage scrub (Artemisia
californica – Salvia mellifera Shrubland Alliance) and Wild oats and annual brome grasslands (Avena
spp. – Bromus spp. Herbaceous Semi-Natural Alliance). A complete list of all plants observed is
provided in Table 1 of Appendix C and Figure 4 in Appendix A details the vegetation on-site.
3.2.2 WILDLIFE
Several birds were seen or heard during the survey. Species observed or otherwise detected on or in
the vicinity of the project site during the surveys included; common raven (Corvus corax), house finch
(Haemorhous mexicanus), and house sparrow (Passer domesticus). A complete list of all species
observed is provided in Table 1 of Appendix C.
The project site is located within a developed area of Rancho Cucamonga. Portions of project site,
mostly within the developed parcel, have been subject to ongoing disturbance in the form of
vegetation removal. Foot traffic was also evident within the bare ground portions of the undeveloped
area of the Project site. There is no habitat within the proposed project footprint, as well as the
immediate surrounding area, that is suitable for the sensitive species identified in the CNDDB search
(Table 2 in Appendix C).
3.2.3 SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES
Coastal California gnatcatcher – Threatened (Federal)
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT FOR THE DECLIFF DR. LOT SUBDIVISION IN RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA
Jennings Environmental P a g e | 9
Per the literature review, there are no documented occurrences within the Project site. The nearest
occurrence is 0.21 miles west of the Project site within the Etiwanda Preserve. The site does contain
the type of habitat that this species is found in. Additionally, this species prefers 2 plus acres of
habitat as they are territorial in nature. The Project site contains well over two acres of suitable
habitat. Figure 5 in Appendix A shows the CAGN occurrences within a 3 mile radius of the Project
site. As such, it is recommended that protocol surveys be conducted for this species to determine
presence or absence.
San Bernardino kangaroo rat – Endangered (Federal and State)
Per the literature review, there are no documented occurrences within the Project site. However, the
site is within designated critical habitat for this species and the nearest occurrence is 0.60 miles
southwest of the Project site within the East Etiwanda Creek. The site does contain the type of habitat
that this species is found in. Additionally, this species sage scrub habitats near water sources. The
East Etiwanda Creek is located 0.62 miles west of the Project site. The Project site contains suitable
soils, suitable vegetation, and proximity to a water source. Figure 5 in Appendix A shows the SBKR
occurrences within a 3 mile radius of the Project site. As such, it is recommended that protocol
surveys be conducted for this species to determine presence or absence.
3.2.4 NESTING BIRDS
The Project site and immediate surrounding area does contain habitat suitable for nesting birds. As
such the Project is subject to the following nesting bird regulations. Recommendations for
avoidance and minimization are in section 4.
Migratory Bird Treaty Act
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918. This Act implements four international conservation treaties
that the U.S. entered into with Canada in 1916, Mexico in 1936, Japan in 1972, and Russia in 1976. It
is intended to ensure the sustainability of populations of all protected migratory bird species. The
Act has been amended with the signing of each treaty, as well as when any of the treaties were
amended, such as with Mexico in 1976 and Canada in 1995. The Act prohibits the take (including
killing, capturing, selling, trading, and transport) of protected migratory bird species without
prior authorization by the Department of Interior U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
California Fish and Game Code
The Project site is also subject to Sections 3503 and 3503.5 of the Fish and Game Code. Section
3503 states, “It is unlawful to take, possess, or needlessly destroy the nest or eggs of any bird, except
as otherwise provided by this code or any regulation made pursuant thereto”. And Section 3503.5
states, “It is unlawful to take, possess, or destroy any birds in the orders Falconiformes or
Strigiformes (birds-of-prey) or to take, possess, or destroy the nest or eggs of any such bird except
as otherwise provided by this code or any regulation adopted pursuant thereto”.
3.2.5 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA TREE ORDINANCE 17.80
As the noted above the Project site is within the city of Rancho Cucamonga and is therefore subject
to the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code (RCMC). There are no trees present on-site are covered
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT FOR THE DECLIFF DR. LOT SUBDIVISION IN RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA
Jennings Environmental P a g e | 10
under the tree ordinance as describe above. Therefore, nothing further is required under this
municipal code.
Section 4.0 - CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the literature review and personal observations made in the immediate vicinity, no State
and/or federally listed threatened or endangered species are documented/or expected to occur
within the Project site. Additionally, no plant species with the California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) of 1
or 2 were observed on-site or documented to occur on-site in the relevant databases. No other
sensitive species were observed within the project area or buffer area.
Coastal California gnatcatcher
The site does contain suitable habitat for this species. Therefore it is recommended that protocol
surveys be completed. Protocol surveys need to be conducted by a permitted biologist under the
USFWS, during the appropriate time of year to observe the target species.
San Bernardino kangaroo rat
The site does contain suitable habitat for this species. Therefore it is recommended that protocol
surveys be completed. Protocol surveys need to be conducted by a permitted biologist under CDFW,
during the appropriate time of year to observe the target species.
Nesting Birds
Since there is some habitat within the project site and adjacent area that is suitable for nesting birds
in general, the following mitigation measure should be implemented.
Nesting bird nesting season generally extends from February 1 through September
15 in southern California and specifically, March 15 through August 31 for migratory
passerine birds. To avoid impacts to nesting birds (common and special status)
during the nesting season, a qualified Avian Biologist will conduct pre‐construction
Nesting Bird Surveys (NBS) prior to project‐related disturbance to nestable
vegetation to identify any active nests. If no active nests are found, no further action
will be required. If an active nest is found, the biologist will set appropriate no‐work
buffers around the nest which will be based upon the nesting species, its sensitivity
to disturbance, nesting stage and expected types, intensity and duration of
disturbance. The nests and buffer zones shall be field checked weekly by a qualified
biological monitor. The approved no‐work buffer zone shall be clearly marked in the
field, within which no disturbance activity shall commence until the qualified
biologist has determined the young birds have successfully fledged and the nest is
inactive.
Certification
I hereby certify that the statements furnished herein, and in the attached exhibits present data and
information required for this analysis to the best of my ability, and the facts, statements, and
information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. This report was
prepared in accordance with professional requirements and standards. Fieldwork conducted for
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT FOR THE DECLIFF DR. LOT SUBDIVISION IN RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA
Jennings Environmental P a g e | 11
this assessment was performed by me. I certify that I have not signed a non-disclosure or consultant
confidentiality agreement with the project proponent and that I have no financial interest in the
project.
Please do not hesitate to contact me at 909-534-4547 should you have any questions or require
further information.
Sincerely,
Gene Jennings
Principal/Regulatory Specialist
Appendices:
Appendix A – Figures
Appendix B – Site Photos
Appendix C – Tables
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT FOR THE DECLIFF DR. LOT SUBDIVISION IN RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA
Jennings Environmental P a g e | 12
Section 5 – REFERENCES
Baldwin, B.G., D.H. Goldman, D.J. Keil, R. Patterson, and T.J. Rosatti, and D.H. Wilken (editors) 2012
The Jepson Manual: Vascular Plants of California, Second Edition. University of California
Press, Berkeley, CA.
Barbour, M.G., J.H. Burk, W.D. Pitts, F.S. Gilliam, and M.W. Schwartz. 1999 Terrestrial Plant Ecology,
Third Edition. Addison Wesley Longman, Inc. Menlo Park, CA.
Bolster, B.C., editor. 1998. Terrestrial Mammal Species of Special Concern in California. Draft Final
Report prepared by P.V. Brylski, P.W. Collins, E.D. Pierson, W.E. Rainey and T.E. Kucera.
Report submitted to California Department of Fish and Game Wildlife Management Division,
Nongame Bird and Mammal Conservation Program for Contract No. FG3146WM.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW)
A. 2021 California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). RareFind Version 3.1.0.
Database Query. Wildlife and Habitat Data Analysis Branch. [Accessed April 2022]
B. California Wildlife Habitats Relationships Life History Accounts and Range Maps.
(Accessed online at https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CWHR/Life-History-and-Range).
Accessed April 2022.
California Department of Fish and Game. 1995. Staff report on burrowing owl mitigation. Memo
from C.F. Raysbrook, Interim Director to Biologist, Environmental Services Division,
Department of Fish and Game. Sacramento, CA.
California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 2012. Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation.
State of California Natural Resources Agency. March 7, 2012
California Department of Transportation. Water Quality Planning Tool.
http://svctenvims.dot.ca.gov/wqpt/wqpt.aspx (Accessed April 2022)
California Native Plant Society (CNPS)2021 Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (online edition,
v8-03 0.39). Rare Plant Scientific Advisory Committee, California Native Plant Society,
Sacramento, California. Website http://www.rareplants.cnps.org; [Accessed April 2022].
McKernan, R.L. 1997. The status and known distribution of the San Bernardino Kangaroo rat
(Dipodomys merriami parvus): field surveys conducted between 1987 and 1996. Unpublished
report prepared for the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office, Carlsbad, California.
Sawyer, J.O., Jr., T. Keeler-Wolf, J. Evens2009 A Manual of California Vegetation, Second Edition.
California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, CA.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)2020 Soil Survey Staff, Natural Resources Conservation
Service, United States Department of Agriculture. Official Soil Series Descriptions [Online
Edition]. Website https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx
[Accessed April 2022].
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT FOR THE DECLIFF DR. LOT SUBDIVISION IN RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA
Jennings Environmental P a g e | 13
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). National Wetlands Inventory. Website:
http://wetlands.fws.gov. (Accessed: April 2022).
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1998. Determination of Endangered Status for the San
Bernardino Kangaroo Rat (Dipodomys merriami parvus). 63 FR 3837.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2002. Final Determination of Critical Habitat for the San
Bernardino Kangaroo Rat (Dipodomys merriami parvus); Final Rule. 67 FR 198
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT FOR THE DECLIFF DR. LOT SUBDIVISION IN RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA
Jennings Environmental P a g e | 14
Appendix A - Figures
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT FOR THE DECLIFF DR. LOT SUBDIVISION IN RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA
Jennings Environmental P a g e | 15
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT FOR THE DECLIFF DR. LOT SUBDIVISION IN RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA
Jennings Environmental P a g e | 16
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT FOR THE DECLIFF DR. LOT SUBDIVISION IN RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA
Jennings Environmental P a g e | 17
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT FOR THE DECLIFF DR. LOT SUBDIVISION IN RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA
Jennings Environmental P a g e | 18
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT FOR THE DECLIFF DR. LOT SUBDIVISION IN RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA
Jennings Environmental P a g e | 19
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT FOR THE DECLIFF DR. LOT SUBDIVISION IN RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA
Jennings Environmental P a g e | 20
Appendix B - Photos
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT FOR THE DECLIFF DR. LOT SUBDIVISION IN RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA
Jennings Environmental P a g e | 21
Photo 1 –
Southwest
corner of parcel,
facing southeast.
Photo 2 –
Southwest
corner of parcel,
facing east.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT FOR THE DECLIFF DR. LOT SUBDIVISION IN RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA
Jennings Environmental P a g e | 22
Photo 3 –
Southwest
corner of parcel,
facing northeast.
Photo 5 – Center
of parcel, facing
northeast.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT FOR THE DECLIFF DR. LOT SUBDIVISION IN RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA
Jennings Environmental P a g e | 23
Photo 6 – Center
of parcel, facing
northwest.
Photo 7 – Center
of parcel, facing
southwest.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT FOR THE DECLIFF DR. LOT SUBDIVISION IN RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA
Jennings Environmental P a g e | 24
Photo 8 – Center
of parcel, facing
south.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT FOR THE DECLIFF DR. LOT SUBDIVISION IN RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA
Jennings Environmental P a g e | 25
Appendix C – Tables
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT FOR THE DECLIFF DR. LOT SUBDIVISION IN RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA
Jennings Environmental P a g e | 26
Table 1. Species Observed On-Site
Common Name Scientific Name
Plants
Eriogonum fasciculatum
Acmispon glaber
Artemisia californica
Salvia apiana
Bromus madritensis
Helianthus annuus
Erodium cicutarium
Sonchus oleraceus
Amsinckia intermedia
Croton californicus
Phacelia tanacetifolia
Dipterostemon capitatus
Erigeron foliosus
Salvia mellifera
Pseudognaphalium californicum
Anagallis arvensis
Castilleja exserta
Bromus diandrus
Reptiles
Sceloporus occidentalis
Birds
Corvus corax
Haemorhous mexicanus
Passer domesticus
Aimophila ruficeps
Zonotrichia leucophrys
Callipepla californica
Melozone crissalis
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT FOR THE DECLIFF DR. LOT SUBDIVISION IN RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA
Jennings Environmental P a g e | 27
Table 2 – CNDDB Potential to Occur for the Cucamonga Peak and Devore USGS 7.5 minute Quadrangle
Scientific Name Name Status Other Status Habitat Potential to Occur
Ambrosia
monogyra
singlewhorl
burrobrush None, None G5, S2, 2B.2 Chaparral, Sonoran desert
scrub. Sandy soils. 5-475 m.
species does not occur on
site. As such, this species is
considered absent from the
Anniella
stebbinsi
Southern
California
legless lizard
None, None G3, S3, CDFW-
SSC
Transverse Range, extending
to northwestern Baja
California. Occurs in sandy or
loose loamy soils under
sparse vegetation. Disjunct
populations in the Tehachapi
and Piute Mountains in Kern
County. Variety of habitats;
generally in moist, loose soil.
They prefer soils with a high
moisture content.
Suitable habitat for this
species does not occur on
site. As such, this species is
considered absent from the
Project site.
Arctostaphylos
glandulosa ssp.
gabrielensis
San Gabriel
manzanita None, None G5T3, S3, 1B.2
Chaparral. Rocky outcrops;
can be dominant shrub where
it occurs. 960-2015 m.
species does not occur on
site. As such, this species is
considered absent from the
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT FOR THE DECLIFF DR. LOT SUBDIVISION IN RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA
Jennings Environmental P a g e | 28
Scientific Name Name Status Other Status Habitat Potential to Occur
Arizona elegans
occidentalis
California
glossy snake None, None G5T2, S2,
CDFW-SSC
eastern portion of San
Francisco Bay, southern San
Joaquin Valley, and the Coast,
Transverse, and Peninsular
ranges, south to Baja
California. Generalist
reported from a range of
scrub and grassland habitats,
often with loose or sandy
Suitable habitat for this
species does not occur on
site. As such, this species is
considered absent from the
Project site.
Artemisiospiza
belli belli Bell's sparrow None, None G5T2T3, S3,
CDFW-WL
by fairly dense stands of
chamise. Found in coastal
sage scrub in south of range.
Nest located on the ground
beneath a shrub or in a shrub
6-18 inches above ground.
Suitable habitat for this
species does occur on site.
However, this species is
considered absent from the
Project site as it was not
observed during the survey.
Athene
cunicularia burrowing owl None, None G4, S2, CDFW-
SSC
grasslands, deserts, and
scrublands characterized by
low-growing vegetation.
Subterranean nester,
dependent upon burrowing
mammals, most notably, the
Suitable habitat for this
species does not occur on
site. As such, this species is
considered absent from the
Project site.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT FOR THE DECLIFF DR. LOT SUBDIVISION IN RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA
Jennings Environmental P a g e | 29
Scientific Name Name Status Other Status Habitat Potential to Occur
Batrachoseps
gabrieli
San Gabriel
slender
salamander
None, None G2G3, S2S3
Gabriel Mtns. Found under
rocks, wood, and fern fronds,
and on soil at the base of
talus slopes. Most active on
the surface in winter and early
Suitable habitat for this
species does not occur on
site. As such, this species is
considered absent from the
Project site.
Bombus
crotchii
Crotch's
bumble bee
None,
Candidate
Endangered
G2, S2
Sierra-Cascade crest and
south into Mexico. Food plant
genera include Antirrhinum,
Phacelia, Clarkia,
Dendromecon, Eschscholzia,
Suitable habitat for this
species does not occur on
site. As such, this species is
considered absent from the
Project site.
Bombus
pensylvanicus
American
bumble bee None, None G3G4, S2
wide variety of flowers
including vetches (Vicia),
clovers (Trifolium), thistles
(Cirsium), sunflowers
(Helianthus), etc. Nests
above ground under long
grass or underground.
Queens overwinter in rotten
wood or underground.
Suitable habitat for this
species does not occur on
site. As such, this species is
considered absent from the
Project site.
California
Walnut
California
Walnut None, None G2, S2.1 Cismontane woodland This habitat type is absent
from the Prejct site.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT FOR THE DECLIFF DR. LOT SUBDIVISION IN RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA
Jennings Environmental P a g e | 30
Scientific Name Name Status Other Status Habitat Potential to Occur
Calochortus
plummerae
Plummer's
mariposa-lily None, None G4, S4, 4.2
valley and foothill grassland,
cismontane woodland, lower
montane coniferous forest.
Occurs on rocky and sandy
sites, usually of granitic or
alluvial material. Can be very
common after fire. 60-2500
Suitable habitat for this
species does occur on site.
However, this species is
considered absent from the
Project site as it was not
observed during the survey.
Calochortus
weedii var.
intermedius
intermediate
mariposa-lily None, None G3G4T3, S3,
1B.2
Coastal scrub, chaparral,
valley and foothill grassland.
Dry, rocky calcareous slopes
and rock outcrops. 60-1575
m.
species does occur on site.
However, this species is
considered absent from the
Project site as it was not
Chaetodipus
fallax fallax
northwestern
San Diego
pocket mouse
None, None G5T3T4, S3S4
grasslands, sagebrush, etc. in
western San Diego, Riverside,
San Bernardino, and Los
Angeles Counties, inclusive of
Orange County. Sandy,
herbaceous areas, usually in
association with rocks or
coarse gravel.
Suitable habitat for this
species does occur on site.
However, this species is
considered absent from the
Project site as it was not
observed during the survey.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT FOR THE DECLIFF DR. LOT SUBDIVISION IN RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA
Jennings Environmental P a g e | 31
Scientific Name Name Status Other Status Habitat Potential to Occur
Chaetodipus
fallax pallidus
pallid San
Diego pocket
mouse
None, None G5T3T4, S3S4,
Diego, Riverside, San
Bernardino, and Los Angeles
counties in desert wash,
desert scrub, desert
succulent scrub, pinyon-
juniper, etc. Sandy,
herbaceous areas, usually in
association with rocks or
coarse gravel.
Suitable habitat for this
species does occur on site.
However, this species is
considered absent from the
Project site as it was not
observed during the survey.
Chorizanthe
parryi var.
parryi
Parry's
spineflower None, None G3T2, S2, 1B.1
cismontane woodland, valley
and foothill grassland. Dry
slopes and flats; sometimes
at interface of 2 vegetation
types, such as chaparral and
oak woodland. Dry, sandy
soils. 90-1220 m.
Suitable habitat for this
species does occur on site.
However, this species is
considered absent from the
Project site as it was not
observed during the survey.
Chorizanthe
xanti var.
leucotheca
white-bracted
spineflower None, None G4T3, S3, 1B.2
pinyon and juniper woodland,
coastal scrub (alluvial fans).
Sandy or gravelly places. 365-
species does not occur on
site. As such, this species is
considered absent from the
Claytonia
peirsonii ssp.
peirsonii
Peirson's
spring beauty None, None G2G3T2, S2,
1B.2
forest, subalpine coniferous
forest. Granitic scree slopes,
often with a sandy or fine soil
component and granitic
Suitable habitat for this
species does not occur on
site. As such, this species is
considered absent from the
Project site.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT FOR THE DECLIFF DR. LOT SUBDIVISION IN RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA
Jennings Environmental P a g e | 32
Scientific Name Name Status Other Status Habitat Potential to Occur
Valley
Freshwater
Coastal and
Valley
Freshwater None, None G3, S2.1 Marsh & swamp | Wetland This habitat type is absent
from the Prejct site.
Dipodomys
merriami
parvus
San Bernardino
kangaroo rat
Endangered,
Endangered
G5T1, S1,
CDFW-SSC
sandy loam substrates
characteristic of alluvial fans
and flood plains. Needs early
Suitable habitat for this
species does occur on site.
Protocol surveys are
recommended.
Dodecahema
leptoceras
slender-horned
spineflower
Endangered,
Endangered G1, S1, 1B.1
woodland, coastal scrub
(alluvial fan sage scrub).
Flood deposited terraces and
washes; associates include
Encelia, Dalea,
Lepidospartum, etc. Sandy
soils. 200-765 m.
Suitable habitat for this
species does occur on site.
However, this species is
considered absent from the
Project site as it was not
observed during the survey.
Eriastrum
densifolium
ssp. sanctorum
Santa Ana
River
woollystar
Endangered,
Endangered G4T1, S1, 1B.1
Coastal scrub, chaparral. In
sandy soils on river
floodplains or terraced fluvial
deposits. 180-705 m.
species does not occur on
site. As such, this species is
considered absent from the
Eriogonum
microthecum
var. johnstonii
Johnston's
buckwheat None, None G5T2, S2, 1B.3
upper montane coniferous
forest. Slopes and ridges on
granite or limestone. 1795-
species does not occur on
site. As such, this species is
considered absent from the
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT FOR THE DECLIFF DR. LOT SUBDIVISION IN RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA
Jennings Environmental P a g e | 33
Scientific Name Name Status Other Status Habitat Potential to Occur
Eumops perotis
californicus
western mastiff
bat None, None G4G5T4, S3S4,
CDFW-SSC
habitats, including conifer
and deciduous woodlands,
coastal scrub, grasslands,
chaparral, etc. Roosts in
crevices in cliff faces, high
Suitable habitat for this
species does not occur on
site. As such, this species is
considered absent from the
Project site.
Horkelia
cuneata var.
puberula
mesa horkelia None, None G4T1, S1, 1B.1
Chaparral, cismontane
woodland, coastal scrub.
Sandy or gravelly sites. 15-
1645 m.
species does not occur on
site. As such, this species is
considered absent from the
Lasiurus
xanthinus
western yellow
bat None, None G4G5, S3,
CDFW-SSC
riparian, desert riparian,
desert wash, and palm oasis
habitats. Roosts in trees,
particularly palms. Forages
Suitable habitat for this
species does not occur on
site. As such, this species is
considered absent from the
Project site.
Lepus
californicus
bennettii
San Diego
black-tailed
jackrabbit
None, None G5T3T4, S3S4
of shrub habitats and open
shrub / herbaceous and tree /
herbaceous edges. Coastal
sage scrub habitats in
Suitable habitat for this
species does not occur on
site. As such, this species is
considered absent from the
Project site.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT FOR THE DECLIFF DR. LOT SUBDIVISION IN RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA
Jennings Environmental P a g e | 34
Scientific Name Name Status Other Status Habitat Potential to Occur
Lilium parryi lemon lily None, None G3, S3, 1B.2
forest, meadows and seeps,
riparian forest, upper
montane coniferous forest.
Wet, mountainous terrain;
generally in forested areas; on
shady edges of streams, in
open boggy meadows and
Suitable habitat for this
species does not occur on
site. As such, this species is
considered absent from the
Project site.
Linanthus
concinnus
San Gabriel
linanthus None, None G2, S2, 1B.2
forest, upper montane
coniferous forest, chaparral.
Dry rocky slopes, often in
Jeffrey pine/canyon oak
Suitable habitat for this
species does not occur on
site. As such, this species is
considered absent from the
Project site.
Lycium parishii Parish's desert-
thorn None, None G4, S1, 2B.3 Coastal scrub, Sonoran
desert scrub. -3-570 m.
species does not occur on
site. As such, this species is
considered absent from the
Malacothamnus
parishii
Parish's bush-
mallow None, None GXQ, SX, 1A Chaparral, coastal sage
scrub. In a wash. 305-455 m.
species does not occur on
site. As such, this species is
considered absent from the
Monardella
australis ssp.
jokerstii
Jokerst's
monardella None, None G4T1?, S1?,
1B.1
forest, chapparal. Steep
scree or talus slopes between
breccia. Secondary alluvial
benches along drainages and
washes. 210-1740 m.
Suitable habitat for this
species does not occur on
site. As such, this species is
considered absent from the
Project site.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT FOR THE DECLIFF DR. LOT SUBDIVISION IN RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA
Jennings Environmental P a g e | 35
Scientific Name Name Status Other Status Habitat Potential to Occur
Neolarra alba white cuckoo
bee None, None GH, SH
Known only from localities in
Southern California.
Cleptoparasitic in the nests of
perdita bees.
species does not occur on
site. As such, this species is
considered absent from the
Neotoma lepida
intermedia
San Diego
desert woodrat None, None G5T3T4, S3S4,
CDFW-SSC
California from San Diego
County to San Luis Obispo
County. Moderate to dense
canopies preferred. They are
particularly abundant in rock
outcrops, rocky cliffs, and
Suitable habitat for this
species does occur on site.
However, this species is
considered absent from the
Project site as it was not
observed during the survey.
Nyctinomops
femorosaccus
pocketed free-
tailed bat None, None G5, S3, CDFW-
SSC
Southern California; pine-
juniper woodlands, desert
scrub, palm oasis, desert
wash, desert riparian, etc.
Suitable habitat for this
species does not occur on
site. As such, this species is
considered absent from the
Project site.
Opuntia
basilaris var.
brachyclada
short-joint
beavertail None, None G5T3, S3, 1B.2
woodland, Mojavean desert
scrub, pinyon and juniper
woodland. Sandy soil or
coarse, granitic loam. 425-
Suitable habitat for this
species does not occur on
site. As such, this species is
considered absent from the
Project site.
Oreonana
vestita
woolly
mountain-
parsley
None, None G3, S3, 1B.3
upper montane coniferous
forest, lower montane
coniferous forest. High ridges;
on scree, talus, or gravel. 800-
3370 m.
Suitable habitat for this
species does not occur on
site. As such, this species is
considered absent from the
Project site.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT FOR THE DECLIFF DR. LOT SUBDIVISION IN RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA
Jennings Environmental P a g e | 36
Scientific Name Name Status Other Status Habitat Potential to Occur
Ovis
canadensis
nelsoni
desert bighorn
sheep None, None G4T4, S3,
CDFW-FP
White Mtns in Mono Co. to the
Chocolate Mts in Imperial Co.
Open, rocky, steep areas with
available water and
Suitable habitat for this
species does not occur on
site. As such, this species is
considered absent from the
Project site.
Perognathus
longimembris
brevinasus
Los Angeles
pocket mouse None, None G5T2, S1S2,
CDFW-SSC
and coastal sage
communities in and around
the Los Angeles Basin. Open
ground with fine, sandy soils.
May not dig extensive
burrows, hiding under weeds
Suitable habitat for this
species does occur on site.
There is a moderate potential
for this species to occur.
Phrynosoma
blainvillii
coast horned
lizard None, None G4, S4, CDFW-
SSC
habitats, most common in
lowlands along sandy washes
with scattered low bushes.
Open areas for sunning,
bushes for cover, patches of
loose soil for burial, and
abundant supply of ants and
Suitable habitat for this
species does not occur on
site. As such, this species is
considered absent from the
Project site.
Polioptila
californica
californica
coastal
California
gnatcatcher
Threatened,
None
G4G5T3Q, S2,
CDFW-SSC
of coastal sage scrub below
2500 ft in Southern California.
Low, coastal sage scrub in
arid washes, on mesas and
slopes. Not all areas
classified as coastal sage
Suitable habitat for this
species does occur on site.
Protocol surveys are
recommended.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT FOR THE DECLIFF DR. LOT SUBDIVISION IN RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA
Jennings Environmental P a g e | 37
Scientific Name Name Status Other Status Habitat Potential to Occur
Rana muscosa
southern
mountain
yellow-legged
frog
Endangered,
Endangered
G1, S2, CDFW-
WL
from southern Sierras
(northern DPS) and San
Gabriel, San Bernardino, and
San Jacinto Mtns (southern
DPS). Found at 1,000 to
12,000 ft in lakes and creeks
that stem from springs and
snowmelt. May overwinter
under frozen lakes. Often
encountered within a few feet
of water. Tadpoles may
require 2 - 4 yrs to complete
Suitable habitat for this
species does not occur on
site. As such, this species is
considered absent from the
Project site.
Rhinichthys
osculus ssp. 8
Santa Ana
speckled dace None, None G5T1, S1,
CDFW-SSC
and San Gabriel rivers. May
be extirpated from the Los
Angeles River system.
Requires permanent flowing
streams with summer water
temps of 17-20 C. Usually
inhabits shallow cobble and
Suitable habitat for this
species does not occur on
site. As such, this species is
considered absent from the
Project site.
Riversidian
Alluvial Fan
Riversidian
Alluvial Fan None, None G1, S1.1 Coastal scrub This habitat type is absent
from the Project site.
Sagittaria
sanfordii
Sanford's
arrowhead None, None G3, S3, 1B.2
Marshes and swamps. In
standing or slow-moving
freshwater ponds, marshes,
and ditches. 0-605 m.
species does not occur on
site. As such, this species is
considered absent from the
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT FOR THE DECLIFF DR. LOT SUBDIVISION IN RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA
Jennings Environmental P a g e | 38
Scientific Name Name Status Other Status Habitat Potential to Occur
Riparian Forest
Southern
Riparian Forest None, None G4, S4 Riparian forest absent
from the Prejct site.
Southern
Sycamore Alder
Riparian
Southern
Sycamore
Alder Riparian None, None G4, S4 Riparian woodland This habitat type is absent
from the Prejct site.
Spea
hammondii
western
spadefoot
Proposed
Threatened,
None
G2G3, S3S4,
CDFW-SSC
habitats, but can be found in
valley-foothill hardwood
woodlands. Vernal pools are
essential for breeding and
Suitable habitat for this
species does not occur on
site. As such, this species is
considered absent from the
Project site.
Streptanthus
bernardinus
Laguna
Mountains
jewelflower
None, None G3G4, S3S4,
4.3
coniferous forest. Clay or
decomposed granite soils;
sometimes in disturbed areas
such as streamsides or
Suitable habitat for this
species does not occur on
site. As such, this species is
considered absent from the
Project site.
Thamnophis
hammondii
two-striped
gartersnake None, None G4, S3S4,
CDFW-SSC
vicinity of Salinas to
northwest Baja California.
From sea to about 7,000 ft
elevation. Highly aquatic,
found in or near permanent
fresh water. Often along
streams with rocky beds and
Suitable habitat for this
species does occur on site.
There is a low potential for
this species to occur.
Viola pinetorum
ssp. grisea
grey-leaved
violet None, None G4G5T3, S3,
1B.2
upper montane coniferous
forest, meadows and seeps.
Dry mountain peaks and
species does not occur on
site. As such, this species is
considered absent from the
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT FOR THE DECLIFF DR. LOT SUBDIVISION IN RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA
Jennings Environmental P a g e | 39
Scientific Name Name Status Other Status Habitat Potential to Occur
Vireo bellii
pusillus
least Bell's
vireo
Endangered,
Endangered G5T2, S3
California in low riparian in
vicinity of water or in dry river
bottoms; below 2000 ft. Nests
placed along margins of
bushes or on twigs projecting
into pathways, usually willow,
Suitable habitat for this
species does not occur on
site. As such, this species is
considered absent from the
Project site.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT FOR THE DECLIFF DR. LOT SUBDIVISION IN RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA
Jennings Environmental P a g e | 40
Coding and Terms
E = Endangered T = Threatened C = Candidate FP = Fully Protected WL = Watch List SSC = Species of Special Concern R = Rare
State Species of Special Concern:
threats. Raptor and owls are protected under section 3502.5 of the California Fish and Game code: “It is unlawful to take, possess or destroy any birds in the orders Falconiformes or Strigiformes or to
take, possess or destroy the nest or eggs of any such bird.”
State Fully Protected: The classification of Fully Protected was the State's initial effort in the 1960's to identify and provide additional protection to those animals that were rare or faced possible extinction. Lists
were created for fish, mammals, amphibians and reptiles. Fully Protected species may not be taken or possessed at any time and no licenses or permits may be issued for their take except for
Global Rankings (Species or Natural Community Level):
G1 = Critically Imperiled – At very high risk of extinction due to extreme rarity (often 5 or fewer populations), very steep declines, or other factors.
G2 = Imperiled – At high risk of extinction due to very restricted range, very few populations (often 20 or fewer), steep declines, or other factors.
G3 = Vulnerable – At moderate risk of extinction due to a restricted range, relatively few populations (often 80 or fewer), recent and widespread declines, or other factors.
G4 = Apparently Secure – Uncommon but not rare; some cause for long-term concern due to declines or other factors.
G5 = Secure – Common; widespread and abundant.
? = Uncertainty in the exact status of an element (could move up or down one direction from current rank)
Subspecies Level: Taxa which are subspecies or varieties receive a taxon rank (T-rank) attached to their G-rank. Where the G-rank reflects the condition of the entire species, the T-rank reflects the
global situation of just the subspecies. For example: the Point Reyes mountain beaver, Aplodontia rufa ssp. phaea is ranked G5T2. The G-rank refers to the whole species range i.e., Aplodontia rufa. The
T-rank refers only to the global condition of ssp. phaea.
State Ranking:
S1 = Critically Imperiled – Critically imperiled in the State because of extreme rarity (often 5 or fewer populations) or because of factor(s) such as very steep declines making it especially vulnerable to
extirpation from the State.
S2 = Imperiled – Imperiled in the State because of rarity due to very restricted range, very few populations (often 20 or fewer), steep declines, or other factors making it very vulnerable to extirpation from
the State.
S3 = Vulnerable – Vulnerable in the State due to a restricted range, relatively few populations (often 80 or fewer), recent and widespread declines, or other factors making it vulnerable to extirpation from
the State.
S4 = Apparently Secure – Uncommon but not rare in the State; some cause for long-term concern due to declines or other factors.
S5 = Secure – Common, widespread, and abundant in the State.
California Rare Plant Rankings (CNPS List):
1A = Plants presumed extirpated in California and either rare or extinct elsewhere.
1B = Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere.
2A = Plants presumed extirpated in California, but common elsewhere.
2B = Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California, but more common elsewhere.
3 = Plants about which more information is needed; a review list.
4 = Plants of limited distribution; a watch list.
Threat Ranks:
.1 = Seriously threatened in California (over 80% of occurrences threatened / high degree and immediacy of threat)
.2 = Moderately threatened in California (20-80% occurrences threatened / moderate degree and immediacy of threat)
Appendix C-1:
Non-Breeding Season Surveys for California
Gnatcatcher
RESULTS OF 2024 NON-BREEDING SEASON SURVEYS
FOR CALIFORNIA GNATCATCHER
ON ~80 ACRES OF THE “DECLIFF DR.” PROJECT SITE
13702 DECLIFF DRIVE, RANCHO CUCAMONGA , SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY
P REPARED F OR :
U.S. FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE
CARLSBAD FIELD OFFICE
2177 SALK AVENUE, SUITE 250
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
CONTACT:
STACEY LOVE
JENNINGS ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC
35414 ACACIA AVENUE
YUCAIPA, CA 92399
CONTACT:
GENE JENNINGS
(909)534-4547
P REPARED BY :
KIDD BIOLOGICAL, INC.
23046 AVE DE LA CARLOTA, SUITE 600, PMB 66
LAGUNA HILLS, CA 92653
CONTACT: NINA KIDD OR JASON BERKLEY
(949) 632-2756 | (714) 493-1120
N OVEMBER 1 6 , 2024
2024 CAGN Non-Breeding Season Surveys DeCliff, Rancho Cucamonga
Kidd Biological, Inc. Page 2 November 16, 2024
INTRODUCTION
This report presents the results of the 2024 non-breeding season surveys for the federally
threatened coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica) (“CAGN”) on
approximately 80 acres in Rancho Cucamonga, California (“site”, Appendix A, Figures 1-
3). The surveys were conducted by Kidd Biological, Inc. (KBI). Surveys were conducted in
accordance with guidance from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) CAGN survey
protocol to cover non-breeding periods (USFWS 1997).
The required notification to conduct focused surveys was submitted by email to the
permit coordinator at the Carlsbad U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Office dated
June 16, 2024 (Appendix C).
SITE LOCATION
The Project Site consists of two parcels (APNs 0226-061-68 and -69) totaling
approximately 120 acres. More specifically, the Project site is located on the
northeast corner of the intersection of DeCliff Dr. and Wardman Bullock Rd. The
Project is in a relatively undeveloped area of Rancho Cucamonga, and surrounded by
rural developments to the east and west, with undeveloped parcels to the north and
south. (Figure 1).
Ecologically, the site is in the Etiwanda Fan, just south of the San Gabriel
Mountains, between Morse canyon and Henderson Canyon. East Etiwanda Creek is just
to the west. The project location can also be described as located in Section 15 of
Township 1 North, Range 6 West of the Cucamonga Peak, California U.S. Geological
Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle map (Figure 2). The site is at
the base of the San Bernardino Mountains with an elevation ranging from 1770 feet
above mean sea level (AMSL) in the south to 2180 feet AMSL in the north.
PROPOSED PROJECT
The proponent proposes the southern parcel to be subdivided into 5 lots to allow for
the construction of five single-family residences while the northern parcel would
remain undisturbed.
NATURAL H ISTORY OF THE C OASTAL C ALIFORNIA GNATCATCHER
The CAGN is a federally threatened species. It is most commonly found in the sage scrub
communities of coastal southern California. According to J. Atwood and J.
Bolsinger (1992), 99% of all CAGN observations are in areas with elevations below 950
feet. There
2024 CAGN Non-Breeding Season Surveys DeCliff, Rancho Cucamonga
Kidd Biological, Inc. Page 3 November 16, 2024
are a few reported occurrences of CAGN at 1,600 feet elevation (500 meters) (Davis and
McKernan, 1998). Elevation of this site is approximately 1,770-2,180 feet (539-664
meters) AMSL. Although, above the known elevational range of the CAGN, the site is
higher in elevation than what is typically associated with all CAGN observations.
Nonetheless, with drought conditions in the region and effects of climate change there is
a possibility that CAGN may transition to higher elevations where conditions are more
favorable (Pounds et al 1999, Moritz et al 2008, Chen et al, 2011).
CAGN are ground and shrub-foraging insectivores. They feed on small insects and other
arthropods. A CAGN’s territory is highly variable in size and seems to be correlated with
distance from the coast, ranging from less than 1 ha to over 9 ha (Mock, 2004). In a 1998
study, biologist Patrick Mock concluded that CAGN in the inland region require a larger
territory than those on the coast in order to meet the nutritional requirements needed
for survival and breeding.
The main threat to the CAGN is habitat loss, fragmentation, and degradation of habitat
from invasive plant species and drought. Urban and agricultural development, livestock
grazing, invasion of exotic grasses, off-road vehicles, pesticides, and military training
activities all contribute to the destruction of CAGN habitat. Once locally common, CAGN
have experienced widespread habitat loss and have lost most of their former range. By
1997, it was estimated that no more than 2,900 pairs remained in the United States.
Remaining patches of coastal sage scrub are highly fragmented, and the majority is
privately owned, making species recovery a difficult task.
Coastal Orange, Los Angeles and San Diego Counties have the highest densities of CAGN
with few scattered occurrences in San Bernardino County. The nearby observations of
CAGN are shown in Figure 4: CNDDB Documented CAGN Locations. These locations were
obtained from the California Department of Wildlife’s (CDFW) Natural Diversity Data Base
(CNDDB) (2024). There was a single female-type observed foraging in the habitat to the
west of the site in 2021 (J. Vu 2021). This may have been a lone female or a dispers ing
juvenile. Other similar observations were made in 1981 (Gannon & McKernon 1999).
Many of the observations in this region are of individual birds. Reported breeding is rare
as this area as it is at the eastern extent of the specie’s range and outside their favored
elevational limits; however, with climate change, it is likely vegetation communities will
change and the habitat will become more favorable for the CAGN; making observations
more likely in these higher areas. Of note, this area is more commonly host to blue-gray
gnatcatchers (P. Caerulae), a bird that can be confused for the CAGN, particularly during
the non-breeding season.
2024 CAGN Non-Breeding Season Surveys DeCliff, Rancho Cucamonga
Kidd Biological, Inc. Page 4 November 16, 2024
V EGETATION C OMMUNITIES /H ABITAT T YPES
Most of the vegetation on-site consists of mixture of California sagebrush (Artemisia
californica), California buckwheat (Eriogonium fasiculatum), black sage (Salvia mellifera),
white sage (Salvia apiana) and sunflower (Helianthus gracilentus), the upper
northeastern portion of the site is mostly black sage with chamise (Adenostoma
fasciculatum) scattered between them. The open grassy areas were dominated by
tocalote (Centaurea melitensis), with doveweed (Eremocarpus setigerus) and other
annual grasses and forbes. Approximately 80 acres of the site was considered suitable for
the CAGN. The grassland areas and areas dominated by chamise were not surveyed as
intensely as the sage scrub habitat.
M ETHODOLOGY
Protocol non-breeding season surveys for the coastal California gnatcatcher were
conducted by permitted biologist Jason Berkley (USFWS 10a1A permit #009015-5).
Methods employed were in conformance with USFWS CAGN presence/absence survey
guidelines for conducting non-breeding season surveys (USFWS 1997). Accordingly, nine
(9) surveys were conducted during the non-breeding breeding season, at least two (2)
weeks apart. Surveys were conducted between the hours of 6:00 A.M. and 12:00 P.M.
within all portions of the project site supporting potentially suitable habitat.
The permitted biologist slowly walked through the project site while visually examining
the area for CAGN and stopping at appropriate intervals, uttering phishing sounds, and/or
playing a digital recording of CAGN vocalizations. The audio was played for several
seconds at each interval, followed by a brief pause to listen for a response. The location(s)
of CAGN observations (if any) were mapped with the use of a hand-held GPS unit.
R ESULTS
Non-breeding season surveys were conducted by the USFWS permitted biologist noted
above, in accordance with USFWS guidelines within all suitable habitat on the site. Table
2, below, summarizes the results of each survey.
No CAGN were detected during the nine surveys. Blue-gray gnatcatchers, a species more
commonly found in these higher elevations, were on site.
Brown-headed cowbirds (Molothrus ater), considered to be nest parasites for CAGNs,
were not observed during the surveys.
2024 CAGN Non-Breeding Season Surveys DeCliff, Rancho Cucamonga
Kidd Biological, Inc. Page 5 November 16, 2024
Table 2. Survey Data
Survey Surveyor Date
Time Temp
(F)
Cloud
Cover (%) Wind
CAGN
Detected Begin End
1 J. Berkley 7/11/2024 0830 1200 82-90 0 Calm No
2 J. Berkley 7/25/2024 0700 1100 74-94 0 Calm No
3 J. Berkley 8/8/2024 0700 1000 67-83 50 Calm No
4 J. Berkley 8/22/2024 0730 1130 66-80 0 Calm No
5 J. Berkley 9/5/2024 0630 1030 77-100 0 Calm No
6 J. Berkley 9/22/2024 0730 1030 58-74 0 Calm No
7 J. Berkley 10/6/2024 0700 1000 78-90 0 Calm No
8 J. Berkley 10/20/2024 0730 1030 54-72 0 Calm No
9 J. Berkley 11/3/2024 0830 1200 55 0 Calm No
A DDITIONAL A VIAN S PECIES
Avian activity during the protocol surveys was relatively high considering the site’s
proximity to a heavily traveled thoroughfare from Highway 57. Bird diversity was high and
species observed or otherwise detected during surveys are species commonly found in
coastal sage scrub and wildland-urban interfaces.
Bird observed included, but was not limited to house finch (Haemorhous mexicanus),
bushtit (Psaltriparus minimus), Anna’s hummingbird (Calypte anna), California towhee
(Melozone crissalis) and California quail (Callipepla californica). A complete list of species
observed can be found in Appendix B: Species Compendium.
No federally listed species or state listed species were detected. Two California Watch -
List Species were detected during the survey period:
• Cooper’s Hawk (Accipiter cooperi)
• Southern California Rufous Crowned Sparrow (Aimophila ruficeps canescens)
C ONCLUSION
A total of nine (9) Coastal California gnatcatcher non-breeding season surveys were
completed within suitable habitat within the 120-acre site. No CAGN were detected.
No brown-headed cowbirds (Molothrus ater) were observed during the surveys.
2024 CAGN Non-Breeding Season Surveys DeCliff, Rancho Cucamonga
Kidd Biological, Inc. Page 6 November 16, 2024
D ISCUSSION
This site is not located within designated critical habitat for the CAGN. Although the site
is outside the typical elevation limits for the species and there are few documented
observations in the area, the habitat is suitable. The habitat on site is connected to larger
areas of suitable habitat to the southeast, associated with the Etiwanda Wash spread ing
grounds, and the larger Etiwanda Fan. As suitable habitats for the CAGN become more
fragmented and degraded from drought and climate change, this species may become
more reliant on these higher elevation areas that support suitable habitat.
These undeveloped foothills also functions as a buffer between the quickly developing
inland valleys to the south and the San Bernardino National Forest.
CERTIFICATION: I certify that the information in this survey report and attached exhibits
fully and accurately represents my work.
Date: November 16, 2024 Signed:
Jason Berkley TE-009015-5
2024 CAGN Non-Breeding Season Surveys DeCliff, Rancho Cucamonga
Kidd Biological, Inc. Page 7 November 16, 2024
R EFERENCES
Atwood, J.L., and D.R. Bontrager. 2001. California Gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica). In
The Birds of North America, No. 574 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Birds of
North America, Inc, Philadelphia, PA.
Atwood, J.L., and J.S. Bolsinger. 1992. Elevational distribution of California Gnatcatchers
in the United States. J. Field Ornithol. 63: 159-168.
Baily, E.B., and P.J. Mock. 1998. Dispersal capability of the California gnatcatcher: a
landscape analysis of distribution data. Western Birds 29: 351–360.
Bontrager, D.R. 1991. Habitat requirements, home range and breeding biology of the
California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica) in south Orange County, California.
Unpublished technical report prepared for the Santa Margarita Company, Rancho
Santa Margarita, CA. 19 pp.
California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). RareFind5. Wildlife & Habitat Data
Analysis Branch, Department of Fish and Game. Accessed February 5, 2024
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2024. Natural Diversity Database
(CNDDB) Biogeographic Data Branch’s Special Animals list (Jan 2024)
Clements, J. 2007. [Updated 2019] The Clements Checklist of Birds of the World, 6th
Edition . Published by Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithica, NY
Davis, L.H., R.L. McKernan, and J.S. Burns. 1998. History and status of the California
Gnatcatcher in San Bernardino County, California. Western Birds 29: 361 -365
Famolaro, P., and J. Newman. 1998 Occurrence and management considerations of
California gnatcatchers along San Diego County highways. Western Birds 29: 447 –
452.
Galvin, J.P. 1998. Breeding and dispersal biology of the California gnatcatcher in central
Orange County. Western Birds 29: 323–332.
Gannon J. & McKernan R. Memo for coastal California gnatcatcher sightings near
Etiwanda San Bernardino County 1999-06-10 (San Bernardino Museum of Natural
History)
2024 CAGN Non-Breeding Season Surveys DeCliff, Rancho Cucamonga
Kidd Biological, Inc. Page 8 November 16, 2024
Grishaver, M.A., P.J. Mock, and K.L. Preston. 1998. Breeding behavior of the California
Gnatcatcher in southwestern San Diego County, California. Western Birds 29: 299 -
322.
Holland, R.F. 1986. Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of
California. Nongame- Heritage Program. California Department of Fish and
Game, Sacramento, California.
Moritz, Craig, James L. Patton Chris J. Conroy Juan L. Parra Gary C. WhiteSteven R.
Beissinger, 2008. Impact of a Century of Climate Change on Small-Mammal
Communities in Yosemite National Park, Science 10 October 2008: USA Vol. 322
no. 5899 pp. 261-264
Mock, P.J. 1998. Energetic constraints to the distribution and abundance of the
California Gnatcatcher. Western Birds 29: 413-420
Mock, P. 2004. California Gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica). In The Coastal Scrub and
Chaparral Bird Conservation Plan: a strategy for protecting and managing coastal
scrub and chaparral habitats and associated birds in California. California
Partners in Flight. http://www.prbo.org/calpif/htmldocs/scrub.html
Pounds, J. A., Fogden, M. P. L. & Campbell, J. H. Biological response to climate change on
a tropical mountain. Nature 398, 611±615 (1999).
Preston K.L., P.J. Mock, M.A. Grishaver, E.A. Bailey, and D.F. King. 1998. California
Gnatcatcher territorial behavior. Western Birds 29: 242-257.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1997. Coastal California Gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica
californica) Presence/Absence Survey Guidelines dated February 28, 1997.
Vu J. Results of protocol non-breeding protocol surveys for the coastal California
gnatcatcher associated with the tract 14749 (Tracy) property located in Rancho
Cucamonga SBD Co. CA 2021-12-07
2024 CAGN Non-Breeding Season Surveys DeCliff, Rancho Cucamonga
Kidd Biological, Inc. Page 9 November 16, 2024
A P PENDIX A - F IGURES
F IGURE 1 . G ENERAL S ITE L OCATION ON THE C UCAMONGA P EAK , CA USGS T OPOGRAPHIC M AP
Survey Area
2024 CAGN Non-Breeding Season Surveys DeCliff, Rancho Cucamonga
Kidd Biological, Inc. Page 11 November 16, 2024
F IGURE 2 . A ERIAL P HOTO OF SURVEY A REA
F IGURE 3 . CNDDB R EPORTED CAGN L OCATIONS
2024 CAGN Non-Breeding Season Surveys DeCliff, Rancho Cucamonga
Kidd Biological, Inc. Page 12 November 16, 2024
Project Site
CAGN Observations
APPENDIX B : AVIAN COMPENDIUM
Galliformes - Gallinaceous Birds
Odontophoridae - New World Quail
California Quail (Callipepla californica)
Columbiformes - Pigeons and Doves
* Rock Pigeon (Columba livia)
Mourning Dove (Zenaida macroura)
Apodiformes - Swifts and Hummingbirds
Trochilidae - Hummingbirds
Anna's Hummingbird (Calypte anna)
Cathartiformes - New World Vultures
Cathartidae - New World Vultures
Turkey Vulture (Cathartes aura)
Accipitriformes - Hawks, Kites, Eagles, and Allies
Accipitridae - Hawks, Kites, Eagles, and Allies
§ Cooper's Hawk (Accipiter cooperii)
Red-tailed Hawk (Buteo jamaicensis)
Piciformes - Woodpeckers, and Allies
Picidae - Woodpeckers and Allies
Nuttall's Woodpecker (Dryobates nuttallii)
Falconiformes - Caracaras and Falcons
Falconidae - Caracaras and Falcons
American Kestrel (Falco sparverius)
2024 CAGN Non-Breeding Season Surveys DeCliff, Rancho Cucamonga
Kidd Biological, Inc. Page 14 November 16, 2024
Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus)
Passeriformes - Passerine Birds
Tyrannidae - Tyrant Flycatchers
Cassin's Kingbird (Tyrannus vociferans)
Black Phoebe (Sayornis nigricans)
Corvidae - Crows and Jays
Common Raven (Corvus corax)
Aegithalidae - Long-tailed Tits and Bushtits
Bushtit (Psaltriparus minimus)
Sylviidae - Sylviid Warblers
Wrentit (Chamaea fasciata)
Polioptilidae - Gnatcatchers and Gnatwrens
Blue-gray Gnatcatcher (Polioptila caerulea)
Troglodytidae - Wrens
Rock Wren (Salpinctes obsoletus)
Bewick’s Wren (Thryomanes bewickii)
California Thrasher (Toxostoma redivivum)
Fringillidae - Fringilline and Cardueline Finches and Allies
House Finch (Haemorhous mexicanus)
Lesser Goldfinch (Spinus psaltria)
American Goldfinch (Spinus tristis)
2024 CAGN Non-Breeding Season Surveys DeCliff, Rancho Cucamonga
Kidd Biological, Inc. Page 15 November 16, 2024
Passerellidae - New World Sparrows
White-crowned Sparrow (Zonotrichia leucophrys)
California Towhee (Melozone crissalis)
§ Rufous-crowned Sparrow (Aimophila ruficeps canescens)
Spotted Towhee (Pipilo maculatus)
Parulidae - Wood-Warblers
Yellow-rumped Warbler (Setophaga coronata)
Wilson's Warbler (Cardellina pusilla)
Cardinalidae - Cardinals and Allies
Lazuli Bunting (Passerina amoena)
* Non-Native
§ Sensitive
Taxonomic nomenclature follows The Clements Checklist of Birds of the World, 6th Edition
(Updated 2019) (published in 2007and released by Cornell University Press and all updates) for
birds, and CDFW, Natural Diversity Database, October 2024 for special-status.
2024 CAGN Non-Breeding Season Surveys DeCliff, Rancho Cucamonga
Kidd Biological, Inc. Page 16 November 16, 2024
APPENDIX C : USFWS 15 -DAY NOTICE & CORRESPONDANCE
2024 CAGN Non-Breeding Season Surveys DeCliff, Rancho Cucamonga
Kidd Biological, Inc. Page 17 November 16, 2024
APPENDIX D : SITE PHOTOS
Photo 1. Habitat conditions, looking north
Photo 2. Habitat conditions, looking east
Photo 3. Habitat conditions, looking north
Appendix C-2:
Trapping Studies for the San Bernardino
Kangaroo Rat and Los Angeles Pocket Mouse
TT20653
1
Trapping Studies for the San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat and
Los Angeles Pocket Mouse on the 18.2 Estimated Acre Decliff
Development Project Rancho Cucamonga, California
Tentative Track Number 20653
Total Project Acreage and Surveyed Area: 18.2 estimated Acres
Prepared by:
ENVIRA
P. O. Box 2612
Ramona, CA 92065
Phone 619-885-0236
Trapping Surveys Conducted On:
July 7 to 12, 2024
Report Date
September 30 of 2024
Prepared For :
Jennings Environmental Inc.
TT20653
2
This report was prepared in accordance with professional requirements and recommended
protocols for small mammal trapping studies.
I certify that the information in this survey report and attached fully and accurately represents
my work (USFWS Permit 068072-5)
Philippe Jean Vergne
Philippe Jean Vergne, Field Biologist and Author
Table of Contents Page
Executive Summary ............................................................................................................... S-1
Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1
Site Location .............................................................................................................................. 1
Methods ..................................................................................................................................... 1
Results ........................................................................................................................................ 4
Discussion ................................................................................................................................ 12
References ................................................................................................................................ 14
List of Figures
1 Regional Location
2 Project Boundaries and Trapping Locations
List of Tables
1 Weather Information .......................................................................................................... 6
1 Trapping Results ................................................................................................................. 8
List of Appendices
Appendix A - Plant Species Observed
Appendix B - Animal Species Observed
Appendix C – Site Photographs
TT20653
3
Executive Summary
ENVIRA was contracted by Jennings Environmental Inc. to conduct a pre-construction San Bernardino
kangaroo rat (Dipodomys merriami parvus) [SBKR] and Los Angeles pocket mouse (Perognathus
longi.membris brevinasus) [LAPM] trapping survey on an estimated 18.2+-acre property located on the
Eastern Etiwanda Fan foothills in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County, California. The
assessment was required to re-assess the presence or absence of SBKR and LAPM in the alluvial fan
drainages and adjacent upland habitat located on the property.
A total of four small mammal species were captured. Sensitive species that were captured are the
Northwestern San Diego Pocket Mouse (Chaetodipus fallax fallax) [CHFA] and LAPM.
No SBKR were captured during the survey.
Project impacts were only generally assessed in relation to SBKR, LAPM and CHFA. For the SBKR, the
potential impacts are limited to loss of currently un-occupied Riversidian alluvial fan and sage scrub habitat.
For the LAPM and CHFA impacts include the loss of both un-occupied and occupied habitat within
Riversidian alluvial fan and sage scrub habitat.
Portions of the proposed project are located within the south-eastern portion of the Etiwanda Fan designated
as critical habitat for the SBKR.
Introduction
ENVIRA was contracted by Jennings Environmental Inc. to conduct a pre-construction SBKR and LAPM
trapping survey on an estimated 18.2+-acre property located on the Etiwanda Fan foothills in the City of
Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County, California.
Methods
Research
ENVIRA reviewed available information on the known sensitive resources in the area. The literature review
included a review of standard field guides and texts on sensitive and non sensitive biological resources, as
well as the following sources:
The Status and Known Distribution of the San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat (Dipodomys merriami
parvus): Field surveys conducted between 1987 and 1996. McKernan 1997.
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed Rule to List the San Bernardino
Kangaroo Rat as Endangered; and Notice of Public Hearing, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
1998C.
ENIRA also reviewed other available technical information on the biological resources of the site, including
previous trapping surveys and discussed recent findings with researchers in the field.
TT20653
4
Habitat Evaluation Surveys
Field surveys and focused trapping for SBKR were performed by Mr. Philippe Vergne of ENVIRA who
holds a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) permit to trap and handle of Stephens’s and San
Bernardino Kangaroo rats, Pacific Pocket mouse, and to conduct field studies on sensitive small
mammals in Southern California (TE-068072-5), a CDFW Memorandum of Understanding for above
mentioned species and LAPM, Mohave ground squirrel, Palms Springs pocket mouse, Palm Springs
ground squirrel, white-eared pocket mouse, Jacumba pocket mouse, CHFA, and Dulzura pocket mouse ,
and a CDFW scientific collection permit.
Mr. Vergne also conducted a general biological assessment of the plant and wildlife species on site. In
addition, he noted site characteristics such as soils, topography, the condition of the plant communities, and
evidence of human use of the site.
Trapping Surveys
Trapping was conducted according to protocols established for small mammal presence/absence surveys.
The protocol calls for five consecutive nights of trapping, conducted when the animal is active aboveground
at night.
A focused trapping survey was conducted from July 7 to 12 of 2024.
Trapping lines of 15 traps each, were set at trapping Areas A through E (Figure 2). Traps were placed in
suitable habitat areas on the project, concentrating on locating traps in areas containing sandy soils and
suitable vegetation. Areas with kangaroo rat sign were also targeted.
Each trap was baited with a mixture of bird seed and rolled oats placed at the back of the traps. The traps
were left in place, set at dusk each night and inspected once during the night and at dawn each morning.
All animals were identified and released at the point of capture.
Notes and photographs were taken on the habitat conditions where the traps were placed. The weather
conditions at the time of the trapping studies were also noted.
Results
Research
Several listed or sensitive small mammal species were identified as potentially present in the vicinity of
the project. They are the SBKR, the CHFA, the LAPM, and the San Diego desert woodrat (Neotoma
lepida intermedia) [SDDW]
Of the animal species potentially present, the SBKR and LAPM requires specific survey protocols to
establish presence or absence. These specific survey protocols are required for areas where impacts may
occur to the sensitive species or their occupied habitat. The remaining species are usually identified through
casual observation while trapping for targeted species.
TT20653
5
Potential Sensitive Biological Resources
San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat
The SBKR is one of several kangaroo rat species in its range. The Dulzura kangaroo rat (Dipodomys
simulans), the Pacific kangaroo rat (Dipodomys agilis) and the Stephens kangaroo rat (Dipodomys
stephensi) occur in areas occupied by the SBKR, but these other species have a wider habitat range. The
habitat of the SBKR is described as being confined to primary and secondary alluvial fan scrub habitats,
with sandy soils deposited by fluvial (water) rather than aeolian (wind) processes. Burrows are dug in loose
soil, usually near or beneath shrubs.
The SBKR (Dipodomys merriami parvus) is one of three subspecies of the Merriam’s kangaroo rat. The
Merriam’s kangaroo rat is a widespread species that can be found from the inland valleys to the deserts.
The subspecies known as the SBKR, however, is confined to inland valley scrub communities, and more
particularly, to scrub communities occurring along rivers, streams and drainage. Most of these drainages
have been historically altered as a result of flood control efforts and the resulting increased use of river
resources, including mining, off-road vehicle use and road and housing development. This increased use of
river resources has resulted in a reduction in both the amount and quality of habitat available for the SBKR.
The past habitat losses and potential future losses prompted the emergency listing of the SBKR as an
endangered species (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1998a).
The project is located within the southern portion of the Etiwanda Fan designated critical habitat for SBKR.
Northwestern San Diego Pocket Mouse
The CHFA occurs in open, sandy areas in the valleys and foothills of southwestern California.
The range of this species extends from Orange County to San Diego County, and includes Riverside and
San Bernardino counties. This mouse is a California Species of Special Concern (CSC) whose historical
range has been reduced by urban development and agriculture.
CSC designation of species is based on a series of publications prepared by the CDFW on declining species
of mammals, birds, fishes, amphibians and reptiles. The documents were intended to focus attention on
declining wildlife in California, species that are not currently listed but may merit listing under the
California Endangered Species Act (CESA). Some of the species identified in these documents have been
subsequently listed, or are provided protection under provisions in CESA. Others have remained on the
CSC list, and have not been elevated to a greater status of protection. The reasons are many, including a
lack of understanding on the specific numbers of individuals and populations, the habitats occupied by the
species and the threats to those habitats.
Los Angeles Pocket Mouse
The LAPM is one of two pocket mice found in this area of San Bernardino County. Both the LAPM and
the CHFA occupy similar habitats, but the CHFA has a wider range extending south into San Diego County.
The habitat of the LAPM is described as being confined to lower elevation grasslands and coast sage scrub
TT20653
6
habitats, in areas with soils composed of fine sands (Williams, 1986). The present known distribution of
this species extends from Rancho Cucamonga east to Morongo and south to the San Diego County border.
LAPM forages in open ground and underneath shrubs. Pocket mice in general dig burrows in loose soil,
although this has not been completely documented for this subspecies.
The LAPM is listed as a CSC by the CDFW.
San Diego Desert Woodrat
The SDDW is a relatively wide-ranging species extending along the coast of California from south of San
Francisco through to the border with Baja California. This species also occurs in the Central Valley and the
deserts of southern California and extends along the desert side of the Sierra Nevada into southeastern
Oregon.
The coastal species of desert woodrat, the SDDW, prefers scrub habitats such as coastal sage scrub,
chaparral and alluvial fan sage scrub. It is more common in areas with rock piles and coarse sandy to rocky
soils throughout coastal southern California. The range of this species extends from just south of
Sacramento and the San Francisco area to the border with Baja California. The coastal subspecies of the
widespread Neotoma lepida is listed as a CSC; its historical range has been impacted by the conversion of
scrub habitats into residential, commercial and industrial use.
Weather Conditions
Weather conditions for the survey period are given in Table 1.
TABLE 1
WEATHER CONDITIONS
Day Cloud Cover Night Temperature (F ) Wind (mph)
07-07-23 Clear 65 0
07-08-23 Clear 67 0
07-09-23 Clear 67 0-3
07-10-23 Clear 69 0-3
07-11-23 Clear 70 0
07-12-23 Clear 69 0-3
Topography and Soils
The topography on the property ranges from gently to steep sloping terrain.
TT20653
7
In general, surface soils form a sandy loam throughout the western upland portion of the site. Soils on site
belong to the Hanford sandy loams and Soboba loamy sands. Sandy soils, gravel and river-wash cobbles
and boulders are found in the incised drainages that traverse the site (Soil Conservation Service 1980).
Surrounding Land Uses
Open space occurs on all sides of the property.
Plant Communities
There are two dominant plant communities on the property. The plant communities, in order of decreasing
dominance, are upland sage scrub and ruderal/annual grasslands.
Upland Sage Scrub
Upland sage scrub is the dominant vegetation type on the property. The dominant species in this community
are buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum) white sage (Salvia apiana) and California sagebrush (Artemisia
californica). This plant community is found over most of the site, except in the southern section of the
property.
Ruderal/Annual Grasslands
Dominant grass species in the annual grasslands are slender wild oats (Avena barbata), red brome (Bromus
madritensis), and ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus). Weedy forbs found in more disturbed areas of annual
grassland include red-stemmed filaree (Erodium cicutarium) and short-podded mustard (Hirschfeldia
incana). Annual grassland is mostly found in disturbed areas on level terrain, and as an understory
community in the more open alluvial fan scrub and upland sage scrub communities on the site.
A detailed list of plant species observed is provided in Appendix A.
Disturbances
Trails and fencing are the only major disturbances on site.
Wildlife
Wildlife activity was moderate to high. Bird species were the most commonly seen. Reptiles were observed
mainly in the open scrub and rocky habitats within the alluvial fan scrub.
Wildlife observations were based on calls, songs, scat, tracks, burrows and actual sightings of animals. A
list of wildlife species observed is found in Appendix B.
TT20653
8
Trapping Results
A total of four small mammal species were captured. Sensitive species that were captured are the CHFA
and LAPM.
No SBKR were captured during the focused 2024 survey. The resident kangaroo rat species on site is the
PKR.
TABLE 2 FOCUSED TRAPPING 2024 RESULTS FOR THE DECLIFF PROJECT
Trap Line
or Grid
Number
Of Traps
Total
Trap
Nights
PKR CHFA PELO PEER
A 15 75 2 2 1 3
B 15 75 3 1 2 3
C 15 75 3 1
D 15 75 2 2 3 2
E 15 75 3 4 1 2
TOTAL
PKR-Pacific Kangaroo Rat (Dipodomys agilis)
CHFA-Northwestern San Diego Pocket Mouse (Chaetodipus fallax fallax)
PELO- Los Angeles pocket mouse (Perognathus longimembris brevinasus)
PEER- Cactus mouse (Peromyscus eremicus)
Conclusion
Project impacts were only generally assessed in relation to SBKR and the LAPM.
The SBKR was not detected on site during the current survey nor prior surveys.
For the SBKR, the potential impacts are limited to loss of currently un-occupied Riversidian alluvial fan
and sage scrub habitat within designated critical habitat.
For the LAPM and CHFA impacts include the loss of both un-occupied and occupied habitat within
Riversidian alluvial fan and sage scrub habitat.
TT20653
9
Figure 1. Site Vicinity
TT20653
10
References
TT20653
11
Burt, W. H., 1986. A Field Guide to the Mammals in North American North of Mexico. Houghton Mifflin
Company, Boston, Massachusetts.
Cadre Environmental, 2002, Etiwanda TT16072 Trapping Report
ENVIRA, 2021 Etiwanda Fan TT16072 SBKR and LAPM Focused Survey. Glenn Luckos and Associates
Garrett, K. and J. Dunn, 1981. Birds of Southern California. Los Angeles Audubon Society. The Artisan
Press, Los Angeles, California.
Grinnell, J., 1933. Review of the Recent Mammal Fauna of California. University of California
Publications in Zoology, 40:71-234.
Hall, E.R., 1981. The Mammals of North America, Volumes I and II. John Wiley and Sons, New York, New
York.
Hickman, J.C., ed. 1993. The Jepson Manual: Higher Plants of California. University of California Press.
Ingles, L.G., 1965. Mammals of the Pacific States. Stanford University Press, Stanford, California.
Laudenslayer, Jr., W.F., W.E. Grenfell, Jr., and D.C. Zeiner, 1991. A Check-list of the Amphibians,
Reptiles, Birds and Mammals of California. California Fish and Game 77:109-141.
McKernan, R.L., 1997. The Status and Known Distribution of the San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat
(Dipodomys merriami parvus): Field surveys conducted between 1987 and 1996. Report prepared
for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Carlsbad Field Office.
McKernan, R.L. 1999. Biological Inventory of the Etiwanda Creek Flood Control Project, San Bernardino
County. Report prepared for the San Bernardino County Transportation/Flood Control
Department, San Bernardino, California.
Munz, P.A., 1974. A Flora of Southern California. University of California Press, Berkeley, California.
NRA,2001, SBKR Trapping Report for 130 Acre Etiwanda Project
Remsen, Jr., J.V., 1978. Bird Species of Special Concern in California. Non-game Wildlife Investigations.
Wildlife Management Branch Administrative Report No 78-1. Report prepared for the California
Department of Fish and Game.
Soil Conservation Service, 1980. Soil Survey of San Bernardino County, Southwestern Part, California.
Stebbins, R.C., 1985. A Field Guide to Western Reptiles and Amphibians. Houghton Mifflin Company,
Boston.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1996. Review of plant and animal taxa for listing as endangered or
threatened species; notice of review. Federal Register Vol. 61, No. 40.
TT20653
12
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1998a. Emergency Rule to List the San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat, San
Bernardino and Riverside Counties in Southern California, as Endangered. Vol. 63, No. 17, pp.
3835 - 3843.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1998b. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed Rule to
List the San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat as Endangered; and Notice of Public Hearing. Vol. 63, No.
17, pp. 3877 - 3878.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1998c. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final Rule to List
the San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat as Endangered, Vol. 63, No. 185, pp. 51005 - 51017.
Williams, D.F., 1986. Mammalian Species of Special Concern in California. Wildlife Management Division
Administrative Report 86-1 prepared for The Resources Agency, California Department of Fish
and Game.
TT20653
13
Appendix A - Plant Species Observed
*denotes non-native plants
ANGIOSPERMAE: DICOTYLEDONES DICOT FLOWERING PLANTS
Amaranthaceae Amaranthus family
Amaranthus albus Tumbleweed
Asteraceae Sunflower family
Ambrosia acanthicarpa Annual bur-sage
Ambrosia psilostachya Western ragweed
Artemisia californica California sagebrush
Baccharis salicifolia Mulefat
* Centaurea melitensis Tocalote
Helianthus annuus Annual sunflower
Heterotheca grandiflora Telegraph weed
Boraginaceae Borage family
Amsinckia intermedia Fiddleneck
Cryptantha intermedia Popcorn flower
Brassicaceae Mustard family
* Hirschfeldia incana Short-podded mustard
Chenopodiaceae Saltbush family
* Salsola tragus Russian thistle
Euphorbiaceae Spurge family
Croton californica Croton
Fabaceae Pea family
Lotus scoparius Deerweed
Geraniaceae Geranium family
* Erodium cicutarium Red-stemmed filaree
Lamiaceae Mint family
* Marrubium vulgare Horehound
Salvia apiana White sage
Salvia columbariae Chia
Salvia mellifera Black sage
TT20653
14
Polygonaceae Buckwheat family
Eriogonum fasciculatum Flat-top buckwheat
Rosaceae Rose family
Adenostoma fasciculatum Chamise
ANGIOSPERMAE: MONOCOTYLEDONAE MONOCOT FLOWERING PLANTS
Poaceae Grass family
* Avena barbata Slender wild oats
* Bromus diandrus Ripgut brome
* Bromus madritensis Red brome
* Bromus tectorum Cheatgrass
* Hordeum murinum Wild barley
* Lolium perene Ryegrass
* Schismus barbatus Mediterranean grass
Taxonomy and nomenclature follow Hickman 1993 and Munz 1974.
TT20653
15
REPTILIA REPTILES
Iguanidae Iguanas and their allies
Sceloporus graciosus Sagebrush lizard
Sceloporus occidentalis Western fence lizard
Uta stansburiana Side-blotched lizard
AVES BIRDS
Cathartidae Vultures
Cathartes aura Turkey vulture
Accipitridae Kites, hawks and eagles
Buteo jamaicensis Red-tailed hawk
Trochlidae Hummingbirds
Calypte anna Anna’s hummingbird
Corvidae Crows and ravens
Aphelocoma californica Western scrub jay
Corvus brachyrhynchos American crow
MAMMALIA MAMMALS
Leporidae Rabbits and hares
Sylvilagus audubonii Audubon’s cottontail
Sciuridae Squirrels, chipmunks and marmots
Spermophilus beecheyi California ground squirrel
Geomyidae Pocket gophers
Thomomys umbrinus Botta’s pocket gopher
Heteromyidae Pocket mice and kangaroo rats
Perognathus longimembris brevinasus Los Angeles pocket mouse
Chaetodippus fallax fallax Northwestern San Diego pocket mouse
Dipodomys agilis Pacific kangaroo rat
Cricetidae Cricetine mice and rats
Peromyscus eremicus Cactus mouse
Canidae Foxes, wolves and relatives
Canis latrans Coyote
Nomenclature follows Hall 1981, Laudenslay
TT20653
16
SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
DKR Burrows on Site
TT20653
17
Upland Sage Scrub Vegetation on Site
TT20653
18
Figure 2. Project boundaries and Trap Lines for Decliff 2024
Appendix D:
Phase I Cultural Resources
A PHASE I CULTURAL RESOURCES
ASSESSMENT FOR THE DECLIFF
DRIVE LOT SUBDIVISION PROJECT
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA
APNs 0226-061-68 and -69
Prepared on Behalf of:
Lilburn Corporation
1905 Business Center Drive
San Bernardino, California 92408
Prepared for:
City of Rancho Cucamonga
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730
Prepared by:
BFSA Environmental Services,
a Perennial Company
14010 Poway Road, Suite A
Poway, California 92064
April 25, 2024
A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Decliff Drive Lot Subdivision Project
i
Archaeological Report Summary Information
Author(s): Elena C. Goralogia, B.A., and Andrew J. Garrison, M.A., RPA
Prepared by: BFSA Environmental Services, a Perennial Company
14010 Poway Road, Suite A
Poway, California 92064
Report Date: April 25, 2024
Report Title: A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Decliff Drive
Lot Subdivision Project, Rancho Cucamonga, California
Prepared on Behalf of: Lilburn Corporation
1905 Business Center Drive
San Bernardino, California 92408
Submitted to: City of Rancho Cucamonga
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730
Assessor’s Parcel Number(s): 0226-061-68 and -69
USGS Quadrangle: Section 15, Township 1 North, Range 6 West of the
Cucamonga Peak USGS topographic quadrangle map
Study Area: 39.54 acres
Key Words: Archaeological survey program; city of Rancho Cucamonga;
Cucamonga Peak USGS topographic quadrangle; LADWP
Boulder Transmission Line/Boulder Dam-Los Angeles
287.5kV Transmission Line (P-36-007694); P-36-026028; no
adverse impacts to cultural resources; monitoring of grading
recommended.
A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Decliff Drive Lot Subdivision Project
ii
Table of Contents
Section Page
1.0 MANAGEMENT SUMMARY / ABSTRACT ..........................................................1.0–1
1.1 Purpose of Investigation ....................................................................................1.0–1
1.2 Major Findings ...................................................................................................1.0–1
1.3 Recommendation Summary ...............................................................................1.0–2
2.0 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................2.0–1
2.1 Previous Work ...................................................................................................2.0–1
2.2 Project Setting ....................................................................................................2.0–5
2.3 Cultural Setting ..................................................................................................2.0–5
2.3.1 Prehistoric Period ....................................................................................2.0–5
2.3.2 Historic Period.........................................................................................2.0–11
2.4 Research Goals...................................................................................................2.0–15
3.0 METHODOLOGY .....................................................................................................3.0–1
3.1 Archaeological Records Search .........................................................................3.0–1
3.2 Field Methodology .............................................................................................3.0–1
3.3 Report Preparation and Recordation ..................................................................3.0–1
3.4 Native American Consultation ...........................................................................3.0–1
3.5 Applicable Regulations ......................................................................................3.0–2
3.5.1 California Environmental Quality Act .....................................................3.0–2
4.0 RESULTS ...................................................................................................................4.0–1
4.1 Records Search Results ......................................................................................4.0–1
4.2 Results of the Field Survey ................................................................................4.0–3
5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................5.0–1
6.0 CERTIFICATION ......................................................................................................6.0–1
7.0 REFERENCES ...........................................................................................................7.0–1
Appendices
Appendix A – Qualifications of Key Personnel
Appendix B – Site Record Forms*
Appendix C – Archaeological Records Search Results*
Appendix D – NAHC Sacred Lands File Search Results*
Appendix E – Confidential Map*
*Deleted for public review and bound separately in the Confidential Appendix
A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Decliff Drive Lot Subdivision Project
iii
List of Figures
Figure Page
Figure 2.0–1 General Location Map .................................................................................2.0–2
Figure 2.0–2 Project Location Map ...................................................................................2.0–3
Figure 2.0–3 Project Development Map ...........................................................................2.0–4
Figure 5.0–1 Site Shown on the Project Development Map* ...........................................5.0–2
*Deleted for public review and bound separately in the Confidential Appendix
List of Plates
Plate Page
Plate 4.2–1 Overview of the subject property, facing south ...........................................4.0–4
Plate 4.2–2 Overview of the subject property, facing east .............................................4.0–4
Plate 4.2–3 Overview of Decliff Drive extending through the subject property,
facing west ...................................................................................................4.0–5
Plate 4.2–4 Overview of recent dirt and gravel road along with modern trash,
facing north ..................................................................................................4.0–5
List of Tables
Table Page
Table 4.1–1 Archaeological Sites Located Within One Mile of the Project ....................4.0–2
A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Decliff Drive Lot Subdivision Project
1.0–1
1.0 MANAGEMENT SUMMARY/ABSTRACT
The following report describes the results of the cultural resources survey conducted by
BFSA Environmental Services, a Perennial Company (BFSA), for the Decliff Drive Lot
Subdivision Project. The survey included 39.54 acres for a residential subdivision on Assessor’s
Parcel Numbers (APNs) 0226-061-68 and -69, as well as improvements to the already paved
Decliff Drive located in the city of Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County, California. The
project is located at 13702 Decliff Drive, northwest of Decliff Drive and Ambleside Place, and is
situated within Section 15, Township 1 North, Range 6 West, as shown on the United States
Geological Survey (USGS) Cucamonga Peak, California Quadrangle. According to aerial
photographs, the subject property has been vacant since at least the late 1930s.
1.1 Purpose of Investigation
The purpose of this investigation was to locate and record any cultural resources within the
project and subsequently evaluate any resources as part of the City of Rancho Cucamonga’s
environmental review process conducted in compliance with the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA). The archaeological investigation of the project also includes the review of an
archaeological records search performed at the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC)
at California State University, Fullerton (CSU Fullerton) in order to assess previous archaeological
studies and identify any previously recorded archaeological sites within the project or in the
immediate vicinity. A Sacred Lands File (SLF) search was also requested from the Native
American Heritage Commission (NAHC).
One resource is recorded as crossing the subject property, which includes elements of the
historic Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) Boulder Transmission
Line/Boulder Dam-Los Angeles 287.5kV Transmission Line (SBR-7694H) that was previosuly
determined eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) as a district (National
Park Service [NPS] 2000). Contributing elements to the district include various operation
buildings, switch stations, the Boulder Transmission Lines 1 and 2 towers, transmission lines, and
a dirt access/maintenance road situated between the Boulder Transmission Lines 1 and 2. The
transmission lines pass over the southern portion of the Decliff Drive Lot Subdivision Project,
while the former dirt access/maintenance road is now the paved and improved Decliff Drive.
1.2 Major Findings
The survey of the property took place on April 12, 2024. Survey conditions were poor,
with less than 20 percent of the ground surface visible due to dense sage scrub and chaparral
vegetation along with non-native weeds and grasses. The survey did not identify any new
resources within the boundaries of the project. However, the survey did locate contributing
elements to District SBR-7694H consisting of Decliff Drive. However, the roadway has already
been paved and improved, impacting the integrity of this traditionally dirt access/mainenance road.
A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Decliff Drive Lot Subdivision Project
1.0–2
1.3 Recommendation Summary
The paving of Decliff Drive within the property has impacted the integrity of the
access/maintenance road within the property. As such, all potentially significant contributing
features of Site SBR-7694H have been eliminated from the subject property. As such, the project
will not create a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource under
CEQA, and any project-related impacts to Site SBR-7694H are not considered significant. Since
the project will not impact Site SBR-7694H, no site-specific mitigation measures are necessary.
The property was historically utilized for agriculture and the records search only identified a
limited number of prehistoric resources. However, given the occurrence of natural water sources
on the property, poor ground visibility during the survey, and prior agricultural use which may
have masked resources, the potential for previously unidentified archaeological resources within
the property remain. Based upon this potential, it is recommended that the project be conditioned
with archaeological and Native American monitoring during all earthwork required for the
development of the property. A copy of this report will be permanently filed with the SCCIC at
CSU Fullerton. All notes, photographs, and other materials related to this project will be curated
at the archaeological laboratory of BFSA in Poway, California.
A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Decliff Drive Lot Subdivision Project
2.0–1
2.0 INTRODUCTION
BFSA was retained by the applicant to conduct a cultural resources survey of the proposed
Decliff Drive Lot Subdivision Project in the city of Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County,
California. The archaeological survey was conducted in order to comply with CEQA and City of
Rancho Cucamonga cultural resource guidelines with regards to development-generated impacts
to cultural resources. The project is located in an area of low to moderate cultural resource
sensitivity, as is suggested by known site density and predictive modeling. Sensitivity for cultural
resources in a given area is usually indicated by known settlement patterns, which, in the
southwestern San Bernardino County area, are focused around environments with accessible food
and water.
The Decliff Drive Lot Subdivision Project consists of a 39.54-acre property (APNs 0226-
061-68 and -69) located at 13702 Decliff Drive, northwest of Decliff Drive and Ambleside Place,
in the city of Rancho Cucamonga in southwestern San Bernardino County, California (Figure 2.0–
1). The subject property is situated within Section 15, Township 1 North, Range 6 West, as shown
on the USGS Cucamonga Peak, California Quadrangle (Figure 2.0–2). The project proposes the
construction of a residential subdivision as well as improvements to the already paved Decliff
Drive (Figure 2.0–3).
Field archaeologists Allison Reynolds and Parker Sheriff conducted the cultural resources
study for the project under the direction of Principal Investigator Tracy A. Stropes. The survey
was accomplished by walking survey transects in 10- to 15-meter intervals across the property.
The property is vacant land that is predominantly covered with dense sagebrush and non-native
grasses. There is evidence of clearing and grading on the west side of the property. Elena C.
Goralogia and Andrew J. Garrison prepared the technical report, Emily T. Soong generated the
report graphics, and Shawna M. Krystek conducted technical editing and report production.
Qualifications of key personnel are provided in Appendix A.
2.1 Previous Work
An archaeological records search for the project and the surrounding area within a one-
mile radius was conducted by BFSA at the SCCIC at CSU Fullerton. The records search identified
17 resources within one mile of the project, one of which crosses the project (an element of the
historic LADWP Boulder Transmission Line/Boulder Dam-Los Angeles 287.5kV Transmission
Line [SBR-7694H]). The records search also identified 23 previous studies conducted within one
mile, two of which overlap the project (Padon et al. 1989; McKenna 1991). A detailed discussion
of background research is provided in Section 4.1 of this report.
A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Decliff Drive Lot Subdivision Project
2.0–5
2.2 Project Setting
The proposed project is generally located in southwestern San Bernardino County in the
city of Rancho Cucamonga between Morse and Henderson canyons, approximately one-half-mile
south of the San Bernardino National Forest. The project is situated at the northern extent of the
San Bernardino Valley and within the foothills of the San Gabriel Mountains. The San Gabriel
Mountains extend from Newhall Pass in Los Angeles County to the east to the Cajon Pass in San
Bernardino County. These mountains are part of the Transverse Ranges with peaks exceeding
9,000 feet above mean sea level (AMSL).
Elevations within the property ascend from the southern portion to the north, and range
between approximately 1,770 to 2,100 feet AMSL. Southeast trending seasonal drainages divert
water from the higher elevations through the property. Geologically, the project is mapped
primarily as Holocene age alluvial gravel and sand valley and stream deposits, with the higher
elevated hills in the northern portion of the property mapped as Precambrian and aged hornblende
gneiss (Dibblee and Minch 2003). The specific soil types mapped within the project are classified
as Soboba stony loamy sand, 2 to 9 percent slopes and Tujunga gravelly loamy sand, 0 to 9 percent
slopes (NRCS 2024). Vegetation found within the property consists primarily of dense sage scrub
and chaparral. Other vegetation found within the property consisted of non-native weeds and
grasses. During the prehistoric period, vegetation near the project provided sufficient food
resources to support prehistoric human occupants. Animals that inhabited the project during
prehistoric times included mammals such as rabbits, squirrels, gophers, mice, rats, deer, and
coyotes, in addition to a variety of reptiles and amphibians. The natural setting of the project
during the prehistoric occupation offered a rich nutritional resource base. Fresh water was likely
obtainable from seasonal drainages like the East Etiwanda, Day, Deer, and Cucamonga creeks.
2.3 Cultural Setting
2.3.1 Prehistoric Period
Paleo Indian, Archaic Period Milling Stone Horizon, and the Late Prehistoric Shoshonean
groups are the three general cultural periods represented in San Bernardino County. The following
discussion of the cultural history of San Bernardino County references the San Dieguito Complex,
the Encinitas Tradition, the Milling Stone Horizon, the La Jolla Complex, the Pauma Complex,
and the San Luis Rey Complex, since these culture sequences have been used to describe
archaeological manifestations in the region. The Late Prehistoric component in the southwestern
area of San Bernardino County was represented by the Gabrielino and Serrano Indians. According
to Kroeber (1976), the Serrano probably owned a stretch of the Sierra Madre from Cucamonga
east to above Mentone and halfway up to San Timoteo Canyon, including the San Bernardino
Valley and just missing Riverside County. However, Kroeber (1976) also states that this area has
been assigned to the Gabrielino, “which would be a more natural division of topography, since it
would leave the Serrano pure mountaineers.”
Absolute chronological information, where possible, will be incorporated into this
discussion to examine the effectiveness of continuing to use these terms interchangeably.
A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Decliff Drive Lot Subdivision Project
2.0–6
Reference will be made to the geologic f ramework that divides the culture chronology of the area
into four segments: late Pleistocene (20,000 to 10,000 years before the present [YBP]), early
Holocene (10,000 to 6,650 YBP), middle Holocene (6,650 to 3,350 YBP), and late Holocene
(3,350 to 200 YBP).
Paleo Indian Period (Late Pleistocene: 11,500 to circa 9,000 YBP)
The Paleo Indian Period is associated with the terminus of the late Pleistocene (12,000 to
10,000 YBP). The environment during the late Pleistocene was cool and moist, which allowed for
glaciation in the mountains and the formation of deep, pluvial lakes in the deserts and basin lands
(Moratto 1984). However, by the terminus of the late Pleistocene, the climate became warmer,
which caused glaciers to melt, sea levels to rise, greater coastal erosion, large lakes to recede and
evaporate, extinction of Pleistocene megafauna, and major vegetation changes (Moratto 1984;
Martin 1967, 1973; Fagan 1991). The coastal shoreline at 10,000 YBP, depending upon the
particular area of the coast, was near the 30-meter isobath, or two to six kilometers further west
than its present location (Masters 1983).
Paleo Indians were likely attracted to multiple habitat types, including mountains,
marshlands, estuaries, and lakeshores. These people likely subsisted using a more generalized
hunting, gathering, and collecting adaptation, utilizing a variety of resources including birds,
mollusks, and both large and small mammals (Erlandson and Colten 1991; Moratto 1984; Moss
and Erlandson 1995).
Archaic Period (Early and Middle Holocene: circa 9,000 to 1,300 YBP)
The Archaic Period of prehistory began with the onset of the Holocene around 9,000 YBP.
The transition from the Pleistocene to the Holocene was a period of major environmental change
throughout North America (Antevs 1953; Van Devender and Spaulding 1979). The general
warming trend caused sea levels to rise, lakes to evaporate, and drainage patterns to change. In
southern California, the general climate at the beginning of the early Holocene was marked by
cool/moist periods and an increase in warm/dry periods and sea levels. The coastal shoreline at
8,000 YBP, depending upon the particular area of the coast, was near the 20-meter isobath, or one
to four kilometers further west than its present location (Masters 1983).
The rising sea level during the early Holocene created rocky shorelines and bays along the
coast by flooding valley floors and eroding the coastline (Curray 1965; Inman 1983). Shorelines
were primarily rocky with small littoral cells, as sediments were deposited at bay edges but rarely
discharged into the ocean (Reddy 2000). These bays eventually evolved into lagoons and
estuaries, which provided a rich habitat for mollusks and fish. The warming trend and rising sea
levels generally continued until the late Holocene (4,000 to 3,500 YBP).
At the beginning of the late Holocene, sea levels stabilized, rocky shores declined, lagoons
filled with sediment, and sandy beaches became established (Gallegos 1985; Inman 1983; Masters
1994; Miller 1966; Warren and Pavesic 1963). Many former lagoons became saltwater marshes
surrounded by coastal sage scrub by the late Holocene (Gallegos 2002). The sedimentation of the
A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Decliff Drive Lot Subdivision Project
2.0–7
lagoons was significant in that it had profound effects on the types of resources available to
prehistoric peoples. Habitat was lost for certain large mollusks, namely Chione and Argopecten,
but habitat was gained for other small mollusks, particularly Donax (Gallegos 1985; Reddy 2000).
The changing lagoon habitats resulted in the decline of larger shellfish, the loss of drinking water,
and the loss of Torrey Pine nuts, causing a major depopulation of the coast as people shifted inland
to reliable freshwater sources and intensified their exploitation of terrestrial small game and plants,
including acorns (originally proposed by Rogers 1929; Gallegos 2002).
The Archaic Period in southern California is associated with a number of different cultures,
complexes, traditions, horizons, and periods, including San Dieguito, La Jolla, Encinitas, Milling
Stone, Pauma, and Intermediate.
Late Prehistoric Period (Late Holocene: 1,300 YBP to 1790)
Approximately 1,350 YBP, a Shoshonean-speaking group from the Great Basin region
moved into San Bernardino County, marking the transition to the Late Prehistoric Period. This
period has been characterized by higher population densities and elaborations in social, political,
and technological systems. Economic systems diversified and intensified during this period, with
the continued elaboration of trade networks, the use of shell-bead currency, and the appearance of
more labor-intensive, yet effective, technological innovations. Technological developments
during this period included the introduction of the bow and arrow between A.D. 400 and 600 and
the introduction of ceramics. Atlatl darts were replaced by smaller arrow darts, including the
Cottonwood series points. Other hallmarks of the Late Prehistoric Period include extensive trade
networks as far reaching as the Colorado River Basin and cremation of the dead.
Protohistoric Period (Late Holocene: 1790 to Present)
Gabrielino
The territory of the Gabrielino at the time of Spanish contact covers much of present-day
Los Angeles and Orange counties. The southern extent of this culture area is bounded by Aliso
Creek, the eastern extent is located east of present-day San Bernardino along the Santa Ana River,
the northern extent includes the San Fernando Valley, and the western extent includes portions of
the Santa Monica Mountains. The Gabrielino also occupied several Channel Islands including
Santa Barbara Island, Santa Catalina Island, San Nicholas Island, and San Clemente Island.
Because of their access to certain resources, including a steatite source from Santa Catalina Island,
this group was among the wealthiest and most populous aboriginal groups in all of southern
California. Trade of materials and resources controlled by the Gabrielino extended as far north as
the San Joaquin Valley, as far east as the Colorado River, and as far south as Baja California (Bean
and Smith 1978a; Kroeber 1976).
The Gabrielino lived in permanent villages and smaller resource gathering camps occupied
at various times of the year depending upon the seasonality of the resource. Larger villages were
comprised of several families or clans, while smaller seasonal camps typically housed smaller
family units. The coastal area between San Pedro and Topanga Canyon was the location of
A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Decliff Drive Lot Subdivision Project
2.0–8
primary subsistence villages, while secondary sites were located near inland sage stands, oak
groves, and pine forests. Permanent villages were located along rivers and streams, as well as in
sheltered areas along the coast. As previously mentioned, the Channel Islands were also the
locations of relatively large settlements (Bean and Smith 1978a; Kroeber 1976).
Resources procured along the coast and on the islands were primarily marine in nature and
included tuna, swordfish, ray, shark, California sea lion, Stellar sea lion, harbor seal, northern
elephant seal, sea otter, dolphin, porpoise, various waterfowl species, numerous fish species,
purple sea urchin, and mollusks such as rock scallop, California mussel, and limpet. Inland
resources included oak acorn, pine nut, Mohave yucca, cacti, sage, grass nut, deer, rabbit, hare,
rodent, quail, duck, and a variety of reptiles such as western pond turtle and snakes (Bean and
Smith 1978a; Kroeber 1976).
The social structure of the Gabrielino is little known; however, there appears to have been
at least three social classes: 1) the elite, which included the rich, chiefs, and their immediate family;
2) a middle class, which included people of relatively high economic status or long-established
lineages; and 3) a class of people that included most other individuals in the society. Villages were
politically autonomous units comprised of several lineages. During times of the year when certain
seasonal resources were available, the village would divide into lineage groups and move out to
exploit them, returning to the village between forays (Bean and Smith 1978a; Kroeber 1976).
Each lineage had its own leader, with the village chief coming from the dominant lineage.
Several villages might be allied under a paramount chief. Chiefly positions were of an ascribed
status, most often passed to the eldest son. Chiefly duties included providing village cohesion,
leading warfare and peace negotiations with other groups, collecting tribute from the village(s)
under his jurisdiction, and arbitrating disputes within the village(s). The status of the chief was
legitimized by his safekeeping of the sacred bundle, which was a representation of the link between
the material and spiritual realms and the embodiment of power (Bean and Smith 1978a; Kroeber
1976).
Shamans were leaders in the spirit realm. The duties of the shaman included conducting
healing and curing ceremonies, guarding the sacred bundle, locating lost items, identifying and
collecting poisons for arrows, and making rain (Bean and Smith 1978a; Kroeber 1976).
Marriages were made between individuals of equal social status and, in the case of
powerful lineages, marriages were arranged to establish political ties between the lineages (Bean
and Smith 1978a; Kroeber 1976).
Men conducted the majority of the heavy labor, hunting, fishing, and trading with other
groups. Women’s duties included gathering and preparing plant and animal resources, and making
baskets, pots, and clothing (Bean and Smith 1978a; Kroeber 1976).
Gabrielino houses were domed, circular structures made of thatched vegetation. Houses
varied in size and could house from one to several families. Sweathouses (semicircular, earth-
covered buildings) were public structures used in male social ceremonies. Other structures
included menstrual huts and a ceremonial structure called a yuvar, an open-air structure built near
the chief’s house (Bean and Smith 1978a; Kroeber 1976).
A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Decliff Drive Lot Subdivision Project
2.0–9
Clothing was minimal. Men and children most often went naked, while women wore
deerskin or bark aprons. In cold weather, deerskin, rabbit fur, or bird skin (with feathers intact)
cloaks were worn. Island and coastal groups used sea otter fur for cloaks. In areas of rough terrain,
yucca fiber sandals were worn. Women often used red ochre on their faces and skin for adornment
or protection from the sun. Adornment items included feathers, fur, shells, and beads (Bean and
Smith 1978a; Kroeber 1976).
Hunting implements included wood clubs, sinew-backed bows, slings, and throwing clubs.
Maritime implements included rafts, harpoons, spears, hooks and lines, and nets. A variety of
other tools included deer scapulae saws, bone and shell needles, bone awls, scrapers, bone or shell
flakers, wedges, stone knives and drills, metates, mullers, manos, shell spoons, bark platters, and
wood paddles and bowls. Baskets were made from rush, deer grass, and skunkbush. Baskets were
fashioned for hoppers, plates, trays, and winnowers for leaching, straining, and gathering. Baskets
were also used for storing, preparing, and serving food, and for keeping personal and ceremonial
items (Bean and Smith 1978a; Kroeber 1976).
The Gabrielino had exclusive access to soapstone, or steatite, procured from Santa Catalina
Island quarries. This highly prized material was used for making pipes, animal carvings, ritual
objects, ornaments, and cooking utensils. The Gabrielino profited well from trading steatite since
it was valued so much by groups throughout southern California (Bean and Smith 1978a; Kroeber
1976).
Serrano
Aboriginally, the Serrano occupied an area east of present-day Los Angeles. According to
Bean and Smith (1978b), definitive boundaries are difficult to place for the Serrano due to their
sociopolitical organization and a lack of reliable data:
The Serrano were organized into autonomous localized lineages occupying
definite, favored territories, but rarely claiming any territory far removed from the
lineage’s home base. Since the entire dialectical group was neither politically
united nor amalgamated into supralineage groups, as many of their neighbors were,
one must speak in terms of generalized areas of usage rather than pan-tribal
holdings. (Strong [1929] in Bean and Smith 1978b)
However, researchers place the Serrano in the San Bernardino Mountains east of Cajon Pass and
at the base of and north of the mountains near Victorville, east to Twentynine Palms, and south to
the Yucaipa Valley (Bean and Smith 1978b). Serrano has been used broadly for languages in the
Takic family including Serrano, Kitanemuk, Vanyume, and Tataviam.
The Serrano were part of “exogamous clans, which in turn were affiliated with one of two
exogamous moieties, tukwutam (Wildcat) and wahiʔiam (Coyote)” (Bean and Smith 1978b).
According to Strong (1971), details such as number, structure, and function of the clans are
unknown. Instead, he states that clans were not political, but were rather structured based upon
A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Decliff Drive Lot Subdivision Project
2.0–10
“economic, marital, or ceremonial reciprocity, a pattern common throughout Southern California”
(Bean and Smith 1978b). The Serrano formed alliances amongst their own clans and with
Cahuilla, Chemehuevi, Gabrielino, and Cupeño clans (Bean and Smith 1978b). Clans were large,
autonomous, political and landholding units formed patrilineally, with all males descending from
a common male ancestor, including all wives and descendants of the males. However, even after
marriage, women would still keep their original lineage, and would still participate in those
ceremonies (Bean and Smith 1978b).
According to Bean and Smith (1978b), the cosmogony and cosmography of the Serrano
are very similar to those of the Cahuilla:
There are twin creator gods, a creation myth told in “epic poem” style, each local
group having its own origin story, water babies whose crying foretells death,
supernatural beings of various kinds and on various hierarchically arranged power-
access levels, an Orpheus-like myth, mythical deer that no one can kill, and tales
relating the adventures (and misadventures) of Coyote, a tragicomic trickster-
transformer culture hero. (Bean [1962-1972] and Benedict [1924] in Bean and
Smith 1978b)
The Serrano had a shaman, a person who acquired their powers through dreams, which were
induced through ingestion of the hallucinogen datura. The shaman was mostly a curer/healer,
using herbal remedies and “sucking out the disease-causing agents” (Bean and Smith 1978b).
Serrano village locations were typically located near water sources. Individual family
dwellings were likely circular, domed structures. Daily household activities would either take
place outside of the house out in the open, or under a ramada constructed of a thatched willow pole
roof held up by four or more poles inserted into the ground. Families could consist of a husband,
wife/wives, unmarried female children, married male children, the husband’s parents, and/or
widowed aunts and uncles. Rarely, an individual would occupy his own house, typically in the
mountains. Serrano villages also included a large ceremonial house where the lineage leader
would live, which served as the religious center for lineages or lineage-sets, granaries, and
sweathouses (Bean and Smith 1978b).
The Serrano were primarily hunters and gatherers. Vegetal staples varied with locality.
Acorns and piñon nuts were found in the foothills, and mesquite, yucca roots, cacti fruits, and
piñon nuts were found in or near the desert regions. Diets were supplemented with other roots,
bulbs, shoots, and seeds (Heizer 1978). Deer, mountain sheep, antelopes, rabbits, and other small
rodents were among the principal food packages. Various game birds, especially quail, were also
hunted. The bow and arrow was used for large game, while smaller game and birds were killed
with curved throwing sticks, traps, and snares. Occasionally, game was hunted communally, often
during mourning ceremonies (Benedict 1924; Drucker 1937; Heizer 1978). Earth ovens were used
to cook meat, bones were boiled to extract marrow, and blood was either drunk cold or cooked to
a thicker consistency and then eaten. Some meat and vegetables were sun-dried and stored. Food
A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Decliff Drive Lot Subdivision Project
2.0–11
acquisition and processing required the manufacture of additional items such as knives, stone or
bone scrapers, pottery trays and bowls, bone or horn spoons, and stirrers. Mortars, made of either
stone or wood, and metates were also manufactured (Strong 1971; Drucker 1937; Benedict 1924).
The Serrano were very similar technologically to the Cahuilla. In general, manufactured
goods included baskets, some pottery, rabbit-skin blankets, awls, arrow straighteners, sinew-
backed bows, arrows, fire drills, stone pipes, musical instruments (rattles, rasps, whistles, bull-
roarers, and flutes), feathered costumes, mats for floor and wall coverings, bags, storage pouches,
cordage (usually comprised of yucca fiber), and nets (Heizer 1978).
2.3.2 Historic Period
Traditionally, the history of the state of California has been divided into three general
periods: the Spanish Period (1769 to 1821), the Mexican Period (1822 to 1846), and the American
Period (1848 to present) (Caughey 1970). The American Period is often further subdivided into
additional phases: the nineteenth century (1848 to 1900), the early twentieth century (1900 to
1950), and the Modern Period (1950 to present). From an archaeological standpoint, all of these
phases can be referred to together as the Ethnohistoric Period. This provides a valuable tool for
archaeologists, as ethnohistory is directly concerned with the study of indigenous or non-Western
peoples from a combined historical/anthropological viewpoint, which employs written documents,
oral narrative, material culture, and ethnographic data for analysis.
European exploration along the California coast began in 1542 with the landing of Juan
Rodríguez Cabrillo and his men at San Diego Bay. Sixty years after the Cabrillo expeditions, an
expedition under Sebastián Vizcaíno made an extensive and thorough exploration of the Pacific
coast. Although the voyage did not extend beyond the northern limits of the Cabrillo track,
Vizcaíno had the most lasting effect upon the nomenclature of the coast. Many of his place names
have survived, whereas practically every one of the names created by Cabrillo have faded from
use. For instance, Cabrillo named the first (now) United States port he stopped at “San Miguel”;
60 years later, Vizcaíno changed it to “San Diego” (Rolle 1969). The early European voyages
observed Native Americans living in villages along the coast but did not make any substantial,
long-lasting impact. At the time of contact, the Luiseño population was estimated to have ranged
from 4,000 to as many as 10,000 individuals (Bean and Shipek 1978; Kroeber 1976).
The historic background of the project area began with the Spanish colonization of Alta
California. The first Spanish colonizing expedition reached southern California in 1769 with the
intention of converting and civilizing the indigenous populations, as well as expanding the
knowledge of and access to new resources in the region (Brigandi 1998). As a result, by the late
eighteenth century, a large portion of southern California was overseen by Mission San Luis Rey
(San Diego County), Mission San Juan Capistrano (Orange County), and Mission San Gabriel
(Los Angeles County), who began colonizing the region and surrounding areas (Chapman 1921).
Native Californians may have first coalesced with Europeans around 1769 when the first
Spanish mission was established in San Diego. In 1771, Father Francisco Garcés first searched
the Californian desert for potential mission sites. Interactions between local tribes and Franciscan
A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Decliff Drive Lot Subdivision Project
2.0–12
priests occurred by 1774 when Juan Bautista De Anza made an exploration of Alta California.
Serrano contact with the Europeans may have occurred as early as 1771 or 1772, but it was
not until approximately 1819 that the Spanish directly influenced the culture. The Spanish
established asistencias in San Bernardino, Pala, and Santa Ysabel. Between the founding of the
asistencia and secularization in 1834, most of the Serranos in the San Bernardino Mountains were
removed to the nearby missions (Beattie and Beattie 1951:366) while the Cahuilla maintained a
high level of autonomy from Spain (Bean 1978).
Each mission gained power through the support of a large, subjugated Native American
workforce. As the missions grew, livestock holdings increased and became increasingly
vulnerable to theft. In order to protect their interests, the southern California missions began to
expand inland to try and provide additional security (Beattie and Beattie 1951; Caughey 1970). In
order to meet their needs, the Spaniards embarked upon a formal expedition in 1806 to find
potential locations within what is now the San Bernardino Valley. As a result, by 1810, Father
Francisco Dumetz of Mission San Gabriel had succeeded in establishing a religious site, or capilla,
at a Cahuilla rancheria called Guachama (Beattie and Beattie 1951). San Bernardino Valley
received its name from this site, which was dedicated to San Bernardino de Siena by Father
Dumetz. The Guachama rancheria was located in present-day Bryn Mawr in San Bernardino
County.
These early colonization efforts were followed by the establishment of estancias at Puente
(circa 1816) and San Bernardino (circa 1819) near Guachama (Beattie and Beattie 1951). These
efforts were soon mirrored by the Spaniards from Mission San Luis Rey, who in turn established
a presence in what is now Lake Elsinore, Temecula, and Murrieta (Chapman 1921). The
indigenous groups who occupied these lands were recruited by missionaries, converted, and put to
work in the missions (Pourade 1961). Throughout this period, the Native American populations
were decimated by introduced diseases, a drastic shift in diet resulting in poor nutrition, and social
conflicts due to the introduction of an entirely new social order (Cook 1976).
Mexico achieved independence from Spain in 1822 and became a federal republic in 1824.
As a result, both Baja and Alta California became classified as territories (Rolle 1969). Shortly
thereafter, the Mexican Republic sought to grant large tracts of private land to its citizens to begin
to encourage immigration to California and to establish its presence in the region. Part of the
establishment of power and control included the desecularization of the missions circa 1832.
These same missions were also located on some of the most fertile land in California and, as a
result, were considered highly valuable. The resulting land grants, known as “ranchos,” covered
expansive portions of California and, by 1846, more than 600 land grants had been issued by the
Mexican government. Rancho Jurupa was the first rancho to be established and was issued to Juan
Bandini in 1838. Although Bandini primarily resided in San Diego, Rancho Jurupa was located
in what is now Riverside County (Pourade 1963). A review of Riverside County place names
quickly illustrates that many of the ranchos in Riverside County lent their names to present-day
locations, including Jurupa, El Rincon, La Sierra, El Sobrante de San Jacinto, La Laguna (Lake
Elsinore), Santa Rosa, Temecula, Pauba, San Jacinto Nuevo y Potrero, and San Jacinto Viejo
A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Decliff Drive Lot Subdivision Project
2.0–13
(Gunther 1984). As was typical of many ranchos, these were all located in the valley environments
within western Riverside County.
The treatment of Native Americans grew worse during the Rancho Period. Most of the
Native Americans were forced off of their land or put to work on the now privately-owned ranchos,
most often as slave labor. In light of the brutal ranchos, the degree to which Native Americans
had become dependent upon the mission system is evident when, in 1838, a group of Native
Americans from Mission San Luis Rey petitioned government officials in San Diego to relieve
suffering at the hands of the rancheros:
We have suffered incalculable losses, for some of which we are in part to be blamed
for because many of us have abandoned the Mission … We plead and beseech you
… to grant us a Rev. Father for this place. We have been accustomed to the Rev.
Fathers and to their manner of managing the duties. We labored under their
intelligent directions, and we were obedient to the Fathers according to the
regulations, because we considered it as good for us. (Brigandi 1998:21)
Native American culture had been disrupted to the point where they could no longer rely
upon prehistoric subsistence and social patterns. Not only does this illustrate how dependent the
Native Americans had become upon the missionaries, but it also indicates a marked contrast in the
way the Spanish treated the Native Americans as compared to the Mexican and United States
ranchers. Spanish colonialism (missions) is based upon utilizing human resources while
integrating them into their society. The ranchers, both Mexican and American, did not accept
Native Americans into their social order and used them specifically for the extraction of labor,
resources, and profit. Rather than being incorporated, they were either subjugated or exterminated
(Cook 1976).
By 1846, tensions between the United States and Mexico had escalated to the point of war
(Rolle 1969). In order to reach a peaceful agreement, the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo was put
into effect in 1848, which resulted in the annexation of California to the United States. Once
California opened to the United States, waves of settlers moved in searching for gold mines,
business opportunities, political opportunities, religious freedom, and adventure (Rolle 1969;
Caughey 1970). By 1850, California had become a state and was eventually divided into 27
separate counties. While a much larger population was now settling in California, this was
primarily in the central valley, San Francisco, and the Gold Rush region of the Sierra Nevada
mountain range (Rolle 1969; Caughey 1970). During this time, southern California grew at a much
slower pace than northern California and was still dominated by the cattle industry that was
established during the earlier rancho period.
By the late 1880s and early 1890s, there was growing discontent between San Bernardino
and Riverside, its neighbor 10 miles to the south, due to differences in opinion concerning religion,
morality, the Civil War, politics, and fierce competition to attract settlers. After a series of
instances in which charges were claimed about unfair use of tax monies to the benefit of only the
A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Decliff Drive Lot Subdivision Project
2.0–14
city of San Bernardino, several people from Riverside decided to investigate the possibility of a
new county. In May of 1893, voters living within portions of San Bernardino County (to the north)
and San Diego County (to the south) approved the formation of Riverside County. Early business
opportunities were linked to the agriculture industry, but commerce, construction, manufacturing,
transportation, and tourism also provided a healthy local economy.
General History of Rancho Cucamonga
The word “Cucamonga” is Shoshone in origin, meaning “sandy place,” and was first
documented in 1811 in records of Mission San Gabriel. The 13,000-acre Rancho Cucamonga was
granted to Tiburcio Tapia, the president of the Los Angeles City Council, in 1839 (City of Rancho
Cucamonga 2010). Tapia lived on the land granted to him, on top of Red Hill, and planted
vineyards and built a small winery (enlarged and called Thomas Winery in 1933 and Filippi
Vineyards in 1967). These historic winery buildings are located at the northeast corner of Foothill
Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue and are currently used for commercial purposes (City of Rancho
Cucamonga 2010).
Tapia’s daughter, María Merced Tapia de Prudhomme, inherited Rancho Cucamonga after
Tapia died in 1845, and her husband, Leon Victor Prudhomme, took control until he sold it to John
Rains in 1858 (City of Rancho Cucamonga 2010). Rains expanded the vineyards on the rancho
with the addition of roughly 125,000 to 150,000 new vines (City of Rancho Cucamonga 2010).
When Rains was found murdered in 1862, his widow Doña María Merced Williams de Rains
inherited the rancho but encountered financial problems and lost it, effectively ending the rancho
era in the Cucamonga area (City of Rancho Cucamonga 2010).
The project is located specifically within the Etiwanda community of Rancho Cucamonga.
The Etiwanda Community is described below:
The City’s eastern community of Etiwanda has the distinction of being the first
town planned by William & George Chaffey who purchased the land in 1881 from
Joseph Garcia, a retired Portuguese sea captain. The innovations in city planning,
subdividing, promotion, beautification, and most significantly irrigation for which
the Chaffeys would become famous, were first tested in the Etiwanda colony.
George Chaffey, an experienced engineer, created a mutual water company and
pipe system of irrigation that became the standard for water system management in
southern California. Not set on just bringing water to the arid chaparral, Chaffey
also harnessed hydro-electric power and on December 4, 1882, the first electric
light glowed from Etiwanda; and four months earlier the first long distance call in
southern California was completed between San Bernardino and Etiwanda. By
1913, the community boasted of paved streets, rock curbs, and streetlights quite a
list of accomplishments for a small town. (Storymaps.arcgis.com 2020)
The city of Rancho Cucamonga was incorporated in 1977 and included three towns: Cucamonga,
A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Decliff Drive Lot Subdivision Project
2.0–15
Alta Loma, and Etiwanda. In the late nineteenth century, agriculture became the main industry in
the area, including citrus fruits and wine-making grapes (City of Rancho Cucamonga 2010).
Although the agriculture industry in Rancho Cucamonga has changed over time, it remains a
recognizable feature of the city’s landscape (City of Rancho Cucamonga 2010).
2.4 Research Goals
The primary goal of the research design is to attempt to understand the way in which
humans have used the land and resources within the project area through time, as well as to aid in
the determination of resource significance. For the current project, the study area under
investigation is the southwestern portion of San Bernardino County. The scope of work for the
archaeological program conducted for the Decliff Drive Lot Subdivision Project included the
survey of 39.54 acres to evaluate the potential for cultural resources. Given the area involved and
the narrow focus of the cultural resources study, the research design for this project was necessarily
limited and general in nature. Since the main objective of the investigation was to identify the
presence of, significance of, and potential impacts to cultural resources, the goal here is not
necessarily to answer wide-reaching theories regarding the development of early southern
California, but to investigate the role and importance of the identified resources. Nevertheless, the
assessment of the significance of a resource must take into consideration a variety of
characteristics, as well as the ability of the resource to address regional research topics and issues.
Although initial site evaluation investigations are limited in terms of the amount of
information available, several specific research questions were developed that could be used to
guide the initial investigations of any observed cultural resources. The basic research effort
employed is focused upon gathering sufficient data to determine the boundaries of any identified
resource, the depth, stratigraphy, and contents of any subsurface deposits, and the overall integrity
of the site. Testing and recordation of the contents of the site would provide the basis to complete
an analysis of spatial relationships of artifacts, features, and natural resources. Ultimately, this
information forms the foundation to determine the cultural affiliation of the site, the period of
occupation, site function, and potential to address more focused research questions. The following
research questions take into account the size and location of the project discussed above.
Research Questions:
• Can located cultural resources be situated with a specific time period, population, or
individual?
• Do the types of located cultural resources allow a site activity/function to be determined
from a preliminary investigation? What are the site activities? What is the site
function? What resources were exploited?
• How do the located sites compare to others reported from different surveys conducted
in the area?
• How do the located sites fit existing models of settlement and subsistence for valley
environments of the region?
A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Decliff Drive Lot Subdivision Project
2.0–16
Data Needs
At the survey level, the principal research objective is a generalized investigation of
changing settlement patterns in both the prehistoric and historic periods within the study area. The
overall goal is to understand settlement and resource procurement patterns of the project area
occupants. Therefore, adequate information on site function, context, and chronology from an
archaeological perspective is essential for the investigation. The fieldwork and archival research
were undertaken with these primary research goals in mind:
1) To identify cultural resources occurring within the project;
2) To determine, if possible, site type and function, context of the deposit, and
chronological placement of each cultural resource identified;
3) To place each cultural resource identified within a regional perspective; and
4) To provide recommendations for the treatment of each of the cultural resources
identified.
A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Decliff Drive Lot Subdivision Project
3.0–1
3.0 METHODOLOGY
The archaeological program for the Decliff Drive Lot Subdivision Project consisted of an
institutional records search, an intensive pedestrian survey of the 39.54-acre property and
preparation of a technical study. This archaeological study conformed to City of Rancho
Cucamonga cultural resource requirements. Statutory requirements of CEQA and subsequent
legislation (Section 15064.5) were followed in evaluating the significance of cultural resources.
Specific definitions for archaeological resource type(s) used in this report are those established by
the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO 1995).
3.1 Archaeological Records Search
An archaeological records search for the project and the surrounding area within a one-
mile radius was conducted by BFSA at the SCCIC at CSU Fullerton (Appendix C). In addition,
BFSA reviewed the NRHP and the Office of Historic Preservation Historic Property Directory.
Land patent records, held by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and accessible through the
BLM General Land Office (GLO) website, were also searched for pertinent project information.
Historic maps, aerial photographs, and the BFSA research library were also consulted for any
relevant historical information.
3.2 Field Methodology
In accordance with City of Rancho Cucamonga and CEQA review requirements, an
intensive pedestrian reconnaissance was conducted that employed a series of parallel survey
transects spaced at approximately 10- to 15-meter intervals to locate archaeological sites within
the project. The archaeological survey of the project was conducted on April 12, 2024.
Photographs were taken to document project conditions during the survey (see Section 4.2).
Ground visibility was poor as it was limited by dense vegetation found throughout the property.
3.3 Report Preparation and Recordation
This report contains information regarding previous studies, statutory requirements for the
project, a brief description of the setting, the research methods employed, and the overall results
of the survey. The report includes all appropriate illustrations and tabular information needed to
make a complete and comprehensive presentation of these activities, including the methodologies
employed and the personnel involved. A copy of this report will be placed at the SCCIC at CSU
Fullerton.
3.4 Native American Consultation
BFSA also requested a SLF search from the NAHC to search for the presence of any
recorded Native American sacred sites or locations of religious or ceremonial importance within
one mile of the project. This request is not part of any Assembly Bill (AB) 52 Native American
consultation. The SLF search has been returned with positive results for potential sites or locations
A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Decliff Drive Lot Subdivision Project
3.0–2
of Native American importance within the vicinity. The NAHC suggested contacting local Native
American groups for further information. This additional outreach will be conducted by the lead
agency under the official AB 52 Native American consultation process. All correspondence is
provided in Appendix D.
3.5 Applicable Regulations
Resource importance is assigned to districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that
possess exceptional value or quality illustrating or interpreting the heritage of San Bernardino
County in history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, and culture. A number of criteria are
used in demonstrating resource importance. Specifically, criteria outlined in CEQA provide the
guidance for making such a determination. The following sections detail the CEQA criteria that a
resource must meet in order to be determined important.
3.5.1 California Environmental Quality Act
According to CEQA (§ 15064.5a), the term “historical resource” includes the following:
1) A resource listed in, or determined to be eligible by the State Historical Resources
Commission for listing in, the California Register of Historical Resources (Public
Resources Code SS5024.1, Title 14 CCR [California Code of Regulations]. Section
4850 et seq.).
2) A resource included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in Section
5020.1(k) of the Public Resources Code or identified as significant in an historical
resource survey meeting the requirements of Section 5024.1(g) of the Public Resources
Code, shall be presumed to be historically or culturally significant. Public agencies
must treat any such resource as significant unless the preponderance of evidence
demonstrates that it is not historically or culturally significant.
3) Any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript, which a lead
agency determines to be historically significant or significant in the architectural,
engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military,
or cultural annals of California may be considered to be an historical resource, provided
the lead agency’s determination is supported by substantial evidence in light of the
whole record. Generally, a resource shall be considered by the lead agency to be
“historically significant” if the resource meets the criteria for listing on the California
Register of Historical Resources (Public Resources Code SS5024.1, Title 14, Section
4852) including the following:
a) Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad
patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage;
b) Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past;
c) Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of
A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Decliff Drive Lot Subdivision Project
3.0–3
construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or
possesses high artistic values; or
d) Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or
history.
4) The fact that a resource is not listed in, or determined eligible for listing in the
California Register of Historical Resources, not included in a local register of historical
resources (pursuant to Section 5020.1(k) of the Public Resources Code), or identified
in an historical resources survey (meeting the criteria in Section 5024.1(g) of the Public
Resources Code) does not preclude a lead agency from determining that the resource
may be an historical resource as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(j) or
5024.1.
According to CEQA (§ 15064.5b), a project with an effect that may cause a substantial
adverse change in the significance of an historical resource is a project that may have a significant
effect on the environment. CEQA defines a substantial adverse change as:
1) Substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource means physical
demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate
surroundings such that the significance of an historical resource would be materially
impaired.
2) The significance of an historical resource is materially impaired when a project:
a) Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical
characteristics of an historical resource that convey its historical significance
and that justify its inclusion in, or eligibility for, inclusion in the California
Register of Historical Resources; or
b) Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical
characteristics that account for its inclusion in a local register of historical
resources pursuant to Section 5020.1(k) of the Public Resources Code or its
identification in an historical resources survey meeting the requirements of
Section 5024.1(g) of the Public Resources Code, unless the public agency
reviewing the effects of the project establishes by a preponderance of evidence
that the resource is not historically or culturally significant; or,
c) Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical
characteristics of an historical resource that convey its historical significance
and that justify its eligibility for inclusion in the California Register of
Historical Resources as determined by a lead agency for purposes of CEQA.
A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Decliff Drive Lot Subdivision Project
3.0–4
Section 15064.5(c) of CEQA applies to effects on archaeological sites and contains the
following additional provisions regarding archaeological sites:
1) When a project will impact an archaeological site, a lead agency shall first determine
whether the site is an historical resource, as defined in subsection (a).
2) If a lead agency determines that the archaeological site is an historical resource, it shall
refer to the provisions of Section 21084.1 of the Public Resources Code, Section
15126.4 of the guidelines, and the limits contained in Section 21083.2 of the Public
Resources Code do not apply.
3) If an archaeological site does not meet the criteria defined in subsection (a), but does
meet the definition of a unique archaeological resource in Section 21083.2 of the Public
Resources Code, the site shall be treated in accordance with the provisions of Section
21083.2. The time and cost limitations described in Public Resources Code Section
21083.2 (c-f) do not apply to surveys and site evaluation activities intended to
determine whether the project location contains unique archaeological resources.
4) If an archaeological resource is neither a unique archaeological nor historical resource,
the effects of the project on those resources shall not be considered a significant effect
on the environment. It shall be sufficient that both the resource and the effect on it are
noted in the Initial Study or Environmental Impact Report, if one is prepared to address
impacts on other resources, but they need not be considered further in the CEQA
process.
Section 15064.5 (d) and (e) contain additional provisions regarding human remains.
Regarding Native American human remains, paragraph (d) provides:
(d) When an initial study identifies the existence of, or the probable likelihood of, Native
American human remains within the project, a lead agency shall work with the
appropriate Native Americans as identified by the NAHC as provided in Public
Resources Code SS5097.98. The applicant may develop an agreement for treating or
disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any items associated
with Native American burials with the appropriate Native Americans as identified by
the NAHC. Action implementing such an agreement is exempt from:
1) The general prohibition on disinterring, disturbing, or removing human remains
from any location other than a dedicated cemetery (Health and Safety Code
Section 7050.5).
2) The requirements of CEQA and the Coastal Act.
A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Decliff Drive Lot Subdivision Project
4.0–1
4.0 RESULTS
4.1 Records Search Results
BFSA conducted an archaeological records search for the project and the surrounding area
within a one-mile radius at the SCCIC at CSU Fullerton (Appendix C). The records search
identified 17 resources within one mile of the project (Table 4.1–1), one of which, the historic
LADWP Boulder Transmission Line/Boulder Dam-Los Angeles 287.5kV Transmission Line
(SBR-7694H), crosses the property.
Site SBR-7694H consists of the LADWP Boulder Transmission Lines 1 and 2 and an
access/maintenance road. The approximately 270-mile transmission line was constructed between
1933 and 1936 and extends from the Hoover Dam (formally the Boulder Dam) to a receiving
station in Watts, California (NPS 2000). The resource was first recorded in 1986 by J.F. Elliott.
Over time, this resource has been subject to numerous updates addressing various segments of the
transmission lines and associated features in California and Nevada (see site form in Appendix B).
The resource was formally determined eligible for listing in the NRHP as a district in 2000 and
consists of nine contributing elements and one noncontributing element. Contributing elements
include various operation buildings, switch stations, the Boulder Transmission Lines 1 and 2
towers, lines, and a dirt access/maintenance road between the transmission lines.
The resource was determined eligible for the NRHP under Criterion A based upon its
association with the construction of Boulder Dam and the industrial, economic, and urban
development of Los Angeles between the mid-1930s and 1940s. The resource was also determined
eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion C for its unique engineering and structural
characteristics within the context of development of point-to-point high-power transmission in
California between 1890 and 1936. Although Site SBR-7694H as a district has been determined
eligible for the NRHP, many segments of the resource have also been found not eligible for the
CRHR and NRHP due to a loss of integrity brought about by surrounding development and the
necessity of maintaining the transmission lines (see site form in Appendix B). The transmission
lines pass over the subject property with the only physical element of the resource within the
property being the paved Decliff Drive, which originally was the dirt access/maintenance road.
The remaining 16 resources include a prehistoric isolate, a multicomponent site with a
historic compound and trash scatter with a prehistoric lithic scatter, and historic structural remains,
agricultural properties, or mining properties. As such, the most common resources found within
one mile of the project are associated with the historic occupation of the project vicinity.
A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Decliff Drive Lot Subdivision Project
4.0–2
Table 4.1–1
Archaeological Sites Located Within One Mile of the Project
Site Description
SBR-3133H
SBR-3135H
SBR-6166H
SBR-6813H
SBR-6816/H
SBR-7694H* Line/Boulder Dam-Los Angeles 287.5kV
P-36-013738
SBR-16,499H
P-36-031682
* Recorded overlapping the subject property.
The records search also identified 23 previous studies conducted within one mile, two of
which overlap the project (Padon et al. 1989; McKenna 1991). The Padon et al. (1989) and
McKenna (1991) studies are large overviews that do not directly address the subject property.
BFSA also reviewed the following sources:
• The NRHP Index
• The Office of Historic Preservation, Archaeological Determinations of Eligibility
• The Office of Historic Preservation (OHP), Built Environment Resources Directory
(BERD)
• BLM GLO data
A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Decliff Drive Lot Subdivision Project
4.0–3
• Historic USGS maps
• Aerial photographs (1938 through 2021)
Despite the previous evaluation of the site, the LADWP Boulder Transmission Line is not listed
on the NRHP or the San Bernardino County OHP BERD. The 1897 (15-minute) Cucamonga,
California and 1896 (15-minute) San Bernardino, California maps do not show any improvements
within the property. These maps do show structures and access roads in the project vicinity. The
LADWP Boulder Transmission Line and dirt access/maintenance road (now Decliff Drive) is first
visible on the 1936 Devore, California map, while the 1938 aerial imagery depicts the property as
vacant agricultural land. Little change is evident on subsequent maps and aerial photographs
through the twentieth century. Between 2019 and 2020, Decliff Drive was paved, impacting the
integrity of the SBR-7694H access/maintenance road.
BFSA also requested a SLF search from the NAHC to search for the presence of any
recorded Native American sacred sites or locations of religious or ceremonial importance within
one mile of the project. This request is not part of any Assembly Bill (AB) 52 Native American
consultation. The SLF search was returned with positive results for potential sites or locations of
Native American importance within the vicinity. The NAHC suggested contacting local Native
American groups, including the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation, for further
information. This additional outreach will be conducted by the lead agency under the official AB
52 Native American consultation process. All correspondence is provided in Appendix D.
4.2 Results of the Field Survey
The archaeological survey of the project was conducted on April 12, 2024, by field
archaeologists Allison Reynolds and Parker Sheriff. The archaeological survey of the property
was an intensive reconnaissance consisting of a series of parallel survey transects spaced at
approximately 10- to 15-meter intervals. At the time of the survey, ground visibility was
characterized as poor (>20 percent ground visibility) due to dense sage scrub and chaparral
vegetation (Plates 4.2–1 and 4.2–2). Other vegetation found within the property consisted of non-
native weeds and grasses. Existing improvements noted within the property consisted of the
paving and improvement of Decliff Drive along the southern portion of the project, as well as
evidence of previous vegetation clearing in the western half of the subject property (Plate 4.2–3).
Additional impacts to the property include recent dirt and gravel access roads, traversing the
southwest and northwest portions of the project, along the southern boundary and within the
northwestern corner, along with recent dumping of modern trash identified throughout the subject
property (Plate 4.2–4).
No prehistoric resources were identified during the survey. The survey did locate a single
element of Site SBR-7694H within the project consisting of the now paved Decliff Drive. Despite
the previous evaluation of the district as a whole as a significant resource, the paving of Decliff
Drive within the property has impacted the integrity of the access/maintenance road within the
A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Decliff Drive Lot Subdivision Project
4.0–4
property. As such, all potentially significant contributing features of the resource have been
eliminated from the subject property.
Plate 4.2–1: Overview of the subject property, facing south.
Plate 4.2–2: Overview of the subject property, facing east.
A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Decliff Drive Lot Subdivision Project
4.0–5
Plate 4.2–3: Overview of Decliff Drive extending through the subject property, facing west.
(Photograph courtesy of Redfin.com 2024)
Plate 4.2–4: Overview of recent dirt and gravel road along with modern trash, facing north.
A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Decliff Drive Lot Subdivision Project
5.0–1
5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
No new cultural resources were identified as a result of the current survey. However, the
alignment of the contributing dirt/access road tied to Site SBR-7694H (now Decliff Drive) does
traverse the subject property (See Figure 5.0–1). Although Site SBR-7694H has previously been
evaluated as NRHP-eligible (NPS 2000) the only element within the project is Decliff Drive, which
has already been paved and improved. The paving of Decliff Drive within the property has
impacted the integrity of the access/maintenance road within the project. As such, all potentially
significant contributing features of Site SBR-7694H have been eliminated from the subject
property. Specifically, the contributing access/maintenance road has traditionally been dirt and
maintained as such. Therefore, as improvements to Decliff Drive have already occurred, the
portion of the road within the subject property no longer qualifies as a contributor to Site SBR-
7694H. As such, any additional project related improvements to Decliff Drive will not alter or
create any new impacts to Site SBR-7694H which could substantially change the integrity of the
elements of the recorded resource within the proposed project area. As such, the project will not
create a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource under CEQA, and
impacts to the resource are not considered significant.
Since project related impacts to SBR-7694H are not considered significant, no site-specific
mitigation measures are necessary. The property was historically utilized for agriculture and the
records search only identified a limited number of prehistoric resources. However, given the
occurrence of natural water sources on the property, poor ground visibility during the survey, and
past agricultural use which may have masked resources, the potential for previously unidentified
archaeological resources within the property remains. Based upon this potential, it is
recommended that the project be conditioned with archaeological and Native American monitoring
during all earthwork required for the development of the property.
A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Decliff Drive Lot Subdivision Project
5.0–2
Figure 5.0–1
Site Shown on the Project Development Map
(Deleted for Public Review; Bound Separately)
A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Decliff Drive Lot Subdivision Project
6.0–1
6.0 CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the
data and information required for this archaeological report, and that the facts, statements, and
information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
April 25, 2024
Andrew J. Garrison, M.A., RPA Date
Project Archaeologist
A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Decliff Drive Lot Subdivision Project
7.0–1
7.0 REFERENCES
Antevs, Ernst
1953 The Postpluvial or Neothermal. University of California Archaeological Survey
Reports, No. 22, Berkley, (1953). pp. 9-23.
Bean, Lowell John
1978 Cahuilla. In California, edited by R.F. Heizer, pp. 575–587. Handbook of North
American Indians, Vol. 8. William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian
Institution, Washington, D.C.
Bean, Lowell John and Charles R. Smith
1978a Gabrielino. In California, edited by R.F. Heizer. Handbook of North American
Indians, Vol. 8. William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution,
Washington, D.C.
1978b Serrano. In California, edited by R.F. Heizer. Handbook of North American Indians,
Vol. 8. William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington,
D.C.
Bean, Lowell John and Florence C. Shipek
1978 Luiseño. In California, edited by Robert F. Heizer, pp. 550–563. Handbook of North
American Indians, Vol. 8. William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian
Institution, Washington, D.C.
Beattie, George W. and Helen P. Beattie
1951 Heritage of the Valley: San Bernardino’s First Century. Biobooks, Oakland,
California.
Benedict, Ruth Fulton
1924 A Brief Sketch of Serrano Culture. American Anthropologist 26(3).
Brigandi, Phil
1998 Temecula: At the Crossroads of History. Heritage Media Corporation, Encinitas,
California.
Bureau of Land Management/General Land Office
Various dates. Land patent records and plat maps. Accessed online at
http://www.glorecords.blm.gov.
Caughey, John W.
1970 California: A Remarkable State's Life History. 3rd ed. Prentice-Hall, Englewood
Cliffs, New Jersey.
A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Decliff Drive Lot Subdivision Project
7.0–2
Chapman, Charles E.
1921 A History of California: The Spanish Period. The Macmillan Company, New York.
City of Rancho Cucamonga
2010 General Plan Update, Draft Program Environmental Impact Report. Electronic
document, https://www.cityofrc.us/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=7599/,
accessed November 23, 2015.
Cook, Sherburne F.
1976 The Conflict Between the California Indian and White Civilization. University of
California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles, California.
Curray, J.R.
1965 Late Quaternary History: Continental Shelves of the United States. In Quaternary of
the United States, edited by H.E. Wright Jr. and D.G. Frey, pp. 723-735. Princeton
University Press.
Dibblee, T.W., and J.A. Minch
2003 Geologic map of the Cucamonga Peak quadrangle, San Bernardino County, California.
Dibblee Geological Foundation. Dibblee Foundation Map DF-106.
Drucker, Philip
1937 Culture Element Distributions: V. Southern California. Anthropological Records
1(1):1-52. University of California, Berkeley.
Erlandson, J. and R. Colten (editors)
1991 An Archaeological Context for Archaeological Sites on the California Coast. In
Hunter-Gatherers of the Early Holocene Coastal California.
Fagan, B.
1991 Ancient North America: The Archaeology of a Continent. Thames and Hudson.
London.
Gallegos, Dennis
1985 A Review and Synthesis of Environmental and Cultural Material for the Batiquitos
Lagoon Region. Casual Papers, San Diego State University.
2002 Southern California in Transition: Late Holocene Occupation of Southern San Diego
County. In Catalysts to Complexity: Late Holocene Societies of the California Coast,
edited by J. Erlandson and T. Jones.
Gunther, Jane Davies
1984 Riverside County, California, Place Names: Their Origins and Their Stories.
Rubidoux Printing, Riverside, California.
A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Decliff Drive Lot Subdivision Project
7.0–3
Heizer, Robert F. (editor)
1978 Trade and Trails. In California, pp. 690-693. Handbook of North American Indians,
Vol. 8. William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington,
D.C.
Inman, Douglas L.
1983 Application of Coastal Dynamics to the Reconstruction of Paleocoastlines in the
Vicinity of La Jolla, California. In Quaternary Coastlines and Marine Archaeology,
edited by P.M. Masters and N.C. Flemming. Academic Press, Inc., Orlando, Florida.
Kroeber, Alfred L.
1976 Handbook of the Indians of California. Reprinted. Dover Editions, Dover
Publications, Inc., New York. Originally published 1925, Bulletin No. 78, U.S.
Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
Martin, P.S.
1967 Prehistoric Overkill. In Pleistocene Extinctions: The Search for a Cause, edited by P.
Martin and H.E. Wright. Yale University Press, New Haven.
1973 The Discovery of America. Science 179(4077):969-974.
Masters, Patricia M.
1983 Detection and Assessment of Prehistoric Artifact Sites off the Coast of Southern
California. In Quaternary Coastlines and Marine Archaeology: Toward the Prehistory
of Land Bridges and Continental Shelves, edited by P.M. Masters and N.C. Flemming,
pp. 189-213. Academic Press, London.
1994 Archaeological Investigations at Five Sites on the Lower San Luis Rey River, San
Diego County, California, edited by Michael Moratto, pp. A1-A19. Infotec Research,
Fresno, California and Gallegos and Associates, Pacific Palisades California.
McKenna, Jeanette
1991 Cultural Resources Investigations of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan EIR, City of
Etiwanda, San Bernardino County, California. Unpublished report on file at the South
Central Coastal Information Center at California State University Fullerton.
Miller, J.
1966 The Present and Past Molluscan Faunas and Environments of Four Southern
California Coastal Lagoons. Master’s thesis. University of California, San Diego.
Moratto, Michael J.
1984 California Archaeology. Academic Press, New York.
A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Decliff Drive Lot Subdivision Project
7.0–4
Moss, M.L. and J. Erlandson
1995 Reflections on North American Coast Prehistory. Journal of World Prehistory 9(1):1-
46.
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)
2024 Web Soil Survey. Electronic document, https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/
App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx, accessed April 2024.
National Park Service (NPS)
2000 National Register of Historic Places Registration Form for the Los Angeles Department
of Water and Power Boulder Lines 1 and 2/Boulder Dam-Los Angeles 287.5 kV
Transmission Line. United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service.
Unpublished form on file with the South Central Coastal Information Center at
California State University, Fullerton.
Padon, Beth, John Elliot, and Steve Dies
1989 North Etiwanda Specific Plan: Cultural Resource Assessment. LSA Associates, Inc.
Unpublished report on file at the South Central Coastal Information Center at California
State University Fullerton.
Pourade, Richard F.
1961 Time of the Bells. The History of San Diego Volume 2. Union-Tribune Publishing
Company, San Diego, California.
1963 The Silver Dons. In The History of San Diego (Volume 3). Union-Tribune Publishing
Company, San Diego, California.
Reddy, S.
2000 Settling the Highlands: Late Holocene Highland Adaptations on Camp Pendleton, San
Diego County California. Prepared for the Army Corps of Engineers by ASM
Affiliates. Manuscript on file at South Coastal Information Center at San Diego State
University, San Diego, California.
Rogers, Malcolm J.
1929 Field Notes, 1929 San Diego-Smithsonian Expedition. Manuscript on file at San Diego
Museum of Man.
Rolle, Andrew F.
1969 California: A History. 2nd ed. Thomas Y. Crowell Company, New York.
State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
1995 Instructions for Recording Historical Resources. Office of Historic Preservation,
Sacramento.
A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Decliff Drive Lot Subdivision Project
7.0–5
Strong, William Duncan
1971 Aboriginal Society in Southern California. Reprint of 1929 Publications in American
Archaeology and Ethnology No. 26, University of California, Berkeley.
Storymaps.arcgis.com
2020 City of Rancho Cucamonga History; Portal to the Past. Electronic document,
https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/8446a917d02145f48ed8c9eca30c7d5d, accessed
June, 2023.
Van Devender, T.R. and W.G. Spaulding
1979 Development of Vegetation and Climate in the Southwestern United States. Science
204:701-710.
Warren, Claude N., and M.G. Pavesic
1963 Shell Midden Analysis of Site SDI-603 and Ecological Implications for Cultural
Development of Batiquitos Lagoon, San Diego County, Los Angeles. University of
California, Los Angeles, Archaeological Survey Annual Report, 1960-1961:246-338.
A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Decliff Drive Lot Subdivision Project
APPENDIX A
Qualifications of Key Personnel
Andrew J. Garrison, M.A., RPA
Project Archaeologist
BFSA Environmental Services, a Perennial Company
14010 Poway Road Suite A
Phone: (858) 679-8218 Fax: (858) 679-9896 E-Mail: agarrison@bfsa.perennialenv.com
Education
Master of Arts, Public History, University of California, Riverside 2009
Bachelor of Science, Anthropology, University of California, Riverside 2005
Bachelor of Arts, History, University of California, Riverside 2005
Professional Memberships
Register of Professional Archaeologists
Society for California Archaeology
Society for American Archaeology
California Council for the Promotion of History
Society of Primitive Technology
Lithic Studies Society
California Preservation Foundation
Pacific Coast Archaeological Society
Experience
Project Archaeologist June 2017–Present
BFSA Environmental Serives, A Perennial Company Poway, California
Project management of all phases of archaeological investigations for local, state, and federal
agencies including National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) level projects interacting with clients, sub-consultants, and lead agencies. Supervise and
perform fieldwork including archaeological survey, monitoring, site testing, comprehensive site records
checks, and historic building assessments. Perform and oversee technological analysis of prehistoric
lithic assemblages. Author or co-author cultural resource management reports submitted to private
clients and lead agencies.
Senior Archaeologist and GIS Specialist 2009–2017
Scientific Resource Surveys, Inc. Orange, California
Served as Project Archaeologist or Principal Investigator on multiple projects, including archaeological
monitoring, cultural resource surveys, test excavations, and historic building assessments. Directed
projects from start to finish, including budget and personnel hours proposals, field and laboratory
direction, report writing, technical editing, Native American consultation, and final report submittal.
Oversaw all GIS projects including data collection, spatial analysis, and map creation.
Preservation Researcher 2009
City of Riverside Modernism Survey Riverside, California
Completed DPR Primary, District, and Building, Structure and Object Forms for five sites for a grant-
funded project to survey designated modern architectural resources within the City of Riverside.
BFSA Environmental Services, A Perennial Company, 2
Information Officer 2005, 2008–2009
Eastern Information Center (EIC), University of California, Riverside Riverside, California
Processed and catalogued restricted and unrestricted archaeological and historical site record forms.
Conducted research projects and records searches for government agencies and private cultural
resource firms.
Reports/Papers
2019 A Class III Archaeological Study for the Tuscany Valley (TM 33725) Project National Historic
Preservation Act Section 106 Compliance, Lake Elsinore, Riverside County, California.
Contributing author. Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc.
2019 A Phase I and II Cultural Resources Assessment for the Jack Rabbit Trail Logistics Center Project,
City of Beaumont, Riverside County, California. Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc.
2019 A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the 10575 Foothill Boulevard Project, Rancho
Cucamonga, California. Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc.
2019 Cultural Resources Study for the County Road and East End Avenue Project, City of Chino, San
Bernardino County, California. Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc.
2019 Phase II Cultural Resource Study for the McElwain Project, City of Murrieta, California.
Contributing author. Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc.
2019 A Section 106 (NHPA) Historic Resources Study for the McElwain Project, City of Murrieta,
Riverside County, California. Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc.
2018 Cultural Resource Monitoring Report for the Sewer Group 818 Project, City of San Diego. Brian F.
Smith and Associates, Inc.
2018 Phase I Cultural Resource Survey for the Stone Residence Project, 1525 Buckingham Drive, La
Jolla, California 92037. Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc.
2018 A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Seaton Commerce Center Project, Riverside
County, California. Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc.
2017 A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Marbella Villa Project, City of Desert Hot Springs,
Riverside County, California. Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc.
2017 Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for TTM 37109, City of Jurupa Valley, County of Riverside. Brian
F. Smith and Associates, Inc.
2017 A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Winchester Dollar General Store Project,
Riverside County, California. Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc.
2016 John Wayne Airport Jet Fuel Pipeline and Tank Farm Archaeological Monitoring Plan. Scientific
Resource Surveys, Inc. On file at the County of Orange, California.
2016 Historic Resource Assessment for 220 South Batavia Street, Orange, CA 92868 Assessor’s Parcel
Number 041-064-4. Scientific Resource Surveys, Inc. Submitted to the City of Orange as part of
Mills Act application.
BFSA Environmental Services, A Perennial Company, 3
2015 Historic Resource Report: 807-813 Harvard Boulevard, Los Angeles. Scientific Resource Surveys,
Inc. On file at the South Central Coastal Information Center, California State University, Fullerton.
2015 Exploring a Traditional Rock Cairn: Test Excavation at CA-SDI-13/RBLI-26: The Rincon Indian
Reservation, San Diego County, California. Scientific Resource Surveys, Inc.
2014 Archaeological Monitoring Results: The New Los Angeles Federal Courthouse. Scientific
Resource Surveys, Inc. On file at the South Central Coastal Information Center, California State
University, Fullerton.
2012 Bolsa Chica Archaeological Project Volume 7, Technological Analysis of Stone Tools, Lithic
Technology at Bolsa Chica: Reduction Maintenance and Experimentation. Scientific Resource
Surveys, Inc.
Presentations
2017 “Repair and Replace: Lithic Production Behavior as Indicated by the Debitage Assemblage from
CA-MRP-283 the Hackney Site.” Presented at the Society for California Archaeology Annual
Meeting, Fish Camp, California.
2016 “Bones, Stones, and Shell at Bolsa Chica: A Ceremonial Relationship?” Presented at the Society
for California Archaeology Annual Meeting, Ontario, California.
2016 “Markers of Time: Exploring Transitions in the Bolsa Chica Assemblage.” Presented at the Society
for California Archaeology Annual Meeting, Ontario, California.
2016 “Dating Duress: Understanding Prehistoric Climate Change at Bolsa Chica.” Presented at the
Society for California Archaeology Annual Meeting, Ontario, California.
2014 “New Discoveries from an Old Collection: Comparing Recently Identified OGR Beads to Those
Previously Analyzed from the Encino Village Site.” Presented at the Society for California
Archaeology Annual Meeting, Visalia, California.
2012 Bolsa Chica Archaeology: Part Seven: Culture and Chronology. Lithic demonstration of
experimental manufacturing techniques at the April meeting of The Pacific Coast
Archaeological Society, Irvine, California.
A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Decliff Drive Lot Subdivision Project
APPENDIX B
Site Record Forms
(Deleted for Public Review; Bound Separately)
A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Decliff Drive Lot Subdivision Project
APPENDIX C
Archaeological Records Search Results
(Deleted for Public Review; Bound Separately)
A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Decliff Drive Lot Subdivision Project
APPENDIX D
NAHC Sacred Lands File Search Results
(Deleted for Public Review; Bound Separately)
A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Decliff Drive Lot Subdivision Project
APPENDIX E
Confidential Map
(Deleted for Public Review; Bound Separately)
Appendix E:
Geotechnical Engineering Investigation
MDN 24540
GEOLOGIC AND GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING INVESTIGATION,
DECLIFF RESIDENTIAL PROJECT,
Decliff Drive,
APN 022606169,
Rancho Cucamonga, California
For
SOOD KISRA
ANISA SHARIF
KAMIL MUHYIEDDEEN
February 17, 2025 W.O. 8009
MDN 24540
Geotechnical • Geologic • Coastal • Environmental February 17, 2025
W.O. 8009
SOOD KISRA
ANISA SHARIF
KAMIL MUHYIEDDEEN
13702 Decliff Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91759
Subject: Geologic and Geotechnical Engineering Investigation, Decliff
Residential Project, Decliff Drive, APN 022606169, Rancho
Cucamonga, California
Please note that GeoSoils Consultants, Inc. (GSC) has recently changed names to GeoSoils,
Inc. (GSI). GSI assumes all responsibilities for work previously performed by GSC and
concurs with their findings, conclusions, and recommendations.
As requested, GeoSoils, Inc. (GSI) has performed a geologic and geotechnical engineering
investigation on the subject site. The purpose of this investigation is to provide geologic and
geotechnical engineering recommendations for site grading and foundations. The report
presents the results of our research, subsurface exploration, laboratory testing, site
reconnaissance, and provides geotechnical engineering recommendations for site grading.
Grading of the site is considered feasible from a geologic and geotechnical engineering
prospective, provided the recommendations presented herein are incorporated into the
design and implemented during grading.
We appreciate this opportunity to be of service to you. If you have any questions regarding
this report, or if we may be of further assistance to you, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Very truly yours,
MAHAN PASDARPOUR RUDY F. RUBERTI
GE 3286 CEG 1708
cc: (1) Addressee
6634 Valjean Avenue, Van Nuys, California 91406 Phone: (818) 785-2158 Fax: (818)785-1548
MDN 24540
February 17, 2025
W.O. 8009
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Site Description ....................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Proposed Development ........................................................................................... 1
1.3 Previous Studies ..................................................................................................... 2
1.4 Scope of Services ................................................................................................... 2
1.5 Limitations ............................................................................................................... 2
2.0 FIELD EXPLORATION ........................................................................................... 3
3.0 LABORATORY TESTING ....................................................................................... 3
4.0 FINDINGS ............................................................................................................... 3
4.1 Geologic Environment ............................................................................................. 3
4.1.1 Regional Geologic Setting ................................................................................ 4
4.1.2 Local Geologic Setting ..................................................................................... 4
4.1.3 Earth Materials ................................................................................................. 5
4.1.4 Groundwater .................................................................................................... 5
4.1.5 Flood Zone ....................................................................................................... 5
4.2 Faulting And Seismicity ........................................................................................... 5
4.2.1 2022 California Building Code (CBC) Seismic Design Criteria ......................... 8
4.3 Secondary Earthquake Effects ................................................................................ 9
4.3.1 Landsliding ....................................................................................................... 9
4.3.2 Seiches and Tsunamis ..................................................................................... 9
4.3.3 Dry Sand Settlement ...................................................................................... 10
4.3.4 Liquefaction .................................................................................................... 11
4.4 Hydro Collapse ..................................................................................................... 11
5.0 CONCLUSIONS.................................................................................................... 11
6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................................................... 12
6.1 Removals .............................................................................................................. 12
6.2 Foundations .......................................................................................................... 12
6.2.1 Footings ......................................................................................................... 13
6.2.2 Foundation General Recommendations ......................................................... 15
Page 2
February 17, 2025
W.O. 8009
MDN 24540
6.3 Interior Slab-on-grade ........................................................................................... 16
6.4 Exterior Slabs-on-grade ........................................................................................ 20
6.5 Grading ................................................................................................................. 21
6.5.1 General .......................................................................................................... 22
6.5.2 Site Preparation ............................................................................................. 22
6.5.3 Fill Placement ................................................................................................. 23
6.5.4 Construction Considerations .......................................................................... 27
6.5.5 Earthwork Adjustment Factors ....................................................................... 27
6.5.6 Temporary Excavation ................................................................................... 27
6.5.7 Excavation Observation ................................................................................. 28
6.5.8 Utility Trenching and Backfill .......................................................................... 28
7.0 FUTURE SERVICES ............................................................................................ 30
7.1 Plan Review .......................................................................................................... 30
7.2 Construction Observation Services ....................................................................... 30
Enclosures
References
Sheets A0.1 through A5, Detail Sheets
Plate1, Geologic Map
Plate 2, Fault Trench Log
cc: (1) Addressee
MDN 24540
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this investigation is to determine the geologic and geotechnical conditions on
the site and their impact on proposed development, and to provide geologic and geotechnical
engineering data and recommendations to aid in development of the subject site. The
following sections provide a summary of the geologic and geotechnical engineering
conditions on the site, and recommendations for site grading and stabilization, fill placement,
and foundations.
This report has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical
engineering practices in the City of Rancho Cucamonga at the time it was prepared. The
report presents a brief description of the site, the geotechnical engineering characteristics of
the area, the seismicity of the area, an engineering analysis of the site characteristics,
conclusions, and recommendations to develop the site.
Opinions presented in this report are based on an inspection of the site, geologic mapping, a
review of the regional geologic maps and seismic hazard reports, subsurface exploration,
laboratory testing, and our general knowledge of the geologic and soils engineering
conditions in the site area. The opinions presented have been arrived at through the exercise
of the generally understood standard of care for our profession and standard of engineering
practice for the City of Rancho Cucamonga, as we understand it.
1.1 Site Description
The subject site is located at northern end of the City of Ranco Cucamonga as shown on the
attached maps (see Sheet 4A). The site is currently vacant and slopes to the south at shallow
angles. The site covered with seasonal grasses and brush, and is accessed from a dirt road
off of Decliff Drive. Two high voltage power lines are located to the south of the site.
1.2 Proposed Development
Proposed development consists of grading to create 5 lots for single-family residential
structures. The locations of the lots and proposed buildings are shown on Sheets A1.1 and
A1.2. Access to the lots with be from a proposed cul-de-sac extending north of Decliff Drive.
Page 2
February 17, 2025
W.O. 8009
MDN 24540
1.3 Previous Studies
Previous studies were performed on the site and property; however, the source of those
studies is unknown. As shown on the attached plan set, previous setback zones were
recommended north of the currently proposed lots. A seismic survey was also performed the
north portion of the site and appears to show a possible fault north of the area of proposed
development.
1.4 Scope of Services
Our scope of services included the following:
•Site reconnaissance.
•Review of regional geologic maps and seismic hazard reports.
•Review of available geologic and geotechnical engineering report on file at the City
of Los Angeles.
•Excavated, sampled, and logged approximately 800 feet of excavator fault trench
excavation across the proposed building areas. The location of the trench is
shown on Plate 1 and a trench log is included as Plate T-1.
•Laboratory testing.
•Engineering analyses.
•Preparation of this report.
1.5 Limitations
The findings and recommendations of this report were prepared in accordance with generally
accepted professional geotechnical engineering principles and practice for the City of Rancho
Cucamonga at this time. We make no other warranty, either express or implied. The
conclusions and recommendations contained in this report are based on-site conditions
disclosed in our site inspection and the referenced reports. Since our investigation was based
on the site conditions observed and engineering analyses, the conclusions and
recommendations contained herein are professional opinions. However, soil/rock conditions
can vary significantly between borings; therefore, further refinements of our
Page 3
February 17, 2025
W.O. 8009
MDN 24540
recommendations contained herein may be necessary due to changes in the building plans
or what is encountered during site grading.
2.0 FIELD EXPLORATION
A continuous excavator trench approximately 10 feet deep was placed across the site at the
location shown on Plate 1. The trench was excavated with a track-mounted excavator with a
4-foot-wide bucket. The sides of the trench were cut back in three vertical benches for safety.
The trench excavation was backfilled but not compacted; therefore, loose trench backfill shall
be removed and recompacted in areas of proposed grading.
A representative from our firm logged the trench excavation; however, due to the very rocky
nature of the soil material, in place undisturbed samples could not be obtained. A bulk sample
of the soil was taken for laboratory testing.
3.0 LABORATORY TESTING
Expansion index testing will be performed on selected bulk samples of the on-site soils at the
time of grading in accordance with the current version of Test Method ASTM D4829-07.
Based on our site observation the soil appears to have a very low expansion index.
Compaction tests will be performed at the time of grading in accordance with ASTM Test
Designation D-1557-12. Chemical testing for soil corrosiveness will be performed at the time
of grading and the results will be reported in final compaction report. R-value testing will be
performed at the time of grading per Caltrans standard CA 301 on a surficial sample.
4.0 FINDINGS
4.1 Geologic Environment
Geologic conditions on the subject site were determined through research, field mapping, and
subsurface exploration, and the results were superimposed on the Geologic Map, Plate 1.
During grading, a geologist should be present to confirm the geologic conditions encountered
on the site are consistent with those presented herein. The following sections present our
findings concerning subsurface and groundwater conditions.
Page 4
February 17, 2025
W.O. 8009
MDN 24540
4.1.1 Regional Geologic Setting
The subject property is located within the southern Transverse Ranges Geomorphic
province of California. The Transverse Ranges consist of generally east-west trending
mountains and valleys, which are in contrast to the north-northwest regional trend
elsewhere in the state.
The structure of the Transverse Ranges is controlled by the effects of north-south
compressive deformation (crustal shortening), which is attributed to convergence
between the big bend of the San Andreas Fault north of the San Gabriel Mountains
and the motion of the Pacific Plate. The valleys and mountains of the Transverse
Ranges are typically bounded by a series of east west trending, generally north dipping
reverse faults with left-lateral oblique movement.
The Transverse Ranges are characterized by a very thick, nearly continuous
sequence of Upper Cretaceous through Quaternary sedimentary rocks that has been
deformed into a series of east-west trending folds associated with thrust and reverse
faults. This deformation has created intrabasin highlands and intervening lowlands.
The closest such fault to the site is the Cucamonga Fault Zone, part of the Sierra
Madre Fault, located approximately just north of the site. A Regional Geologic Map is
included as Figure 1.
4.1.2 Local Geologic Setting
The Sierra Madre Fault zone forms the boundary to the San Gabriel Mountains to the
north and San Gabriel Valley to the south (Figure 1). The San Gabriel Mountains rise
very abruptly from the valley and reach elevations of more than 6,000 feet at San
Gabriel Peak in the northwest corner of the Mount Wilson 7.5 Minute Quadrangle.
These mountains are composed of igneous and metamorphic rocks that range in age
from Precambrian through Cretaceous.
Streams draining from the San Gabriel Mountains have deposited several large,
coalescing alluvial fans within the San Gabriel Valley and in the area of the subject
REGIONAL GEOLOGIC MAP
DECLIFF ROAD
TTM 20653, APN:022606169
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA
SOOD KISRA
SITE
DATE:
W.O. NO.:
2/2025
8009 MD
N
2
4
5
4
0
FIGURE 1
Geotechnical Geologic
6634 Valjean Avenue Van Nuys, California 91406
TEL: (818) 785-2158 FAX: (818) 785-1548
www.geosoilsinc.com
Page 5
February 17, 2025
W.O. 8009
MDN 24540
site, creating a broad continuous alluvial fan deposit. Based on review of local
geologic maps and subsurface exploration, the site is underlain by mid-Holocene
alluvium (Qyf3).
4.1.3 Earth Materials
Alluvial Fan Deposits (Qyf3): The site is underlain by mid-Holocene alluvial fan
deposits. Fan deposits consist of brown to gray brown silty fine to coarse sand with
abundant gravel, cobbles and small boulders. The alluvium is poorly sorted with sub-
angular clasts composed mostly of granite, diorite, and quartzite. These deposits were
derived from runoff of the adjacent San Gabriel Mountains and were deposited on the
valley floor. The alluvium is porous to depths of approximately 5 to 6 feet below the
ground surface and dense below 5 to 6 feet.
4.1.4 Groundwater
Surface water on the site is limited to precipitation falling directly on the site. Springs
or seeps were not observed on the site. Historic high groundwater maps are not
available for the subject area. Groundwater to anticipated to be at least 50 feet below
the ground surface.
4.1.5 Flood Zone
The site is located on the flanks of the San Gabriel Mountains. Review of FEMA Flood
Zone maps shows the site as being located within Zone D, undetermined but possible
flood hazard. The alluvium fans that underlay the site and surrounding area were
deposited from runoff form the northern mountain areas. The project civil engineer
should confirm if the site is subject to flood hazards.
4.2 Faulting And Seismicity
The project site is located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone; however, as
discussed below, there are no active faults on the property (Figure 2). Although there are no
faults on the property, there are faults near the site that can cause moderate to intense ground
SEISMIC HAZARD ZONE MAP
DECLIFF ROAD
TTM 20653, APN:022606169
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA
SOOD KISRA
DATE:
W.O. NO.:
2/2025
8009 MD
N
2
4
5
4
0
FIGURE 2
Geotechnical Geologic
6634 Valjean Avenue Van Nuys, California 91406
TEL: (818) 785-2158 FAX: (818) 785-1548
www.geosoilsinc.com
SITE
Page 6
February 17, 2025
W.O. 8009
MDN 24540
shaking during the lifetime of the proposed development. Therefore, earthquake resistant
design is recommended.
Earthquake Characterization: Earthquakes are characterized by magnitude, which is a
quantitative measure of the earthquake strength, based on strain energy released during a
seismic event. The magnitude of an earthquake is constant for any given site and is
independent of the site in question.
Earthquake Intensity: The intensity of an earthquake at a random site is not constant and is
subject to variations. The intensity is an indirect measurement of ground motion at a
particular site and is affected by the earthquake magnitude, the distance between the site
and the hypocenter (the location on the fault at depth where the energy is released), and the
geologic conditions between the site and the hypocenter. Intensity, which is often measured
by the Mercalli scale, generally increases with increasing magnitude and decreases with
increasing distance from the hypocenter. Topography may also affect the intensity of an
earthquake from one site to another. Topographic effects such as steep sided ridges or
slopes may result in a higher intensity than sites located in relatively flat-lying areas.
Ground Rupture: Ground rupture occurs when movement on a fault breaks through to the
surface. Surface rupture usually occurs along pre-existing fault traces where zones of
weakness already exist. The State has established Earthquake Fault Zones for the purpose
of mitigating the hazard of fault rupture by prohibiting the location of most human occupancy
structures across the traces of active faults. Earthquake fault zones are regulatory zones that
encompass surface traces of active faults with a potential for future surface fault rupture.
The California Geologic Survey (CGS) establishes criteria for faults as active, potentially
active or inactive. Active faults are those that show evidence of surface displacement within
the last 11,000 years (Holocene age). Potentially active faults are those that demonstrate
displacement within the past 1.6 million years (Quaternary age). Faults showing no evidence
of displacement within the last 1.6 million years may be considered inactive for most
structures, except for critical or certain life structures.
Page 7
February 17, 2025
W.O. 8009
MDN 24540
In 1972, the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone Act (now known as the Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zone Act, 1994, or APEHA) was passed into law, requiring studies within
500 feet of mapped faults within a mapped Alquist-Priolo fault zone. Surface rupture caused
by movement along a fault could likely result in catastrophic structural damage to buildings
constructed along the fault trace.
Consequently, the State of California via the APEHA prohibits the construction of occupied
“habitable” structures on the trace of an active fault. The term “structure for human
occupancy” is defined as any structure used or intended for supporting or sheltering any use
or occupancy, which is expected to have a human occupancy rate of more than 2,000 person-
hours per year. Unless proven otherwise, an area within 50 feet of an active fault is presumed
to be underlain by active branches of the fault. Local government agencies may identify
additional faults, in addition to those faults mandated by the State, for which minimum
construction setback requirements must be maintained.
The site is located within an established Earthquake Fault Zone (Figure 2). The Cucamonga
Fault is mapped to the north of the site. This complex fault system is part of the Seirra Madre
Fault and is approximately 100 km long and runs along the southern boundary of the San
Gabriel Mountains from San Fernando Pass to the west and Cajon Pass to the east.
The most recent activity along the fault system occurred at the western portion during the
1971 San Fernando Earthquake. The fault appears to be less active to the east with late
quaternary displacement. The fault zone consists of numerous north-dipping thrusts at the
base of the mountain front. The portion of the fault within the Mount Wilson Quadrangle has
not been zoned as active by the California Geological Survey. The southernmost mapped
segment of the fault is located at the northwest corner of the site (Figure 2).
The fault trench excavated on the site exposed continuous alluvial fan deposits that were not
displaced by faulting. In addition, previous work by other consultants and fault maps of the
area shows the main fault zone north of the site and do not show faults within the limits of the
proposed structures. Based on review of all available data, the potential for ground rupture
Page 8
February 17, 2025
W.O. 8009
MDN 24540
on the site is considered low and structural setbacks are not required within the proposed
building areas. However, strong ground shaking is possible on the site due to the close
proximity of the fault, as well as other nearby faults. The previous setbacks shown on Sheet
A1, A1.1, and A1.2 remain as these are outside of our study area.
4.2.1 2022 California Building Code (CBC) Seismic Design Criteria
The 2022 CBC (California Building Code) seismic coefficient criteria are provided in
the table below for structural design consideration. Under the Earthquake Design
Regulations of Chapter 16, Section 1613 of the CBC 2022, the following coefficients
apply for the proposed Type II structures at the site. According to seismic line data in
Sheet A4, the average compressional-Wave Velocity below 5 feet depth is above 1500
ft/sec and this is equal to shear wave velocity of 870 ft/sec (Assuming Poisson’s Ratio
of 0.25) and therefore the Site Class D should be used for the site. The following
seismic data is presented for preliminary design purposes. Ground motion parameters
based on the Mapped Risk-Targeted Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCEr) were
determined and adhere to requirements discussed in ASCE 7-16 referenced by the
2022 California Building Code. The parameters include 5% critical damping for 0.2-
and 1.0-second time periods. A summary of parameters is provided in the table below.
These values may only be used when the value of the seismic response coefficient Cs
satisfies equations 12.8-2, 12.8-3, or 12.8-4 of the ASCE 7-16 Standard.
TABLE 1
SEISMIC PARAMETERS
Description Value
Page 9
February 17, 2025
W.O. 8009
MDN 24540
Conformance to the above criteria for seismic excitation does not constitute any kind
of guarantee or assurance that significant structural damage or ground failure will not
occur if a maximum level earthquake occurs. The primary goal of seismic design is to
protect life and not to avoid all damage, since such design may be economically
prohibitive. Following a major earthquake, a building may be damaged beyond repair,
yet not collapse.
4.3 Secondary Earthquake Effects
Ground shaking produced during an earthquake can result in a number of potentially
damaging phenomena classified as secondary earthquake effects. These secondary effects
include landslides, seiches and tsunamis, seismically induced settlement, and liquefaction.
Descriptions of each of these phenomena and how it could potentially affect the proposed
site are described as follows:
4.3.1 Landsliding
Landslides are slope failures that occur where the horizontal seismic forces act to
induce soil and/or bedrock failures. The most common effect is reactivation or
movement on a pre-existing landslide. Typically, existing slides that are stable under
static conditions (i.e., factor-of-safety above one) become unstable and move during
strong ground shaking. The site is relatively flat and not subject to landslide Hazard.
4.3.2 Seiches and Tsunamis
A seiche is the resonant oscillation of a body of water, typically a lake or swimming
pool caused by earthquake shaking (waves). The hazard exists where water can be
splashed out of the body of water and impact nearby structures. No bodies of constant
water are near the site, therefore, the hazards associated with seiches are considered
low. Tsunamis are seismic sea waves generated by undersea earthquakes or
landslides. When the ocean floor is offset or tilted during an earthquake, a set of
waves are generated similar to the concentric waves caused by an object dropped in
water.
Page 10
February 17, 2025
W.O. 8009
MDN 24540
Tsunamis can have wavelengths of up to 120 miles and travel as fast as 500 miles
per hour across hundreds of miles of deep Ocean. Upon reaching shallow coastal
waters, the once two-foot-high wave can become up to 50 feet in height causing great
devastation to structures within reach. Tsunamis can generate seiches as well. Due
to the distance and elevation of the site relative to the ocean, seiches and tsunamis
are not considered a hazard to the site.
4.3.3 Dry Sand Settlement
Dry sand settlement can occur during moderate and large earthquakes when loose,
natural or fill sandy soils are densified and settle, often unevenly across a site. In
order for dry sand settlement to occur, the following four factors are required: 1)
Relatively dry soil or soil situated above the groundwater table; 2) undrained loading
(strong ground shaking), such as by earthquake; 3) contractive soil response during
shear loading, which is often the case for a soil which is initially in a loose or
uncompacted state; and 4) susceptible soil type; such as clean, uniformly graded
sands. Structures situated above seismically densifying dry sandy soils may
experience settlement. According to seismic line data in Sheet A4, the minimum
compressional-Wave Velocity below 5 feet depth is above 1500 And this is equal to
shear wave velocity of 870 ft/sec (Assuming Poisson’s Ratio of 0.25). Yi (2010) in
Figure 2 of his paper titled “Procedure to Evaluate Seismic Settlement in Dry Sand
Based on Shear Wave Velocity” Correlated the Shear wave with SPT blow count and
the upper limit of shear wave velocity is 245 m/s or 803 ft/s. Also, in this paper Figure
4, shows that a soil with 247 m/s or 810 ft/s shear wave velocity will have less than
0.1 percent volumetric strain in the highest cyclic shear strain of 1 percent. Therefore,
we concluded, considering that the upper 5 feet will be removed, the magnitude of
potential dry sand settlement is negligible and therefore the site has a low potential for
dry sand settlement.
Page 11
February 17, 2025
W.O. 8009
MDN 24540
4.3.4 Liquefaction
Liquefaction is a soil softening dynamic response, by which an increase in the excess
pore water pressure results in partial to full loss of soil shear strength and post-
liquefaction dissipation of this pore water pressure results in ground settlement shortly
after the earthquake. In order for liquefaction to occur, the following four factors are
required: 1) saturated soil or soil situated below the groundwater table; 2) undrained
loading (strong ground shaking), such as by earthquake; 3) contractive soil response
during shear loading, which is often the case for a soil which is initially in a loose or
uncompacted state; and 4) susceptible soil type; such as clean, uniformly graded
sands, non-plastic silts, or gravels. Based on site exploration, this site is considered
to have very low susceptibility to liquefaction. This is due primarily to deeper than 50
feet historic high ground water.
4.4 Hydro Collapse
Hydro-collapse is a condition where dry or moist soils undergo settlement upon being wetted.
In many cases no additional surcharge load is necessary to trigger the Hydro-collapse. The
potential for Hydro-collapse has been evaluated based upon observations, the results of
Swell/Collapse and Consolidation tests, and moisture-density determinations for samples
taken from the field. Los Angeles County, Department of Public Works, Materials Engineering
Division consider potentially collapsible soils as generally having (a) low moisture contents
(<8%), (b) low in-situ density(<108pcf), and these soils can potentially be subject to 2% or
greater collapse. Due to cobbly and very dense nature of the soil, we anticipate the potential
for Hydro-collapse to be very low.
5.0 CONCLUSIONS
The development of the subject site is considered feasible from a geologic and geotechnical
engineering viewpoint, provided that the recommendations presented in this report are
followed during grading.
Page 12
February 17, 2025
W.O. 8009
MDN 24540
6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1 Removals
Removals shall extend a minimum of six (6) feet below existing ground surface or proposed
grades in the building area, whichever is lower in elevation. Removals shall extend a
minimum of six feet beyond the building footprint or equal to the depth of fill, whichever is
greater. In the areas of streets and other miscellaneous structures, removals shall extend a
minimum of 3 (three) feet below existing ground surface or proposed grades, whichever lower
in elevation. All existing fill on the site shall be removed during grading and replaced as
compacted fill. Deeper removals may be required if soft or dry soil conditions are observed
during grading or if hardpan conditions are observed. Preparation of areas to receive fill and
fill placement shall be performed as discussed under “Grading section”.
6.2 Foundations
The following recommendations are provided for preliminary design purposes and the final
expansion index should be determined following grading. In our opinion continuous footings
with slab-on-grade or post-tensioned interior slabs may be used to support the proposed
structures.
All foundations should meet current slope setback requirements. Foundations should be
designed for very low-expansive soil conditions. The proposed improvements should be
found into the compacted fill. Under no circumstances should foundations be cast atop loose,
soft, or slough, debris, existing artificial fill, topsoil, or surfaces covered by standing water.
Prior to placing concrete in a foundation excavation, an inspection should be made by our
representative to ensure that the foundation’s subgrade is free of loose and disturbed soils
and is embedded in the recommended material. We offer the following site-specific
recommendations and comments for purposes of foundation design and construction.
Page 13
February 17, 2025
W.O. 8009
MDN 24540
6.2.1 Footings
The proposed structures may be supported on continuous footings with slab-on-
ground or post-tensioned interior slab. Exterior isolated pad footings may be
connected to adjacent footings via tie beams at discretion of the structural engineer.
Subgrade Preparation
All conventional footings should be constructed on firm, unyielding certified
compacted fill. All compacted fills should be compacted to at least 90 percent
of the Modified Proctor maximum laboratory density, as determined by ASTM
D-1557-02 compaction method. Pre-moistening of all areas to receive concrete
is recommended. The moisture content of the subgrade soils should be equal
to or slightly greater than optimum moisture and verified by the Geotechnical
Engineer to a depth of 18 inches below adjacent grade within 24 hours of
concrete placement. Footing’s subgrades shall be prepared in accordance
with the Grading section of this report.
Minimum Dimensions
For two-story buildings, continuous and isolated footings should have a width
of at least 15 and 18 inches. Interior and perimeter footings should extend at
least 18 inches below the lowest adjacent grade. Please see the table below
for different story buildings. Exterior isolated pad footings intended for support
of roof overhangs such as decks, patio covers, and similar miscellaneous
construction should be a minimum of 18 inches square and founded at a
minimum depth of 18 inches below the lowest adjacent final grade.
Page 14
February 17, 2025
W.O. 8009
MDN 24540
TABLE 2
BUILDING’S FOOTINGS DIMENSIONS
Number of
Stories
Expansion
Index
Continuous
Footing
Width, Inch
Isolated
Footing
Width, Inch
lowest adjacent final
Reinforcement
Perimeter
Footings
Interior
Footings
1 Very Low 12 15 12 12
Two #4 bars;
one top, one
bottom Exterior Pad
Footing Very Low 18 18
Bearing Capacity
Footings with at least above minimum dimensions may be designed for a
preliminary allowable bearing pressure of 1,500 pounds per square foot (psf)
for dead plus live loads, with a one-third increase allowed when considering
additional short-term wind or seismic loading. The allowable bearing value may
be increased by 300 pounds per square foot per foot increase in depth or width
to a maximum of 3000 psf. The weight of the footings may be neglected for
design purposes. All footings located adjacent to utility lines should be
embedded below a 1:1 plane extending up from the bottom edge of the utility
trench.
Settlement
The footings should be designed based on a medium-expansive soils
condition. Differential settlement due to static loads is not expected to exceed
about ¼ -inch over 30 feet span for the proposed improvements supported on
footings, provided that the foundations are designed and constructed as
recommended.
Page 15
February 17, 2025
W.O. 8009
MDN 24540
Lateral Capacity
Lateral loads may be resisted by friction between the bottom of the footings
and the supporting subgrade, and by passive soil pressure acting against the
footings cast neat in foundation excavations or backfilled with properly
compacted structural fill. A coefficient of friction of 0.4 may be assumed for
design for footings supported on compacted fill. We recommend an equivalent
fluid pressure of 330 pounds per cubic foot for allowable passive soil resistance
and not to exceed 2,000 pounds per cubic foot, where appropriate. The upper
foot of passive soil resistance should be neglected where soil adjacent to the
footing is not covered and protected by a concrete slab or pavement. When
combining passive pressure and frictional resistance, the passive pressure
component should be reduced by one-third.
General Structural Design
We recommend that foundations be reinforced with a minimum 2, No. 4 rebar
both top and bottom steel, to provide structural continuity and to permit
spanning of local irregularities.
6.2.2 Foundation General Recommendations
The above parameters are applicable provided structures have gutters and
downspouts and positive drainage is maintained away from structures. Therefore, it
is important that information regarding drainage and site maintenance be passed on
to future owners.
The above recommendations assume, and GeoSoils, Inc. strongly recommends, that
surface water will be kept from infiltrating into the subgrade adjacent to the building
foundation system. This may include, but not be limited to rainwater, roof water,
landscape water and/or leaky plumbing. The lots are to be fine graded at the
completion of construction to include positive drainage away from the structure and
Page 16
February 17, 2025
W.O. 8009
MDN 24540
roof water will be collected via gutters, downspouts, and transported to the street in
buried drainpipes. Homebuyers should be cautioned against constructing open
draining planters adjacent to the houses or obstructing the yard drainage in any way.
• Utility trenches beneath the slabs should be backfilled with compacted native
soil materials, free of rocks.
• Standard City of Rancho Cucamonga structural setback guidelines are
applicable, except where superseded by specific recommendations by the
Project Geologist and Geotechnical Engineer.
• Building or structure foundations shall be set back a horizontal distance, x, from
the face of adjacent descending slope, if any. The horizontal distance is
calculated as x=H/3, where H is the height of slope. The distance x should not
be less than 5 feet nor more than 40 feet. The distance x may be provided by
deepening the foundations.
• The ground immediately adjacent to the foundations shall be sloped away from
the building at a slope of not less (5%-slope) for a minimum distance of 10’
measured perpendicular to the face of the wall. Impervious surfaces within 10’
of the building foundation shall be sloped a minimum of 2% away from the
building.
6.3 Interior Slab-on-grade
Interior concrete slab-on-grade may be used along with footings, and they can be poured
monolithically with the footings or as a separate section.
General Structural Design
Interior slabs on grade should be at least 4 inches thick, and they may be dwelled into
the foundation system in habitable areas at discretion of structural engineer. Concrete
slabs should be reinforced with at least No. 3 rebar at 24 inches on-center in both
Page 17
February 17, 2025
W.O. 8009
MDN 24540
directions for very low expansive soil. All slab reinforcement should be properly
positioned at mid-height in the slab during placement of concrete. A uniform modulus
of subgrade reaction (Kv) of 35 pounds per cubic inch (pci) may be assumed for slab-
on-grade design.
Post-Tensioned Design
Post-tensioned slabs should be designed in accordance with the recommendations of
the Post-Tensioning Institute. Based on review of laboratory data for the on-site
materials, the on-site materials have a very low expansion index. Deepened
footings/edges around the slab perimeter must be used to minimize non-uniform
surface moisture migration (from an outside source) beneath the slab. An edge depth
of at least 8 inches should be considered. The bottom of the deepened footing/edge
should be designed to resist tension, using cable or reinforcement per the Structural
Engineer. Specific recommendations for Post Tension Institute methods are presented
below.
Post-tensioned slabs should be designed in accordance with the recommendations of
the Post-Tensioning Institute. Post-tensioned slabs should have sufficient stiffness to
resist excessive bending due to non-uniform swell and shrinkage of subgrade soils.
The differential movement can occur at the corner, edge, or center of slab. The
potential for differential uplift can be evaluated using the design specifications of the
Post-Tensioning Institute. The following table presents suggested minimum
coefficients to be used in the Post-Tensioning Institute design method.
TABLE 3
SUGGESTED PT SLAB DESIGN COEFFICIENTS
Description Value
Page 18
February 17, 2025
W.O. 8009
MDN 24540
The coefficients are considered minimums and may not be adequate to represent
worst case conditions such as adverse drainage, excess watering, and/or improper
landscaping and maintenance. The above parameters are applicable provided
structures have gutters and downspouts, yard drains, and positive drainage is
maintained away from structure perimeters. Also, the values may not be adequate if
the soils below the foundation become saturated or dry such that shrinkage occurs.
The parameters are provided with the expectation that subgrade soils below the
foundations are maintained in a relatively uniform moisture condition. Responsible
irrigation of landscaping adjacent to the foundation must be practiced since over-
irrigation of landscaping can cause problems. Therefore, it is important that
information regarding drainage, site maintenance, settlements and effects of
expansive soils be passed on to future homeowners.
Based on the above parameters, the following preliminary values were obtained from
the Post Tension Institute Design manual for the anticipated Expansion Index of
subgrade material. If a stiffer slab is desired, higher values of ym may be warranted.
Please note that we will revise the following preliminary PT slab design values after
rough grading in our final compaction report upon some additional Expansion Index
tests of the compacted fill. Furthermore, if requested, we can do other lab tests such
as Sieve, Plasticity Index, etc following rough grading and value engineer the design
values that are based on Expansion Index only.
TABLE 4
PRELIMINARY PT SLAB DESIGN VALUES
Description Value
Subgrade Preparation
The subgrade soils below concrete flatwork areas to a minimum depth of 18
inches should be compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent
Page 19
February 17, 2025
W.O. 8009
MDN 24540
at or slightly above the optimum moisture content. Pre-saturation of the
subgrade below slabs will not be required; however, prior to placing concrete,
the subgrade below all dwelling and garage floor slab areas should be
thoroughly moistened to achieve a moisture content that is at least equal to or
no more than 6 percent greater than optimum moisture content to a minimum
depth of 12 inches below the bottoms of the slabs. Slab’s subgrades shall be
prepared in accordance with the Grading section of this report.
Underlayment
In areas where dampness of concrete floor slabs would be undesirable, such
as habitable building interior, concrete slabs should be underlain by a minimum
10 mil vapor barrier sandwiched between two (2) one-inch imported sand
layers. This vapor barrier shall be lapped and sealed (especially around the
utility perforations) adequately to provide a continuous waterproof barrier under
the entire slab. To reduce vapor transmission up through concrete slabs, the
vapor barrier should be high quality, UV-resistant conforming to the
requirements of ASTM E 1745 Class A, with a water vapor transmission rate
less than or equal to 0.01 perms (such as 15-mil thick “Stego Wrap Class A”).
The vapor barrier should be installed in accordance with ASTM E 1643. All
seams and penetrations of the vapor barrier should be sealed in accordance
with manufacturer’s recommendations.
Water: Cement Ratio
The permeability of concrete is affected significantly by the water:cement ratio
of the concrete mix, with lower water:cement ratios producing more damp-
resistant slabs and stronger concrete. Where moisture protection is important
such as basements below water table, the structural engineer should choose
an appropriate water:cement ratio for concrete slabs. Other steps that may be
taken to reduce moisture transmission through the concrete slabs include moist
Page 20
February 17, 2025
W.O. 8009
MDN 24540
curing for 5 to 7 days and allowing the slab to dry for a period of two months or
longer prior to placing floor coverings. Also, prior to installation of the floor
covering, it may be appropriate to test the slab moisture content for adherence
to the manufacturer’s requirements and to determine whether a longer drying
time is necessary. Where the concrete will be placed directly on the vapor
barrier, the structural engineer should choose an appropriate water:cement
ratio in order to avoid potential effects of slab curling, crusting and cracking. To
increase the workability of the concrete, mid-range plasticizers can be added
to the mix. Water should not be added to the concrete mix unless the slump is
less than specified and the water:cement ratio will not exceed the design value.
6.4 Exterior Slabs-on-grade
Exterior concrete slab-on-grade may be used to support walkways, exterior patios and
hardscapes. Consideration should be given to using a control joint spacing on the order of 2
feet in each direction for each inch of exterior slab thickness.
Subgrade Preparation
To reduce the potential for distress to exterior concrete flatwork, the subgrade soils
below concrete flatwork areas to a minimum depth of 12 inches (or deeper, as either
prescribed elsewhere in this report or determined in the field) should be moisture
conditioned to at least equal to, or slightly greater than, the optimum moisture content
and then compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent.
As a further measure to reduce the potential for concrete flatwork cracking, subgrade
soils should be thoroughly moistened prior to placing concrete. The moisture content
of the soils should be at least the optimum moisture content to a minimum depth of 18
inches into the subgrade. Flooding or ponding of the subgrade is not considered
feasible to achieve the above moisture conditions since this method would likely
require construction of numerous earth berms to contain the water. Therefore,
moisture conditioning should be achieved with sprinklers, or a light spray applied to
Page 21
February 17, 2025
W.O. 8009
MDN 24540
the subgrade over a period of few to several days just prior to pouring concrete. Pre-
watering of the soils is intended to promote uniform curing of the concrete, reduce the
development of shrinkage cracks and reduce the potential for differential expansion
pressure on freshly poured flatwork. A representative of the project geotechnical
consultant should observe and verify the density and moisture content of the soils, and
the depth of moisture penetration prior to pouring concrete.
Drainage
Drainage from patios and other flatwork areas should be directed to local area drains
and/or graded earth swales designed to carry runoff water to the adjacent streets or
other approved drainage structures. The concrete flatwork should be sloped at a
minimum gradient of one percent, or as prescribed by project civil engineer or local
codes, away from building foundations, retaining walls, masonry garden walls and
slope areas.
Thickened Edge
To improve performance, exterior slabs-on-grade may be constructed with a thickened
edge to improve edge stiffness and to reduce the potential for water seepage under
the edge of the slabs and into the underlying base and subgrade. In our opinion, the
thickened edges should be at least 8 inches wide and ideally should extend at least 8
inches below the bottom of the slab.
6.5 Grading
Grading of the site will consist of a cut/fill operation to create level pads and associated
streets. The grading will involve the removing and recompacting of existing near surface
material. We offer the following recommendations and construction considerations
concerning earthwork grading at the site.
Page 22
February 17, 2025
W.O. 8009
MDN 24540
6.5.1 General
Monitoring: We recommend that all earthwork (i.e., clearing, site preparation, fill
placement, etc.) should be conducted with engineering control under observation and
testing by the Geotechnical Engineer and in accordance with the requirements within
the Grading section of this report.
Job Site Safety: At all times, safety should have precedence over production work. If
an unsafe job condition is observed, it should be brought to the attention of the grading
contractor or the developer’s representative. Once this condition is noted, it should
be corrected as soon as possible, or work related to the unsafe condition should be
terminated.
The contractor for the project should realize that services provided by GSC do not
include supervision or direction of the actual work performed by the contractor, his
employees, or agents. GSC will use accepted geotechnical engineering and testing
procedures; however, our testing and observations will not relieve the contractor of his
primary responsibility to produce a completed project conforming to the project plans
and specifications. Furthermore, our firm will not be responsible for job or site safety
on this project, as this is the responsibility of the contractor.
6.5.2 Site Preparation
Existing Structure Location: The General Contractor should locate all surface and
subsurface structures on the site or on the approved grading plan prior to preparing
the ground.
Existing Structure Removal: Any underground structures (e.g., septic tanks, wells,
pipelines, foundations, utilities, etc.) that have not been located prior to grading should
be removed or treated in a manner recommended by the Geotechnical Engineer.
Page 23
February 17, 2025
W.O. 8009
MDN 24540
Clearing and Stripping: The construction areas should be cleared and stripped of all
vegetation, trees, bushes, sod, topsoil, artificial fill, debris, asphalt, concrete, and other
deleterious material prior to fill placement.
Removals: Please refer to the Removals section of this report for specific
recommendations for removals.
Subgrade Preparation: We recommend that the subgrade for those areas receiving
any fill be prepared by scarifying the upper 12 inches and moisture conditioning, as
required to obtain at least optimum moisture, but not greater than 120 percent of
optimum. The scarified areas shall be compacted to at least 90 percent of the
maximum laboratory density, as determined by ASTM D-1557-12 compaction method.
All areas to receive fill should be observed by the Geotechnical Engineer prior to fill
placement.
Subgrade Verification and Compaction Testing: Regardless of material or location, all
fill material should be placed over properly compacted subgrades in accordance with
this section. The condition of all subgrades shall be verified by the Geotechnical
Engineer before fill placement or earthwork grading begins. Earthwork monitoring and
field density testing shall be performed during grading to provide a basis for opinions
concerning the degree of soil compaction attained. The Contractor should be
responsible for notifying the Geotechnical Engineer when such areas are ready for
inspection. Inspection of the subgrade may also be required by the controlling
governmental agency within the respective jurisdictions. Density tests should also be
made on the prepared subgrade to receive fill, unless the areas are underlain by dense
alluvium, as required by the Geotechnical Engineer.
6.5.3 Fill Placement
Laboratory Testing: Representative samples of materials to be utilized as compacted
fill should be analyzed in a laboratory to determine their physical properties. If any
Page 24
February 17, 2025
W.O. 8009
MDN 24540
material other than that previously tested is encountered during grading, the
appropriate analysis of this material should be conducted.
On-Site Fill Material: The on-site soils, in our opinion, are adequate for re-use in
controlled fills provided the soils do not contain any organic matter, debris, and that
over-sized rocks are buried in accordance with the recommendations under Rock
Fragments.
Rock Fragments: The alluvium on the site should be free of oversized rocks. Any rock
fragments over 6 inches should be kept below a depth of 3 feet below proposed grade.
Rocks greater than 6 inches in diameter should be taken off site or placed in
accordance with the recommendations of the Geotechnical Engineer. Rocks greater
than 6 inches in diameter shall be kept out of all street areas to a depth below the
deepest proposed utility line. Rocks shall not be placed in concentrated pockets, shall
be surrounded with fine grained material, and the distribution of the rocks shall be
supervised by the Geotechnical Engineer. A sufficient amount of fine-grained material
shall be placed around the rocks to prevent nesting and to fill all void space. An
adequate amount of water will be required to force fines into any open voids.
Fill Placement: Approved on-site material shall be evenly placed, watered, processed,
and compacted in controlled horizontal layers not exceeding eight inches in loose
thickness, and each layer should be thoroughly compacted with approved equipment.
The fill should be placed and compacted in horizontal layers, unless otherwise
recommended by the Geotechnical Engineer.
Compaction Criteria - Shallow Fills: For fills less than 40 feet in vertical thickness, each
layer shall be compacted to at least 90 percent of the maximum laboratory density for
material used as determined by ASTM D-1557-12. The field density shall be
determined by the ASTM D-1556-07 method or equivalent. Where moisture content
of the fill or density testing yields compaction results less than 90 percent, additional
Page 25
February 17, 2025
W.O. 8009
MDN 24540
compaction effort and/or moisture conditioning, as necessary, shall be performed, until
the fill material is in accordance with the requirements of the Geotechnical Engineer.
Fill Material - Moisture Content: All fill material placed must be moisture conditioned,
as required to obtain at least optimum moisture, but not greater than 120 percent. If
excessive moisture in the fill results in failing results or an unacceptable “pumping”
condition, then the fill should be allowed to dry until the moisture content is within the
necessary range to meet the required compaction requirements or reworked until
acceptable conditions are obtained.
Keying and Benching: All fills should be keyed and benched through all topsoil,
slopewash, alluvium or colluvium or creep material into firm material where the slope
receiving fill is steeper than 5:1 (Horizontal: Vertical) or as determined by Geotechnical
Engineer. The standard acceptable bench height is four feet into suitable material.
The key for side hill fills should be a minimum of 15 feet within compacted fill or firm
materials, with a minimum toe embankment of 2 feet into compacted fill, unless
otherwise specified by the Geotechnical Engineer.
Slope Face - Compaction Criteria: The Contractor should be required to obtain a
minimum relative compaction of 90 percent out to the finish slope face of fill slopes.
This may be achieved by either overbuilding the slope a minimum of five feet, and
cutting back to the compacted core, or by direct compaction of the slope face with
suitable equipment, or by any other procedure which produces the required
compaction. If the method of achieving the required slope compaction selected by the
Contractor fails to produce the necessary results, the Contractor should rework or
rebuild such slopes until the required degree of compaction is obtained, at no
additional cost to the Owner or Geotechnical Engineer. Slope testing will include
testing the outer 6 inches to 3 feet of the slope face during and after placement of the
fill. In addition, during grading, density tests will be taken periodically on the flat
surface of the fill three to five feet horizontally from the face of the slope.
Page 26
February 17, 2025
W.O. 8009
MDN 24540
Slope Face - Contractor’s Responsibility: The Contractor should prepare a written
detailed description of the method or methods he would employ to obtain the required
slope compaction. Such documents should be submitted to the Geotechnical
Engineer for review and comments prior to the start of grading.
Slope Face - Vegetation: All fill slopes should be planted or protected from erosion by
methods specified in the geotechnical report or required by the controlling
governmental agency.
Density Testing Intervals: In general, density tests should be conducted at minimum
intervals of 2 feet of fill height or every 500 to 1,000 cubic yards. Due to the variability
that can occur in fill placement and different fill material characteristics, a higher
number of density tests may be warranted to verify that the required compaction is
being achieved.
Grading Control: Earthwork monitoring and field density testing shall be performed by
the Geotechnical Engineer during grading to provide a basis for opinions concerning
the degree of soil compaction attained. The Contractor should receive a copy of the
Geotechnical Engineer's Daily Field Engineering Report which will indicate the results
of field density tests for that day. Where failing tests occur or other field problems
arise, the Contractor shall be notified of such conditions by written communication
from the Geotechnical Engineer in the form of a conference memorandum, to avoid
any misunderstanding arising from oral communication.
Drainage Devices: Drainage terraces should be constructed in compliance with the
ordinances of controlling governmental agencies, or with the recommendations of the
Geotechnical Engineer or Engineering Geologist.
Page 27
February 17, 2025
W.O. 8009
MDN 24540
6.5.4 Construction Considerations
Erosion Control: Erosion control measures, when necessary, should be provided by
the Contractor during grading and prior to the completion and construction of
permanent drainage controls.
Compaction Equipment: It is also the Contractor's responsibility to have suitable and
sufficient compaction equipment on the project site to handle the amount of fill being
placed and the type of fill material to be compacted. If necessary, excavation
equipment should be shut down to permit completion of compaction in accordance
with the recommendations contained herein. Sufficient watering devices/equipment
should also be provided by the Contractor to achieve optimum moisture content in the
fill material.
Final Grading Considerations: Care should be taken by the Contractor during final
grading to preserve any berms, drainage terraces, interceptor swales, or other devices
of a permanent nature on or adjacent to the property.
6.5.5 Earthwork Adjustment Factors
The following table presents shrinkage factors as based on laboratory testing of the
alluvium.
TABLE 5
EARTHWORK ADJUSTMENT FACTORS
Material Type Adjustment Factor
6.5.6 Temporary Excavation
Where the necessary space is available, temporary unsurcharged embankments may
be sloped back without shoring. The slope should not be cut steeper than the following
gradient:
Page 28
February 17, 2025
W.O. 8009
MDN 24540
TABLE 6
TEMPORARY EXCAVATION SLOPE
Height Temporary Gradient
(Horizontal: Vertical)
In areas where soils with little or no binder are encountered, shoring or flatter
excavation slopes shall be made. These recommended temporary excavation slopes
do not preclude local ravelling or sloughing.
All applicable requirements of the California Construction and General Industry Safety
Orders, the Occupational Safety and Health Act, and the Construction Safety Act
should be met.
Where sloped embankments are used, the top of the slope should be barricaded to
prevent equipment and heavy storage loads within five feet of the top of the slope. If
the temporary construction embankments are to be maintained for long periods, berms
should be constructed along the top of the slope to prevent runoff water from eroding
the slope faces. The soils exposed in the temporary backcut slopes during excavation
should be observed by our personnel so that modifications of the slopes can be made
if variations in the soil conditions occur. The temporary excavation slopes should be
supported within three weeks.
6.5.7 Excavation Observation
All footing and other excavations should be observed by an Engineering Geologist or
Geotechnical Engineering prior to placement of any steel to verify that the proper
foundation material has been encountered. The City Inspector should also observe
the excavation.
6.5.8 Utility Trenching and Backfill
Utility Trenching: Open excavations and excavations that are shored shall conform to
all applicable Federal, State, and local regulations.
Page 29
February 17, 2025
W.O. 8009
MDN 24540
Backfill Placement: Approved on-site or imported fill material shall be evenly placed,
watered, processed, and compacted in controlled horizontal layers not exceeding
eight inches in loose thickness, and each layer should be thoroughly compacted with
approved equipment. All fill material should be moisture conditioned, as required to
obtain at least optimum moisture, but not greater than 120 percent of optimum
moisture content. The fill should be placed and compacted on a horizontal plane,
unless otherwise recommended by the Geotechnical Engineer.
As an alternative to on-site or imported fill material, for shallow trenches where pipe
or utility lines may be damaged by mechanical compaction equipment, such as under
building floor slabs, imported clean sand having a sand equivalent (SE) value of 30 or
greater may be utilized. The sand backfill materials should be watered to achieve near
optimum moisture conditions and then tamped into place. No specific relative
compaction will be required; however, observation, probing, and if deemed necessary,
testing should be performed by a representative of the project geotechnical consultant
to verify an adequate degree of compaction.
Backfill Compaction Criteria: Each layer of utility trench backfill shall be compacted to
at least 90 percent of the maximum laboratory density determined by ASTM D-1557-
12. The field density shall be determined by the ASTM D-1556-07 method or
equivalent. Where moisture content of the fill or density testing yields compaction
results less than 90 percent, additional compaction effort and/or moisture conditioning,
as necessary, shall be performed, until the compaction criteria is reached.
Exterior Trenches Adjacent to Footings: Exterior trenches, paralleling a footing and
extending below a 1H:1V plane projected from the outside bottom edge of the footing,
should be compacted to 90 percent of the laboratory standard. Sand backfill, unless
it is similar to the in-place fill, should not be allowed in the trench backfill areas. Density
testing, along with probing, should be accomplished to verify the desired results.
Page 30
February 17, 2025
W.O. 8009
MDN 24540
Pipe Bedding: We recommend that a minimum of 6 inches of bedding material should
be placed in the bottom of the utility trench. All bedding materials shall extend at least
4 inches above the top of utilities which require protection during subsequent trench
backfilling. All trenches shall be wide enough to allow for compaction around the
haunches of the pipe.
Groundwater Migration: Backfilled utility trenches may act as French drains to some
extent, and considerable groundwater flow along utility bedding and backfill should be
expected. Wherever buried utilities, or structures which they may intersect, could be
adversely affected by such drainage, provisions shall be made to collect groundwater
migrating along the trench lines. These situations include where buried utilities enter
buildings, particularly where they enter below grade mechanical rooms, and where
buried utilities enter junction boxes or switching stations that are intended to remain
dry. Mitigation measures include, but are not limited to, placement of perforated
drainpipes below and continuous with bedding materials, and placement of seepage
barriers such as lean mix concrete or controlled density fill (CDF).
7.0 FUTURE SERVICES
7.1 Plan Review
To better assure conformance of the final design documents with the recommendations
contained in this report, and to better comply with the building department’s requirements, we
must review the completed project plans prior to construction. The plans should be made
available for our review as soon as possible after completion so that we can better assist in
keeping your project schedule on track. We recommend that the following note be added to
the architectural, structural, and civil plans:
7.2 Construction Observation Services
We should observe and test (as necessary) the earthwork and foundation phases of
construction in order to a) confirm that subsurface conditions exposed during construction are
substantially the same as those interpolated from our limited subsurface exploration, on which
Page 31
February 17, 2025
W.O. 8009
MDN 24540
the analysis and design were based; b) evaluate compliance with the geotechnical design
concepts, specifications, and recommendations; and c) allow design changes in the event
that subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated. The recommendations in this report
are based on limited subsurface information. The nature and extent of variation across the
site may not become evident until construction. If variations are exposed during construction,
it may be necessary to re-evaluate our recommendations. We should be provided at least 48
hours advance notification of any geotechnical aspects of the construction and should be
present to observe and test the earthwork, foundation, and drainage installation phases of
the project.
MDN 24540
February 17, 2025
W.O. 8009
REFERENCES
ACI 302.1R-15, Guide to Concrete Floor and Slab Construction.
Agusti, G.C., and Sitar, N. (2013). "Seismic Earth Pressures on Retaining Structures in
Cohesive Soils" Report submitted to the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)
under Contract No. 65A0367 and NSF-NEES-CR Grant No. CMMI-0936376: Seismic earth
pressures on retaining structures. Report No. UCB GT 13-02.
ASCE/SEI 7-22, Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other
Structures, American Society of Civil Engineers
Bray and Sancio (2006), Assessment of Liquefaction Susceptibility of Fine-Grained Soils,
Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, September 2006, pp 1165-1177
California Geological Survey (2008), Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic
Hazards in California, Special Publication 117A
California Building Code (CBC), 2022, California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2,
Volume I and II.
California Geological Survey (2008), Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic
Hazards in California, Special Publication 117A.
California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, 1997, “Seismic
Hazard Zone Report for the Simi Valley East and West 7.5 Minute Quadrangles, Ventura and
Los Angeles Counties, California”
Cetin, K. Onder. (2009). Probabilistic Model for the Assessment of Cyclically Induced
Reconsolidation „Volumetric Settlements. J. of Geotechnical and Geo environmental
Engineering, ASCE.
Coduto, Donald P. (2001), Foundation Design: Principles and Practices, 2nd Ed, Prentice
Hall. Upper Saddle River. NJ
Cliq User’s Manual by, GeoLogismiki, (2018), Liquefaction assessment software from CPTU
measurements Cliq v.1.7.
Hannigan, P. J., G. G. Goble, G. Thendean, G. E. Likins, and F. Rausche. Design and
Construction of driven pier Foundation, FHWA-NHI-05-042 and NHI-05-043, Federal
Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, DC, 2006. Vols. I
and II.
MDN 24540
February 17, 2025
W.O. 8009
REFERENCES (cont’d)
Lew, M., Sitar, N. and Al Atik, L. (2010). “Seismic Earth Pressures: Fact or Fiction.”
Proceedings of the Earth Retention Conference 3, Geo-Institute of ASCE, Bellevue, WA.
Post-Tensioning Institute (PTI) publication, TAB.1-23 “Post-Tensioning Manual, seventh
edition”
Robertson P. and Cabal K.L, Gregg Drilling and testing inc., “Guideline to Cone penetration
testing for Geotechnical Investigation”, 6th edition, 2015.
Seed, H.B. and Whitman, R.V.. (1970). “Design of Earth Retaining Structures for Dynamic
Loads.” ASCE Specialty Conference, Lateral Stresses in the Ground and Design of Earth
Retaining Structures. Cornell University, Ithaca, NY., 103-147.
Tokimatsu, K. and Seed, H.B. 1987. Evaluation of settlements in sand due to earthquake
shaking. J. of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE. Vol. 113(8): 861-878.
Wire Reinforcement Institute (WRI) publication, (WRI/CRSI 81) “Design of Slab-on-Ground
Foundations, TF 700-R-07”
Yi, Fred (2010) “Procedure To Evaluate Seismic Settlement In Dry Sand Based On Shear
Wave Velocity” Proceedings of the 9th U.S. National and 10th Canadian Conference on
Earthquake Engineering.
Geotechnical Geologic
6634 Valjean Avenue Van Nuys, California 91406
TEL: (818) 785-2158 FAX: (818) 785-1548
www.geosoilsinc.com
WORK ORDER DATE SCALE
SHEET - A0.1
8009 1/2025 AS NOTED
MD
N
2
4
5
4
0
SLOPE BAND ANALYSIS
DECLIFF ROAD
TTM 20653, APN:022606169
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA
SOOD KISRA
REVISED
X:
\
2
0
0
1
w
.
o
\
g
s
c
-
c
a
d
\
8
0
0
9
\
1
-
2
1
-
2
5
\
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
\
8
0
0
9
-
-
V
A
R
I
O
U
S
D
R
A
W
I
N
G
S
2
-
1
8
-
2
5
.
d
w
g
,
2
/
1
8
/
2
0
2
5
1
1
:
5
2
:
2
2
A
M
,
A
u
t
o
C
A
D
P
D
F
(
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
D
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
)
.
p
c
3
,
A
R
C
H
f
u
l
l
b
l
e
e
d
D
(
3
6
.
0
0
x
2
4
.
0
0
I
n
c
h
e
s
)
Geotechnical Geologic
6634 Valjean Avenue Van Nuys, California 91406
TEL: (818) 785-2158 FAX: (818) 785-1548
www.geosoilsinc.com
WORK ORDER DATE SCALE
SHEET - A0
8009 1/2025 AS NOTED
MD
N
2
4
5
4
0
COVER SHEET
DECLIFF ROAD
TTM 20653, APN:022606169
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA
SOOD KISRA
REVISED
X:
\
2
0
0
1
w
.
o
\
g
s
c
-
c
a
d
\
8
0
0
9
\
1
-
2
1
-
2
5
\
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
\
8
0
0
9
-
-
V
A
R
I
O
U
S
D
R
A
W
I
N
G
S
2
-
1
8
-
2
5
.
d
w
g
,
2
/
1
8
/
2
0
2
5
1
1
:
5
1
:
5
2
A
M
,
A
u
t
o
C
A
D
P
D
F
(
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
D
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
)
.
p
c
3
,
A
R
C
H
f
u
l
l
b
l
e
e
d
D
(
3
6
.
0
0
x
2
4
.
0
0
I
n
c
h
e
s
)
Geotechnical Geologic
6634 Valjean Avenue Van Nuys, California 91406
TEL: (818) 785-2158 FAX: (818) 785-1548
www.geosoilsinc.com
WORK ORDER DATE SCALE
SHEET - A1.1
8009 1/2025 AS NOTED
MD
N
2
4
5
4
0
ENLARGED PLANS LOTS 1, 2, 3, 4
DECLIFF ROAD
TTM 20653, APN:022606169
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA
SOOD KISRA
REVISED
X:
\
2
0
0
1
w
.
o
\
g
s
c
-
c
a
d
\
8
0
0
9
\
1
-
2
1
-
2
5
\
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
\
8
0
0
9
-
-
V
A
R
I
O
U
S
D
R
A
W
I
N
G
S
2
-
1
8
-
2
5
.
d
w
g
,
2
/
1
8
/
2
0
2
5
1
1
:
5
3
:
2
6
A
M
,
A
u
t
o
C
A
D
P
D
F
(
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
D
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
)
.
p
c
3
,
A
R
C
H
f
u
l
l
b
l
e
e
d
D
(
3
6
.
0
0
x
2
4
.
0
0
I
n
c
h
e
s
)
Geotechnical Geologic
6634 Valjean Avenue Van Nuys, California 91406
TEL: (818) 785-2158 FAX: (818) 785-1548
www.geosoilsinc.com
WORK ORDER DATE SCALE
SHEET - A1.2
8009 1/2025 AS NOTED
MD
N
2
4
5
4
0
REVISED
ENLARGED LOT PLAN - LOT 5
DECLIFF ROAD
TTM 20653, APN:022606169
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA
SOOD KISRA
X:
\
2
0
0
1
w
.
o
\
g
s
c
-
c
a
d
\
8
0
0
9
\
1
-
2
1
-
2
5
\
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
\
8
0
0
9
-
-
V
A
R
I
O
U
S
D
R
A
W
I
N
G
S
2
-
1
8
-
2
5
.
d
w
g
,
2
/
1
8
/
2
0
2
5
1
1
:
5
3
:
5
9
A
M
,
A
u
t
o
C
A
D
P
D
F
(
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
D
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
)
.
p
c
3
,
A
R
C
H
f
u
l
l
b
l
e
e
d
D
(
3
6
.
0
0
x
2
4
.
0
0
I
n
c
h
e
s
)
Geotechnical Geologic
6634 Valjean Avenue Van Nuys, California 91406
TEL: (818) 785-2158 FAX: (818) 785-1548
www.geosoilsinc.com
WORK ORDER DATE SCALE
SHEET - A1
8009 1/2025 AS NOTED
MD
N
2
4
5
4
0
SITE DIAGRAM & ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN
DECLIFF ROAD
TTM 20653, APN:022606169
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA
SOOD KISRA
REVISED
X:
\
2
0
0
1
w
.
o
\
g
s
c
-
c
a
d
\
8
0
0
9
\
1
-
2
1
-
2
5
\
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
\
8
0
0
9
-
-
V
A
R
I
O
U
S
D
R
A
W
I
N
G
S
2
-
1
8
-
2
5
.
d
w
g
,
2
/
1
8
/
2
0
2
5
1
1
:
5
2
:
5
0
A
M
,
A
u
t
o
C
A
D
P
D
F
(
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
D
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
)
.
p
c
3
,
A
R
C
H
f
u
l
l
b
l
e
e
d
D
(
3
6
.
0
0
x
2
4
.
0
0
I
n
c
h
e
s
)
Geotechnical Geologic
6634 Valjean Avenue Van Nuys, California 91406
TEL: (818) 785-2158 FAX: (818) 785-1548
www.geosoilsinc.com
WORK ORDER DATE SCALE
SHEET - A2
8009 1/2025 AS NOTED
MD
N
2
4
5
4
0
LIGHTING AND FENCE SPECIFICATIONS
DECLIFF ROAD
TTM 20653, APN:022606169
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA
SOOD KISRA
REVISED
X:
\
2
0
0
1
w
.
o
\
g
s
c
-
c
a
d
\
8
0
0
9
\
1
-
2
1
-
2
5
\
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
\
8
0
0
9
-
-
V
A
R
I
O
U
S
D
R
A
W
I
N
G
S
2
-
1
8
-
2
5
.
d
w
g
,
2
/
1
8
/
2
0
2
5
1
1
:
5
4
:
2
5
A
M
,
A
u
t
o
C
A
D
P
D
F
(
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
D
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
)
.
p
c
3
,
A
R
C
H
f
u
l
l
b
l
e
e
d
D
(
3
6
.
0
0
x
2
4
.
0
0
I
n
c
h
e
s
)
Geotechnical Geologic
6634 Valjean Avenue Van Nuys, California 91406
TEL: (818) 785-2158 FAX: (818) 785-1548
www.geosoilsinc.com
WORK ORDER DATE SCALE
SHEET - A4
8009 1/2025 AS NOTED
MD
N
2
4
5
4
0
GEO-FAULT LINE ANALYSIS
DECLIFF ROAD
TTM 20653, APN:022606169
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA
SOOD KISRA
REVISED
X:
\
2
0
0
1
w
.
o
\
g
s
c
-
c
a
d
\
8
0
0
9
\
1
-
2
1
-
2
5
\
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
\
8
0
0
9
-
-
V
A
R
I
O
U
S
D
R
A
W
I
N
G
S
2
-
1
8
-
2
5
.
d
w
g
,
2
/
1
8
/
2
0
2
5
1
1
:
5
4
:
5
3
A
M
,
A
u
t
o
C
A
D
P
D
F
(
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
D
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
)
.
p
c
3
,
A
R
C
H
f
u
l
l
b
l
e
e
d
D
(
3
6
.
0
0
x
2
4
.
0
0
I
n
c
h
e
s
)
Geotechnical Geologic
6634 Valjean Avenue Van Nuys, California 91406
TEL: (818) 785-2158 FAX: (818) 785-1548
www.geosoilsinc.com
WORK ORDER DATE SCALE
SHEET - A5
8009 1/2025 AS NOTED
MD
N
2
4
5
4
0
REVISED
USGS FAULT LINE ANALYSIS
DECLIFF ROAD
TTM 20653, APN:022606169
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA
SOOD KISRA
X:
\
2
0
0
1
w
.
o
\
g
s
c
-
c
a
d
\
8
0
0
9
\
1
-
2
1
-
2
5
\
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
\
8
0
0
9
-
-
V
A
R
I
O
U
S
D
R
A
W
I
N
G
S
2
-
1
8
-
2
5
.
d
w
g
,
2
/
1
8
/
2
0
2
5
1
1
:
5
5
:
1
7
A
M
,
A
u
t
o
C
A
D
P
D
F
(
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
D
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
)
.
p
c
3
,
A
R
C
H
f
u
l
l
b
l
e
e
d
D
(
3
6
.
0
0
x
2
4
.
0
0
I
n
c
h
e
s
)
Geotechnical Geologic
6634 Valjean Avenue Van Nuys, California 91406
TEL: (818) 785-2158 FAX: (818) 785-1548
www.geosoilsinc.com
WORK ORDER DATE SCALE
PLATE 1
8009 1/2025 1" = 100'
MD
N
2
4
5
4
0
GEOLOGIC MAP
DECLIFF ROAD
TTM 20653, APN:022606169
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA
SOOD KISRA
REVISED
LINE OF TRENCH SECTION
EXPLANATION
TRENCH-1
Qyf ALLUVIAL FAN DEPOSITS3
3Qyf
X:
\
2
0
0
1
w
.
o
\
g
s
c
-
c
a
d
\
8
0
0
9
\
1
-
2
1
-
2
5
\
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
\
8
0
0
9
-
-
T
R
E
N
C
H
L
O
C
A
T
I
O
N
M
A
P
1
-
2
3
-
2
5
.
d
w
g
,
2
/
1
7
/
2
0
2
5
1
:
0
8
:
2
0
P
M
,
A
u
t
o
C
A
D
P
D
F
(
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
D
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
)
.
p
c
3
,
A
R
C
H
f
u
l
l
b
l
e
e
d
D
(
3
6
.
0
0
x
2
4
.
0
0
I
n
c
h
e
s
)
A: Dark Brown, Silty Sand with Gravel and Roots, Fine to Course Grained, Slightly Moist, Moderately Dense.
B: Light Brown to Light Greyish, Sand, Sand with Cobble and Gravel, Fine to Course GRAINED, Slightly Moist, Moderately Dense to Dense - Interbedded Gravel and Silty Sand Layers.
C: Light Brown to Light Yellowish Brown Sandy Silt with Gravel and Cobble. Fine to Medium Grain, Slightly Moist, Dense.
EXPLANATION
200
210 220 230 240 250 260 270 280 290 300 310 320 330 340 350 360 370 380
010 020 030000 040 050 060 070 080 090 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190
390 400
400 410 420 430 440 450 460 470 480 490 500 510 520 530 540 550 560 570 580 590
600
600
610 620 630 640 650
A
B
C
A
B
C
A
B
C
A
A A A
A A A A
A A
B
C
A
B
A A A
A
C
B B B B
B B B B
B B
C C C C C
C C C C C
C C
B
B
200
Geotechnical Geologic
6634 Valjean Avenue Van Nuys, California 91406
TEL: (818) 785-2158 FAX: (818) 785-1548
www.geosoilsinc.com
WORK ORDER DATE SCALE
REVISED PLATE 2
8009 1/2025 1" = 10'
MD
N
2
4
5
4
0
TRENCH SECTION
DECLIFF ROAD
TTM 20653, APN:022606169
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA
SOOD KISRA
X:
\
2
0
0
1
w
.
o
\
g
s
c
-
c
a
d
\
8
0
0
9
\
1
-
2
1
-
2
5
\
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
\
8
0
0
9
-
-
T
R
E
N
C
H
L
O
C
A
T
I
O
N
M
A
P
1
-
2
3
-
2
5
.
d
w
g
,
2
/
1
7
/
2
0
2
5
1
:
0
8
:
0
3
P
M
,
A
u
t
o
C
A
D
P
D
F
(
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
D
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
)
.
p
c
3
,
A
R
C
H
f
u
l
l
b
l
e
e
d
C
(
2
4
.
0
0
x
1
8
.
0
0
I
n
c
h
e
s
)
Appendix E-1:
Paleontological Assessment
PALEONTOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT FOR
THE DECLIFF DRIVE LOT SUBDIVISION
PROJECT
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
APNs 0226-061-68 and -69
Prepared on Behalf of:
Lilburn Corporation
1905 Business Center Drive
San Bernardino, California 92408
Submitted to:
City of Rancho Cucamonga
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730
Prepared by:
BFSA Environmental Services,
a Perennial Company
14010 Poway Road, Suite A
Poway, California 92064
May 15, 2024
Paleontological Assessment for the Decliff Drive Lot Subdivision Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Paleontological Database Information
Author: Todd A. Wirths, M.S., Senior Paleontologist, California
Professional Geologist No. 7588
Consulting Firm: BFSA Environmental Services, a Perennial Company
14010 Poway Road, Suite A
Poway, California 92064
(858) 679-8218
Report Date: May 15, 2024
Report Title: Paleontological Assessment for the Decliff Drive Lot
Subdivision Project, City of Rancho Cucamonga,
San Bernardino County, California
Prepared on Behalf of: Lilburn Corporation
1905 Business Center Drive
San Bernardino, California 92408
Submitted to: City of Rancho Cucamonga
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730
USGS Quadrangle: Section 15, Township 1 North, Range 6 West of the Cucamonga
Peak USGS 7.5′ topographic quadrangle map
Study Area: 39.54 acres
Assessor’s Parcel Numbers: 0226-061-68 and -69
Key Words: Paleontological assessment; Pleistocene young alluvial fan
deposits; undetermined to high paleontological resource
sensitivity; monitoring recommended.
Paleontological Assessment for the Decliff Drive Lot Subdivision Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Table of Contents
Section Page
I. INTRODUCTION AND LOCATION .......................................................................1
II. REGULATORY SETTING .......................................................................................1
State of California .....................................................................................................1
County of Rancho Cucamonga .................................................................................4
III. GEOLOGY .................................................................................................................5
IV. PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES......................................................................5
Definition ....................................................................................................................5
Paleontological Resource Record Search .................................................................8
Field Survey................................................................................................................8
V. PALEONTOLOGICAL SENSITIVITY ....................................................................9
Overview .....................................................................................................................9
Professional Standards ..............................................................................................9
VI. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS .....................................................10
VII. CERTIFICATION ....................................................................................................12
VIII. REFERENCES........................................................................................................12
Appendices
Appendix A – Qualifications of Key Personnel
Appendix B – Paleontological Record Search Letter
List of Figures
Figure Page
Figure 1 General Location Map .................................................................................2
Figure 2 Project Location Map ...................................................................................3
Figure 3A Geologic Map...............................................................................................6
Figure 3B Geologic Map Key .......................................................................................7
Paleontological Assessment for the Decliff Drive Lot Subdivision Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1
I. INTRODUCTION AND LOCATION
A paleontological resource assessment has been completed for the Decliff Drive Lot
Subdivision Project, located at 13702 Decliff Drive, northwest of Decliff Drive and Ambleside
Place, in the northern portion of the city of Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County,
California (Figures 1 and 2). The 39.54-acre project consists of two parcels (Assessor’s Parcel
Numbers 0226-061-68 and -69). The project is situated within Section 15, Township 1 North,
Range 6 West, as shown on the USGS Cucamonga Peak, California topographic quadrangle
(Figure 2). Plans for the project consist of the construction of a residential subdivision as well as
improvements to the recently paved Decliff Drive.
As the lead agency, the City of Rancho Cucamonga required preparation of a
paleontological assessment to evaluate the project’s potential to yield paleontological resources.
The paleontological assessment of the project included a review of paleontological literature and
fossil locality records in the area; a review of the underlying geology; and recommendations to
mitigate impacts to potential paleontological resources, if necessary.
II. REGULATORY SETTING
CEQA, which is patterned after the National Environmental Policy Act, is the overriding
regulation that sets the requirement for protecting California’s cultural and paleontological
resources. CEQA does not establish specific rules that must be followed but mandates that
governing permitting agencies (lead agencies) set their own guidelines for the protection of
nonrenewable paleontological resources under their jurisdiction.
State of California
Under “Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act,” as
amended in December 2018 (California Code of Regulations [CCR] Title 14, Division 6, Chapter
3, Sections 15000 et seq.), procedures define the types of activities, persons, and public agencies
required to comply with CEQA. Section 15063 of the CCR provides a process by which a lead
agency may review a project’s potential impact on the environment, assess whether the impacts
are significant, and provide recommendations, if necessary.
In CEQA’s Environmental Checklist Form, a question to respond to is, “would the project
directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?”
(Appendix G, Section VII, Part f). This is to ensure compliance with California Public Resources
Code Section 5097.5, the law that protects nonrenewable resources including fossils, which is
paraphrased below:
Paleontological Assessment for the Decliff Drive Lot Subdivision Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
4
a) A person shall not knowingly and willfully excavate upon, or remove, destroy,
injure, or deface any historic or prehistoric ruins, burial grounds, archaeological
or vertebrate paleontological site, including fossilized footprints, inscriptions
made by human agency, rock art, or any other archaeological, paleontological
or historical feature, situated on public lands, except with the express
permission of the public agency having jurisdiction over such lands.
b) As used in this section, “public lands” means lands owned by, or under the
jurisdiction of, the state, or any city, county, district, authority, or public
corporation, or any agency thereof.
c) A violation of this section is a misdemeanor.
City of Rancho Cucamonga
The City’s 2010 General Plan Update has identified potential significant impacts to non-
renewable paleontological resources if earth disturbance activities are implemented (City of
Rancho Cucamonga 2010). Mitigation Measure MM 4.6-4, stated below, is proposed to reduce
potential impacts to a level below significant (City of Rancho Cucamonga 2010, p. 4.6-21):
MM 4.6-4 If any paleontological resource[s] (i.e. plant or animal fossils) are encountered
before or during grading, the developer will retain a qualified paleontologist to
monitor construction activities, to take appropriate measures to protect or preserve
them for study. The paleontologist shall submit a report of findings that will also
provide specific recommendations regarding further mitigation measures (i.e.,
paleontological monitoring) that may be appropriate. Where mitigation monitoring
is appropriate, the program must include, but not be limited to, the following
measures:
• Assign a paleontological monitor, trained and equipped to allow the rapid
removal of fossils with minimal construction delay, to the site full-time during
the interval of earth-disturbing activities.
• Should fossils be found within an area being cleared or graded, divert earth-
disturbing activities elsewhere until the monitor has completed salvage. If
construction personnel make the discovery, the grading contractor should
immediately divert construction and notify the monitor of the find.
• Prepare, identify, and curate all recovered fossils for documentation in the
summary report and transfer to an appropriate depository (i.e., San Bernardino
County Museum).
• Submit summary report to City of Rancho Cucamonga. Transfer collected
specimens with a copy to the report to San Bernardino County Museum.
Paleontological Assessment for the Decliff Drive Lot Subdivision Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
5
III. GEOLOGY
The project is situated in the southern foothills of the eastern San Gabriel Mountains, within
an area of active thrust faults that characterize the Cucamonga Fault zone (Morton and Matti
2001a, 2001b). The foothills generally consist of Precambrian metamorphic rocks with Cretaceous
plutonic intrusives that form the bedrock of the San Gabriel Mountains. The bedrock is juxtaposed
with Pleistocene and Holocene alluvial fan deposits across the Cucamonga Fault zone. Overturned
Tertiary sandstones and conglomerates with exotic clasts are also found in the Cucamonga Fault
zone (Morton and Matti 2001b).
At the project, deposits of alluvial fan sediments of various depositional ages have mostly
buried outcrops of the Precambrian bedrock, as shown on Figures 3A and 3B (Morton and Matti
2001a, 2001b; Dibblee 2003a, 2003b). The mapping of Dibblee (2003a, 2003b) is simpler,
dividing young Holocene alluvial deposits (“Qa”) from older Pleistocene alluvial deposits
(“Qoa”). As shown on Figure 3A, Morton and Matti (2001a, 2001b) offer a more detailed
delineation of the alluvial fan deposits at the project, spanning in age from early Pleistocene to late
Holocene. The ages reflect multiple episodes of the erosion of fractured bedrock derived from the
flanks of the San Gabriel Mountains, subsequently deposited as alluvial sediments. The alluvial
fan deposits are generally composed of coarse-grained sands, gravels, and boulders. Older
deposits will have stronger degrees of soil development (Morton and Matti 2001a, 2001b; Dibblee
2003a, 2003b).
IV. PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Definition
Paleontological resources are the remains of prehistoric life that have been preserved in
geologic strata. These remains are called fossils and include bones, shells, teeth, and plant remains
(including their impressions, casts, and molds) in the sedimentary matrix, as well as trace fossils
such as footprints and burrows. Fossils are considered older than 5,000 years of age (Society of
Vertebrate Paleontology [SVP] 2010) but may include younger remains (subfossils) when viewed
in the context of local extinction of the organism or habitat, for example. Fossils are considered a
nonrenewable resource under state and local guidelines (see Section II of this report).
Paleontological Assessment for the Decliff Drive Lot Subdivision Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
8
Paleontological Resource Record Search
A paleontological records search was performed for the project by the San Bernardino
County Museum (SBCM) in Redlands (Kottkamp 2024). The closest-known fossil localities are
approximately 1.9 miles west-northwest of the project, consisting of a skull with some teeth of the
three-toed horse Scaphohippus intermontanus (SBCM locality 1.100.1). Notably, the specimen
was recovered from unmapped Miocene (about 14-million-years-old) rocks consisting of coarse-
grained, green sandstone. The green sandstones occur on terraces that ring the foothills of the San
Gabriel Mountains. On Morton and Matti (2001a), this locality is associated with early Pleistocene
very old alluvial fan deposits, which are also mapped at the project (brown areas labeled “Qvof2b”
on Figures 3A and 3B). Kottkamp (2024) states that “Qa and Qg [of Dibblee 2003a, 2003b] are
unlikely to be fossiliferous, but directly overlie ~1.8 million to ~11,000-year-old Pleistocene
alluvial deposits (Qoa) that are,” and concluded that:
…. older alluvial deposits have been found to be highly fossiliferous in the local
area, yielding the remains of mastodons, mammoths, camels, horses, bison, and
ground sloths, as well as microfossils including rodents (Reynolds and Reynolds
1991). The unnamed Miocene coarse green sandstone reported by SBCM field
workers is not present on Morton et al. (2001), nor Dibblee and Minch (2003), nor
Morton and Miller (2006), suggesting it is of limited areal extent near the surface.
This sandstone is known to produce fossilized vertebrate remains.
Field Survey
Staff from BFSA Environmental Services, a Perennial company (BFSA), under
supervision of BFSA paleontological Principal Investigator Todd A. Wirths, conducted a site visit
on April 12, 2024. The field methodology employed for the project included walking evenly
spaced survey transects set approximately 10 to 15 meters apart while visually inspecting the
ground surface. At the time of the survey, ground visibility was characterized as poor (>20 percent
ground visibility) due to dense sage scrub and chaparral vegetation. Other vegetation found within
the property consisted of non-native weeds and grasses. Existing improvements noted within the
property consisted of the paving and improvement of Decliff Drive along the southern portion of
the project, as well as evidence of previous vegetation clearing in the western half of the subject
property. Additional impacts to the property include recently created dirt and gravel access roads,
which traverse the southwest and northwest portions of the project, along the southern boundary
and within the northwestern corner, along with recent dumping of modern trash identified
throughout the subject property. No paleontological resources, or evidence of paleontological
resources, were identified as a result of the survey.
Paleontological Assessment for the Decliff Drive Lot Subdivision Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
9
V. PALEONTOLOGICAL SENSITIVITY
Overview
The degree of paleontological sensitivity of any particular area is based on a number of
factors, including the documented presence of fossiliferous resources on a site or in nearby areas,
the presence of documented fossils within a particular geologic formation or lithostratigraphic unit,
and whether or not the original depositional environment of the sediments is one that might have
been conducive to an accumulation of organic remains that may have become fossilized over time.
Holocene alluvium is generally considered to be geologically too young to contain significant
nonrenewable paleontological resources (i.e., fossils) and is therefore typically assigned a low
paleontological sensitivity. Pleistocene (greater than 11,700 years old) alluvial and alluvial fan
deposits in the Inland Empire, however, are known to yield important “Ice Age” terrestrial
vertebrate fossils, such as extinct mammoths, mastodons, giant ground sloths, extinct species of
horse, bison, and camel, saber-toothed cats, and others (Jefferson 1991). Therefore, these
Pleistocene sediments are accorded a high paleontological resource sensitivity.
Professional Standards
The SVP has drafted guidelines that include four categories of paleontological sensitivity
for geologic units (formations) that might be impacted by a proposed project, as paraphrased
below:
• High Potential: Rock units from which vertebrate or significant invertebrate, plant, or
trace fossils have been recovered.
• Undetermined Potential: Rock units for which little information is available
concerning their paleontological content, geologic age, and depositional environment,
and that further study is needed to determine the potential of the rock unit.
• Low Potential: Rock units that are poorly represented by fossil specimens in
institutional collections or based on a general scientific consensus that only preserve
fossils in rare circumstances.
• No Potential: Rock units that have no potential to contain significant paleontological
resources, such as high-grade metamorphic rocks and plutonic igneous rocks.
Using these criteria, based on significant fossil localities in the region found within
Pleistocene deposits similar to those at the project, old and very old alluvial fan deposits at the
project may be considered to have an undetermined to high potential to yield significant
paleontological resources. While the Miocene-aged coarse-grained green sandstones in the
vicinity of the project have a high potential, it is not known if those rocks are present at the project.
The Precambrian rocks and Holocene alluvial deposits have no paleontological potential.
Paleontological Assessment for the Decliff Drive Lot Subdivision Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
10
VI. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The existence of early Pleistocene-aged very old alluvial fan deposits at the project, an
undetermined to high paleontological resource sensitivity assigned to these sediments, and the
presence of a previously recorded, significant fossil specimen from a geologic formation
associated with mapped very old alluvial fan deposits support the recommendation that part-time
paleontological monitoring be required. Periodic monitoring will consist of approximately two to
three scheduled site visits per week by a paleontological monitor during construction ground
disturbance. The project’s qualified paleontologist shall have the ability to adjust monitoring
based on the discovery of fossils or the suitability of the strata to yield fossils. If the Miocene-
aged coarse-grained green sandstone is discovered at the project during earth disturbance activities,
full-time monitoring should be implemented. Monitoring is not warranted in Holocene deposits
or Precambrian rocks; however, deposits of Holocene age are likely to consist of only a thin veneer
that overlie older Pleistocene sediments.
A Paleontological Resource Impact Mitigation Program (PRIMP) is recommended for the
project and is outlined below. The PRIMP must be consistent with the provisions of CEQA, the
City Rancho Cucamonga (2010), and those of the guidelines of the SVP (2010). If implemented,
the PRIMP report would mitigate any adverse impacts (loss or destruction) to potential
nonrenewable paleontological resources (fossils), if present, to less than significant. A suggested
PRIMP is outlined below:
1. All mitigation programs shall be performed by a qualified professional paleontologist,
defined as an individual with a Master’s or Doctorate in paleontology or geology who
has proven experience in paleontology and who is knowledgeable in professional
paleontological procedures and techniques. Fieldwork may be conducted by a qualified
paleontological monitor, defined as an individual who has experience in the collection
and salvage of fossil materials. The paleontological monitor shall always work under
the direction of a qualified paleontologist.
2. Monitoring of mass grading and excavation activities shall be performed by a City-
qualified paleontologist or paleontological monitor supervised by a city-qualified
paleontologist. Starting at the surface, monitoring will be conducted part-time in areas
of grading or excavation in undisturbed Pleistocene alluvial fan deposits, as indicated
on Figure 3A. These deposits also underlie younger Holocene-aged alluvium, and
monitoring of Pleistocene deposits newly exposed by excavation activities should be
implemented as well. Periodic monitoring may consist of approximately two to three
scheduled site visits per week by a paleontological monitor during construction ground
disturbance. The frequency of monitoring shall be adjusted at the discretion of the
qualified paleontologist based on the geologic conditions observed by the monitor
during the progress of excavation. The Miocene-aged coarse-grained green sandstone,
Paleontological Assessment for the Decliff Drive Lot Subdivision Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
11
if identified, shall be monitored full-time when impacted by excavation activities.
3. Paleontological monitors will be equipped to salvage fossils as they are unearthed to
avoid construction delays. The monitor must be empowered to temporarily halt or
divert equipment to allow removal of abundant or large specimens in a timely manner.
Monitoring may be reduced if the potentially fossiliferous units are not present in the
subsurface, or, if present, are determined upon exposure and examination by qualified
paleontological personnel to have low potential to contain fossil resources. The
monitor shall notify the project paleontologist, who will then notify the concerned
parties of the discovery.
4. Paleontological salvage during trenching and boring activities is typically from the
generated spoils and does not delay the trenching or drilling activities. Fossils will be
collected and placed in cardboard flats or plastic buckets and identified by field
number, collector, and date collected. Notes will be taken on the map location and
stratigraphy of the site, which will be photographed before it is vacated and the fossils
are removed to a safe place. On mass grading projects, discovered fossil sites will be
protected by flagging to prevent them from being overrun by earthmovers (scrapers)
before salvage begins. Fossils will be collected in a similar manner, with notes and
photographs being taken before removing the fossils. Precise location of the site will
be determined with the use of handheld GPS units. If the site involves remains from a
large terrestrial vertebrate, such as large bone(s) or a mammoth tusk, that is/are too
large to be easily removed by a single monitor, a fossil recovery crew s hall excavate
around the find, encase the find within a plaster and burlap jacket, and remove it after
the plaster is set. For large fossils, use of the contractor’s construction equipment may
be solicited to help remove the jacket to a safe location.
5. In accordance with the “Microfossil Salvage” section of the Society of Vertebrate
Paleontology guidelines (2010:7), bulk sampling and screening of fine-grained
sedimentary deposits (including carbonate-rich paleosols) must be performed if the
deposits are identified to possess indications of producing fossil “microvertebrates” to
test the feasibility of the deposit to yield fossil bones and teeth.
6. In the laboratory, individual fossils will be cleaned of extraneous matrix, any breaks
will be repaired, and the specimen, if needed, will be stabilized by soaking in an
archivally approved acrylic hardener (e.g., a solution of acetone and Paraloid B-72).
7. Recovered specimens will be prepared to a point of identification and permanent
preservation (not display), including screen-washing sediments to recover small
invertebrates and vertebrates. Preparation of individual vertebrate fossils is often more
time-consuming than for accumulations of invertebrate fossils.
8. Identification and curation of specimens into a professional, accredited public museum
repository with a commitment to archival conservation and permanent retrievable
storage (e.g., the SBCM) shall be conducted. The paleontological program should
Paleontological Assessment for the Decliff Drive Lot Subdivision Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
12
include a written repository agreement prior to the initiation of mitigation activities.
Prior to curation, the lead agency (the City of Rancho Cucamonga) will be consulted
on the repository/museum to receive the fossil material.
9. A final report of findings and significance will be prepared, including lists of all fossils
recovered and necessary maps and graphics to accurately record their original
location(s). The report, when submitted to, and accepted by the appropriate lead
agency, will signify satisfactory completion of the project program to mitigate impacts
to any potential nonrenewable paleontological resources (i.e., fossils) that might have
been lost or otherwise adversely affected without such a program in place.
VII. CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the
data and information required for this paleontological report, and that the facts, statements, and
information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief, and have been
compiled in accordance with CEQA criteria.
May 15, 2024
Todd A. Wirths Date
Senior Paleontologist
California Professional Geologist No. 7588
VIII. REFERENCES
City of Rancho Cucamonga. 2010. Rancho Cucamonga 2010 General Plan Update, Draft Program
Environmental Impact Report, Volume 1, SCH No. 2000061027. Prepared for the City of
Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department, by BonTerra Consulting, Costa Mesa,
California: Electronic document, https://www.cityofrc.us/sites/default/files/2021-
04/General%20Plan%20EIR%202010%20FEIR%20%281%29.pdf.
Dibblee, T.W., Jr. 2003a. Geologic map of the Cucamonga Peak Quadrangle, San Bernardino
County, California. Dibblee Foundation Map DF-106, J.A. Minch, ed. Dibblee Geological
Foundation, Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History.
Dibblee, T.W., Jr. 2003b. Geologic map of the Devore Quadrangle, San Bernardino County,
California. Dibblee Foundation Map DF-105, J.A. Minch, ed. Dibblee Geological
Foundation, Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History.
Paleontological Assessment for the Decliff Drive Lot Subdivision Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
13
Jefferson, G.T. 1991. A catalogue of late Quaternary vertebrates from California: Part two,
mammals. Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, Technical Reports, no. 7: i-v
+ 1-129.
Kottkamp, S. 2024. Paleontology Records Review for proposed site of Decliff Drive (Project No.
24-070), Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County, California. Letter prepared for
BFSA Environmental Services, Poway, California, by the San Bernardino County
Museum, Redlands, California. (attached)
Morton, D.M., and Matti, J.C. 2001a. Geologic Map of the Cucamonga Peak 7.5' Quadrangle,
San Bernardino County, California. USGS Open-File Report 01-311.
Morton, D.M., and Matti, J.C. 2001b. Geologic Map of the Devore 7.5' Quadrangle, San
Bernardino County, California. USGS Open-File Report 01-173.
Society of Vertebrate Paleontology. 2010. Standard procedures for the assessment and mitigation
of adverse impacts to paleontological resources; by the SVP Impact Mitigation Guidelines
Revision Committee: Electronic document, https://vertpaleo.org/wp-
content/uploads/2021/01/SVP_Impact_Mitigation_Guidelines-1.pdf.
Paleontological Assessment for the Decliff Drive Lot Subdivision Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
APPENDIX A
Qualifications of Key Personnel
Todd A. Wirths, MS, PG No. 7588
Senior Paleontologist
BFSA Environmental Services, A Perennial Company
14010 Poway Road Suite A
Phone: (858) 679-8218 Fax: (858) 679-9896 E-Mail: twirths@bfsa.perennialenv.com
Education
Master of Science, Geological Sciences, San Diego State University, California 1995
Bachelor of Arts, Earth Sciences, University of California, Santa Cruz 1992
Professional Certifications
California Professional Geologist #7588, 2003
Riverside County Approved Paleontologist
San Diego County Qualified Paleontologist
Orange County Certified Paleontologist
OSHA HAZWOPER 40-hour trained; current 8-hour annual refresher
Professional Memberships
Board member, San Diego Geological Society
San Diego Association of Geologists; past President (2012) and Vice President (2011)
South Coast Geological Society
Southern California Paleontological Society
Experience
Mr. Wirths has more than a dozen years of professional experience as a senior-level paleontologist
throughout southern California. He is also a certified California Professional Geologist. At BFSA, Mr.
Wirths conducts on-site paleontological monitoring, trains and supervises junior staff, and performs all
research and reporting duties for locations throughout Los Angeles, Ventura, San Bernardino, Riverside,
Orange, San Diego, and Imperial Counties. Mr. Wirths was formerly a senior project manager
conducting environmental investigations and remediation projects for petroleum hydrocarbon-
impacted sites across southern California.
Selected Recent Reports 2019 Paleontological Assessment for the 10575 Foothill Boulevard Project, City of Rancho Cucamonga,
San Bernardino County, California. Prepared for T&B Planning, Inc. Report on file at Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc., Poway, California. 2019 Paleontological Assessment for the MorningStar Marguerite Project, Mission Viejo, Orange
County, California. Prepared for T&B Planning. Report on file at Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc., Poway, California.
BFSA Environmental Services, A Perennial Company, 2
2019 Paleontological Monitoring Report for the Nimitz Crossing Project, City of San Diego. Prepared for Voltaire 24, LP. Report on file at Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc., Poway, California. 2019 Paleontological Resource Impact Mitigation Program (PRIMP) for the Jack Rabbit Trail Logistics
Center Project, City of Beaumont, Riverside County, California. Prepared for JRT BP 1, LLC. Report on file at Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc., Poway, California. 2020 Paleontological Monitoring Report for the Oceanside Beachfront Resort Project, Oceanside, San
California. Prepared for S.D. Malkin Properties. Report on file at Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc., Poway, California. 2020 Paleontological Resource Impact Mitigation Program for the Nakase Project, Lake Forest, Orange
County, San California. Prepared for Glenn Lukos Associates, Inc. Report on file at Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc., Poway, California. 2020 Paleontological Resource Impact Mitigation Program for the Sunset Crossroads Project, Banning,
Riverside County. Prepared for NP Banning Industrial, LLC. Report on file at Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc., Poway, California. 2020 Paleontological Assessment for the Ortega Plaza Project, Lake Elsinore, Riverside County. Prepared for Empire Design Group. Report on file at Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc., Poway, California. 2020 Paleontological Resource Record Search Update for the Green River Ranch III Project, Green River
Ranch Specific Plan SP00-001, City of Corona, California. Prepared for Western Realco. Report on file at Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc., Poway, California. 2020 Paleontological Assessment for the Cypress/Slover Industrial Center Project, City of Fontana, San
Bernardino County, California. Prepared for T&B Planning, Inc. Report on file at Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc., Poway, California. 2020 Paleontological Monitoring Report for the Imperial Landfill Expansion Project (Phase VI,
Segment C-2), Imperial County, California. Prepared for Republic Services, Inc. Report on file at Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc., Poway, California. 2021 Paleontological Assessment for the Manitou Court Logistics Center Project, City of Jurupa Valley,
Riverside County, California. Prepared for Link Industrial. Report on file at Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc., Poway, California. 2021 Paleontological Resource Impact Mitigation Program for the Del Oro (Tract 36852) Project,
Menifee, Riverside County. Prepared for D.R. Horton. Report on file at Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc., Poway, California. 2021 Paleontological Assessment for the Alessandro Corporate Center Project (Planning Case PR-2020-
000519), City of Riverside, Riverside County, California. Prepared for OZI Alessandro, LLC. Report on file at Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc., Poway, California. 2021 Paleontological Monitoring Report for the Boardwalk Project, La Jolla, City of San Diego. Prepared for Project Management Advisors, Inc. Report on file at Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc., Poway, California.
Paleontological Assessment for the Decliff Drive Lot Subdivision Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
APPENDIX B
Paleontological Record Search Letter
11 May 2024
BFSA Environmental Services
Attn: Todd Wirths
14010 Poway Rd.
Poway, CA 92064
PALEONTOLOGY RECORDS REVIEW for proposed site of Decliff Drive (Project
No. 24-070), Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County, California
Dear Mr. Wirths,
The Division of Earth Science of the San Bernardino County Museum (SBCM) has
completed a record search for the above-named project in San Bernardino County, California.
The proposed project site (Decliff Drive) is in the city of Rancho Cucamonga, California, as shown
on the United States Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute Cucamonga Peak, California,
quadrangle.
Geologic mapping of that region done by Dibblee and Minch (2003) indicates that the
project area is located atop recent alluvium (Qa), gravel deposits (Qg), low elevation older
Pleistocene alluvium (Qoa), and outcrops of Precambrian metasedimentary hornblende gneiss
(gnh). SBCM records also report the presence of a coarse green sandstone hypothesized to be of
middle Miocene (Barstovian) age within terraces ringing the foothills of the San Gabriel
Mountains. Qa and Qg are comprised of unconsolidated mixed sand and/or gravel, often covered
by soil, and in the project area were deposited by the erosion of the San Gabriel Mountains.
Sediment grains tend towards boulder gravel sized in the mountain foothills, becoming gradually
finer with distance from the mountains (Dibblee and Minch 2003 ). Qa and Qg are unlikely to be
fossiliferous, but directly overlie ~1.8 million to ~11,000-year-old Pleistocene alluvial deposits
(Qoa) that are (Reynolds and Reynolds 1991).
Museum
Division of Earth Science
David Myers
Director
Scott Kottkamp
Curator of Earth Science
2024 Orange Tree Lane, Redlands, California 92374 | Phone: 909.798.8608
Decliff Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, CA
May 11th, 2024
PAGE 2 of 3
Qoa regionally consists of alluvial gravel and sand fan deposits on the lower terraces near
the San Gabriel Mountains (Dibblee and Minch 2003). Qoa is variable in its precise lithology, and
often appears similar to Qa units except slightly more consolidated. Such older alluvial deposits
have been found to be highly fossiliferous in the local area, yielding the remains of mastodons,
mammoths, camels, horses, bison, and ground sloths, as well as microfossils including rodents
(Reynolds and Reynolds 1991). The unnamed Miocene coarse green sandstone reported by SBCM
field workers is not present on Morton et al. (2001), nor Dibblee and Minch (2003), nor Morton
and Miller (2006), suggesting it is of limited areal extent near the surface. This sandstone is known
to produce fossilized vertebrate remains. Finally, though it derives from sedimentary protolith,
gnh has been highly metamorphosed by extreme heat and pressure. The unit is also of middle
Proterozoic age. Thus, gnh is not expected to contain recognizable paleontological resources.
For this review, I conducted a search of the Regional Paleontological Locality Inventory
(RPLI) at the SBCM. The results of this search indicate that no SBCM localities occur within the
project area nor within 1 mile of its perimeter. The nearest SBCM paleontological locality, SBCM
1.100.1, is situated approximately 1.9 miles west-northwest of the project area. A permineralized
†Scaphohippus intermontanus skull with incomplete dentition was recovered from the Miocene
coarse green sandstone at this locality. The sandstone was exposed at the locality’s surface,
above the wash at Day Canyon Station, and the fossil was partially exposed prior to excavation.
The green sandstone in which this fossil was found is spottily present in local foothills of the San
Gabriel Mountains, but it is unknown if it occurs within the project area either at the surface or
at impacted depth.
This records search covers only the paleontological records of the San Bernardino County
Museum. It is not intended to be a thorough paleontological survey of the proposed project area
covering other institutional records, a literature survey, or any potential on-site survey.
Please do not hesitate to contact us with any further question s that you may have.
Sincerely,
Scott Kottkamp, Curator of Earth Science
Division of Earth Science
San Bernardino County Museum
Decliff Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, CA
May 11th, 2024
PAGE 3 of 3
Literature Cited
Dibblee, T.W., and Minch, J.A. 2003. Geologic map of the Cucamonga Peak quadrangle, San Bernardino
County, California. Dibblee Geological Foundation. Dibblee Foundation Map DF-106. Scale
1:24,000.
Available at: https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/Prodesc/proddesc_71730.htm (accessed 11 May, 2024)
Morton, D.M., Matti, J.C., Koukladas, C., and Cossette, P.M. 2001. Geologic map of the Cucamonga Peak
7.5' quadrangle, San Bernardino County, California. U.S. Geological Surve. Open-File Report OF-
2001-311. Scale 1:24,000.
Available at: https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/Prodesc/proddesc_43332.htm (accessed 11 May, 2024)
Morton, D.M., and Miller, F.K. 2006. Geologic map of the San Bernardino and Santa Ana 30' x 60'
quadrangles, California. U.S. Geological Survey. Open-File Report OF-2006-1217. Scale
1:100,000.
Available at: https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/Prodesc/proddesc_78686.htm (accessed 11 May 2024)
Reynolds, R. E., and Reynolds, R.L. 1991. The Pleistocene Beneath our Feet: Near-surface Pleistocene
Fossils from Inland Southern California Basins. San Bernardino County Museum Association
Quarterly 38(3-4): 41-43
Appendix F:
Preliminary Hydrology Study
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section I Introduction
Section II Existing Site Condition
Section III Project Description
Section IV Rational Method Hydrologic Analysis
Section V Drainage Recommendation
Appendix A Vicinity Map
Appendix B Precipitation, Soil Data
Appendix C Rational Method Calculations
Appendix D Hydrology Maps
Section I Introduction
The purpose of this study was to determine the impact, if any, of the 100-year storm runoff flow tributary to
the project site as delineated on the map contained in this study. The project site is approximately 39.58 acres
of property located on the north side of Decliff Rd City of Rancho Cucamonga, in the unincorporated area of San
Bernardino County, California. The proposed development is a residential project. The Developer intends to
create five residential pads inside the property.
Section II Existing Site Condition
The property is currently vacant land. It is on a sloping terrain at approximately 10 to 13% slope. Existing
runoff flows are subdivided into two areas. One area in the northerly side flows towards the easterly side
of the property and the rest of the area flows towards the southerly boundary by Decliff Road.
The results of the flow analysis are summarized in Table B.
Table B
Section III Project Description
The proposed project is for the construction of five residential pads inside the property. The proposed site is
approximately 39.58 ac. In the proposed condition, the drainage pattern is essentially the same as existing condition.
Historical water path will be maintained. The project’s runoff will continue to sheet flow as it is in the existing condition.
The disturbed area for this project is approximately 5 acres only.
Existing runoff will be intercepted by a proposed concrete V-ditch so it will not comingle to the proposed development.
For the purpose of the study, refer to Section V for drainage recommendation for the proposed development. Refer to
the “PROPOSED Hydrology Map” in Appendix D for an illustration of the proposed drainage condition and
recommendation per Section V.
Sub-Area Q100 (cfs)
Node 10 – Node 14 97.00
The results of the flow analysis are summarized in Table C.
Table C
Section IV Rational Method Hydrologic Analysis
The hydrologic analysis was completed in accordance with the 1986 San Bernardino County Hydrology Manual and
2010 Hydrology Manual Addendum. The rational method has been used to calculate peak flows for the 100-year
event. The Hydrology Manual Addendum requires the use of NOAA Atlas 14 rainfall values when completing
hydrologic analyses. The Addendum also requires the use of the USDA Web Soil Survey for soil type groupings. The
Web Soil Survey indicates the project site is NOTCOM which means no digital data available. Therefore, hydrologic soil
group map for southcentral area per the county’s manual will be used to determine the project site’s soil type. Based
on the map, the site identified as hydrologic soil type “A” in the Hydrology Manual. Desert land cover of Juniper-Grass
with fair cover density (20% to 40% vegetative cover) per Hydrology Manual Figure C-8 in Section C.7 of Hydrology
Manual is used for existing condition and residential landscaping with fair cover for proposed condition will be used for
the runoff loss rates.
The hydrologic analysis was completed in accordance with the 1986 San Bernardino County Hydrology Manual and
2010 Hydrology Manual Addendum. The rational method has been used to calculate peak flows for both the existing
and proposed site conditions. The following table summarizes the data and results for the 100-year storm events in
both existing and proposed condition. All calculations can be found in Appendix C of this report.
7Based on rational method calculations for existing condition, the study area produces 97.0 cfs at the discharge point at
Decliff Road. In the proposed condition, the study area produces an accumulative discharge of 39.083 cfs at the
discharge point at Decliff Road. The proposed infiltration basin will be utilized as a treatment facility for this residential
development.
Sub-Area Q100 (cfs)
Node 10 – Node 16 27.31
Node 17 – Node 19 10.77
Section V Conclusion & Recommendation
The project is only proposed to develop a position of the property. The northerly portion of the property
will remain as is. Concrete V-ditch will be constructed in order to intercept the runoff coming from the
north and won’t comingle to the proposed development. On-site improvements should be constructed to
convey runoff flows through the project to their historical flow locations along the southerly property
boundary.
In conclusion, the proposed development will not adversely affect the existing drainage patterns in the
area and will provide adequate protection for the proposed on-site improvements and structures.
a) A concrete V-dithch shall be used to intercept the offsite stormwater from the north of the site. There are several
riprap protection locations proposed to further reduce the potential for erosion on site and sedimentation
downstream / offsite. Based on Bureau of Reclamation riprap protection standard, for velocities between 7 – 9 f.p.s.,
the proposed riprap protection shall be minimum rock size is 100 lb. (12”), 20’ long x 15’ wide.
b) Each lot shall install swales to intercept the stormwater and convey to the street.
c) Two infiltration basins will be constructed for water quality.
In conclusion, the proposed development will not adversely affect the existing drainage pattern in the area and will provide
adequate protection for the proposed on-site improvements and structures for up to the 100-year storm event.
APPENDIX A
APPENDIX B
PRECIPIATION DATA
SOIL MAP
NOAA Atlas 14, Volume 6, Version 2
Location name: Rancho Cucamonga, California,
USA*
Latitude: 34.1659°, Longitude: -117.5014°
Elevation: m/ft**
* source: ESRI Maps
** source: USGS
POINT PRECIPITATION FREQUENCY ESTIMATES
Sanja Perica, Sarah Dietz, Sarah Heim, Lillian Hiner, Kazungu Maitaria, Deborah Martin, Sandra
Pavlovic, Ishani Roy, Carl Trypaluk, Dale Unruh, Fenglin Yan, Michael Yekta, Tan Zhao, Geoffrey
Bonnin, Daniel Brewer, Li-Chuan Chen, Tye Parzybok, John Yarchoan
NOAA, National Weather Service, Silver Spring, Maryland
PF_tabular | PF_graphical | Maps_&_aerials
PF tabular
PDS-based point precipitation frequency estimates with 90% confidence intervals (in inches)1
Duration Average recurrence interval (years)
1 2 5 10 25 50 100 200 500 1000
5-min 0.146
(0.121‑0.177)
0.195
(0.162‑0.237)
0.257
(0.213‑0.313)
0.306
(0.251‑0.376)
0.370
(0.294‑0.471)
0.419
(0.325‑0.544)
0.467
(0.354‑0.622)
0.516
(0.380‑0.708)
0.581
(0.410‑0.832)
0.632
(0.430‑0.937)
10-min 0.209
(0.174‑0.254)
0.279
(0.232‑0.339)
0.368
(0.305‑0.448)
0.438
(0.360‑0.539)
0.531
(0.421‑0.675)
0.600
(0.466‑0.780)
0.669
(0.507‑0.892)
0.740
(0.544‑1.02)
0.833
(0.588‑1.19)
0.905
(0.616‑1.34)
15-min 0.253
(0.210‑0.307)
0.338
(0.281‑0.410)
0.445
(0.369‑0.542)
0.530
(0.435‑0.651)
0.642
(0.510‑0.817)
0.726
(0.564‑0.944)
0.809
(0.613‑1.08)
0.894
(0.658‑1.23)
1.01
(0.711‑1.44)
1.10
(0.745‑1.62)
30-min 0.385
(0.320‑0.467)
0.514
(0.427‑0.624)
0.677
(0.561‑0.825)
0.806
(0.662‑0.991)
0.977
(0.775‑1.24)
1.10
(0.858‑1.44)
1.23
(0.933‑1.64)
1.36
(1.00‑1.87)
1.53
(1.08‑2.20)
1.67
(1.13‑2.47)
60-min 0.597
(0.497‑0.725)
0.797
(0.663‑0.969)
1.05
(0.870‑1.28)
1.25
(1.03‑1.54)
1.52
(1.20‑1.93)
1.71
(1.33‑2.23)
1.91
(1.45‑2.55)
2.11
(1.56‑2.90)
2.38
(1.68‑3.41)
2.59
(1.76‑3.84)
2-hr 0.937
(0.780‑1.14)
1.24
(1.03‑1.51)
1.62
(1.34‑1.97)
1.92
(1.58‑2.36)
2.31
(1.83‑2.94)
2.60
(2.02‑3.38)
2.88
(2.19‑3.85)
3.17
(2.34‑4.35)
3.56
(2.51‑5.09)
3.85
(2.62‑5.70)
3-hr 1.21
(1.01‑1.47)
1.59
(1.32‑1.94)
2.07
(1.72‑2.53)
2.45
(2.01‑3.01)
2.94
(2.33‑3.74)
3.30
(2.56‑4.29)
3.65
(2.77‑4.87)
4.01
(2.95‑5.50)
4.48
(3.16‑6.41)
4.84
(3.29‑7.18)
6-hr 1.82
(1.52‑2.21)
2.39
(1.98‑2.90)
3.09
(2.56‑3.77)
3.64
(3.00‑4.48)
4.36
(3.46‑5.54)
4.88
(3.80‑6.35)
5.40
(4.09‑7.20)
5.92
(4.35‑8.12)
6.59
(4.65‑9.44)
7.10
(4.83‑10.5)
12-hr 2.47
(2.05‑3.00)
3.24
(2.70‑3.94)
4.20
(3.48‑5.12)
4.95
(4.07‑6.09)
5.92
(4.70‑7.53)
6.63
(5.15‑8.62)
7.33
(5.55‑9.77)
8.02
(5.90‑11.0)
8.92
(6.29‑12.8)
9.60
(6.53‑14.2)
24-hr 3.40
(3.01‑3.92)
4.51
(3.99‑5.20)
5.90
(5.20‑6.82)
6.98
(6.11‑8.14)
8.39
(7.10‑10.1)
9.42
(7.82‑11.6)
10.4
(8.45‑13.1)
11.4
(9.02‑14.8)
12.8
(9.65‑17.2)
13.8
(10.1‑19.2)
2-day 4.19
(3.71‑4.83)
5.68
(5.02‑6.55)
7.57
(6.68‑8.76)
9.08
(7.95‑10.6)
11.1
(9.39‑13.4)
12.6
(10.5‑15.5)
14.1
(11.4‑17.8)
15.6
(12.3‑20.3)
17.7
(13.4‑23.9)
19.3
(14.1‑26.9)
3-day 4.50
(3.98‑5.18)
6.20
(5.48‑7.15)
8.39
(7.40‑9.71)
10.2
(8.91‑11.9)
12.6
(10.7‑15.2)
14.5
(12.0‑17.8)
16.4
(13.2‑20.6)
18.3
(14.4‑23.7)
21.0
(15.9‑28.3)
23.0
(16.9‑32.2)
4-day 4.78
(4.24‑5.51)
6.66
(5.89‑7.68)
9.11
(8.04‑10.5)
11.1
(9.73‑13.0)
13.9
(11.8‑16.7)
16.0
(13.3‑19.7)
18.2
(14.7‑22.9)
20.5
(16.1‑26.5)
23.6
(17.9‑31.9)
26.1
(19.1‑36.5)
7-day 5.42
(4.80‑6.24)
7.66
(6.78‑8.84)
10.6
(9.38‑12.3)
13.1
(11.4‑15.2)
16.5
(13.9‑19.8)
19.1
(15.8‑23.5)
21.8
(17.7‑27.5)
24.7
(19.5‑32.0)
28.7
(21.7‑38.7)
31.8
(23.3‑44.4)
10-day 5.86
(5.19‑6.75)
8.36
(7.39‑9.64)
11.7
(10.3‑13.5)
14.4
(12.6‑16.8)
18.2
(15.4‑22.0)
21.2
(17.6‑26.1)
24.4
(19.7‑30.7)
27.7
(21.8‑35.8)
32.2
(24.4‑43.5)
35.9
(26.2‑50.1)
20-day 7.00
(6.20‑8.07)
10.1
(8.93‑11.6)
14.3
(12.6‑16.5)
17.8
(15.5‑20.7)
22.7
(19.2‑27.3)
26.6
(22.1‑32.7)
30.7
(24.9‑38.7)
35.1
(27.6‑45.4)
41.3
(31.2‑55.7)
46.3
(33.8‑64.6)
30-day 8.13
(7.20‑9.37)
11.7
(10.4‑13.5)
16.6
(14.6‑19.2)
20.7
(18.1‑24.1)
26.5
(22.5‑32.0)
31.2
(25.9‑38.4)
36.2
(29.3‑45.6)
41.5
(32.7‑53.8)
49.2
(37.2‑66.3)
55.4
(40.5‑77.3)
45-day 9.75
(8.64‑11.2)
13.9
(12.3‑16.0)
19.5
(17.2‑22.6)
24.3
(21.3‑28.4)
31.2
(26.5‑37.6)
36.8
(30.6‑45.3)
42.8
(34.7‑54.0)
49.4
(38.9‑63.9)
58.7
(44.4‑79.3)
66.5
(48.6‑92.8)
60-day 11.4
(10.1‑13.2)
15.9
(14.1‑18.4)
22.2
(19.6‑25.7)
27.6
(24.2‑32.2)
35.4
(30.0‑42.7)
41.8
(34.7‑51.4)
48.7
(39.4‑61.3)
56.2
(44.3‑72.8)
67.1
(50.7‑90.5)
76.2
(55.7‑106)
1 Precipitation frequency (PF) estimates in this table are based on frequency analysis of partial duration series (PDS).
Numbers in parenthesis are PF estimates at lower and upper bounds of the 90% confidence interval. The probability that precipitation frequency estimates (fora given duration and average recurrence interval) will be greater than the upper bound (or less than the lower bound) is 5%. Estimates at upper bounds are not
checked against probable maximum precipitation (PMP) estimates and may be higher than currently valid PMP values.
Please refer to NOAA Atlas 14 document for more information.
Back to Top
PF graphical
Back to Top
Maps & aerials
Small scale terrain
Large scale terrain
Large scale map
Large scale aerial
+
–
3km
2mi
+
–
100km
60mi
+
–
100km
60mi
Back to Top
US Department of Commerce
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Weather Service
National Water Center
1325 East West Highway
Silver Spring, MD 20910
Questions?: HDSC.Questions@noaa.gov
Disclaimer
+
–
100km
60mi
United States
Department of
Agriculture
A product of the National
Cooperative Soil Survey,
a joint effort of the United
States Department of
Agriculture and other
Federal agencies, State
agencies including the
Agricultural Experiment
Stations, and local
participants
Custom Soil Resource
Report for
San Bernardino
County Southwestern
Part, California
Decliff Rd, Rancho Cucamonga,
CA.
Natural
Resources
Conservation
Service
February 6, 2024
Soil Map
The soil map section includes the soil map for the defined area of interest, a list of
soil map units on the map and extent of each map unit, and cartographic symbols
displayed on the map. Also presented are various metadata about data used to
produce the map, and a description of each soil map unit.
8
9
Custom Soil Resource Report
Soil Map
37
8
0
6
2
0
37
8
0
6
6
0
37
8
0
7
0
0
37
8
0
7
4
0
37
8
0
7
8
0
37
8
0
8
2
0
37
8
0
8
6
0
37
8
0
9
0
0
37
8
0
9
4
0
37
8
0
9
8
0
37
8
0
6
2
0
37
8
0
6
6
0
37
8
0
7
0
0
37
8
0
7
4
0
37
8
0
7
8
0
37
8
0
8
2
0
37
8
0
8
6
0
37
8
0
9
0
0
37
8
0
9
4
0
37
8
0
9
8
0
453360 453400 453440 453480 453520 453560 453600 453640
453360 453400 453440 453480 453520 453560 453600 453640
34° 10' 7'' N
11
7
°
3
0
'
2
1
'
'
W
34° 10' 7'' N
11
7
°
3
0
'
1
0
'
'
W
34° 9' 55'' N
11
7
°
3
0
'
2
1
'
'
W
34° 9' 55'' N
11
7
°
3
0
'
1
0
'
'
W
N
Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 11N WGS84
0 50 100 200 300Feet
0 25 50 100 150Meters
Map Scale: 1:1,860 if printed on A portrait (8.5" x 11") sheet.
Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.
MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION
Area of Interest (AOI)
Area of Interest (AOI)
Soils
Soil Map Unit Polygons
Soil Map Unit Lines
Soil Map Unit Points
Special Point Features
Blowout
Borrow Pit
Clay Spot
Closed Depression
Gravel Pit
Gravelly Spot
Landfill
Lava Flow
Marsh or swamp
Mine or Quarry
Miscellaneous Water
Perennial Water
Rock Outcrop
Saline Spot
Sandy Spot
Severely Eroded Spot
Sinkhole
Slide or Slip
Sodic Spot
Spoil Area
Stony Spot
Very Stony Spot
Wet Spot
Other
Special Line Features
Water Features
Streams and Canals
Transportation
Rails
Interstate Highways
US Routes
Major Roads
Local Roads
Background
Aerial Photography
The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at
1:24,000.
Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.
Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause
misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil
line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of
contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed
scale.
Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map
measurements.
Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey URL:
Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857)
Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator
projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts
distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the
Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more
accurate calculations of distance or area are required.
This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as
of the version date(s) listed below.
Soil Survey Area: San Bernardino County Southwestern Part,
California
Survey Area Data: Version 15, Aug 30, 2023
Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales
1:50,000 or larger.
Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Mar 17, 2022—Jun
12, 2022
The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were
compiled and digitized probably differs from the background
Custom Soil Resource Report
10
MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION
imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor
shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident.
Custom Soil Resource Report
11
Map Unit Legend
Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI
SpC Soboba stony loamy sand, 2 to
9 percent slopes
0.4 2.4%
TvC Tujunga gravelly loamy sand, 0
to 9 percent slopes
15.2 97.6%
Totals for Area of Interest 15.6 100.0%
Map Unit Descriptions
The map units delineated on the detailed soil maps in a soil survey represent the
soils or miscellaneous areas in the survey area. The map unit descriptions, along
with the maps, can be used to determine the composition and properties of a unit.
A map unit delineation on a soil map represents an area dominated by one or more
major kinds of soil or miscellaneous areas. A map unit is identified and named
according to the taxonomic classification of the dominant soils. Within a taxonomic
class there are precisely defined limits for the properties of the soils. On the
landscape, however, the soils are natural phenomena, and they have the
characteristic variability of all natural phenomena. Thus, the range of some
observed properties may extend beyond the limits defined for a taxonomic class.
Areas of soils of a single taxonomic class rarely, if ever, can be mapped without
including areas of other taxonomic classes. Consequently, every map unit is made
up of the soils or miscellaneous areas for which it is named and some minor
components that belong to taxonomic classes other than those of the major soils.
Most minor soils have properties similar to those of the dominant soil or soils in the
map unit, and thus they do not affect use and management. These are called
noncontrasting, or similar, components. They may or may not be mentioned in a
particular map unit description. Other minor components, however, have properties
and behavioral characteristics divergent enough to affect use or to require different
management. These are called contrasting, or dissimilar, components. They
generally are in small areas and could not be mapped separately because of the
scale used. Some small areas of strongly contrasting soils or miscellaneous areas
are identified by a special symbol on the maps. If included in the database for a
given area, the contrasting minor components are identified in the map unit
descriptions along with some characteristics of each. A few areas of minor
components may not have been observed, and consequently they are not
mentioned in the descriptions, especially where the pattern was so complex that it
was impractical to make enough observations to identify all the soils and
miscellaneous areas on the landscape.
The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the
usefulness or accuracy of the data. The objective of mapping is not to delineate
pure taxonomic classes but rather to separate the landscape into landforms or
landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. The
delineation of such segments on the map provides sufficient information for the
development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, however,
Custom Soil Resource Report
12
onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous
areas.
An identifying symbol precedes the map unit name in the map unit descriptions.
Each description includes general facts about the unit and gives important soil
properties and qualities.
Soils that have profiles that are almost alike make up a soil series. Except for
differences in texture of the surface layer, all the soils of a series have major
horizons that are similar in composition, thickness, and arrangement.
Soils of one series can differ in texture of the surface layer, slope, stoniness,
salinity, degree of erosion, and other characteristics that affect their use. On the
basis of such differences, a soil series is divided into soil phases. Most of the areas
shown on the detailed soil maps are phases of soil series. The name of a soil phase
commonly indicates a feature that affects use or management. For example, Alpha
silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is a phase of the Alpha series.
Some map units are made up of two or more major soils or miscellaneous areas.
These map units are complexes, associations, or undifferentiated groups.
A complex consists of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas in such an intricate
pattern or in such small areas that they cannot be shown separately on the maps.
The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar
in all areas. Alpha-Beta complex, 0 to 6 percent slopes, is an example.
An association is made up of two or more geographically associated soils or
miscellaneous areas that are shown as one unit on the maps. Because of present
or anticipated uses of the map units in the survey area, it was not considered
practical or necessary to map the soils or miscellaneous areas separately. The
pattern and relative proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat
similar. Alpha-Beta association, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example.
An undifferentiated group is made up of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas
that could be mapped individually but are mapped as one unit because similar
interpretations can be made for use and management. The pattern and proportion
of the soils or miscellaneous areas in a mapped area are not uniform. An area can
be made up of only one of the major soils or miscellaneous areas, or it can be made
up of all of them. Alpha and Beta soils, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example.
Some surveys include miscellaneous areas. Such areas have little or no soil
material and support little or no vegetation. Rock outcrop is an example.
Custom Soil Resource Report
13
San Bernardino County Southwestern Part, California
SpC—Soboba stony loamy sand, 2 to 9 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: hckv
Elevation: 960 to 3,690 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 12 to 39 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 60 to 65 degrees F
Frost-free period: 260 to 365 days
Farmland classification: Not prime farmland
Map Unit Composition
Soboba and similar soils:85 percent
Minor components:15 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Soboba
Setting
Landform:Alluvial fans
Landform position (two-dimensional):Footslope
Landform position (three-dimensional):Tread
Down-slope shape:Linear
Across-slope shape:Linear
Parent material:Alluvium derived from granite
Typical profile
Ap - 0 to 10 inches: stony loamy sand
C1 - 10 to 24 inches: very stony loamy sand
C2 - 24 to 60 inches: very stony sand
Properties and qualities
Slope:2 to 9 percent
Surface area covered with cobbles, stones or boulders:0.1 percent
Depth to restrictive feature:More than 80 inches
Drainage class:Excessively drained
Runoff class: Low
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):High to very high (6.00
to 19.99 in/hr)
Depth to water table:More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding:Rare
Frequency of ponding:None
Maximum salinity:Nonsaline (0.0 to 1.0 mmhos/cm)
Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Low (about 3.8 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4e
Hydrologic Soil Group: A
Ecological site: R019XG912CA - Sandy Fan
Hydric soil rating: No
Custom Soil Resource Report
14
Minor Components
Hanford
Percent of map unit:5 percent
Landform:Alluvial fans
Landform position (two-dimensional):Toeslope
Landform position (three-dimensional):Tread
Down-slope shape:Linear
Across-slope shape:Linear
Hydric soil rating: No
Ramona
Percent of map unit:5 percent
Landform:Fan remnants
Landform position (three-dimensional):Tread
Down-slope shape:Linear
Across-slope shape:Linear
Hydric soil rating: No
Tujunga, gravelly loamy sand
Percent of map unit:5 percent
Landform:Alluvial fans
Landform position (two-dimensional):Footslope
Landform position (three-dimensional):Tread
Down-slope shape:Linear
Across-slope shape:Linear
Hydric soil rating: No
TvC—Tujunga gravelly loamy sand, 0 to 9 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: hcl2
Elevation: 10 to 1,500 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 10 to 25 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 59 to 64 degrees F
Frost-free period: 250 to 350 days
Farmland classification: Not prime farmland
Map Unit Composition
Tujunga and similar soils:85 percent
Minor components:15 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Tujunga
Setting
Landform:Alluvial fans
Landform position (two-dimensional):Backslope
Landform position (three-dimensional):Tread
Down-slope shape:Linear
Custom Soil Resource Report
15
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
National soil survey handbook, title 430-VI. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/
nrcs/detail/soils/scientists/?cid=nrcs142p2_054242
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
2006. Land resource regions and major land resource areas of the United States,
the Caribbean, and the Pacific Basin. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook
296. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/?
cid=nrcs142p2_053624
United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1961. Land
capability classification. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 210. http://
www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs142p2_052290.pdf
Custom Soil Resource Report
18
APPENDIX C
RATIONAL METHOD CALCULATIONS
100-YEAR STORM EVENTS
San Bernardino County Rational Hydrology Program
(Hydrology Manual Date - August 1986)
CIVILCADD/CIVILDESIGN Engineering Software, (c) 1989-2014 Version 9.0
Rational Hydrology Study Date: 02/08/24
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DECLIFF ROAD, RANCHO CUCAMONGA
100 YEAR PRE DEVELOPED CONDITION
FNl 100PRE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Program License Serial Number 6420
------------------------------------------------------------------------
********* Hydrology Study Control Information **********
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rational hydrology study storm event year is 100.0
Computed rainfall intensity:
Storm year = 100.00 1 hour rainfall = 1.910 (In.)
Slope used for rainfall intensity curve b = 0.6000
Soil antecedent moisture condition (AMC) = 3
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Process from Point/Station 10.000 to Point/Station 11.000
**** INITIAL AREA EVALUATION ****
______________________________________________________________________
UNDEVELOPED (average cover) subarea
Decimal fraction soil group A = 1.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.000
SCS curve number for soil(AMC 2) = 50.00
Adjusted SCS curve number for AMC 3 = 70.00
Pervious ratio(Ap) = 1.0000 Max loss rate(Fm)= 0.532(In/Hr)
Initial subarea data:
Initial area flow distance = 632.000(Ft.)
Top (of initial area) elevation = 2065.000(Ft.)
Bottom (of initial area) elevation = 1920.000(Ft.)
Difference in elevation = 145.000(Ft.)
Slope = 0.22943 s(%)= 22.94
TC = k(0.706)*[(length^3)/(elevation change)]^0.2
Initial area time of concentration = 12.501 min.
Rainfall intensity = 4.895(In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm
Effective runoff coefficient used for area (Q=KCIA) is C = 0.802
Subarea runoff = 12.093(CFS)
Total initial stream area = 3.080(Ac.)
Pervious area fraction = 1.000
Initial area Fm value = 0.532(In/Hr)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Process from Point/Station 11.000 to Point/Station 14.000
**** IRREGULAR CHANNEL FLOW TRAVEL TIME ****
______________________________________________________________________
Estimated mean flow rate at midpoint of channel = 0.000(CFS)
Depth of flow = 0.987(Ft.), Average velocity = 7.949(Ft/s)
******* Irregular Channel Data ***********
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Information entered for subchannel number 1 :
Point number 'X' coordinate 'Y' coordinate
1 0.00 1.00
2 5.00 0.00
3 10.00 1.00
Manning's 'N' friction factor = 0.035
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sub-Channel flow = 38.724(CFS)
' ' flow top width = 9.871(Ft.)
' ' velocity= 7.949(Ft/s)
' ' area = 4.872(Sq.Ft)
' ' Froude number = 1.994
Upstream point elevation = 1920.000(Ft.)
Downstream point elevation = 1757.000(Ft.)
Flow length = 1767.000(Ft.)
Travel time = 3.71 min.
Time of concentration = 16.21 min.
Depth of flow = 0.987(Ft.)
Average velocity = 7.949(Ft/s)
Total irregular channel flow = 38.724(CFS)
Irregular channel normal depth above invert elev. = 0.987(Ft.)
Average velocity of channel(s) = 7.949(Ft/s)
Adding area flow to channel
UNDEVELOPED (average cover) subarea
Decimal fraction soil group A = 1.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.000
SCS curve number for soil(AMC 2) = 50.00
Adjusted SCS curve number for AMC 3 = 70.00
Pervious ratio(Ap) = 1.0000 Max loss rate(Fm)= 0.532(In/Hr)
Rainfall intensity = 4.189(In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm
Effective runoff coefficient used for area,(total area with modified
rational method)(Q=KCIA) is C = 0.786
Subarea runoff = 53.198(CFS) for 16.760(Ac.)
Total runoff = 65.291(CFS)
Effective area this stream = 19.84(Ac.)
Total Study Area (Main Stream No. 1) = 19.84(Ac.)
Area averaged Fm value = 0.532(In/Hr)
Depth of flow = 1.170(Ft.), Average velocity = 9.745(Ft/s)
!!Warning: Water is above left or right bank elevations
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Process from Point/Station 11.000 to Point/Station 14.000
**** CONFLUENCE OF MAIN STREAMS ****
______________________________________________________________________
The following data inside Main Stream is listed:
In Main Stream number: 1
Stream flow area = 19.840(Ac.)
Runoff from this stream = 65.291(CFS)
Time of concentration = 16.21 min.
Rainfall intensity = 4.189(In/Hr)
Area averaged loss rate (Fm) = 0.5325(In/Hr)
Area averaged Pervious ratio (Ap) = 1.0000
Program is now starting with Main Stream No. 2
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Process from Point/Station 12.000 to Point/Station 13.000
**** INITIAL AREA EVALUATION ****
______________________________________________________________________
UNDEVELOPED (average cover) subarea
Decimal fraction soil group A = 1.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.000
SCS curve number for soil(AMC 2) = 50.00
Adjusted SCS curve number for AMC 3 = 70.00
Pervious ratio(Ap) = 1.0000 Max loss rate(Fm)= 0.532(In/Hr)
Initial subarea data:
Initial area flow distance = 667.000(Ft.)
Top (of initial area) elevation = 1970.000(Ft.)
Bottom (of initial area) elevation = 1850.000(Ft.)
Difference in elevation = 120.000(Ft.)
Slope = 0.17991 s(%)= 17.99
TC = k(0.706)*[(length^3)/(elevation change)]^0.2
Initial area time of concentration = 13.410 min.
Rainfall intensity = 4.693(In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm
Effective runoff coefficient used for area (Q=KCIA) is C = 0.798
Subarea runoff = 4.756(CFS)
Total initial stream area = 1.270(Ac.)
Pervious area fraction = 1.000
Initial area Fm value = 0.532(In/Hr)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Process from Point/Station 13.000 to Point/Station 14.000
**** IRREGULAR CHANNEL FLOW TRAVEL TIME ****
______________________________________________________________________
Estimated mean flow rate at midpoint of channel = 0.000(CFS)
Depth of flow = 0.796(Ft.), Average velocity = 5.876(Ft/s)
******* Irregular Channel Data ***********
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Information entered for subchannel number 1 :
Point number 'X' coordinate 'Y' coordinate
1 0.00 1.00
2 5.00 0.00
3 10.00 1.00
Manning's 'N' friction factor = 0.035
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sub-Channel flow = 18.602(CFS)
' ' flow top width = 7.957(Ft.)
' ' velocity= 5.876(Ft/s)
' ' area = 3.166(Sq.Ft)
' ' Froude number = 1.642
Upstream point elevation = 1850.000(Ft.)
Downstream point elevation = 1757.000(Ft.)
Flow length = 1384.000(Ft.)
Travel time = 3.93 min.
Time of concentration = 17.34 min.
Depth of flow = 0.796(Ft.)
Average velocity = 5.876(Ft/s)
Total irregular channel flow = 18.602(CFS)
Irregular channel normal depth above invert elev. = 0.796(Ft.)
Average velocity of channel(s) = 5.876(Ft/s)
Adding area flow to channel
UNDEVELOPED (average cover) subarea
Decimal fraction soil group A = 1.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.000
SCS curve number for soil(AMC 2) = 50.00
Adjusted SCS curve number for AMC 3 = 70.00
Pervious ratio(Ap) = 1.0000 Max loss rate(Fm)= 0.532(In/Hr)
Rainfall intensity = 4.023(In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm
Effective runoff coefficient used for area,(total area with modified
rational method)(Q=KCIA) is C = 0.781
Subarea runoff = 27.634(CFS) for 9.040(Ac.)
Total runoff = 32.389(CFS)
Effective area this stream = 10.31(Ac.)
Total Study Area (Main Stream No. 2) = 30.15(Ac.)
Area averaged Fm value = 0.532(In/Hr)
Depth of flow = 0.980(Ft.), Average velocity = 6.750(Ft/s)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Process from Point/Station 13.000 to Point/Station 14.000
**** CONFLUENCE OF MAIN STREAMS ****
______________________________________________________________________
The following data inside Main Stream is listed:
In Main Stream number: 2
Stream flow area = 10.310(Ac.)
Runoff from this stream = 32.389(CFS)
Time of concentration = 17.34 min.
Rainfall intensity = 4.023(In/Hr)
Area averaged loss rate (Fm) = 0.5325(In/Hr)
Area averaged Pervious ratio (Ap) = 1.0000
Summary of stream data:
Stream Flow rate Area TC Fm Rainfall Intensity
No. (CFS) (Ac.) (min) (In/Hr) (In/Hr)
1 65.29 19.840 16.21 0.532 4.189
2 32.39 10.310 17.34 0.532 4.023
Qmax(1) =
1.000 * 1.000 * 65.291) +
1.048 * 0.935 * 32.389) + = 97.010
Qmax(2) =
0.955 * 1.000 * 65.291) +
1.000 * 1.000 * 32.389) + = 94.717
Total of 2 main streams to confluence:
Flow rates before confluence point:
66.291 33.389
Maximum flow rates at confluence using above data:
97.010 94.717
Area of streams before confluence:
19.840 10.310
Effective area values after confluence:
29.478 30.150
Results of confluence:
Total flow rate = 97.010(CFS)
Time of concentration = 16.206 min.
Effective stream area after confluence = 29.478(Ac.)
Study area average Pervious fraction(Ap) = 1.000
Study area average soil loss rate(Fm) = 0.532(In/Hr)
Study area total = 30.15(Ac.)
End of computations, Total Study Area = 30.15 (Ac.)
The following figures may
be used for a unit hydrograph study of the same area.
Note: These figures do not consider reduced effective area
effects caused by confluences in the rational equation.
Area averaged pervious area fraction(Ap) = 1.000
Area averaged SCS curve number = 50.0
San Bernardino County Rational Hydrology Program
(Hydrology Manual Date - August 1986)
CIVILCADD/CIVILDESIGN Engineering Software, (c) 1989-2014 Version 9.0
Rational Hydrology Study Date: 02/08/24
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DECLIFF RD,RANCHO CUCAMONGA
100 YEAR POST DEVELOPED CONDITION
TRIBUTARY TO NODE 16
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Program License Serial Number 6420
------------------------------------------------------------------------
********* Hydrology Study Control Information **********
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rational hydrology study storm event year is 100.0
Computed rainfall intensity:
Storm year = 100.00 1 hour rainfall = 1.910 (In.)
Slope used for rainfall intensity curve b = 0.6000
Soil antecedent moisture condition (AMC) = 3
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Process from Point/Station 10.000 to Point/Station 12.000
**** INITIAL AREA EVALUATION ****
______________________________________________________________________
UNDEVELOPED (average cover) subarea
Decimal fraction soil group A = 1.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.000
SCS curve number for soil(AMC 2) = 50.00
Adjusted SCS curve number for AMC 3 = 70.00
Pervious ratio(Ap) = 1.0000 Max loss rate(Fm)= 0.532(In/Hr)
Initial subarea data:
Initial area flow distance = 630.000(Ft.)
Top (of initial area) elevation = 1907.000(Ft.)
Bottom (of initial area) elevation = 1869.500(Ft.)
Difference in elevation = 37.500(Ft.)
Slope = 0.05952 s(%)= 5.95
TC = k(0.706)*[(length^3)/(elevation change)]^0.2
Initial area time of concentration = 16.353 min.
Rainfall intensity = 4.166(In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm
Effective runoff coefficient used for area (Q=KCIA) is C = 0.785
Subarea runoff = 7.620(CFS)
Total initial stream area = 2.330(Ac.)
Pervious area fraction = 1.000
Initial area Fm value = 0.532(In/Hr)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Process from Point/Station 10.000 to Point/Station 12.000
**** CONFLUENCE OF MAIN STREAMS ****
______________________________________________________________________
The following data inside Main Stream is listed:
In Main Stream number: 1
Stream flow area = 2.330(Ac.)
Runoff from this stream = 7.620(CFS)
Time of concentration = 16.35 min.
Rainfall intensity = 4.166(In/Hr)
Area averaged loss rate (Fm) = 0.5325(In/Hr)
Area averaged Pervious ratio (Ap) = 1.0000
Program is now starting with Main Stream No. 2
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Process from Point/Station 11.000 to Point/Station 12.000
**** INITIAL AREA EVALUATION ****
______________________________________________________________________
UNDEVELOPED (average cover) subarea
Decimal fraction soil group A = 1.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.000
SCS curve number for soil(AMC 2) = 50.00
Adjusted SCS curve number for AMC 3 = 70.00
Pervious ratio(Ap) = 1.0000 Max loss rate(Fm)= 0.532(In/Hr)
Initial subarea data:
Initial area flow distance = 313.000(Ft.)
Top (of initial area) elevation = 1910.000(Ft.)
Bottom (of initial area) elevation = 1869.500(Ft.)
Difference in elevation = 40.500(Ft.)
Slope = 0.12939 s(%)= 12.94
TC = k(0.706)*[(length^3)/(elevation change)]^0.2
Initial area time of concentration = 10.584 min.
Rainfall intensity = 5.409(In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm
Effective runoff coefficient used for area (Q=KCIA) is C = 0.811
Subarea runoff = 9.832(CFS)
Total initial stream area = 2.240(Ac.)
Pervious area fraction = 1.000
Initial area Fm value = 0.532(In/Hr)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Process from Point/Station 11.000 to Point/Station 12.000
**** CONFLUENCE OF MAIN STREAMS ****
______________________________________________________________________
The following data inside Main Stream is listed:
In Main Stream number: 2
Stream flow area = 2.240(Ac.)
Runoff from this stream = 9.832(CFS)
Time of concentration = 10.58 min.
Rainfall intensity = 5.409(In/Hr)
Area averaged loss rate (Fm) = 0.5325(In/Hr)
Area averaged Pervious ratio (Ap) = 1.0000
Summary of stream data:
Stream Flow rate Area TC Fm Rainfall Intensity
No. (CFS) (Ac.) (min) (In/Hr) (In/Hr)
1 7.62 2.330 16.35 0.532 4.166
2 9.83 2.240 10.58 0.532 5.409
Qmax(1) =
1.000 * 1.000 * 7.620) +
0.745 * 1.000 * 9.832) + = 14.946
Qmax(2) =
1.342 * 0.647 * 7.620) +
1.000 * 1.000 * 9.832) + = 16.450
Total of 2 main streams to confluence:
Flow rates before confluence point:
8.620 10.832
Maximum flow rates at confluence using above data:
14.946 16.450
Area of streams before confluence:
2.330 2.240
Effective area values after confluence:
4.570 3.748
Results of confluence:
Total flow rate = 16.450(CFS)
Time of concentration = 10.584 min.
Effective stream area after confluence = 3.748(Ac.)
Study area average Pervious fraction(Ap) = 1.000
Study area average soil loss rate(Fm) = 0.532(In/Hr)
Study area total = 4.57(Ac.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Process from Point/Station 12.000 to Point/Station 14.000
**** IMPROVED CHANNEL TRAVEL TIME ****
______________________________________________________________________
Upstream point elevation = 1869.500(Ft.)
Downstream point elevation = 1853.000(Ft.)
Channel length thru subarea = 184.000(Ft.)
Channel base width = 0.000(Ft.)
Slope or 'Z' of left channel bank = 1.500
Slope or 'Z' of right channel bank = 1.500
Manning's 'N' = 0.035
Maximum depth of channel = 1.000(Ft.)
Flow(q) thru subarea = 16.450(CFS)
Depth of flow = 1.150(Ft.), Average velocity = 8.438(Ft/s)
!!Warning: Water is above left or right bank elevations
Channel flow top width = 3.000(Ft.)
Flow Velocity = 8.44(Ft/s)
Travel time = 0.36 min.
Time of concentration = 10.95 min.
Critical depth = 1.477(Ft.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Process from Point/Station 12.000 to Point/Station 14.000
**** CONFLUENCE OF MAIN STREAMS ****
______________________________________________________________________
The following data inside Main Stream is listed:
In Main Stream number: 1
Stream flow area = 3.748(Ac.)
Runoff from this stream = 16.450(CFS)
Time of concentration = 10.95 min.
Rainfall intensity = 5.301(In/Hr)
Area averaged loss rate (Fm) = 0.5325(In/Hr)
Area averaged Pervious ratio (Ap) = 1.0000
Program is now starting with Main Stream No. 2
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Process from Point/Station 13.000 to Point/Station 14.000
**** INITIAL AREA EVALUATION ****
______________________________________________________________________
UNDEVELOPED (average cover) subarea
Decimal fraction soil group A = 1.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.000
SCS curve number for soil(AMC 2) = 50.00
Adjusted SCS curve number for AMC 3 = 70.00
Pervious ratio(Ap) = 1.0000 Max loss rate(Fm)= 0.532(In/Hr)
Initial subarea data:
Initial area flow distance = 289.000(Ft.)
Top (of initial area) elevation = 1855.000(Ft.)
Bottom (of initial area) elevation = 1853.000(Ft.)
Difference in elevation = 2.000(Ft.)
Slope = 0.00692 s(%)= 0.69
TC = k(0.706)*[(length^3)/(elevation change)]^0.2
Initial area time of concentration = 18.414 min.
Rainfall intensity = 3.880(In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm
Effective runoff coefficient used for area (Q=KCIA) is C = 0.776
Subarea runoff = 3.826(CFS)
Total initial stream area = 1.270(Ac.)
Pervious area fraction = 1.000
Initial area Fm value = 0.532(In/Hr)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Process from Point/Station 13.000 to Point/Station 14.000
**** CONFLUENCE OF MAIN STREAMS ****
______________________________________________________________________
The following data inside Main Stream is listed:
In Main Stream number: 2
Stream flow area = 1.270(Ac.)
Runoff from this stream = 3.826(CFS)
Time of concentration = 18.41 min.
Rainfall intensity = 3.880(In/Hr)
Area averaged loss rate (Fm) = 0.5325(In/Hr)
Area averaged Pervious ratio (Ap) = 1.0000
Summary of stream data:
Stream Flow rate Area TC Fm Rainfall Intensity
No. (CFS) (Ac.) (min) (In/Hr) (In/Hr)
1 16.45 3.748 10.95 0.532 5.301
2 3.83 1.270 18.41 0.532 3.880
Qmax(1) =
1.000 * 1.000 * 16.450) +
1.424 * 0.595 * 3.826) + = 19.691
Qmax(2) =
0.702 * 1.000 * 16.450) +
1.000 * 1.000 * 3.826) + = 15.375
Total of 2 main streams to confluence:
Flow rates before confluence point:
17.450 4.826
Maximum flow rates at confluence using above data:
19.691 15.375
Area of streams before confluence:
3.748 1.270
Effective area values after confluence:
4.503 5.018
Results of confluence:
Total flow rate = 19.691(CFS)
Time of concentration = 10.947 min.
Effective stream area after confluence = 4.503(Ac.)
Study area average Pervious fraction(Ap) = 1.000
Study area average soil loss rate(Fm) = 0.532(In/Hr)
Study area total = 5.02(Ac.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Process from Point/Station 14.000 to Point/Station 15.000
**** IMPROVED CHANNEL TRAVEL TIME ****
______________________________________________________________________
Upstream point elevation = 1853.000(Ft.)
Downstream point elevation = 1822.250(Ft.)
Channel length thru subarea = 444.000(Ft.)
Channel base width = 0.000(Ft.)
Slope or 'Z' of left channel bank = 1.500
Slope or 'Z' of right channel bank = 1.500
Estimated mean flow rate at midpoint of channel = 22.942(CFS)
Manning's 'N' = 0.015
Maximum depth of channel = 1.000(Ft.)
Flow(q) thru subarea = 22.942(CFS)
Depth of flow = 1.016(Ft.), Average velocity = 14.831(Ft/s)
!!Warning: Water is above left or right bank elevations
Channel flow top width = 3.000(Ft.)
Flow Velocity = 14.83(Ft/s)
Travel time = 0.50 min.
Time of concentration = 11.45 min.
Critical depth = 1.719(Ft.)
Adding area flow to channel
RESIDENTIAL(1 acre lot)
Decimal fraction soil group A = 1.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.000
SCS curve number for soil(AMC 2) = 32.00
Adjusted SCS curve number for AMC 3 = 52.00
Pervious ratio(Ap) = 0.8000 Max loss rate(Fm)= 0.628(In/Hr)
Rainfall intensity = 5.161(In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm
Effective runoff coefficient used for area,(total area with modified
rational method)(Q=KCIA) is C = 0.802
Subarea runoff = 6.410(CFS) for 1.800(Ac.)
Total runoff = 26.101(CFS)
Effective area this stream = 6.30(Ac.)
Total Study Area (Main Stream No. 1) = 7.64(Ac.)
Area averaged Fm value = 0.560(In/Hr)
Depth of flow = 1.057(Ft.), Average velocity = 15.616(Ft/s)
!!Warning: Water is above left or right bank elevations
Critical depth = 1.828(Ft.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Process from Point/Station 15.000 to Point/Station 16.000
**** IMPROVED CHANNEL TRAVEL TIME ****
______________________________________________________________________
Upstream point elevation = 1822.250(Ft.)
Downstream point elevation = 1776.500(Ft.)
Channel length thru subarea = 645.000(Ft.)
Channel base width = 0.000(Ft.)
Slope or 'Z' of left channel bank = 1.500
Slope or 'Z' of right channel bank = 1.500
Estimated mean flow rate at midpoint of channel = 26.741(CFS)
Manning's 'N' = 0.015
Maximum depth of channel = 1.000(Ft.)
Flow(q) thru subarea = 26.741(CFS)
Depth of flow = 1.061(Ft.), Average velocity = 15.881(Ft/s)
!!Warning: Water is above left or right bank elevations
Channel flow top width = 3.000(Ft.)
Flow Velocity = 15.88(Ft/s)
Travel time = 0.68 min.
Time of concentration = 12.12 min.
Critical depth = 1.844(Ft.)
Adding area flow to channel
UNDEVELOPED (average cover) subarea
Decimal fraction soil group A = 1.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.000
SCS curve number for soil(AMC 2) = 50.00
Adjusted SCS curve number for AMC 3 = 70.00
Pervious ratio(Ap) = 1.0000 Max loss rate(Fm)= 0.532(In/Hr)
Rainfall intensity = 4.986(In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm
Effective runoff coefficient used for area,(total area with modified
rational method)(Q=KCIA) is C = 0.799
Subarea runoff = 1.212(CFS) for 0.550(Ac.)
Total runoff = 27.313(CFS)
Effective area this stream = 6.85(Ac.)
Total Study Area (Main Stream No. 1) = 8.19(Ac.)
Area averaged Fm value = 0.558(In/Hr)
Depth of flow = 1.068(Ft.), Average velocity = 16.016(Ft/s)
Critical depth = 1.875(Ft.)
End of computations, Total Study Area = 8.19 (Ac.)
The following figures may
be used for a unit hydrograph study of the same area.
Note: These figures do not consider reduced effective area
effects caused by confluences in the rational equation.
Area averaged pervious area fraction(Ap) = 0.956
Area averaged SCS curve number = 46.0
San Bernardino County Rational Hydrology Program
(Hydrology Manual Date - August 1986)
CIVILCADD/CIVILDESIGN Engineering Software, (c) 1989-2014 Version 9.0
Rational Hydrology Study Date: 02/08/24
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DECLIFF RD, RANCHO CUCAMONGA
100 YEAR POST DEVELOPED CONDITION
TRIBUTARY TONODE 19
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Program License Serial Number 6420
------------------------------------------------------------------------
********* Hydrology Study Control Information **********
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rational hydrology study storm event year is 100.0
Computed rainfall intensity:
Storm year = 100.00 1 hour rainfall = 1.910 (In.)
Slope used for rainfall intensity curve b = 0.6000
Soil antecedent moisture condition (AMC) = 3
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Process from Point/Station 17.000 to Point/Station 18.000
**** INITIAL AREA EVALUATION ****
______________________________________________________________________
RESIDENTIAL(1 acre lot)
Decimal fraction soil group A = 1.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.000
SCS curve number for soil(AMC 2) = 32.00
Adjusted SCS curve number for AMC 3 = 52.00
Pervious ratio(Ap) = 0.8000 Max loss rate(Fm)= 0.628(In/Hr)
Initial subarea data:
Initial area flow distance = 696.000(Ft.)
Top (of initial area) elevation = 1870.000(Ft.)
Bottom (of initial area) elevation = 1822.500(Ft.)
Difference in elevation = 47.500(Ft.)
Slope = 0.06825 s(%)= 6.82
TC = k(0.469)*[(length^3)/(elevation change)]^0.2
Initial area time of concentration = 11.000 min.
Rainfall intensity = 5.285(In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm
Effective runoff coefficient used for area (Q=KCIA) is C = 0.793
Subarea runoff = 9.599(CFS)
Total initial stream area = 2.290(Ac.)
Pervious area fraction = 0.800
Initial area Fm value = 0.628(In/Hr)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Process from Point/Station 18.000 to Point/Station 19.000
**** IMPROVED CHANNEL TRAVEL TIME ****
______________________________________________________________________
Upstream point elevation = 1822.500(Ft.)
Downstream point elevation = 1790.500(Ft.)
Channel length thru subarea = 425.000(Ft.)
Channel base width = 0.000(Ft.)
Slope or 'Z' of left channel bank = 1.500
Slope or 'Z' of right channel bank = 1.500
Estimated mean flow rate at midpoint of channel = 10.227(CFS)
Manning's 'N' = 0.015
Maximum depth of channel = 0.100(Ft.)
Flow(q) thru subarea = 10.227(CFS)
Depth of flow = 1.283(Ft.), Average velocity = 27.650(Ft/s)
Channel flow top width = 0.300(Ft.)
Flow Velocity = 27.65(Ft/s)
Travel time = 0.26 min.
Time of concentration = 11.26 min.
Critical depth = 3.375(Ft.)
Adding area flow to channel
RESIDENTIAL(1 acre lot)
Decimal fraction soil group A = 1.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.000
SCS curve number for soil(AMC 2) = 32.00
Adjusted SCS curve number for AMC 3 = 52.00
Pervious ratio(Ap) = 0.8000 Max loss rate(Fm)= 0.628(In/Hr)
Rainfall intensity = 5.213(In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm
Effective runoff coefficient used for area,(total area with modified
rational method)(Q=KCIA) is C = 0.792
Subarea runoff = 1.171(CFS) for 0.320(Ac.)
Total runoff = 10.770(CFS)
Effective area this stream = 2.61(Ac.)
Total Study Area (Main Stream No. 1) = 2.61(Ac.)
Area averaged Fm value = 0.628(In/Hr)
Depth of flow = 1.322(Ft.), Average velocity = 28.228(Ft/s)
Critical depth = 3.469(Ft.)
End of computations, Total Study Area = 2.61 (Ac.)
The following figures may
be used for a unit hydrograph study of the same area.
Note: These figures do not consider reduced effective area
effects caused by confluences in the rational equation.
Area averaged pervious area fraction(Ap) = 0.800
Area averaged SCS curve number = 32.0
APPENDIX D
HYDROLOGY MAPS
EXISTING S.B.C.D.E.
(NOT APART)
Appendix G:
Transportation Screening Assessment
transportation ■ noise ■ air quality | GANDDINI GROUP
555 Parkcenter Drive, Suite 225, Santa Ana, California 92705
714 795 3100 | ganddini.com
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
TO: For applicant submittal to the CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
FROM: Perrie Ilercil, Senior Engineer | GANDDINI GROUP, INC.
DATE: April 8, 2024
SUBJECT: Decliff Drive Residential Project (PREA-2023-00256) Transportation Screening Assessment
GGI Project No. 19716
Ganddini Group, Inc. is pleased to provide this Transportation Screening Assessment for the Decliff Drive
Residential project in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The purpose of this memorandum is to determine if the
preparation of a traffic impact analysis with level of service (LOS) analysis or vehicle miles traveled (VMT)
analysis is necessary based on the transportation study guidelines and screening criteria established by the
City of Rancho Cucamonga. We trust the findings of this analysis will aid the City of Rancho Cucamonga in
assessing the project.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The 39.6-acre project site (APN: 022606168) is located at 13720 Decliff Drive in the City of Rancho
Cucamonga, California. The project site is currently developed with two single family residences, a garage
structure, and a barn/storage shed which will remain on site and zoned as Residential (R-HS, R-OS, R-FC/UC).
The proposed project involves construction of five (5) single family residential dwelling units on one-acre
minimum lots. Vehicle access for the project site is proposed via Decliff Drive. The proposed site plan is shown
in Attachment A
TRIP GENERATION
Table 1 shows the proposed project trips based on trip generation rates obtained from San Diego Association
of Governments (SANDAG) Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates (April 2002) trip generation rates for land use
(Estate Residential) for the proposed low density residential lots.
As shown in Table 1, the proposed project is forecast to approximately 60 daily trips, including 5 trips during
the AM peak hour and 6 trips during the PM peak hour.
CRITERIA FOR THE PREPARATION OF TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSES
The project has been assessed to determine if the preparation of a traffic impact analysis with level of service
(LOS) analysis and vehicle miles traveled (VMT) analysis is necessary based on the criteria established as
specified in the City of Rancho Cucamonga Traffic Impact Study Guidelines (June 2020) [“City TIA Guidelines”].
Level of Service Screening Criteria (General Plan Conformity)
As specified in the City TIA Guidelines, the requirement to prepare a transportation impact study with level
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Decliff Drive Residential
April 8, 2024
Decliff Drive Residential
Transportation Screening Assessment
2 19716
of service (LOS) analysis should be based on one or more of the following criteria:
If a project generates more than 50 or more trips during either the AM or PM peak hours to any
intersection.
Any project where variations from the standards and guidelines provided in these guidelines are being
proposed.
When determined by the City Traffic Engineer that existing or proposed traffic conditions in the project
vicinity have unique characteristics that warrant evaluation.
The project would generate and contribute fewer than 50 peak hour trips to any intersection of two streets
designated as Collector or higher on the City’s General Plan circulation system. The project does not propose
any deviation from the City’s TIA Guidelines. Subject to verification by the City Traffic Engineer, the project
does not appear to contribute to unique existing or proposed traffic conditions in the project vicinity to
warrant further evaluation. Therefore, the project does not warrant the preparation of a transportation impact
study with LOS analysis based on the City-established screening criteria and LOS impacts may be presumed
to be negligible.
Vehicle Miles Traveled Screening Criteria (CEQA)
The vehicle miles traveled (VMT) screening assessment has been prepared in accordance with City TIA
Guidelines, which were developed based on guidance from the Office of Planning and Research (OPR)
Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA (State of California, December 2018) [“OPR
Technical Advisory”]. In general terms, VMT quantifies the amount and distance of automobile travel
attributable to a project or region. The OPR Technical Advisory provides technical considerations regarding
methodologies and thresholds with a focus on office, residential, and retail developments as these projects
tend to have the greatest influence on VMT.
The City TIA Guidelines identify screening criteria for certain types of projects that typically reduce VMT and
may be presumed to result in a less than significant VMT impact. To qualify for VMT screening, the project
need only satisfy one of the following screening criteria:
Projects located within a Transit Priority Area (TPA)
□ Projects located within one-half mile radius of a major transit stop1 or high-quality transit corridor2
Projects located within a low VMT area
□ Site location can be verified with the web-based or map-based VMT Screening Tool3
Project Type Screening
□ Local serving land use
□ Projects which generate less than net new 250 daily vehicle trips (ADT)
TPA Screening
Projects located within a TPA, defined as within one-half mile of a major transit stop or high-quality transit
1 A major transit stop is defined as an existing rail transit station, ferry terminal with bus or rail service, or the intersection of two or more
major bus routes with less than 15-minute headways during the peak commute hours (Pub. Resources Code, § 21064.3.).
2 Fixed route bus service with less than 15-minute headways during the peak commute hours (Pub. Resources Code, § 21155).
3 The SBCTA VMT Screening Tool was developed from the San Bernardino Transportation Analysis Model (SBTAM) travel forecasting
model to measure VMT performance for individual jurisdictions and for individual traffic analysis zones (TAZs).
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Decliff Drive Residential
April 8, 2024
Decliff Drive Residential
Transportation Screening Assessment
3 19716
corridor, may be presumed to result in a less than significant VMT impact absent substantial evidence to the
contrary. The City TIA Guidelines note that this screening criteria may not apply the project has a floor area
ratio (FAR) less than 0.75, the project is inconsistent with applicable Sustainable Communities Strategy, or the
project constructs a smaller number of moderate or high-income residential units than the existing number of
affordable residential units.
Based on a review of the San Bernardino County Transportation Authority (SBCTA) VMT Screening Tool, the
proposed project is not located within a TPA; therefore, this screening criteria is not met.
Low VMT Area Screening
As prescribed in the City TIA Guidelines, the SBCTA VMT Screening Tool was used to assess low VMT area
screening for the project. The VMT Screening Tool was developed using the County travel forecasting model
to measure VMT performance for individual jurisdictions and for individual traffic analysis zones (TAZs) within
the County transportation region. TAZs are geographic polygons similar to census block groups used to
represent areas of homogenous travel behavior. Total daily VMT per service population was estimated for
each TAZ. This presumption may not be appropriate if the project land uses would alter the existing built
environment in such a way as to increase the rate or length of vehicle trips.
Based on the VMT Screening Tool results for the project site, located within TAZ 53858101, the baseline
year (2024) VMT for the project TAZ is equal to 36.5, which is not less than the City baseline (24.0 VMT).
Therefore, the project does not satisfy the City-established screening criteria for projects located in a low
VMT area.
Project Type Screening
The City TIA Guidelines identify the several types of projects that may be presumed to have a less than
significant VMT impact as they are local serving and thus can be expected to reduce VMT or they are small
enough to have a negligible impact:
Projects consisting of local servicing land use
□ Local parks
□ Day care centers
□ Local-serving retail less than 50,000 square feet
□ Local gas stations
□ Local banks
□ Student housing projects on or adjacent to college campuses
□ Local-serving assembly uses (places of worship, community organizations)
□ Community institutions (public libraries, fires stations, local government)
□ Local-serving community colleges that are consistent with the assumptions noted in the RTP/SCS
□ Affordable or supportive housing4
□ Assisted living facilities
□ Senior housing (as defined by HUD)
□ Projects generating with less than 250 daily vehicle trips (ADT)5
- 25 single-family residential dwelling units
- 36 multi-family residential dwelling units
4 The project must provide 100% of residential units as affordable or supportive housing.
5 This threshold ties to historical data and patterns of development in the City for small development projects, including consideration of
a project’s size (and/relative to) its potential impact on VMT within the City boundary.
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Decliff Drive Residential
April 8, 2024
Decliff Drive Residential
Transportation Screening Assessment
4 19716
- 23,000 square feet of office
- 34,000 square feet of light industrial
- 143,000 square feet of warehousing
- 180,000 square feet of high-cube transload and short-term storage warehouse
The project consists of five single family dwelling units which generates less than 250 daily trips. Therefore,
this screening criteria is met, and the project may be presumed to result in a less than significant VMT impact.
CONCLUSION
The project is forecast to generate approximately 60 daily trips, including 5 trips during the AM peak hour and
6 trips during the PM peak hour.
The project satisfies the City-established LOS screening criteria for projects generating fewer than 50 peak
hour trips. Therefore, the project does not warrant the preparation of a transportation impact study with LOS
analysis based on the City-established LOS screening criteria.
The project satisfies the City-established vehicle miles traveled (VMT) screening criteria for projects generating
less than 250 daily trips. Therefore, preparation of a transportation impact study with VMT analysis is not
warranted, and the project may be presumed to result in a less than significant VMT impact.
It has been a pleasure to assist you with this project. Should you have any questions or comments, please
contact Perrie Ilercil at (714) 795-3100 ext. 103 or perrie@ganddini.com.
ATTACHMENT
Land Use Source1 % In % Out Rate % In % Out Rate
Estate Residential SANDAG 30% 70% 0.96 70% 30% 1.20 12.00
Land Use Source In Out Total In Out Total
Estate Residential SANDAG 5 DU 1 4 5 4 2 6 60
Notes:
1.
2. DU = Dwelling Units.
Land Use
Variable2
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Daily
Rate
Table 1
Project Trip Generation
Trip Generation Rates
DU
Trips Generated
Quantity
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Daily
In absence of low denstiy residential trip generation rates in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (11th Edition,
2021), data from San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates (April 2002) rates are used.
Decliff Drive Residentialt
Transportation Screening Assessment
197135
ATTACHMENT A
SITE PLAN
APX-1
LOT 3
LOT 1
LOT 4
LOT 2
LOT 5
2 ACRES
87,120 SF
2 ACRES
87,120 SF
2 ACRES
87,120 SF
2 ACRES
87,120 SF
28
6
.
0
0
f
t
28
6
.
0
0
f
t
.5 ACRE HOMESITE .5 ACRE HOMESITE
.5 ACRE HOMESITE .5 ACRE HOMESITE
LOCATION OF SFD
662.91 ft
LOCATION OF SFD
185.00 ft
19
3
.
5
0
f
t
185.00 ft
BLUE LINE STREAM
FAULT ZONE
HOME SITE
FLOOD UTILITY CORRIDOR
SFD FOOTPRINT
100' FAULT ZONE
BLUE LINE STREAM
TO BLUE LINE STREAM
310.64 ft
FLOOD / UTILITY
CORRIDOR
UTILITY CORRIDOR
UTILITY CORRIDOR
100' FAULT ZONE
50.00 ft
50.00 ft
FAULT LINE PER USGS
FAULT LINE PER USGS
50.00 ft
50.00 ft
15.00 ft
20.00 ft
15.00 ft
306.30 ft50.00 ft306.55 ft
LOCATION OF SFD LOCATION OF SFD
PROJECT # :
D
R
A
W
I
N
G
T
I
T
L
E
:
DE
C
L
I
F
F
D
R
.
RA
N
C
H
O
C
U
C
A
M
O
N
G
A
91
7
5
9
S C A L E
NOTE: THIS DRAWING IS 24"X36". DO NOT SCALE
DRAWINGS. USE FIGURED DIMENSIONS ONLY, OR SEEK
CLARIFICATION FROM ARCHITECT FOR MEASUREMENTS
THAT ARE NOT INDICATED.
D A T E I S S U E
I,
N
I
D
A
L
H
A
M
I
D
A
,
L
I
C
#
3
7
9
6
9
,
C
E
R
T
I
F
Y
T
H
A
T
I
A
M
T
H
E
P
R
O
F
E
S
S
I
O
N
A
L
W
H
O
DE
S
I
G
N
E
D
T
H
E
S
E
P
L
A
N
S
A
N
D
T
H
E
C
O
M
P
L
E
M
E
N
T
A
R
Y
S
P
E
C
I
F
I
C
A
T
I
O
N
S
.
I
A
L
S
O
CE
R
T
I
F
Y
T
H
A
T
I
U
N
D
E
R
S
T
A
N
D
T
H
A
T
S
U
C
H
P
L
A
N
S
A
N
D
S
P
E
C
I
F
I
C
A
T
I
O
N
S
CO
M
P
L
Y
W
I
T
H
T
H
E
A
P
P
L
I
C
A
B
L
E
P
R
O
V
I
S
I
O
N
S
O
F
T
H
E
J
O
I
N
T
R
E
G
U
L
A
T
I
O
N
A
N
D
AP
P
L
I
C
A
B
L
E
P
R
O
V
I
S
I
O
N
S
O
F
T
H
E
R
E
G
U
L
A
T
I
O
N
S
A
N
D
C
O
D
E
S
O
F
T
H
E
AG
E
N
C
I
E
S
,
R
E
G
U
L
A
T
O
R
Y
B
O
A
R
D
S
O
R
P
U
B
L
I
C
C
O
R
P
O
R
A
T
I
O
N
S
W
I
T
H
JU
R
I
S
D
I
C
T
I
O
N
S
.
I
A
C
K
N
O
W
L
E
D
G
E
T
H
A
T
A
N
Y
F
A
L
S
E
D
E
C
L
A
R
A
T
I
O
N
O
R
FA
L
S
I
F
I
C
A
T
I
O
N
O
F
T
H
E
F
A
C
T
S
T
H
A
T
H
A
V
E
B
E
E
N
P
R
O
D
U
C
E
D
W
I
T
H
O
U
T
KN
O
W
L
E
D
G
E
O
R
B
Y
N
E
G
L
I
G
E
N
C
E
,
E
I
T
H
E
R
B
Y
M
E
,
M
Y
A
G
E
N
T
S
O
R
EM
P
L
O
Y
E
E
S
,
O
R
B
Y
O
T
H
E
R
P
E
R
S
O
N
S
W
I
T
H
M
Y
K
N
O
W
L
E
D
G
E
,
M
A
K
E
M
E
RE
S
P
O
N
S
I
B
L
E
F
O
R
A
N
Y
D
I
S
C
L
A
I
M
E
R
O
T
H
E
R
C
O
M
P
E
T
E
N
T
A
U
T
H
O
R
I
T
I
E
S
,
IN
C
L
U
D
I
N
G
,
B
U
T
N
O
T
L
I
M
I
T
E
D
T
O
,
T
H
E
T
E
R
M
I
N
A
T
I
O
N
O
F
P
A
R
T
I
C
I
P
A
T
I
O
N
I
N
T
H
E
PR
O
F
E
S
S
I
O
N
A
L
C
E
R
T
I
F
I
C
A
T
I
O
N
P
R
O
C
E
D
U
R
E
S
I
N
T
H
E
C
A
B
G
U
I
D
E
L
I
N
E
S
.
AD
D
R
E
S
S
:
2
5
6
A
L
D
E
R
G
A
T
E
S
T
.
PH
O
N
E
:
3
2
3
.
6
7
8
.
1
4
6
3
EM
A
I
L
:
N
I
D
A
L
@
H
A
M
I
D
A
-
A
R
C
H
I
T
E
C
T
S
.
C
O
M
9/29/2023 9:18:30 AM
Project Number
A0.1
AR
C
H
I
T
E
C
T
U
R
A
L
S
I
T
E
P
L
A
N
3.1NOTES
NO SCALE
4. MAP ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS. TO INFORM THE PROJECT SITE PLAN AND DESIGN –AND TOENSURE THAT THE ALLOWABLE DWELLING UNITS AND REQUIRED OPEN SPACE ACREAGE CALCULATED IN THE TWO PREVIOUS STEPS ARE
OPTIMALLY LOCATED AND CONFIGURED ON THE PROJECT SITE
–A SITE SURVEY, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS BASE MAP, AND ACCOMPANYING TECHNICAL REPORTS SHALL BE PREPARED AND SUBMITTED AS PART OF ANY DEVELOPMENT PERMIT APPLICATION. THE SURVEY, CONSTRAINTS MAP AND
REPORTS SHALL INCLUDE A BOUNDARY AND TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY PREPARED BY A LICENSED CIVIL ENGINEER OR SURVEYOR, AND MAPS AND REPORTS DESCRIBING ALL ON-SITE DRAINAGE COURSES, BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES,
ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES, STRUCTURES, GEOLOGICAL FEATURES AND FAULT ZONES, AND OTHER ON-SITE CONDITIONS THAT MIGHT INFORM OR CONSTRAIN THE PROJECT PLAN AND DESIGN (SEE FIGURE 5.9.2(B)).
5. DETERMINE LOCATION OF HOMESITES. BASED ON THE SITE SURVEY AND CONSTRAINTS MAPPING, IDENTIFY PREFERRED LOCATIONS FOR HOMESITES, CLUSTERS OF HOMESITES, REQUIRED FUEL MODIFICATION BUFFER AREAS, LEGAL
LOT BOUNDARIES, AND ACCESS ROADS (SEE FIGURES 5.9.2(C) AND (F)).
A. HOMESITES MAY BE UP TO 1/2 ACRE IN AREA MAXIMUM.
B. FUEL MODIFICATION BUFFER AREAS AND ACCESS ROADS SHALL BE AS REQUIRED BY THE FIRE MARSHALL AND PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR.
C. LOTS MUST BE A MINIMUM AREA OF 1-ACRE.
D. BASED ON TOPOGRAPHIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSTRAINTS, IT MAY PROVE IMPOSSIBLE TO FIT THE
MAXIMUM NUMBER OF HOMESITES AND LOTS (AS
CALCULATED IN STEP 2) ON THE PROJECT SITE, AND THUS THE TOTAL NUMBER OF HOMESITES WILL NECESSARILY BE LESS THAN THE NUMBER ALLOWED BY SUB-ZONE REGULATION DENSITY AND OPEN SPACE CALCULATIONS.
E. LOTS MAY BE EXPANDED TO INCLUDE THE ENTIRE FUEL MODIFICATION BUFFER AREA ASSOCIATED WITH THE CORRESPONDING HOMESITE.
F. LOTS MAY BE FURTHER EXPANDED SO AS TO COLLECTIVELY INCLUDE THE REMAINDER OF THE PROJECT SITE, INCLUDING
ALL OPEN SPACE EASEMENT AREAS.
1" = 160'-0"3ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN
3.1FEMA
NO SCALE
Note: There is no FEMA flood ways nor is the project within a 100-year storm event.
APX-2
10440 Ashford Street, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730-2799
P.O. Box 638, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729-0638
(909)987-2591 Fax (909) 476-8032
John Bosler
Secretary/General Manager/CEO
Randall James Reed Mark Gibboney James V. Curatalo Jr. Kevin Kenley Jimmie Moffatt
President Vice President Director Director Director
October 16, 2023
Moe Farrag
Andresen Architecture
280 Thousand Oaks Blvd
Thousand Oaks, CA 91360
Re: Availability of Water and Sewer Service
13702 Decliff Drive APN(s): 022606168 & 022606169
Mr. Farrag:
In response to your request received on August 15, 2023, this letter serves to advise that there is District
owned and operated water facilities in the vicinity of the subject project located at 13702 Decliff Drive. A
preliminary review of the grading plans depict the proposed development of five (5) new homes on the two
parcels. The District has water distribution facilities within Dawnridge Drive. Your project will need to
extend a new water main from your property to the point of connection on Dawnridge Drive. Your project
will need to contribute approximately $100,000 towards the water supply improvements that are needed for
Pressure Zone 5D. Please be advised that the District will need to perform a Fire Flow Test to determine the
capability of serving your project. The District does not have sewer collection facilities within vicinity of
the proposed project.
Water service would be provided after the project plans have been approved and the payment of all the
appropriate fees have been made.
If you have any questions or need more information, please contact Gull Nawaz at GullN@cvwdwater.com.
Sincerely,
CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
Gull Nawaz, PE
Senior Associate Engineer
Cc: Eduardo Espinoza, PE, Assistant General Manager, Cucamonga Valley Water District
Tuan Truong, PE, Engineering Manager, Cucamonga Valley Water District
Amanda Coker, PE, Engineering Manager, Cucamonga Valley Water District
Gull Nawaz
EXHIBIT D
Page 43
EXHIBIT E
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-009
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING TENTATIVE
TRACT MAP SUBTT20653, A REQUEST TO SUBDIVIDE TWO
EXISTING LOTS TOTALING APPROXIMATELY 39.58 GROSS ACRES
INTO (5) NUMBERED LOTS AND SIX (6) LETTERED LOTS, LOCATED
WITHIN THE ETIWANDA HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD AND
CONSERVATION PLAN (EHNCP) WITHIN THE LAND USE
DESIGNATIONS OF RURAL OPEN SPACE AND GENERAL OPEN
SPACE AND FACILITIES. THE SITE IS ZONED RURAL HILLSIDE (H-
R), RURAL OPEN SPACE (R-OS), AND RURAL FLOOD
CONTROL/UTILITY CORRIDOR (R-FC/UC), LOCATED NORTH OF
DECLIFF DRIVE, EAST OF WARDMAN BULLOCK ROAD, AND WEST
OF AMBLESIDE PLACE; APN’S: 0226-061-68 and 0226-061-69.
A. Recitals.
1. The applicant, DeCliff Properties LLC, filed an application for the approval of
Tentative Tract Map SUBTT20653, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this
Resolution, the subject Tentative Tract Map request is referred to as "the Application."
2. On the 25th day of March 2026, 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 and thereafter, among other actions, adopting Resolution No. 2026-009
and approving Tentative Tract Map SUBTT20653.
3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
B. Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY FOUND, DETERMINED, AND RESOLVED by the
Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows:
1. The Planning Commission hereby finds that all facts set forth in the Recitals
contained in Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct.
2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to the Planning Commission at the
duly noticed public hearing held on March 25, 2026, including written and oral staff reports, and
public testimony, the Planning Commission hereby makes the following findings:
a. The Project site is vacant land generally located north of DeCliff Drive, east of
Wardman Bullock Road, and west of Ambleside Place; and
b. The Project site consists of two (2) existing lots totaling approximately 39.58
gross acres, identified as Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 0226-061-68 and 0226-061-69; and
c. Tentative Tract Map No. SUBTT20653 proposes to create five (5) numbered
lots and six (6) lettered lots to support future single-family residential development; and
Page 44
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2026-009
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP No. SUBTT20653
DeCliff Properties LLC
Page 2
d. The existing land uses, along with the General Plan and Zoning designations,
for the project site and the surrounding properties, relative to the above-noted parcel, are as
follows:
Land Use General Plan Zoning
Site*
Vacant/Undeveloped
APN: 0226-061-68 General Open Space and Rural Flood Control/Utility
Vacant/Undeveloped
APN: 0226-061-69
General Open Space and
Facilities
Rural Hillside (R-H)
Rural Flood Control/Utility
Corridor (R-FC/UC)
North* Vacant/Undeveloped General Open Space and
Facilities
Rural Open Space (R-OS)
Rural Flood Control/Utility
West* Dwelling, Single-Family General Open Space and
Facilities
Rural Open Space (R-OS)
Rural Flood Control/Utility
South* Vacant/Undeveloped Facilities Flood Control/Utility Corridor
(FC/UC)
East Ling Yen Temple,
Vacant/Undeveloped
General Open Space and
Facilities
Rural Open Space (R-OS)
Rural Flood Control/Utility
e. The newly created parcels comply with the allowed density of the Rural Hillside
(H-R) Zone of the Etiwanda Heights neighborhood and Conservation Plan (EHNCP) pursuant to
Table 5.9.3A – Allowed Density per Regulation Sub-Zone requiring a maximum density of one
(1) dwelling unit per two (2) acres. Lots 1 through Lot 4 will have a minimum size of 2 acres and
Lot 5 will be 3.41 acres; and
f. The newly created parcels comply with the development standards pursuant to
the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan (EHNCP) consistent with Hillside
Rural Development Standards pursuant to Table 5.9.4. – Building Standards, as demonstrated
in the table below:
C.
Compliance Standards - Table 5.9.4 Building Standards (EHNCP)
Development Standard Requirement Proposed Lots Analysis
Minimum Lot Areal 1 acre
Lot 1 – 2 acres Compliant
Lot 2 – 2 acres Compliant
Lot 3 – 2 acres Compliant
Lot 4 – 2 acres Compliant
Lot 5 – 3.41 acres Compliant
Page 45
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2026-009
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP No. SUBTT20653
DeCliff Properties LLC
Page 3
Minimum Lot Width 150 ft
Lot 1 – 308.00ft Compliant
Lot 2 – 306.00 ft Compliant
Lot 3 – 298.00 ft
Lot 4 – 293.00 ft
Lot 5 – 663.00 ft
Minimum Lot Depth 150 ft
Lot 1 – 285.00 ft Compliant
Lot 2 – 286.00 ft Compliant
Lot 3 – 274.00 ft
Lot 5 – 161.00 ft
Setbacks
Primary Building Front 40 ft Lot 1-Lot 5 – 40 ft Compliant
Primary Building Side 40 ft 40 ft on one side,
exceeded on the Compliant
Primary Building Rear 40 ft Exceeded Compliant
g. The application as submitted includes no physical development of structures at
the subject site.
3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to the Planning Commission at the
above-referenced public hearing meeting and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in
Paragraphs 1, and 2 above stated, the Planning Commission hereby finds and concludes the
following with respect to the Tentative Tract Map:
a. The tentative tract map, design, and improvements are consistent with the
General Plan and Development Code. The Project site is consistent with the Etiwanda Heights
Neighborhood and Conservation Plan (EHNCP) Rural Sub-zone Development Standards for the
Rural Hillside (H-R) zoning designation. The Project will create five (5) numbered lots for the
future construction of single-family residential and will create six (6) letter lots proposed to
remain as open space. The created lots meet the density of one (1) dwelling unit per two (2)
acres and the building standards of the EHNCP. The Project is consistent with the Vision,
Goals, and Principles of the EHNCP Rural Development Sub-Zone, including Goal No. 1: To
permanently conserve and manage as rural open space the largest feasible portion of the
Rural/Conservation Area and Goal No. 2: To ensure that all development and uses within the
Rural/Conservation Area are aesthetically compatible with the rural foothill character and
landscape. The subdivision is proposed as a clustered development, which supports residential
uses while maintaining open space areas and boundaries from environmental constraints and
preserving the natural character of the hillside rural area. Accordingly, the proposed tentative
tract map, project design, and improvements are consistent with the H-R Sub-Zone designation
of the EHNCP; and
Page 46
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2026-009
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP No. SUBTT20653
DeCliff Properties LLC
Page 4
b. The site is physically suitable for the proposed subdivision and for the
proposed density. The tentative tract map proposes to subdivide two parcels totaling
approximately 39.58 acres and create five (5) numbered lots ranging between 2 acres to 3.41
acres, for the future construction of single-family hillside residential and create six (6) letter lots
proposed to remain as open space. The site is physically suitable for the proposed development
and has been designed in compliance with the EHNCP standards, including but not limited to
meeting the density, identifying environmental constraints, determining location of homesites,
compliance with lot area, building setbacks, fuel modification buffer, and meeting universal
standards keeping distance requirements from fault lines and
Blue Line steam areas; and
c. The design of the subdivision and proposed improvements are not likely to
cause substantial environmental damage, avoidable injury to fish or wildlife or their habitat, or
serious public health problems. The proposed subdivision and improvements are consistent with
the development standards of the EHNCP. The proposed clustering design will avoid
environmentally sensitive areas, such as fault lines, Blue Line Stream, and will avoid areas
zoned Flood Control/Utility Corridor (R-FC/UC) and Open Space (R-OS). In addition, a CEQA
compliance Memorandum was prepared pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 finding the Project consistent with
the EHNCP.
d. The design of the tentative tract map will not conflict with any easements
acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed
subdivision. In this connection, the governing body may approve a map if it finds that alternate
easements, for access or for use, will be provided, and that these will be substantially equivalent
to ones previously acquired by the public. This shall apply only to easements of record or to
easements established by judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction and no authority is
hereby granted to a legislative body to determine that the public at large has acquired
easements for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. The proposed
subdivision main vehicular access will be via a 60-foot dedication roadway share access
agreement along DeCliff Drive. In addition, a sixty (60) foot wide shared access road dedication
leading to the five (5) created lots will cross an existing sixty (60) foot dedication per parcel map
No. 9461, located within the General Open Space and Facilities Los Angeles Department of
Water and Power Easement through the General Open Space and Facilities. The Project has
been conditioned to acquire the required access easements.
4. The approval of the Project is in compliance with the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA). Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 – Projects Consistent with a
Community Plan, General Plan, or Zoning. Environmental impacts associated with development in
the project area were previously analyzed in the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation
Plan (EHNCP) certified Environmental Impact Report (EIR) adopted by the City Council in October
2019, (SCH No. 2017091027).
A CEQA Compliance Memorandum was prepared pursuant to Section 15183 by Lilburn
Corporation dated February 2026. The analysis concluded that:
a. There are no project-specific significant impacts peculiar to the site that were
not analyzed in the EHNCP EIR;
Page 47
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2026-009
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP No. SUBTT20653
DeCliff Properties LLC
Page 5
b. There are no significant impacts not previously analyzed in the EHNCP EIR;
c. There are no significant off-site or cumulative impacts unaddressed by the
EHNCP EIR;
d. No new substantial information indicates that any previously identified impact
is more severe than previously disclosed. All potential impacts have either
been analyzed in the EHNCP EIR or can be mitigated to a less-than-
significant level by existing development standards and no further
environmental review is required under CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.
5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4
above, the Planning Commission hereby approves the application for Tentative Tract Map No.
SUBTT20653 subject to each and every condition set forth in the Conditions of Approval,
attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
6. The Secretary of the Planning Commission shall certify the adoption of this
Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 25TH DAY OF MARCH 2026. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
Alvin C. Boling, Chairman
ATTEST:
Jennifer Nakamura, Secretary
I, Jennifer Nakamura, Secretary of the Planning Commission for 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 25th day of March 2026, by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSTAINED: COMMISSIONERS:
Page 48
Conditions of Approval
Community Development Department
Project #: SUBTT20653
Project Name: Decliff Drive 5-Lot Subdivision
Location: - 022606169-0000
Project Type: Tentative Tract Map
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Planning Department
Please be advised of the following Special Conditions
Future Site Development shall be in compliance with the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and
Conservation Plan (EHNCP) Development Standards and Design Guidelines, pursuant to Chapter 5.9
(Rural/conservation Area Standards) and Table 5.9.4 (Building Standards).
1.
2.
3.
Future Architecture and Landscaping shall be designed pursuant to EHNCP Section 5.10.4.
Standard Conditions of Approval
www.CityofRC.us
Printed: 3/9/2026
Page 49
Project #: SUBTT20653
Project Name: Decliff Drive 5-Lot Subdivision
Location: - 022606169-0000
Project Type: Tentative Tract Map
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Planning Department
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.
5.
6.
7.
8.
www.CityofRC.us Page 2 of 8Printed: 3/9/2026
Page 50
Project #: SUBTT20653
Project Name: Decliff Drive 5-Lot Subdivision
Location: - 022606169-0000
Project Type: Tentative Tract Map
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Planning Department
Standard Conditions of Approval
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.
9.
Engineering Services Department
Please be advised of the following Special Conditions
The project Final Map shall meet the Subdivision Map Act, City Development Codes, and Conditions of
Approval requirements. The Final Map shall be approved and recorded with the San Bernardino
County Recorders Office prior to issuance of Building Permits.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Standard Conditions of Approval
A final drainage study shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer prior to final map
approval or the issuance of Building Permits, whichever occurs first. All drainage facilities shall be
installed as required by the City Engineer.
6.
7.
www.CityofRC.us Page 3 of 8Printed: 3/9/2026
Page 51
Project #: SUBTT20653
Project Name: Decliff Drive 5-Lot Subdivision
Location: - 022606169-0000
Project Type: Tentative Tract Map
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Engineering Services Department
Standard Conditions of Approval
Construct the following perimeter street improvements per the Etiwanda Heights Specific Plan ,
Rural/Conservation Area Road Standards including, but not limited to:
Street Name: (Proposed New Street)
A.C. Pvmt
Street Lights
Gravel Shoulders
Bioswales
Private Horse Trail (10ft)
Notes: Thickness of AC pavement to follow local road way section under City's Standard 100-A.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
www.CityofRC.us Page 4 of 8Printed: 3/9/2026
Page 52
Project #: SUBTT20653
Project Name: Decliff Drive 5-Lot Subdivision
Location: - 022606169-0000
Project Type: Tentative Tract Map
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Engineering Services Department
Standard Conditions of Approval
It shall be the developer's responsibility to have the current FIRM Zone designation removed
from the project area. The developer shall provide drainage and/or flood protection facilities sufficient
to obtain a Zone "X" designation. The developer's engineer shall prepare all necessary reports, plans,
and hydrologic/hydraulic calculations. A Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) shall be obtained
from FEMA prior to final map approval or issuance of Building Permits, whichever occurs first. A Letter
of Map Revision (LOMR) shall be issued by FEMA prior to occupancy or improvement acceptance,
whichever occurs first.
13.
Fire Prevention / New Construction Unit
Standard Conditions of Approval
The site/project is located in the designated Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Area. A site-specific or
project-specific fire protection plan is required for this project. The fire protection plan is required to be
in accordance with Fire District Standard 49-1.
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.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
www.CityofRC.us Page 5 of 8Printed: 3/9/2026
Page 53
Project #: SUBTT20653
Project Name: Decliff Drive 5-Lot Subdivision
Location: - 022606169-0000
Project Type: Tentative Tract Map
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Grading Section
Standard Conditions of Approval
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 Engineering Services Department.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
www.CityofRC.us Page 6 of 8Printed: 3/9/2026
Page 54
Project #: SUBTT20653
Project Name: Decliff Drive 5-Lot Subdivision
Location: - 022606169-0000
Project Type: Tentative Tract Map
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.
16.
www.CityofRC.us Page 7 of 8Printed: 3/9/2026
Page 55
Project #: SUBTT20653
Project Name: Decliff Drive 5-Lot Subdivision
Location: - 022606169-0000
Project Type: Tentative Tract Map
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.
17.
www.CityofRC.us Page 8 of 8Printed: 3/9/2026
Page 56
DATE:March 25, 2026
TO:Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM:Jennifer Nakamura, CNU-A, Planning Director
INITIATED BY:Aracely Estrada, Management Analyst II
SUBJECT:Consideration to Receive and File the General Plan Annual Progress
Report and the Housing Element Annual Progress Report for 2025.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the Planning Commission receive and file the General Plan Annual Progress
Report and the Housing Element Annual Progress Report for 2025.
BACKGROUND:
A General Plan is a city’s blueprint or constitution, for future development. It documents the city’s
long-range vision and establishes clear goals, objectives, and actions to guide the community
through the next 10 to 20 years of change. A city must update its general plan periodically to keep
up with changing needs and conditions of the city and region. It should also be updated to reflect
new local, state and federal laws. State law requires each city and county to adopt a General Plan
that address several topics, typically referred to as “elements.” This includes the adoption of a
Housing Element.
The Housing Element is an important planning policy document that is used to identify the City’s
projected housing needs and establish policies that support development of all housing types,
including affordable housing. The Housing Element is subject to detailed statutory requirements
and mandatory review by the California Department of Housing and Community Development
(HCD). The Housing Element is currently in its 6th Cycle, which covers an 8-year planning period
from October 2021 through October 2029. The 6th Cycle Housing Element was adopted by the
City Council in October 2021 and certified by HCD in August 2022.
California Government Code Section 65400 requires that each city and county prepare an Annual
Progress Report (APR) to report on the status and progress of the General Plan’s implementation
and separately, the Housing Element. Copies of both the General Plan and the Housing Element
APRs must be provided to the California Governor’s Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation
(LCI), and HCD by April 1 of each year. Section 65400 of the Government Code also requires
that the annual report be considered at a public meeting before the legislative body allowing for
public comment but not necessarily held as a public hearing.
The General Plan APR is separate from the Housing Element APR in that the General Plan APR
provides local legislative bodies and the public an update on the progress of implementing the
General Plan for their city or county, while the Housing Element APR demonstrates the City’s
progress in meeting its projected housing needs. Unlike the Housing Element APR, the General
Plan APR does not have a standardized format and the guidance provided by LCI allows flexibility,
which may need to vary based on a jurisdiction’s individual circumstances.
Page 57
Page 2
3
3
9
9
ANALYSIS:
The City Council adopted its current General Plan on December 15, 2021. The updated General
Plan, also referred to as Plan RC, lays out a series of strategies to chart a path towards a 21st
century world-class community. The vision of Plan RC is to create a city for people – a city of
great neighborhoods, natural open spaces and parks, thriving commercial and industrial areas,
and walkable and active centers and districts, all connected by safe and comfortable streets.
The General Plan APR summarizes the measures associated with the implementation of the
General Plan, amendments to the General Plan, housing progress, and highlights of major
development applications that were processed and/or under construction in 2025.
General Plan Amendment
There was one General Plan amendment adopted in 2025. Resolution 2025-102 was adopted by
the City Council on December 17, 2025, to amend the General Plan Land Use and Community
Character and Mobility Chapters related to floor area ratio, block lengths, dimension standards
for street typologies, removing the proposed 8th street trail, and amending the Truck Routes Map
pursuant to AB98.
Implementation Highlights
The General Plan APR summarizes a variety of measures and activities undertaken by the City
in 2025 to advance the goals and policies of the General Plan. Among others, some
activities/projects highlighted were:
Advanced Traffic Management System (ATMS): Construction for Phase 2 began in 2025.
ATMS is the City’s integrated smart traffic signal system designed to help reduce roadway
congestion.
6th Street Cycle Track: This 1.75-mile active transportation corridor between Haven
Avenue and Rochester Avenue was completed in May 2025. The City leveraged
construction activities to complete additional pavement rehabilitation and improve
connectivity to key destinations such as the Metrolink Station, the Resort mixed-use
development, and the Day Creek Channel Bike Trail.
West Foothill Boulevard Street Improvements: This project made many improvements to
the roadway such as paving new asphalt, storm drain infrastructure, irrigation and
landscaping, and ATMS. The improvements enhanced safety, mobility, and reliability for
motorists, pedestrians, and cyclists.
Industrial/Commercial and Residential/Mixed-Use Development
The City approved approximately 2.2 million square feet of industrial and commercial
development in 2025. Some projects highlighted in the General Plan APR include an application
that was approved to redevelop and expand the Reyes Coca-Cola distribution facility, an
application was approved to develop three tilt-up industrial buildings on 9th Street and Vineyard
Avenue, and an application that was approved to develop a warehouse building located near
Etiwanda Avenue and Arrow Route (Newcastle Arrow).
The General Plan APR also highlights several residential/mixed-use developments that were
approved, under construction, or completed in 2025 such as an application that was approved for
the development of 18 residential units located near Arrow Route and Manola Place (Avignon
Reserve), an application that was approved to construct a mixed-use development consisting of
40 residential townhouse units and 10 live/work units located at the corner of Base Line Road and
Amethyst Avenue (Rempel Mixed-use), and an application that was approved to develop 166
single family residents located near Etiwanda Avenue and Wilson Avenue (Trails at Etiwanda).
Page 58
Page 3
3
3
9
9
Housing Goals Progress
The General Plan APR also includes data from the Housing Element APR such as the number of
applications submitted and the number of housing units entitled, permitted, and constructed.
While the Housing Element APR is submitted to LCI and HCD in a large excel file that includes
detailed data as required by HCD, the General Plan APR summarizes key points of the Housing
Element APR. Below is a snapshot of the City’s housing progress, as reflected in the General
Plan APR and in further detail in the Housing Element APR.
In 2025, there were 15 housing applications submitted totaling 1,284 proposed units. There were
272 housing units approved, 611 building permits issued, and 380 housing units completed or
constructed.
The State mandates that jurisdictions plan for the development of certain housing units across
various income levels through a process called the Regional Housing Needs Assessment
(RHNA). For the current 8-year planning period, the City was allocated 10,525 units. To
accommodate for that many units, the General Plan included changes to the land use zones that
would allow for higher density developments. HCD further clarified that the key benchmark for
tracking RHNA progress is building permits issued. Below is a breakdown of the building permits
issued by income level in 2025.
BUILDING PERMITS ISSUED BY AFFORDABILITY
SUMMARY - 2025
Income Level Permits Issued
Total Units 611
Despite an increase in permits issued in 2025 compared to the previous year, overall,
development remains slow due to various factors such as fluctuations in the market, shortages in
labor and supply, increased interest rates, and inflation. To date, there have been a total of 2,752
building permits issued in the current planning period, which is 26% of the overall target. Although
the City cannot require or mandate developers to submit applications to construct more housing
within City boundaries, staff will continue efforts to remove procedural barriers and enhance
coordination with applicants to facilitate well-planned residential development. Below is a
breakdown of permits issued by year in this Housing Element cycle compared to the RHNA
allocation, as reflected in the Housing Element APR.
Page 59
Page 4
3
3
9
9
The General Plan APR and Housing Element APR data were presented to the City Council for
review and direction on March 18, 2026. Staff will submit the 2025 APRs to LCI and HCD by the
April 1 deadline in compliance with California Government Code Section 65400.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / VALUE(S) ADDRESSED:
These reports align with the following Council values:
Courageous Leadership in Service to the Community
Preparing and submitting the General Plan and Housing Element Annual Progress
Reports demonstrates transparency and accountability in implementing adopted policies.
By publicly tracking progress and identifying areas for improvement, the City shows
leadership in meeting state requirements while remaining responsive to community
needs.
Relentless Pursuit of Improvement
Annual reporting not only meets statutory requirements, but it also allows the City to
assess what is working, identify constraints, and refine strategies as needed. This
ongoing evaluation supports continuous improvement in policy implementation and
service delivery.
EXHIBITS:
Exhibit A – 2025 General Plan Annual Progress Report
Income Level
RHNA
Allocation
by Income
Level
HCD
Projection
Period
2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Total
Units to
Date
Total
Remaining
RHNA
Acutely Low -- - - - - - --
Extremely Low -- - - - 1 5 6 -
Very Low 3,245 - - 1 5 14 22 48 3,197
Low 1,920 - - 3 23 22 28 76 1,844
Moderate 2,038 - - 7 19 14 10 50 1,988
Above Moderate 3,322 427 29 992 306 278 546 2,578 744
Total Units 10,525 427 29 1,003 353 329 611 2,752 7,773
Regional Housing Needs Allocation Progress
Permitted Units Issued by Affordability
Page 60
Foundational values defining the vision of our world-class community
Health, Equity, and Stewardship
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
GENERAL PLAN ANNUAL
PROGRESS REPORT 2025
Exhibit A
Page 61
1 | General Plan Annual Report 2025
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
Introduction…………………………………………………………………………..4
General Plan Annual Progress Report……………………………………………..5
City Council Review…………………………………………………………………6
Compliance with State Guidelines…………………………………………………6
General Plan Adoption………………………………………………...................6
General Plan Amendment………………………………………………...............6
About the City………………………………………………………………………..7
At a Glance…………………………………………………………………………..8
CHAPTER 2: IMPLEMENTATION
General Plan Implementation……………………………………………………....10
Implementation Highlights.............................…………………………………..11
Industrial/Commercial Development..............…………………………………...30
CHAPTER 3: HOUSING PROGRESS
Housing Goals Progress...........................................................................33
Residential/Mixed-Use Development..........................................................37
Conclusion..............................................................................................40
APPENDICES
Summary of General Plan Goals and Policies…………………………..………....i
Page 62
Page 63
Page 64
4
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
A general plan is a city’s blueprint, or constitution, for future development. It documents
the city’s long-range vision and establishes clear goals, objectives and actions to guide the
community through the next 10 to 20 years of change. A city must update its General Plan
periodically to keep up with changing needs and conditions of the city and region. It is also
necessary to update in order to reflect new local, state and national laws.
Rancho Cucamonga's City Council adopted its General Plan on December 15, 2021. The
General Plan, also known as PlanRC, lays out a series of strategies to chart a path towards a
21st century world-class community that is grounded in the foundational core values identified
by the Rancho Cucamonga community: Health, Equity and Stewardship.
The vision of PlanRC is to create a city for people—a city of great neighborhoods, natural
open spaces and parks, thriving commercial and industrial areas, and walkable and
active centers and districts, all connected by safe and comfortable streets. Through the
implementation of this General Plan, the city will develop to be more welcoming and
accessible to both residents and visitors.
THE BIG IDEAS
In the 2021 General Plan, the community identifies the following Big Ideas as being critical to
meeting their vision and core values:
DESIGN FOR PEOPLE FIRST: Focus should be on people and development must be human
scale and inviting. Buildings must be designed to be visually appealing, interesting, and at an
appropriate scale that attracts activity, but is not overwhelming.
PROVIDE CONNECTIVITY AND ACCESSIBILITY: Physical improvements in the city must
provide a range of travel options including new opportunities for walking, bicycling and transit.
CREATE DESTINATIONS: Residents and visitors want places to congregate, gather, and
socialize. These places may include small centers near established neighborhoods, more
vibrant and dense centers of a downtown scale, and larger mixed-use centers along major
corridors.
CULTURAL AND ECONOMIC HUB OF THE INLAND EMPIRE: A downtown area, or
several major activity centers, with varied cultural opportunities and public art, will provide
areas for social, civic, and commercial activity.
ADDRESS ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE: Environmental justice means that everyone in
the city has a fair and just opportunity to thrive and no one, especially those with the least
means, shoulders the additional health burdens of environmental degradation and pollution.
Page 65
5 | General Plan Annual Report 2025
PlanRC is organized in four volumes that are divided into topical chapters, (1) Vision,
(2) Built Environment, (3) Environmental Performance, and (4) Implementation Strategy.
The contents of the chapters contained in Volume 2, Built Environment, and Volume 3,
Environmental Performance, correspond to the State requirements for the contents required in
the general plan.
GENERAL PLAN ANNUAL PROGRESS REPORT
Each year, cities and counties are required to submit an Annual Progress Report (APR) under
California Government Code Section 65400, which provides an update on the General Plan
and progress on its implementation to the City Council, the California Department of Housing
and Community Development (HCD), and the California Governor's Office of Land Use and
Climate Innovation (LCI).
As importantly, the APR serves as a report card to the community, who diligently provided
their feedback and insight that helped shape the General Plan, with an update of the City’s
progress in implementing its General Plan vision. To assist in the review of the General Plan
Annual Progress Report, this report presents the following:
•Measures associated with the implementation of the General Plan with references to the
General Plan goals and/or policies that are supported by each measure
•Amendments to the General Plan adopted by the City Council
•Progress on meeting City’s housing goals
•Economic development activities
•Major development applications processed and/or under construction
It should also be noted that the implementation strategy for PlanRC includes other essential
plans such as the Climate Action Plan and Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. These plans
were developed as part of the PlanRC process that help implement, but are not necessarily
included, in the General Plan. Updates to these related efforts may also be incorporated as
part of the APR.
Page 66
6
CITY COUNCIL REVIEW
On March 18, 2026, the City Council reviewed the 2025 General Plan Annual Progress
Report and directed City staff to submit this report to the California Department of Housing
and Community Development, and the Governer's Office of Land Use and Climate
Innovation.
COMPLIANCE WITH STATE GUIDELINES
The Rancho Cucamonga General Plan is in compliance with all current State Guidelines.
This includes Senate Bill 1000 and the Planning for Healthy Communities Act which address
environmental justice disparities.
GENERAL PLAN ADOPTION
The City Council adopted PlanRC on December 15, 2021. PlanRC was prepared over a
two-year period in which valuable and meaningful input was received from the community.
The effort put forward, and the innovation that was employed by consultants, staff,
and community participants working across many disciplines and pushing through new
challenges was nothing short of inspirational.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
On December 17, 2025, Resolution 2025-102 was adopted by the City Council to amend
the General Plan Land Use and Community Character and Mobility Chapters related to floor
area ratio, block lengths, dimension standards for street typologies, removing the proposed
8th street trail, and amending the Truck Routes Map pursuant to AB98. Subsequently,
Ordinance 1053 and Ordinance 1054 were approved on January 21, 2026, to amend the
Development Code in conformance with the amendments to the General Plan.
Page 67
7 | General Plan Annual Report 2025
ABOUT THE CITY
The City of Rancho Cucamonga is located in the southwest corner of San Bernardino County,
bordering the cities of Upland to the west, Ontario to the south, Fontana to the east, the
San Bernardino National Forest to the north, and the unincorporated areas of San Bernardino
County.
The city has a rich history dating back to 1200 A.D. Its name originated from the
Kucamongan Native Americans who established a settlement in the city. The Kucamongans
were part of the Kizh people, one of the largest concentrations of indigenous peoples on
the North American continent. For many years, the area was made up of ranchos that were
primarily cattle producing, which eventually evolved into vineyards located within three
agricultural areas, Cucamonga, Alta Loma, and Etiwanda. The City was incorporated in
1977 when vineyards were ceasing operations and the land was being considered for
development. Rancho Cucamonga is a general law city run under the council-manager form
of government.
Made up of nearly 47 square miles with a population of over 174,000, Rancho Cucamonga
is well known and widely respected for its quality of life, family-friendly neighborhoods, strong
employment base, regionally significant retail centers, and active outdoor lifestyles.
Access to the city is possible by State Route 210, Interstate 15, Interstate 10, and
Foothill Boulevard, also known as the Historic Route 66, as well as the Ontario International
Airport and Cucamonga Station.
Page 68
City of Rancho Cucamonga | Economic Development Department
www.CityofRC.us/EconomicDevelopment | ChooseRC@CityofRC.us | 1-909-477-2750
At A Glance
Age Distribution
173,134
Population Count
46.5
Square Miles
38
Median Age
$58,230
Households
21.65% Children (0-17) Strong family presence
23.55% Young Adults (18-34) Demand for fitness, dining, entertainment
39.88% Prime Working Age (35-64) Stable earning and spending years
14.92% Older Adults (65+) Healthcare and age-friendly amenities
Educational Attainment
48.49% Graduate, Professional, Bachelors, or Associates
23.57% Some College
19.76% High School Graduate (GED)
Strong Spending Power for
Lifestyle and Experiential Retail
Mature consumer
base with stable,
repeat spending
$138,466
Average HH Income
$105,747
Median HH Income
$47,445
Per Capita
Source: The Retail Coach
Last Update March 2026
Page 69
Page 70
10
CHAPTER 2
GENERAL PLAN IMPLEMENTATION
The goals and policies in the General Plan can be implemented in a variety of ways and in a
series of actions large and small. The following highlights provide a summary of wide-ranging
measures undertaken in 2025 that moved the needle in implementing PlanRC’s goals and policies.
For each activity noted in this chapter, the corresponding General Plan policy that it supports is
identified and highlighted. A full list of all the General Plan goals and policies is included as an
attachment in the Appendices.
Page 71
11 | General Plan Annual Report 2025
IMPLEMENTATION HIGHLIGHTS
DEVELOPMENT CODE UPDATE: The Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code comprises all
regulatory and penal ordinances, and certain administrative ordinances, enacted by the City.
The Municipal Code covers a wide range of standards, regulations, and requirements for the
City and is organized by titles, articles, and chapters. Since the adoption of the General Plan
in December 2021 and the adoption of a comprehensive update to Title 17 of the Municipal
Code in May 2022, the City continues to make updates and technical improvements to the
Municipal Code on a periodic basis. These updates ensure that Title 17, also known as the
Development Code, remains current with new law and aligned with the vision established in the
General Code. The Development Code is considered a living document, intended to change
over time to reflect the evolving complexity of the development review process.
The following Development Code amendments were approved in 2025:
• Ordinance 1045 was approved by City Council on September 3, 2025, and added a
chapter to the Code addressing undergrounding overhead utilities.
• Ordinance 1049 was approved by City Council on December 3, 2025, and made
updates to the regulations concerning Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) and Junior ADUs in
compliance with State law. It also established a bonus ADU program.
• Ordinance 1050, also approved by City Council on December 3, 2025, amended sections
of the code that would dissolve the Trails Advisory Committee.
GENERAL PLAN POLICIES SUPPORTED
H-5.1 Development Review Process. Consider new policies, codes, and procedures
that have the potential to reduce procedural delays, provide information early in the
development process regarding development costs, and charge only those fees necessary to
adequately carry out needed public services and improvements.
Page 72
12
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY: The City’s Economic Development Strategy (EDS)
was finalized and adopted by the City Council in October 2023, and the 2024-2025 EDS
Annual Progress Report – Year 2 was received and filed by the City Council in October 2025.
The EDS was developed to guide the City’s economic development activities over a five-year
period that can be implemented in a series of actions over the plan’s lifespan. The EDS Annual
Progress Report provides a summary of various measures taken in 2024-2025 that significantly
advanced the ongoing implementation of the EDS and the action items they support.
Year 2 Accomplishments include and are not limited to:
• Launched RC Works—a community-focused job board designed to connect local businesses
and organizations with talented job seekers in the City.
• Hosted the second cohort of the Emprendedor@s Program, an eight-week Spanish
entrepreneurship academy, in partnership with the County of San Bernardino Economic
Development Department and Chaffey College.
• Attained establishments identified in the EDS’s retail fit analysis, including but not limited to
Fogo de Chão, Bacio di Latte, Moe’s Southwest Grill, and Vallarta Supermarkets.
• Launched an ED on the Move Brokers Roadshow pilot designed as a broker-focused
briefing— concise and informative, and an opportunity for City staff to connect with those
who cannot attend the Commercial Real Estate Brokers Roundtable meetings.
Year 2 accomplishments support the implementation of the General Plan’s Land Use &
Community Character. The City will continue to implement Year 2-3 actions identified in the
EDS Implementation Plan, and build relationships with the community, businesses, developers,
and potential investors. The City will continue to be forward-thinking in its programs, services,
and long-range planning with the goal of developing a fiscally sound and sustainable economy
for years to come.
GENERAL PLAN POLICIES SUPPORTED
LC-3.6 Diverse Economy. Guide development and public investments to maintain a
fiscally sound city with a diverse and sustainable tax base.
LC-3.7 Developing our Economy. Actively promote and encourage opportunities
for local economic development, education, housing, locally hiring, internships and
employment from cradle to career so as to increase resident retention, improve and grow
a strong local economy, achieve a positive jobs-housing match; retain critical educational
resources and human capital, reduce regional commuting, gas consumption and
greenhouse emissions and ensure equitable opportunities for all residents of the City and
region to thrive.
LC 3.8 Jobs-housing Match. Encourage new employment generating uses and
businesses that improve the jobs-housing match in the city.
Page 73
13 | General Plan Annual Report 2025
2025 Hiring Fair: Over the last four years, the City has hosted a hiring fair to enhance
the economic vitality and resiliency of the community. The event is a dynamic platform where
employers and job seekers can connect directly, facilitating immediate engagement and
potential job placement. Moreover, the hiring fair helps reduce unemployment rates, addressing
workforce shortages, and supports local businesses by ensuring they have the human resources
needed to thrive.
The City’s annual hiring fair prioritizes local businesses, inviting various industries to participate,
from education to manufacturing to retail. The fair was held in September 2025 and was met
with success, serving as a great opportunity to connect residents and job seekers with local
businesses and support the business community.
GENERAL PLAN POLICIES SUPPORTED
LC-3.7 Developing our Economy. Actively promote and encourage opportunities
for local economic development, education, housing, locally hiring, internships and
employment from cradle to career so as to increase resident retention, improve and grow
a strong local economy, achieve a positive jobs-housing match; retain critical educational
resources and human capital, reduce regional commuting, gas consumption and
greenhouse emissions and ensure equitable opportunities for all residents of the City and
region to thrive.
LC-3.8 Jobs-housing match. Encourage new employment generating uses and
businesses that improve the jobs-housing match in the city.
HIRING FAIR:
30 BUSINESS
EXHIBITORS
750+ ATTENDEES
Page 74
14
EV CHARGING AT NEW DEVELOPMENT: The Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Utility
(RCMU) offers rebates to encourage the installation of new Electric Vehicle (EV) charging
stations, supporting the City’s broader sustainability and clean transportation goals. This
incentive has generated interest, with inquiries from both residential and commercial sectors
seeking to take advantage of the program. RCMU continues to actively promote and support
the initiative, providing guidance to potential applicants on eligibility, application procedures,
and recommendations to maximize benefits through stackable funding opportunities, such
as combining local rebates with state incentives. These efforts are designed to make EV
infrastructure more accessible, accelerate adoption of electric vehicles, and contribute to
reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the community.
The following projects were completed in 2025:
• The Resort - One dual Level 2 Charger was installed in April 2025.
• Fire Station #178 - Two Level 2 Chargers were activated in Februar y 2025.
GENERAL PLAN POLICIES SUPPORTED
RC-7.3 EV Charging Retrofits. Encourage existing development to retrofit to include
charging stations.
RC-7.5 Municipal Vehicle Fleet. Reduce fossil fuel consumption of the City’s vehicle
fleet by increasing the number of electric or zero emissions vehicles.
Page 75
15 | General Plan Annual Report 2025
Page 76
16
ELECTRICITY SUPPLY CHOICE & ZERO NET ENERGY: The Rancho Cucamonga Municipal
Utility (RCMU) is well positioned to meet California’s Renewable Portfolio Standards through
a diversified mix of Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs) and long-term solar contracts. These
commitments support the state’s clean-energy goals, which require utilities to supply 60%
renewable energy by 2030 and reach 100% renewable retail electricity by 2045. As a
publicly owned utility (POU), RCMU can fulfill these requirements by procuring a balanced
mix of eligible renewable resources, including wind, solar, hydroelectric, geothermal, and
bioenergy. POUs report their progress directly to the California Energy Commission, which
certifies renewable resources, verifies compliance, and ensures publicly owned utilities remain
on track to meet the state’s long-term clean-energy goals. There were several PPAs approved by
City Council in 2023 with a portion of them energized in 2025.
GENERAL PLAN POLICIES SUPPORTED
RC-6.2 Renewable Energy. Encourage renewable energy installations and facilitate
green technology and business.
RC-7.10 Alternative Energy. Continue to promote the incorporation of alternative
energy generation (e.g., solar, wind, biomass) in public and private development.
ELECTRIC VEHICLE (EV) HUB: Since opening in January 2025, the Electric Vehicle (EV)
Station Hub located at the Rancho Cucamonga Sports Center has experienced very high
demand. Phase 1 introduced four 200 kW dual-port EV chargers, each averaging more
than 20 daily uses. Funding has been secured for Phase 2, which will add four additional
200 kW dual-por t stations and double the site’s charging capacity. Inclusion of this project
ensures alignment with the City’s EV Readiness Plan and General Plan, supporting long-term
sustainability goals.
The Electric Vehicle (EV) Station Hub has already been attributed to reducing greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions while creating a reliable, accessible charging network that encourages EV
adoption across Southern California.
GENERAL PLAN POLICIES SUPPORTED
MA-1.1 Transportation Leadership. Take a leadership role in local and regional
transportation related planning and decision making.
RC-6.1 Climate Action Plan. Maintain and implement a Climate Action Plan (CAP) that
provides best management practices for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
RC-7.1 Electric Vehicle (EV) Charging on City Property. As funding is available,
encourage the installation of publicly available electric vehicle charging stations at City-
owned buildings, facilities, property, and in the public right-of-way.
Page 77
17 | General Plan Annual Report 2025
GENERAL PLAN POLICIES SUPPORTED
LC-1.1 Complete Places. Ensure that a broad range of recreational, commercial,
educational, arts, cultural, and civic amenities are nearby and easily accessible to residents
and workers in each neighborhood and each employment district.
LC-2.11 Park-Once. Allow and encourage strategies that enable adjacent uses and
properties to flexibly share parking facilities, so that users can park once and pursue
multiple activities on foot before returning to their car.
PAUL A. BIANE LIBRARY INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT: In December 2022, City Council
accepted and allocated grant and capital funds for the Biane Library Infrastructure Project. The
project was made possible by a Building Forward Infrastructure Grant from the California State
Library totaling nearly $600,000 and a matching $600,000 from the Library capital funds.
The project seeks to ensure the Paul A. Biane Library facility can meet infrastructure needs for
the next 15 to 20 years of service.
Since then, several upgrades to the library have been implemented including the replacement
of HVAC components such as boilers and packing units that service the building. Additional
security cameras and complete replacement of the public and staff carpeted flooring were
completed in April 2025. Renovation to the Paul A. Biane Library infrastructure will continue
through mid-2026.
GENERAL PLAN POLICIES SUPPORTED
PF-3.1 Library. Continue to improve the local libraries system, complete with community
facilities that provide knowledgeable, service-oriented staff and offer access to information,
books, and other materials in a variety of formats, including emerging technologies.
Consider future options for providing library services that are flexible and will maximize
library services while keeping costs affordable.
PF-1.1 New Building Standards. Continue to implement high-quality standards for
new public facilities and improvements to existing buildings.
PF-1.2 Underserved Neighborhoods. Prioritize new community facilities in
underserved neighborhoods and centers.
RANDALL LEWIS SECOND STORY AND BEYOND®: The Randall Lewis Second Story
and Beyond® opened May 24, 2024, and is the only municipal library to own and operate a
children’s museum currently known in the country. This unique service is a regional draw, filling
the void of children’s museum services in a 40-mile radius. From its opening through the end of
Fiscal Year 2024/25, the museum:
• Received 44,800 visitors
• Sold 268 memberships
• Welcomed 39 school field trips
• Hosted 12 birthday parties
Page 78
18
Page 79
19 | General Plan Annual Report 2025
DIANE WILLIAMS LIBRARY AT LIONS PARK
EXPANSION PROJECT: In December 2022, the City
Council took a significant step toward expanding public
access to library services by accepting and allocating
grant and capital funds for the Westside Library Relocation
Project. This initiative is part of the City’s broader
commitment to enhancing community infrastructure and
creating inclusive, future-ready public spaces.
The project is centered around the renovation of the Lions
East and West buildings, which will become the new home
of the Archibald Library. Supported by a $6.5 million
Building Forward Infrastructure Grant from the California State Library, the new facility will offer
a larger footprint, upgraded Americans with Disability Act (ADA) accessibility, and expanded
amenities including a multi-purpose room for events, a larger teen area, outdoor programming
space, and a Friends of the Library bookstore.
Construction on Phase I began in July 2025 and is progressing on schedule, with completion
anticipated by August 2026. In a recent development, the City secured an additional $1.2
million in funding from San Bernardino County. This funding will support the overall construction
and include a climatized corridor connecting the two buildings.
GENERAL PLAN POLICIES SUPPORTED
PF-1.2 Underserved Neighborhoods. Prioritize new community facilities in
underserved neighborhoods and centers.
ADVANCED TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (ATMS): The Advanced Traffic
Management System (ATMS) is the City’s integrated smart traffic signal system, a key initiative
to reduce roadway congestion, lower greenhouse gas emissions from idling vehicles, and
support safe, efficient evacuations during emergencies. Construction of Phase 2 of this
multiphase project began in 2025, covering key corridors including Milliken Avenue (4th
Street to Grizzly Drive), 19th Street (Sapphire Street to Haven Avenue), Arrow Route (Grove
Avenue to East Avenue), Rochester Avenue (Base Line Road to Banyan Street), and Day
Creek Boulevard (Base Line Road to Wilson Avenue). Phase 2 construction is expected to be
completed in Spring 2026, advancing the City’s vision for a safer, more sustainable, and
technologically advanced transportation network.
GENERAL PLAN POLICIES SUPPORTED
MA-3.4 Emergency Access. Prioritize development and infrastructure investments that
work to implement, maintain, and enhance emergency access throughout the community.
Page 80
20
FIREBIRD CAMERAS: The City of Rancho Cucamonga and the Fire District, in partnership
with the Cucamonga Valley Water District and the Los Angeles Department of Water and
Power, are in the process of installing early wildfire detection cameras along the City’s northern
boundary, following the wildland-urban interface to the Alta Loma and Etiwanda neighborhoods
along the foothills of the San Gabriel mountains. The system will provide rapid detection,
reporting, and response to wildfires.
The proposed FIREBird wildfire detection system is produced by Lindsey FireSense LLC, of
Azusa, CA. The FIREBird system is designed specifically to detect and report wildfires as small
as 5x5 feet, up to a detectable distance of 900 feet, typically in less than two minutes. Rapid
detection results in faster fire response and smaller fires to contain. The goal of the system is to
save significant resources, money, and most importantly, lives.
The City and Fire District extend their gratitude to Assemblymember Holden for championing
the $1.9 Million funding for the FIREBird wildfire detection system. The system will aid in the
rapid deployment of our local resources resulting in the preservation of the natural resources
and the historically significant areas within the wildland-urban interface. Installation of cameras
has already begun with an expected completion date in early 2026.
GENERAL PLAN POLICIES SUPPORTED
S-1.1 City Staff Readiness. Ensure City staff and departments demonstrate a readiness
to respond to emergency incidents and events.
S-1.8 Regional Coordination. Ensure regional coordination continues with neighboring
jurisdictions, County, State, and Federal agencies on emergency management and risk
reduction planning and activities.
Page 81
21 | General Plan Annual Report 2025
SUGGESTED SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL MAPS: As part of the City’s participation in
the national Safe Routes to School (SRTS) program, the project modernized and replaced the
outdated 2007 and 2017 school route maps with new, interactive digital maps that identify
safe and convenient routes for walking, bicycling, and rolling to school. Developed using
current local conditions and community input, the maps enhance usability and relevance for
students and their families. In addition to promoting active transportation, the project advances
equity by addressing environmental disparities through expanded access. The maps are now
available on the City’s website in English, Spanish, and Mandarin.
GENERAL PLAN POLICIES SUPPORTED
MA-3.1 Pedestrian and Bicycle Networks. Maintain the Active Transportation Plan
supporting safe routes to school, and a convenient network of identified pedestrian and
bicycle routes with access to major employment centers, shopping districts, regional transit
centers, and residential neighborhoods.
PF-2.1 Schools. Consider the needs of the school districts that serve Rancho Cucamonga
in future planning and development activities.
CONNECT RC BICYCLE SUBCOMMITTEE: As part of the City’s Healthy RC initiative, the
Connect RC Bicycle Subcommittee was established in 2023 to advance safe, sustainable, and
accessible bicycle travel throughout Rancho Cucamonga. In 2025, the subcommittee, working
alongside City staff, convened monthly to support policy development, provide input on active
transportation infrastructure projects, and strengthen bicycle advocacy efforts. These efforts
included the successful delivery of six community bike ride events, expanding public engagement
and reinforcing the City’s commitment to safer streets, trails, and byways for all users.
GENERAL PLAN POLICIES SUPPORTED
MA-3.1 Pedestrian and Bicycle Networks. Maintain the Active Transportation Plan
supporting safe routes to school, and a convenient network of identified pedestrian and
bicycle routes with access to major employment centers, shopping districts, regional transit
centers, and residential neighborhoods.
LC-5.1 Improved Street Network. Systematically extend and complete a network
of complete streets to ensure a high-level of multi-modal connectivity within and between
adjacent Neighborhoods, Centers and Districts. Plan and implement targeted improvements
to the quality and number of pedestrian and bicycle routes within the street and trail
network, prioritizing connections to schools, parks, and neighborhood activity centers.
Page 82
22
6TH STREET CYCLE TRACK: The 6th Street Cycle Track is a 1.75-mile active transportation
corridor between Haven Avenue and Rochester Avenue that improves connectivity to key
destinations, including the Metrolink Station, the Resort mixed-use development, and the Day
Creek Channel Bike Trail. The San Bernardino County Transportation Authority (SBCTA) served
as the lead agency for design, construction, right-of-way, and funding as part of Phase II of the
Metrolink Station Accessibility Improvement Project. The project delivers Class IV protected bike
lanes, significantly enhancing safety and comfort for both recreational and commuter cyclists.
Additional improvements included median enhancements, cobblestone paving, curb, gutter,
and sidewalk upgrades, as well as new signage and striping. The City leveraged construction
activities to complete additional pavement rehabilitation. Completed in May 2025, the project
advances key goals of the City’s Connect RC Active Transportation Plan.
GENERAL PLAN POLICIES SUPPORTED
MA-1.1 Transportation Leadership. Take a leadership role in local and regional
transportation related planning and decision making.
MA-1.4 Local Mobility Hub. Require new development at mobility hubs and key stops
along the future bus rapid transit and future transit circulator system to facilitate first mile/
last mile connectivity to neighborhoods.
MA-2.3 Street Design. Implement innovative street and intersection designs to maximize
efficiency and safety in the city. Use traffic calming tools to assist in implementing complete
street principles. Possible tools include roundabouts, curb extensions, high visibility
crosswalks, and separated bicycle infrastructure.
Page 83
23 | General Plan Annual Report 2025
DAY CREEK CHANNEL BIKE TRAIL AND CHURCH STREET CROSSING: The Day Creek
Channel Bike Trail is an ADA-accessible, paved multi-use trail extending from Jack Benny Drive
to Base Line Road, featuring a new signalized crossing at Church Street and a dedicated access
path to the RC Sports Center to support special events and recreational use. Improvements
included new curb ramps and sidewalks, retaining curbs and walls, fencing and gates, a traffic
signal system, and signage and striping. The project was officially opened to the public with a
ribbon cutting ceremony and a community bike ride at the RC Sports Center in October 2025.
The trail significantly enhances connectivity and quality of life by providing a safe, designated
route for walking, bicycling, and rolling for both recreational and commuting purposes.
GENERAL PLAN POLICIES SUPPORTED
LC-5.1 Improved Street Network. Systematically extend and complete a network
of complete streets to ensure a high-level of multi-modal connectivity within and between
adjacent Neighborhoods, Centers and Districts. Plan and implement targeted improvements
to the quality and number of pedestrian and bicycle routes within the street and trail
network, prioritizing connections to schools, parks, and neighborhood activity centers.
MA-2.3 Street Design. Implement innovative street and intersection designs to maximize
efficiency and safety in the city. Use traffic calming tools to assist in implementing complete
street principles. Possible tools include roundabouts, curb extensions, high visibility
crosswalks, and separated bicycle infrastructure.
OS-2.5 Utility Corridors. Preserve the primary function of utility corridors while
providing every reasonable opportunity for shared public use for active mobility and
recreational purposes.
Page 84
24
HERITAGE PARK BRIDGES: In 2019, a structural
evaluation of the five bridges in Heritage Park, four
over the Demens Creek Channel and one over the
Rancho Wash Channel, confirmed that all required
replacement. Phase 1 of the Heritage Park Bridge
Replacement Project focuses on the three bridges in
the park’s northeast corner serving the Equestrian
Center and Emergency Staging Area, which are being
replaced with a single, more improved, modern bridge
structure. Construction is currently underway and is
expected to be completed by January 2026, improving
safety, accessibility, and resilience within the park.
GENERAL PLAN POLICIES SUPPORTED
LC-1.4 Connectivity and Mobility. Work to complete a network of pedestrian- and
bike-friendly streets and trails, designed in concert with adjacent land uses, using the public
realm to provide more access options.
OS-2.1 Trail Corridors. Extend, improve and complete the multi-purpose trail network,
wherever possible, by utilizing existing flood control channel and utility corridor rights-of-
way as public trail corridors.
HAVEN AND ARROW DEVELOPMENT: The Haven and Arrow Development project on the
southwest corner of Haven Avenue and Arrow Route marks the City’s first project to create a
transformative, walkable, and bikeable multi-way boulevard. The project includes a new slip
lane with a protected bike lane, curbside parking, sidewalks, street lighting, and landscaping.
These improvements will enhance safety and comfort for pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit users,
while maintaining smooth traffic flow for vehicles.
GENERAL PLAN POLICIES SUPPORTED
MA-2.2 New Streets. To achieve the vision for transportation and mobility in the city, the
final design, location, and alignment of streets shall provide levels of access, connectivity,
and circulation consistent with the conceptual layouts shown in this Mobility and Access
Chapter.
MA-2.3 Street Design. Implement innovative street and intersection designs to maximize
efficiency and safety in the city. Use traffic calming tools to assist in implementing complete
street principles. Possible tools include roundabouts, curb extensions, high visibility
crosswalks, and separated bicycle infrastructure.
Page 85
25 | General Plan Annual Report 2025
HAVEN AVENUE SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS:
The Haven Avenue Sidewalk Improvements Project was
completed in May 2025 and enhanced pedestrian
safety and mobility in front of Chaffey College by
constructing a continuous, ADA-compliant sidewalk
along the east side of the street. The project also
installed Accessible Pedestrian Signal (APS) push
buttons at crossings and included additional striping
and curb improvements. By closing existing sidewalk
gaps, this critical infrastructure improvement provides a
safer, more accessible route for students and residents
walking or commuting in the area.
GENERAL PLAN POLICIES SUPPORTED
LC-2.3 Streetscape. Enhance the pedestrian experience through streetscape
improvements such as enhanced street lighting, street trees, and easement dedications
to increase the widths of the sidewalks, provide side access parking lanes, and other
pedestrian and access amenities.
MA-2.1 Complete Streets. Require that new roadways include provisions for complete
streets, balancing the needs of all users of all ages and capabilities.
ALMOND STREET IMPROVEMENTS: The Almond Street Improvements Project will construct
a new local road with one lane in each direction, completing the connection between Carnelian
Street and Via Verde Street. This new corridor will enhance east-west connectivity north of State
Route 210, improving traffic circulation and public safety access in a high fire hazard area with
limited access. Construction is anticipated to be completed by Summer 2026.
GENERAL PLAN POLICIES SUPPORTED
LC-5.2 Connections Between Development Projects. Require the continuation and
connectivity of the street network between adjacent development projects and discourage
the use of cul-de-sacs or other dead-end routes.
MA-3.4 Emergency Access. Prioritize development and infrastructure investments that
work to implement, maintain, and enhance emergency access throughout the community.
Page 86
26
WEST FOOTHILL BOULEVARD STREET IMPROVEMENTS: Foothill Boulevard from Grove
Avenue to San Bernardino Road serves as the City’s western gateway and a key segment of
historic Route 66. This comprehensive street improvement project enhanced safety, mobility, and
reliability for motorists, pedestrians, and cyclists. Improvements included roadway reconstruction
with new asphalt, curb and gutter, storm drain infrastructure, irrigation and landscaping, traffic
signal modifications, and expansion of the City’s fiber optic backbone and Advanced Traffic
Management System (ATMS). The project also delivered two reconstructed travel lanes in
each direction with a painted median, a protected two-way cycle track, new sidewalks, street
lighting, and related streetscape amenities.
Additionally, the intersection of Foothill Boulevard and Red Hill Country Club Drive was
realigned and signalized to improve traffic operations and overall safety.
GENERAL PLAN POLICIES SUPPORTED
LC-5.5 Foothill Boulevard as a Gateway. Transform the ends of Foothill Boulevard
near the city boundary to a unique gateway environment through street improvements and
coordinated infill development along both sides of Foothill Boulevard.
LC-5.6 Foothill Boulevard as a Connector. Transition Foothill Boulevard from a
“divider” to a “connector” that brings the north and south sides together. Ensure that new
development along the Foothill Corridor generates a high quality pedestrian- and transit-
oriented environment and a concentration of commercial and civic amenities and community
gathering places for residents from all parts of the city.
Page 87
27 | General Plan Annual Report 2025
ETIWANDA AVENUE EAST SIDE WIDENING: The Etiwanda Avenue East Side Widening
project includes street widening, curb and gutter, sidewalks, streetlights, utility relocations,
and pavement rehabilitation along the east side of Etiwanda Avenue. These improvements will
enhance safety and accessibility for pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorists, while improving
overall traffic flow. Construction is anticipated to be completed by Fall 2026.
GENERAL PLAN POLICIES SUPPORTED
MA-2.3 Street Design. Implement innovative street and intersection designs to maximize
efficiency and safety in the city. Use traffic calming tools to assist in implementing complete
street principles. Possible tools include roundabouts, curb extensions, high visibility
crosswalks, and separated bicycle infrastructure.
MA-3.2 Traffic Safety. Prioritize transportation system improvements that help eliminate
traffic-related fatalities and severe injury collisions.
SPAGNOLO 9/11 MEMORIAL PARK: On September 11, 2025, the community came
together for a heartfelt and historic moment—the grand opening of Spagnolo 9/11 Memorial
Park. City leaders, Police and Fire District staff, dignitaries, and residents gathered for a ribbon-
cutting ceremony followed by the City’s annual 9/11 Remembrance Ceremony.
Located at 10597 Town Center Drive, near Terra Vista Parkway, the 1.3-acre park now stands
as a space for reflection, remembrance, and connection in the heart of our city. The memorial
features steel from the World Trade Center, fragments from Flight 93, and material from the
Pentagon — all carefully arranged to represent the geographic relationship of the three sites at
a scale of 1/4000. A walking path links the sites, leading visitors toward a central gathering
area designed for quiet reflection and community remembrance events. In addition, the park
includes a special monument honoring Rancho Cucamonga’s Gold Star Service Members who
have given their lives since September 11, 2001.
GENERAL PLAN POLICIES SUPPORTED
OS-1.1 Equitable Access to Parks. Strive to ensure that at least one park or other
public open space is within safe, comfortable walk from homes and jobs, without
crossing major streets except at signalized crossings. Equitable access to parks should be
determined based on the fundamental character of the place (rural, suburban, urban) and
corresponding transportation infrastructure.
OS-1.4 Design Character and Public Art. Require neighborhood parks, greens,
and playgrounds to be designed as an integral element of their Community Planning Area,
reflecting the design character, art, and culture, of that neighborhood, center or district.
Page 88
28
COMMUNITY OUTREACH AND
SUPPORT TEAM (COAST): The
Community Outreach and Support
Team (COAST) is a groundbreaking
initiative aimed at providing vital
support and resources to residents in
need, particularly those experiencing
homelessness, mental health
challenges, and other vulnerable
populations, including seniors. This
program is a strategic collaboration
between multiple agencies, including
San Bernardino County Behavioral
Health, the San Bernardino County
Fire Department Paramedics, local
police departments, and the inclusion
of a therapy dog. The COAST team is designed to engage with residents in a compassionate
and informative manner, helping to provide education on available support services and
making connections with the necessary resources to improve residents’ quality of life.
The COAST program operates through a mobile unit, allowing team members to directly reach
individuals in various locations throughout the county, ensuring that no one is left without the
support they need. The mobile unit is fully equipped to address a wide range of concerns,
including providing immediate mental health support, crisis intervention, and facilitating
connections with other local services. This unit is staffed by professionals from the Fire,
Behavioral Health, and Police Departments, all working in tandem with the therapy dog to build
trust and foster a sense of safety to those they serve. The COAST program is part of a broader
network, with four other COAST teams operating throughout San Bernardino County.
The COAST program became fully operational in 2025, with plans to continue expanding
its reach and effectiveness. This initiative represents a significant step forward in providing
coordinated, compassionate care and services to some of the most vulnerable members of the
community.
GENERAL PLAN POLICIES SUPPORTED
H-3.1 Homeless Services. Provide assistance as it becomes available towards efforts
of local organizations and community groups to provide emergency shelters, transitional
housing opportunities, and services to the City’s homeless population and those at-risk of
homelessness.
S-1.1 City Staff Readiness. Ensure City staff and departments demonstrate a readiness
to respond to emergency incidents and events.
Page 89
29 | General Plan Annual Report 2025
Page 90
30
INDUSTRIAL/COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT
Rancho Cucamonga sits along major transportation corridors that link Southern California and
its shipping ports to the rest of the country. The City is a major center for the logistics industry
and goods movement within Southern California due primarily to its proximity to the Interstate
10 and Interstate 15 freeways and the Ontario International Airport.
In 2025, the City approved or entitled 2.2M square feet of Industrial and commercial
development. Although the City is hopeful that the projects approved in 2025 will result in new
construction, current economic conditions suggest that progress may slow. Factors such as rising
construction costs, increased tariffs, elevated interest rates, scarcity in building materials, and a
shortage of skilled labor are all significant factors that could delay projects from moving beyond
approval to completion.
Highlights for industrial/commercial development that were approved or under construction in
2025 are as follows:
REYES COCA-COLA: An application was approved
in October 2025 to redevelop and expand an existing
beverage distribution facility to include production,
bottling, and distribution operations and other site
improvements. This property is located near
Haven Avenue to the west, 7th Street to the north,
Utica Avenue to the east, and 6th Street to the south.
PANNATONI 9TH AND VINEYARD: An application
was approved in December 2025 for the development
of three concrete tilt-up industrial buildings totaling
approximately 982,096 square feet. This property is
bound by Vineyard Avenue to the east, 9th Street to
the north, Baker Avenue to the west, and the Metrolink
railroad line to the south.
MILLIKEN AND JERSEY: Construction was
substantially completed for the development of a
159,580 square-foot industrial warehouse building.
This property is located on the northwest corner of
Jersey Boulevard and Milliken Avenue.
Page 91
31 | General Plan Annual Report 2025
SANCTITY HOTEL: Construction was completed in
February 2025 for the development of Sanctity Hotel,
a boutique hotel, featuring a 3-story building with
68 suites and a rooftop lounge, Durango Cantina &
Rooftop Bar. This property is located at the southwest
corner of Day Creek Boulevard and Base Line Road.
NEWCASTLE ARROW: An application was
approved in September 2025 for the development of
a warehouse building totaling 334,776 square feet.
This property is located west of Etiwanda Avenue and
south of Arrow Route.
Page 92
32
Page 93
33 | General Plan Annual Report 2025
CHAPTER 3
HOUSING GOALS PROGRESS
Housing is one of the most basic human needs and recognized as a fundamental right under
California law. PlanRC’s approach to housing is to move beyond State mandated Regional
Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) requirements and instead embrace the business and
community need to provide housing as an opportunity rather than an obligation. In 2025,
Rancho Cucamonga continued its progress in meeting the need for housing by approving or
entitling 272 units, issuing 611 building permits, and constructing or completing 380 units.
There was a significant decrease in the number of units approved from the previous year.
This was expected due to continued fluctuations in the market, shortages in labor and supply,
increased interest rates, and inflation. Additionally, some developers that initially exhibited
interest in moving their projects through completion, were unable to continue due to fiscal
pressures. Despite these challenges, the City continues to actively engage with developers and
collaborate efforts to ensure the City continues making progress towards its housing goals.
HOUSING ELEMENT: The California State
Legislature mandates that all cities include a
Housing Element (HE) component in the General
Plan and subsequently, requires that cities prepare
an annual progress report (APR) on the status
of the HE. The HE focuses on understanding the
housing needs in Rancho Cucamonga and sets
forth its best plan of action for meeting those
needs through residential land use planning and
programmatic efforts.
The current HE was approved by the Rancho
Cucamonga City Council in October 2021 and
certified by the California Department of Housing
and Community Development (HCD) in August
2022, covering an 8-year planning period of October 15, 2021 to October 15, 2029. As
required by State law, the HE APR for the 2025 report will be submitted to HCD by April 1,
2026. The tables contained in this chapter provide a summary of the data that was reported on
the 2025 HE APR.
Page 94
34
REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT (RHNA) GOALS: The planning for
housing growth is mandated by State law through the RHNA process. Through this process,
cities are allocated a numeric housing goal divided by income categories. The purpose is to
ensure cities are developing its fair share of housing for all income levels including, acutely
low, extremely low, very low, low, moderate, and above moderate levels.
For the current 8-year planning period (2021-2029), Rancho Cucamonga was allocated
10,525 units, which equates to 1,316 units per year. To accommodate for this many units,
changes were made to the land use zones that allow for higher density developments,
particularly along major travel corridors. Previously, the City considered the number of
entitlements as the benchmark to compare the RHNA’s housing goals, however, in the 2024
HE APR instructions, HCD clarified that their key benchmark for tracking RHNA progress is
issued building permits.In 2025, the City issued 611 building permits. To date, there have
been a total of 2,752 building permits issued in the current planning period, which is 26%
of the overall target. Although the City cannot require or mandate developers to submit
applications to construct more housing within City boundaries, the City does encourage new
development by offering incentives such as the City’s Affordable Housing incentives/Density
Bonus provisions. This incentive allows for a reduction in development standards in exchange
for the development of affordable housing units. In 2025, there was one major development
entitled that included Density Bonus provisions which resulted in the approval of 1 affordable
unit. Moving forward, the City will continue to foster relationships with stakeholders and
engage in discussions related to development. The City anticipates to meet its moderate and
above moderate income RHNA allocation with projects approved and in the process of being
approved, and accommodate the remaining units through accessory dwelling units, vacant,
and nonvacant sites that have development potential.
HOUSING APPLICATIONS: Since the adoption of PlanRC, development interest has
remained continuous, particularly along key corridors designed for mixed use development.
It is anticipated that interest will continue through the following years. Table 1 provides a
snapshot of applications submitted, approved, and disapproved in 2025.
Total housing applications submitted 15
Number of proposed units in all applications received 1,284
Total housing units approved of those submitted 194
Total housing units disapproved 0
TABLE 1: NUMBER OF HOUSING APPLICATIONS SUBMITTED
Page 95
35 | General Plan Annual Report 2025
BUILDING PERMITS ISSUED BY AFFORDABILITY: There were a total of 611 residential
building permits issued in 2025. Table 2 displays a breakdown of permits issued by income
level.
TABLE 2: BUILDING PERMITS ISSUED BY AFFORDABILITY SUMMARY
Income Level Permits Issued
Acutely Low 0
Extremely Low 5
Very Low 22
Low 28
Moderate 10
Above Moderate 546
TOTAL UNITS 611
RESIDENTIAL UNITS BY STRUCTURE TYPE: In 2025, there were 272 units approved or
entitled, 611 units permitted, and 380 units completed or built. Although it is possible that the
same unit may be counted in more than one category (in cases where a unit was permitted
and built in the same year), it is not likely as all three process types may not always occur
in the same year. Table 3 displays a breakdown by the type of structure that was approved,
permitted, and completed.
TABLE 3: RESIDENTIAL UNITS BY STRUCTURE TYPE
Structure Type Approved Permitted Completed
Single Family Attached 0 0 0
Single Family Detached 5 33 17
2 to 4 Units 0 65 31
5+ Units 267 432 265
Accessory Dwelling Units N/A 81 67
Mobile Homes 0 0 0
TOTAL UNITS 272 611 380
Page 96
36
Page 97
37 | General Plan Annual Report 2025
RESIDENTIAL/MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT
In 2025, Rancho Cucamonga continued its progress on the development of several residential/
mixed-use projects. These projects embody the General Plan’s goal of developing Complete
Neighborhoods, where a diverse range of unique neighborhoods with a mix of amenities that
support active, healthy lifestyles is available. Highlights for residential/mixed-use developments
that were approved or under construction in 2025 include:
HAVEN AND ARROW: Construction was substantially
completed in late 2025 for a mixed-use development
consisting of 248 apartment units and 23,750 square
feet of commercial space. This property is located at the
southwest corner of Haven Avenue and Arrow Route.
ALEXAN VICTORIA GARDENS: Currently undergoing
construction, this development consists of a 4-story, 385-
unit residential development with two single-story amenity
buildings and open spaces for residents. This property is
located on the southeast corner of Day Creek Boulevard
and Cultural Center Drive within Victoria Gardens.
AVIGNON RESERVE: An application was approved in
February 2025 to construct a 3-story, 18-unit residential
development on approximately 1.3 acres of land. This
property is located at the northwest corner of Arrow Route
and Manola Place.
ALTA MERITA: Construction was completed in June 2025
for a mixed-use development comprising of 259 residential
units, two commercial units totaling 2,253 square feet, and
one live/work unit totaling 816 square feet. This property
is located on the southeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and
Etiwanda Avenue.
Page 98
38
REMPEL MIXED-USE: An application was approved
in August 2025 to construct a mixed-use development
consisting of 40 residential townhouse units and 10 live/
work units. This property is located at the southwest corner
of Base Line Road and Amethyst Avenue.
TRAILS AT ETIWANDA: An application was approved
in October 2025 for the development of 166 single-family
residences, which covers the western portion of a larger
project area (approximately 70 acres or previously graded
vacant lots). The property is located near the northeast
corner of Etiwanda Avenue and Wilson Avenue.
Page 99
Page 100
40
CONCLUSION
Much consideration and planning are given to every new development application submitted
to the City to ensure each new project aligns with the goals and big ideas laid out in the
General Plan. In 2025, the City approved 272 residential units, issued 611 building permits,
constructed 380 livable units, and approved 2.2M square feet of industrial development.
Additionally, the City advanced several impactful projects aimed at enhancing operational
efficiency and public safety. This included, street improvements, library renovations, the new
COAST program aimed at serving the most vulnerable populations, and the grand opening of
the Spagnolo 9/11 Memorial Park. Milestones such as these are what continue to make this
city a great place to live, work, and play. The City will continue to partner with community
members, developers, and interested stakeholders to ensure our vision remains clear: To
continue building on our success as a worldclass community.
This 2025 General Plan Annual Progress Report will be submitted to HCD and LCI as mandated
by the State, and additionally, will serve as a report card to the community regarding the City’s
progress in implementing the community’s vision and values, as embodied in PlanRC, and
provides the reader with a broad understanding of related activities that took place in 2025.
Page 101
Page 102
i
APPENDICES
GENERAL PLAN GOALS AND POLICIES
GOAL
LC-1
A CITY OF PLACES.
A beautiful city with a diversity and balance of unique and well-connected places.
LC-1.1 Complete Places. Ensure that a broad range of recreational,
commercial, educational, arts, cultural, and civic amenities are nearby and
easily accessible to residents and workers in each neighborhood and each
employment district.
LC-1.2 Quality of Place. Ensure that new infill development is compatible
with the existing, historic, and envisioned future character and scale of each
neighborhood.
LC-1.3 Quality of Public Space. Require that new development incorporate
the adjacent street and open space network into their design to soften the
transition between private and public realm and creating a greener more
human-scale experience.
LC-1.4 Connectivity and Mobility. Work to complete a network of
pedestrian- and bike-friendly streets and trails, designed in concert with adjacent
land uses, using the public realm to provide more access options.
LC-1.5 Master Planning. When planning a site, there must be meaningful
efforts to master plan the site so as to ensure a well-structured network and block
pattern with sufficient access and connectivity to achieve the placemaking goals
of this General Plan.
LC-1.6 Disadvantaged Communities. Prioritize development appropriate
to the needs of disadvantaged communities, particularly south of Foothill
Boulevard.
LC-1.7 Design for Safety. Require the use of Crime Prevention Through
Environmental Design (CPTED) techniques such as providing clear lines of sight,
appropriate lighting, and wayfinding signs to ensure that new development is
visible from public areas and easy to navigate.
LC-1.8 Public Art. Require new construction to integrate public art in
accordance with the City Public Arts Program.
LC-1.9 Infill Development. Enable and encourage infill development within
vacant and underutilized properties through flexible design requirements and
potential incentives.
LAND USE & COMMUNITY CHARACTER
Page 103
ii | General Plan Annual Report 2025
LC-1.10 Development Incentives. Consider incentives for new development
that provides substantial economic and placemaking benefit to the community
and prohibit the provision of incentives that outweigh the direct benefits of the
development and its use.
LC-1.11 Compatible Development. Allow flexibility in density and intensity
to address specific site conditions and ensure compatibility of new development
with adjacent context.
LC-1.12 Adaptive Reuse. Support the adaptive reuse of historic properties
consistent with neighborhood character.
LC-1.13 Improved Public Realm. Require that new development extend
the “walkable public realm” into previously vacant and/or parking lot-dominant
large single-use parcels of land.
LC-1.14 Street Amenities and Lighting. Modify pedestrian and street
amenities, lighting styles and intensities to be compatible with the character of
the surrounding neighborhoods.
LC-1.15 Historic Route 66. Build on the history and significance of Historic
Route 66 (Foothill Boulevard) by incorporating design features, such as public
art, signage, and architecture, that reflect its history and heritage.
LC-1.16 Healthy Development. Ensure that the design and development
of our communities supports the health and well-being of our residents. Use the
Healthy Development Checklist, or similar assessment tool, to assess the overall
health performance and supportiveness of new development projects.
GOAL
LC-2
HUMAN SCALED.
A city planned and designed for people fostering social and economic interaction,
an active and vital public realm, and high levels of public safety and comfort.
LC-2.1 Building Orientation. Require that buildings be sited near the street
and organized with the more active functions —entries, lobbies, bike parking,
offices, employee break rooms and outdoor lunch areas—facing toward and
prominently visible from the street and visitor parking areas.
LC-2.2 Active Frontages. Require new development abutting streets and
other public spaces to face the public realm with attractive building facades,
and entries to encourage walking, biking, and public transit as primary—not
“alternative”—mobility modes.
LC-2.3 Streetscape. Enhance the pedestrian experience through streetscape
improvements such as enhanced street lighting, street trees, and easement
dedications to increase the widths of the sidewalks, provide side access parking
lanes, and other pedestrian and access amenities.
Page 104
iii
LC-2.4 Tree Planting. Require the planting of predominantly native and
drought-tolerant trees that shade the sidewalks, buffer pedestrians from traffic,
define the public spaces of streets, and moderate high temperatures and wind
speeds throughout the city.
LC-2.5 Gradual Transitions. Where adjacent to existing and planned
residential housing, require that new development of a larger form or intensity,
transition gradually to complement the adjacent residential uses.
LC-2.6 Commercial Requirements. Require development projects in non-
residential and mixed-use areas to provide for enhanced pedestrian activity
through the following techniques:
• Require that the ground floor of buildings where retail uses are allowed
have a minimum 15 feet floor to floor height.
• Require that the ground floor of the building occupy the majority of the lot’s
front, with exceptions for vehicular access where necessary.
• Require that most of the linear ground floor retail frontage (where such
occurs) be visually and physically “open” to the street, incorporating
windows and other design treatments to create an engaging street front.
• Minimize vehicle movements across the sidewalk.
• Allow for and encourage the development of outdoor plazas and dining
areas.
LC-2.7 Shared Parking. Encourage structured and shared parking solutions
that ensure that parking lots do not dominate street fronts and are screened
from public views whenever possible.
LC-2.8 Landscaping. Require development projects to incorporate high
quality, predominantly native and drought-tolerant landscaping to extend and
enhance the green space network of the city.
LC-2.9 Buffer Zones. Require development projects to incorporate buffer
zones when determined to be necessary or desirable to serve as managed
open space for wildfire safety and vegetation fuel modification.
LC-2.10 Pedestrian-Oriented Auto-Dependent Uses. Require auto
dependent uses such as drive-throughs, car washes, automobile service
stations, and similar auto-focused businesses, to be designed with buildings
oriented toward the primary street and the auto-servicing use/activity in
the rear. Prohibit auto-dependent uses from locating in pedestrian-priority
environments, such as City Centers, Traditional Town Centers, and all
Neighborhoods.
Page 105
iv | General Plan Annual Report 2025
GOAL
LC-3
FISCALLY SUSTAINABLE.
A fiscally sound and sustainable City.
LC-2.11 Park-Once. Allow and encourage strategies that enable adjacent
uses and properties to flexibly share parking facilities, so that users can park
once and pursue multiple activities on foot before returning to their car, such as:
• Unbundling parking from development.
• Considering parking “districts” demonstrating sufficient parking within a
convenient walking distance.
• Design parking facilities to be architecturally compatible and integrated
with adjacent buildings so as to not dominate or detract from the character
of the area.
LC-3.1 Community Value. Actively manage growth and investments in the
community to maximize the value of new development, seeking value-per-acre
outcomes of up to six times higher.
LC-3.2 Community Benefit. Require a community benefit and economic
analysis for large projects that abut existing neighborhoods or for any project at
the maximum density, with a focus on resolving physical, economic, long-term
fiscal, and aesthetic impacts.
LC-3.3 Community Amenities. Balance the impacts of new development,
density, and urbanization through the provision of a high-level of neighborhood
and community amenities and design features.
LC-3.4 Institutional Land Uses. Site new institutional land uses based on
all forms of access available to the service population. Satellite offices that are
disbursed in the community may be necessary to ensure equitable access.
LC-3.5 Efficient Growth. Manage growth in a manner that is fiscally
sustainable, paced with the availability of infrastructure, and protects and/
or enhances community value. Discourage growth and development that will
impact the City’s ability to sustainably maintain infrastructure and services.
LC-3.6 Diverse Economy. Guide development and public investments to
maintain a fiscally sound city with a diverse and sustainable tax base.
LC-3.7 Developing Our Economy. Actively promote and encourage
opportunities for local economic development, education, housing, locally
hiring, internships and employment from cradle to career so as to increase
resident retention, improve and grow a strong local economy, achieve a positive
jobs-housing match; retain critical educational resources and human capital,
reduce regional commuting, gas consumption and greenhouse gas emissions
and ensure equitable opportunities for all residents of the City and region to
thrive.
Page 106
v
LC-3.8 Jobs-housing match. Encourage new employment generating uses
and businesses that improve the jobs-housing match in the city.
LC-3.9 Infrastructure Funding. Actively investigate and support new
funding mechanisms that enable the City to maintain services and infrastructure.
Discourage the formation of bonded Community Facilities Districts unless there
are compelling and substantial wide-spread community benefits.
LC-3.10 Economic Synergy. Encourage businesses and development
that will support and/or enhance the operations of existing businesses when
complimentary to the General Plan Vision while discouraging new development
and businesses that will have detrimental impacts to existing businesses and
development.
GOAL
LC-4
COMPLETE NEIGHBORHOODS.
A diverse range of unique neighborhoods, each of which provides an equitable
range of housing types and choices with a mix of amenities and services that
support active, healthy lifestyles.
LC-4.1 Neighborhood Preservation. Preserve and enhance the character
of existing residential neighborhoods.
LC-4.2 Complete Neighborhoods. Strive to ensure that all new
neighborhoods, and infill development within or adjacent to existing
neighborhoods, are complete and well-structured such that the physical layout,
and land use mix promote walking to services, biking and transit use, and have
the following characteristics:
• Be organized into human-scale, walkable blocks, with a high level of
connectivity for pedestrians, bicycles, and vehicles.
• Be organized in relation to one or more focal activity centers, such as a
park, school, civic building, or neighborhood retail, such that most homes
are no further than one-quarter mile.
• Require development patterns such that 60 percent of dwelling units are
within 1/2-mile walking distance to neighborhood goods and services.
• Provide as wide a diversity of housing styles and types as possible, and
appropriate to the existing neighborhood context.
• Provide homes with entries and windows facing the street, with driveways
and garages generally deemphasized in the streetscape composition.
LC-4.3 Connected Neighborhoods. Require that each new increment
of residential development make all possible street, trail, and open space
connections to existing adjoining residential or commercial development and
provide for future connections into any adjoining parcels.
Page 107
vi | General Plan Annual Report 2025
LC-4.4 Balanced Neighborhoods. Within the density ranges and housing
types defined in this General Plan, promote a range of housing and price levels
within each neighborhood to accommodate diverse ages and incomes.
LC-4.5 Equitable Housing Opportunities and Diversity of Housing
Types. Within the density ranges and housing types defined in this General
Plan, promote a diversity of land tenure opportunities to provide a range of
choices on the types of property estate available and ready access to an
equitable array of opportunities at a variety of price points. For projects five
acres or larger, require that diverse housing types be provided and intermixed
rather than segregated by dwelling type.
LC-4.6 Block Length. Require new neighborhoods to be designed with blocks
no longer than 600 feet nor a perimeter exceeding 1,800 feet. Exceptions can
be made if mid-block pedestrian and bicycle connections are provided, or if the
neighborhood is on the edge of town and is intended to have a rural or semi-
rural design character.
LC-4.7 Intersection Density. Require new neighborhoods to provide
high levels of intersection density. Neighborhood Center and Semi-Rural
Neighborhoods should provide approximately 400 intersections per square
mile. Suburban Neighborhoods should provide at least 200 intersections per
square mile.
LC-4.8 Solar Orientation. Street, block, and lot layouts should orient a
majority of lots within 20 degrees of a north-south orientation for increased
energy conservation.
LC-4.9 Public Art. Encourage public art that reflects the culture, history, and
character of the surrounding neighborhood.
LC-4.10 Minimize Curb Cuts. Require new commercial development, and
residential to the extent possible, to have common driveways and/or service
lanes and alleys serving multiple units, to minimize the number of curb cuts
along any given block to improve pedestrian safety.
LC-4.11 Neighborhood Transitions. Require that new neighborhoods
provide appropriate transitions in scale, building type and density between
different General Plan designations, Place Types and Community Planning
Areas.
LC-4.12 Conventional Suburban Neighborhood Design. Discourage
the construction of new residential neighborhoods that are characterized by
sound walls on any streets, discontinuous cul-de-sac street patterns, long block
lengths, single building and housing types, and lack of walking or biking access
to parks, schools, goods, and services.
Page 108
vii
GOAL
LC-5
CONNECTED CORRIDORS.
A citywide network of transportation and open space corridors that provides a
high level of connectivity for pedestrians, bicyclists, equestrians, motorists, and
transit users.
LC-4.13 Neighborhood Edges. Encourage neighborhood edges along
street corridors to be characterized by active frontages, whether single-family or
multifamily residential, or by ground floor, neighborhood-service non-residential
uses. Where this is not possible due to existing development patterns or
envisioned streetscape character, neighborhood edges shall be designed based
on the following policies:
• Strongly discourage the construction of new gated communities except in
Semi-Rural Neighborhoods.
• Allow the use of sound walls to buffer new neighborhoods from existing
sources of noise pollution such as railroads and limited access roadways.
Consider sound walls as sites for public art.
• Prohibit the use of sound walls to buffer residential areas from arterial or
collector streets. Instead design approaches such as building setbacks,
landscaping and other techniques shall be used.
• In the case where sound walls might be acceptable, require pedestrian
access points to improve access from the Neighborhoods to nearby
commercial, educational, and recreational amenities, activity centers and
transit stops.
• Discourage the use of signs to distinguish one residential project from
another. Strive for neighborhoods to blend seamlessly into one another. If
provided, gateways should be landmarks and urban design focal points, not
advertisements for home builders.
LC-5.1 Improved Street Network. Systematically extend and complete
a network of complete streets to ensure a high-level of multi-modal connectivity
within and between adjacent Neighborhoods, Centers and Districts. Plan and
implement targeted improvements to the quality and number of pedestrian and
bicycle routes within the street and trail network, prioritizing connections to
schools, parks, and neighborhood activity centers.
LC-5.2 Connections Between Development Projects. Require
the continuation and connectivity of the street network between adjacent
development projects and discourage the use of cul-de-sacs or other dead-end
routes.
Page 109
viii | General Plan Annual Report 2025
LC-5.3 Green Public Realm. Ensure that a significant tree canopy and
landscaping is provided along corridors, and linkages between land uses, to
provide shade and wind protection for pedestrians and bicyclists, and to define
these corridors as the “outdoor living rooms” of the City.
LC-5.4 Multi Family Development. Focus new multifamily housing
development along corridors between commercial nodes and centers and
ensure that it is well-connected to adjoining neighborhoods and centers by high
quality walking and biking routes.
LC-5.5 Foothill Boulevard as a Gateway. Transform the ends of Foothill
Boulevard near the city boundary to a unique gateway environment through
street improvements and coordinated infill development along both sides of
Foothill Boulevard.
LC-5.6 Foothill Boulevard as a Connector. Transition Foothill Boulevard
from a “divider” to a “connector” that brings the north and south sides together.
Ensure that new development along the Foothill Corridor generates a high-
quality pedestrian- and transit-oriented environment and a concentration of
commercial and civic amenities and community gathering places for residents
from all parts of the city.
LC-5.7 Public Arts Master Plan. Develop a citywide master plan that
integrates the arts into the transportation, trails, open space and greenways
network to enhance the public realm and creatively connect communities
through innovative arts and cultural amenities and programming.
LC-5.8 Equestrian Uses. Continue to protect equestrian uses and to
implement the Equestrian Overlay Zone.
GOAL
LC-6
ACTIVE CENTERS.
A rich variety of commercial and mixed-use centers throughout the city, which
bring a range of opportunities for shopping, dining, recreations, commerce,
employment, arts and culture within easy reach of all neighborhoods.
LC-6.1 Diverse Centers. Encourage the development of neighborhood-
serving, community-serving and city-wide serving centers that address the full
range community needs and market sectors.
LC-6.2 Small Scale Centers. Support one or more very small-scale Centers
on well-located under-developed parcels within walking, biking, or horseback
riding distance of neighborhoods in Alta Loma and Etiwanda.
LC-6.3 Evolving Centers. Encourage the improvement of existing
commercial centers to provide more active, human scale environments and
community gathering places, including the potential for infill housing and office
use.
Page 110
ix
GOAL
LC-7
ROBUST DISTRICTS.
A series of unique, employment-oriented environments for a range of business
activities, shopping and entertainment, arts and culture activities, and community
events and gathering.
LC-6.4 Access to Transit. Encourage the development of commercial and
mixed-use centers that are located at and organized in relation to existing or
planned transit stops, especially along Foothill Boulevard and Haven Avenue.
LC-6.5 Walkable Environments. Centers should include very walkable and
pedestrian-friendly streets with active building fronts along primary corridors
and internal streets. In some cases, side access lanes may be inserted between
existing major streets and building fronts, providing a low-speed environment
that is very safe and comfortable for pedestrians and bicyclists, with pedestrian-
oriented frontages.
LC-6.6 Outdoor Commerce. Encourage outdoor activities such as farmers
markets, small performances, visual arts and culture events, dining, and gatherings
that take advantage of the Centers and the relation to the public realm.
LC-7.1 Gateway & Employment Hub. Establish the Central South
Community Planning Area as the City’s main “gateway from the I-10 Freeway”
and an employment hub of regional significance. Haven Avenue and 4th
Street, in particular, is a significant gateway location that is envisioned as a
higher intensity urban environment with iconic architecture and a mix of uses
that can include luxury or full-service hotel, high rise office building, fine dining
restaurant, and/or a public recreation amenity in addition to higher density
residential uses.
LC-7.2 Unify and Connect Development. Require that new development
in the 21st Century Employment District land use designation unify and connect
development along the Haven Avenue Corridor.
LC-7.3 Campus Design. Encourage employment areas to be developed like
a college campus with buildings oriented toward an internal roadway, buffer
landscaping along the perimeter, and ample opportunities for paths and trails
connecting to the City system, as well as relaxation areas for employees.
LC-7.4 Compatibility. Discourage large industrial projects within 1,000 feet
of existing and planned residential development.
LC-7.5 Adaptive Industrial Reuse. Encourage adaptive reuse with
residential and live/work units, and local serving commercial, in existing
industrial structures, particularly in the Central South Community Planning Area.
LC-7.6 Loading Docks. Require that parking lots, loading docks, outdoor
storage, and processing, be located behind or beside buildings, not in front,
and be screened from public views.
Page 111
x | General Plan Annual Report 2025
OS-1.1 Equitable Access to Parks. Strive to ensure that at least one park
or other public open space is within safe, comfortable walk from homes and
jobs, without crossing major streets except at signalized crossings. Equitable
access to parks should be determined based on the fundamental character
of the place (rural, suburban, urban) and corresponding transportation
infrastructure.
OS-1.2 Underserved Communities. Prioritize the provision of new
trails, parks, plazas, and other open space types in areas of the city that are
underserved by parks, services, and amenities.
OS-1.3 Accessible Parks. Require parks be designed with special attention
to usability by and safety for small children, seniors, and those with mobility,
sight, hearing or other special needs.
OS-1.4 Design Character and Public Art. Require neighborhood
parks, greens, and playgrounds to be designed as an integral element of their
Community Planning Area, reflecting the design character, art, and culture, of
that neighborhood, center or district.
OS-1.5 Design for Safety. Require the use of Crime Prevention Through
Environmental Design (CPTED) design techniques such as providing clear lines
of sight, appropriate lighting, and wayfinding signs to ensure that parks are
safe and easy to navigate.
OS-1.6 New Development. Ensure that new residential and non-residential
developments provide adequate on-site recreational and open space amenities
consistent with applicable General Plan Designations, and the needs of new
development.
OS-1.7 New Parks. Provide adequate park and recreational facilities that
meet the City standard of 5.0 acres of parkland (including trails and special
facilities) for every 1,000 persons.
OS-1.8 Central Park. Continue to develop Central Park as envisioned in the
Central Park Master Plan.
OS-1.9 Joint Use. Pursue and expand joint use of public lands that are
available and suitable for recreational purposes, including school district
properties and flood control district, water district, and other utility properties.
GOAL
OS-1
OPEN SPACE.
A complete, connected network of diverse parks, trails, and rural and natural
open space that support a wide variety of recreational, educational, and outdoor
activities.
OPEN SPACE
Page 112
xi
GOAL
OS-2
TRAILS.
A complete, connected network of diverse trails and connected open space that
improves access to all areas of the city and encourages non-motorized activities.
OS-1.10 Buffer Zones. Provide buffer zones, as appropriate and necessary,
to serve as managed open space for wildfire safety and vegetation fuel
modification. Buffer zones may include trails, small recreational amenities,
information kiosks and signage, and even staging points for fire vehicles.
OS-1.11 Locally Grown Food. Support small-scale locally grown food in
front/backyard gardens, community gardens, parks/open space areas, and
utility and flood control easements.
OS-2.1 Trail Corridors. Extend, improve and complete the multi-purpose
trail network, wherever possible, by utilizing existing flood control channel and
utility corridor rights-of-way as public trail corridors.
OS-2.2 Connectivity. Connect trails in Rancho Cucamonga to trails in the
San Bernardino National Forest and other hillside open space areas.
OS-2.3 Trailheads. Provide trailhead amenities such as parking, restrooms,
information boards, and maps.
OS-2.4 Equestrian Trails. Continue to maintain and pursue the development
of planned trails and facilities for equestrian use.
OS-2.5 Utility Corridors. Preserve the primary function of utility corridors
while providing every reasonable opportunity for shared public use for active
mobility and recreational purposes.
OS-2.6 Design for Heat. Consider extreme heat in the design of streets,
parks, trails, and playgrounds to support activity throughout the year and in all
weather conditions by including shade trees, shade structures, water fountains,
splash pads, lighting for night play in most spaces.
OS-2.7 Access. Require new development to provide access to existing or
future trails and provide appropriate trail amenities (e.g., benches, drinking
fountains, hitching posts, bike stands, and other amenities).
OS-2.8 Art and Education. Require public art, education, and recreation
features on trails, where appropriate.
OS-2.9 Trail and Park Sponsorship. Support the creation of partnerships
with organizations to sponsor and maintain green spaces, parks, trails, and
community gardens.
Page 113
xii | General Plan Annual Report 2025
GOAL
MA-1
REGIONAL MOBILITY HUB.
A multimodal transportation hub that connects regional and local destinations.
MOBILITY AND ACCESS
MA-1.1 Transportation Leadership. Take a leadership role in local and
regional transportation related planning and decision making.
MA-1.2 Cucamonga Station Redevelopment. Support redevelopment in
and around the Cucamonga Station to support transit-oriented development.
MA-1.3 Funding. Support federal, statewide, and regional infrastructure
funding for transit and transportation.
MA-1.4 Local Mobility Hub. Require new development at mobility hubs
and key stops along the future bus rapid transit and future transit circulator
system to facilitate first mile/last mile connectivity to neighborhoods.
MA-1.5 Provide Mobility Options. Provide roadway connections and
local mobility hubs designed to capture 80% of the population and employment
south of Base Line Road.
MA-1.6 Boulevard Implementation. Require boulevards with high-quality
transit to not only account for how transit service is impacted by the geometry
of the corridor, but also by signal timing, signal phasing, turns, and other
operations that may jeopardize the quality of service.
GOAL
MA-2
ACCESS FOR ALL.
A safe, efficient, accessible, and equitable transportation system that serves the
mobility needs of all users.
MA-2.1 Complete Streets. Require that new roadways include provisions
for complete streets, balancing the needs of all users of all ages and
capabilities.
MA-2.2 New Streets. To achieve the vision for transportation and mobility in
the city, the final design, location, and alignment of streets shall provide levels
of access, connectivity, and circulation consistent with the conceptual layouts
shown in this Mobility and Access Chapter.
MA-2.3 Street Design. Implement innovative street and intersection designs
to maximize efficiency and safety in the city. Use traffic calming tools to assist
in implementing complete street principles. Possible tools include roundabouts,
curb extensions, high visibility crosswalks, and separated bicycle infrastructure.
MA-2.4 Street Connectivity. Require connectivity and accessibility to a mix
of land uses that meets residents’ daily needs within walking distance.
Page 114
xiii
MA-2.5 Street Vacations. Prioritize pedestrian and utility connectivity over
street vacations.
MA-2.6 Context. Ensure that complete streets applications integrate the
neighborhood and community identity into the street design. This can include
special provisions for pedestrians and bicycles.
MA-2.7 Roadway Scale. Balance roadway size and design configuration
to ensure that vehicular speeds, volumes and turning movements do not
compromise the safety and comfort of pedestrians and bicyclists.
MA-2.8 Facility Service Levels. Maintain level of service (LOS) D for
priority modes on each street; LOS E or F may be acceptable at intersections
or segments for modes that are not prioritized. The City will develop a list
of intersections and roadways that are protected from this level of service
policy where 1) maintaining the standard would be a disincentive to walking,
biking or transit; 2) constructing facilities would prevent the City from VMT
reduction goals or other priorities, and ; 3) maintaining the standard would be
incompatible with adjacent land uses and built forms.
MA-2.9 High-Quality Pedestrian Environment. Enhance sidewalks
to create a high-quality pedestrian environment, including wider sidewalks,
improved pedestrian crossings, buffers between sidewalks and moving traffic,
pedestrian lighting, wayfinding signage, shade trees, increased availability of
benches, end of cul-de-sac access, etc.
MA-2.10 Block Pattern. Require development projects to arrange streets in
an interconnected block pattern, so that pedestrians, bicyclists, and drivers are
not forced onto arterial streets for inter- or intra- neighborhood travel.
MA-2.11 Master Planning. Master plan sites so as to ensure a well-
structured network and block pattern with sufficient access and connectivity;
especially in all focus areas, including the Cucamonga Town Center, Etiwanda
Heights Town Center, and the Southeast Industrial Area.
MA-2.12 Transportation Demand Management. Require new projects
to implement Transportation Demand Management strategies, such as employer
provided transit pass/parking credit, high-speed communications infrastructure
for telecommuting, carpooling incentives, etc.
MA-2.13 Healthy Mobility. Provide pedestrian facilities and class II
buffered bike lanes (or separated bikeways) on auto-priority streets where
feasible to promote active transportation.
MA-2.14 Bicycle Facilities. Enhance bicycle facilities by maintaining and
expanding the bicycle network, providing end-of-trip facilities (bike parking,
lockers, showers), improving bicycle/transit integration, wayfinding signage,
etc.
Page 115
xiv | General Plan Annual Report 2025
GOAL
MA-3
SAFETY.
A transportation network that adapts to changing mobility needs while preserving
sustainable community values.
MA-3.1 Pedestrian and Bicycle Networks. Maintain the Active
Transportation Plan supporting safe routes to school, and a convenient
network of identified pedestrian and bicycle routes with access to major
employment centers, shopping districts, regional transit centers, and residential
neighborhoods.
MA-3.2 Traffic Safety. Prioritize transportation system improvements that
help eliminate traffic-related fatalities and severe injury collisions.
MA-3.3 Vulnerable User Safety. Prioritize pedestrian improvements in the
Pedestrian Priority Area to promote safety in the southwest area of the city.
MA-3.4 Emergency Access. Prioritize development and infrastructure
investments that work to implement, maintain, and enhance emergency access
throughout the community.
GOAL
MA-4
GOODS MOVEMENT.
An efficient goods movement system that ensures timely deliveries without
compromising quality of life, safety and smooth traffic flow for residents and
businesses.
MA-4.1 Truck Network. Avoid designating truck routes that use collector or
local streets that primarily serve residential uses and other sensitive receptors.
MA-4.2 Southeast Area Connectivity. Require new development in the
Southeast Area to provide the necessary infrastructure to maintain access and
public safety.
MA-4.3 Future Logistics Technology. Support and plan for electrification
and autonomy of the truck fleet.
MA-4.4 Rail Access. Avoid abandonment of rail access to industrial parcels
or utilize such right of way to balance and enhance other connectivity goals
within the City (such as pedestrian/bicycle trails).
MA-4.5 Grade Separation. Support the construction of grade separations
of roadways and trails from rail lines.
Page 116
xv
GOAL
MA-5
SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORTATION.
A transportation network that adapts to changing mobility needs.
MA-5.1 Land Use Supporting Reduced VMT. Work to reduce VMT
through land use planning, enhanced transit access, localized attractions, and
access to non-automotive modes.
MA-5.2 Emerging Technologies. Prioritize investments in critical
infrastructure and pilot programs to leverage proven new transportation
technology.
MA-5.3 Funding. Remain flexible in the pursuit and adoption of
transportation funding mechanisms that fund innovative transportation solutions.
MA-5.4 Intelligent Systems Preparation. Upgrade the City’s ATMS
and communications systems to ensure that the City meets the intelligent
transportation system demands of today while planning for future demands
associated with AVs and CVs.
GOAL
H-1
HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES.
A diverse community with a broad range of housing types and opportunities to
accommodate expected new households.
HOUSING
H-1.1 RHNA Requirement. Encourage the development of a wide range of
housing options, types, and prices that will enable the City to achieve its share
of the RHNA.
H-1.2 Elderly and Disabled Household Needs. Recognize the unique
characteristics of elderly and disabled households and address their special needs.
H-1.3 Accessory Dwelling Units. Facilitate the development of accessory
dwelling units to provide additional housing opportunities pursuant to State law
and established zoning regulations.
GOAL
H-2
AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
A city where housing opportunities meet the needs of all socioeconomic segments
of the community.
H-2.1 Rental Assistance Programs. Encourage the use of rental
assistance programs to assist lower income households and support the Housing
Authority of the County of San Bernardino (HACSB) applications for additional
vouchers to meet the needs of lower income households.
Page 117
xvi | General Plan Annual Report 2025
GOAL
H-3
HOMELESSNESS.
A compassionate community with a wide range of options and support for the
housing insecure and those experiencing homelessness.
H-3.1 Homeless Services. Provide assistance as it becomes available
towards efforts of local organizations and community groups to provide
emergency shelters, transitional housing opportunities, and services to the City’s
homeless population and those at-risk of homelessness.
H-3.2 Homeless Programs. Participate with adjacent communities toward
the provision of a sub-regional shelter program and encourage the County to
develop a comprehensive homeless program.
H-2.2 Mobile Home Park Accord. Support the Mobile Home Park Accord
voluntary rent stabilization as a means of keeping rents at reasonable levels.
GOAL
H-4
HOUSING QUALITY.
A community with quality, healthy housing.
H-4.1 Mills Act Contracts. Encourage rehabilitation and preservation of
historic residences through participation in Mills Act contracts.
H-4.2 Substandard Housing. Encourage the revitalization and
rehabilitation of substandard residential structures.
H-4.3 Residential Rehabilitation. Focus rehabilitation to neighborhoods
with deteriorating units.
H-4.4 Home Improvement Programs. Implement the Home Improvement
Programs to benefit lower income single-family homeowners and mobile
homeowners.
H-4.5 Housing Maintenance. Actively encourage the maintenance of
existing housing as to maintain the housing stock in sound condition.
H-4.6 Code Enforcement. Utilize concentrated Code Enforcement programs
to target specific areas or problems when the need and community support
warrants such activity.
Page 118
xvii
GOAL
H-5
GOVERNMENT CONSTRAINTS.
A city with an efficient process for improving and developing housing.
H-5.1 Development Review Processes. Consider new policies, codes,
and procedures that have the potential to reduce procedural delays, provide
information early in the development process regarding development costs,
and charge only those fees necessary to adequately carry out needed public
services and improvements.
H-5.2 Fee Schedule. Periodically review and update the City’s fee schedule
and the methodology on which the fees are based to determine the necessary
costs for providing adequate public services and public improvements to ensure
the continued health, safety, and welfare of the community.
H-5.3 Development Review Process. Facilitate the development review
process for new housing through multiple techniques, including staff assistance,
public information, articles in the City’s newsletter, informal meetings with
applicants, and Preliminary Review applications to address technical issues and
facilitate the production of quality housing.
H-5.4 Development Standards. Evaluate and adjust as appropriate
residential development standards, regulations, and processing procedures
that are determined to constrain housing development, particularly housing
opportunities for lower and moderate income households and for persons with
special needs.
GOAL
H-6
EQUAL HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES.
An equitable community that provides equal housing opportunities for all residents.
H-6.1 Reduce Housing Discrimination. Explore and consider programs
that will reduce the incidence of housing discrimination within the City.
H-6.2 Land Use Plan. Facilitate development projects that will improve a
neighborhood’s access to resources and opportunities.
H-6.3 Fair Housing Outreach and Education. Support outreach and
education efforts to actively further fair housing practices and understanding
of fair housing rights, with emphasis on proactive education and voluntary
compliance, as well as through legal enforcement on a case-by-case basis,
including, but not limited to, assistance with the resolution of tenant/landlord
disputes and housing discrimination complaints.
H-6.4 Accessible or Barrier-Free Housing. Encourage the provisions of
disabled-accessible units and housing for the mentally and physically disabled.
Page 119
xviii | General Plan Annual Report 2025
GOAL
PF-1
STATE-OF-THE-ART FACILITIES.
Residents enjoy state-of-the-art public and community facilities that support existing
programs, accommodate future needs, and are accessible to all members of the
community.
PUBLIC FACILITIES & SERVICES
PF-1.1 New Building Standards. Continue to implement high-quality
standards for new public facilities and improvements to existing buildings.
PF-1.2 Underserved Neighborhoods. Prioritize new community facilities
in underserved neighborhoods and centers.
PF-1.3 Facility Collaboration. Maximize public facility use by sharing with
nonprofit organizations, school districts, and community organizations. Look for
opportunities to create joint-use community space at facilities owned by private
organizations such as faith-based groups and service clubs.
PF-1.4 Capital Improvements Program. Coordinate, plan, and
manage a comprehensive capital improvements program for expansion and
improvement of critical facilities and infrastructure in response to the needs of a
growing community.
GOAL
PF-2
EDUCATION.
All residents have access to high-quality educational opportunities.
PF-2.1 Schools. Consider the needs of the school districts that serve Rancho
Cucamonga in future planning and development activities.
PF-2.2 Colleges. Partner with local public and private schools and Chaffey
Community College to maintain effective educational, vocational, and
workforce programs for all residents.
GOAL
PF-3
LIBRARIES.
High-quality library resources are provided to meet the educational, cultural, civic,
and general business needs of all residents.
PF-3.1 Library. Continue to improve the local libraries system, complete with
community facilities that provide knowledgeable, service-oriented staff and
offer access to information, books, and other materials in a variety of formats,
including emerging technologies. Consider future options for providing library
services that are flexible and will maximize library services while keeping costs
affordable.
Page 120
xix
GOAL
PF-4
ANIMAL CARE.
Animal care and services are provided, including facilitation of adoptions,
promotion of animal health and safety, and animal awareness education.
PF-4.1 Animal Care. Continue to maintain and improve the Animal Care
and Adoption Center facility.
GOAL
PF-5
WATER-RELATED INFRASTRUCTURE.
Water and wastewater infrastructure facilities are available to support future
growth needs and existing development.
PF-5.1 Water Treatment. Support the efforts of the Cucamonga Valley
Water District (CVWD) and San Bernardino County agencies to provide and
expand water treatment facilities to treat local water sources from canyon
surface waters and groundwater.
PF-5.2 Wastewater Treatment. Consult with the Inland Empire Utilities
Agency and CVWD to ensure that the treatment facility has sufficient capacity
to meet future wastewater treatment needs.
PF-5.3 Recycled Water. Work with the CVWD to expand the recycled water
program to include existing private development.
GOAL
PF-6
SOLID WASTE.
The volume of solid waste that enters regional landfills is minimized and the
amount of recycling increased.
PF-6.1 Recycling. Encourage Recycling and Organics collection and
processing in all sectors of the community to divert items from entering landfills.
PF-6.2 Refuse Facilities. Consult with public agencies and private
contractors to ensure adequate organics processing facilities are available.
GOAL
PF-7
UTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE.
Protect and expand utility infrastructure in a sustainable and innovative manner
to serve the current and future needs of the community while ensuring that natural
and environmental resources are available for future generations.
PF-7.1Communications. Expand access to high quality established and
emerging communications technologies for individuals, businesses, educational
institutions, and government functions.
Page 121
xx | General Plan Annual Report 2025
PF-7.2 High Speed Internet. Prioritize extending high speed internet into
underserved lower income neighborhoods.
PF-7.3 Utility Equipment. To the extent possible, ensure that utility boxes,
above-ground equipment, and utility entrances to buildings are located at the
rear or side of the building, not the front. Ensure that utility boxes and other
above-ground equipment do not block or impair the safe and effective use of
trails, sidewalks, and streets.
PF-7.4 Planned Streets Segments and Utility Facilities. When
planned street segments, as shown in the Focus Areas and Mobility & Access
chapters, would unreasonably interfere with the primary utility function on utility
owned parcels, allow the final location and design of those street segments to
accommodate the current and prospective utility needs of the community to the
greatest extent possible.
PF-7.5 Secondary (Non-Utility) Uses of Utility Facilities and Sites.
Ensure compatibility of secondary uses on utility owned parcels that are not
related to the primary utility function of utility owned parcels with adjacent land
uses and the utility needs of the community.
PF-7.6 Phasing of Public Facilities. Require new parks, open spaces,
infrastructure, and other facilities be funded by and/or provided by new
development as necessary so as to ensure services can be provided to new
development.
GOAL
RC-1 VISUAL RESOURCES.
A beautiful city with stunning views of the San Gabriel Mountains and the
Inland Empire.
RC-1.1 View Corridors. Protect and preserve existing signature public views
of the mountains and the valleys along roadways, open space corridors, and at
other key locations.
RC-1.2 Orient toward View Corridors. Encourage new development to
orient views toward view corridors, valley and mountains.
RC-1.3 Transfer of Development Rights. Allow the transfer of development
rights from conservation areas to select development areas throughout the city
and Sphere of Influence to protect hillsides, natural resources, and views and to
avoid hazards and further the City’s conservation goals.
RESOURCE CONSERVATION
Page 122
xxi
RC-1.4 Dark Sky. Limit light pollution from outdoor sources, especially in the
rural, neighborhood, hillside, and open spaces to maintain darkness for night
sky viewing.
RC-1.5 Transit Corridor Views. Require that new development along major
transit routes and travel corridors include 360-project design and landscape
or design screening of outdoor activity, and storage, including views from the
transit routes and travel corridors.
RC-1.6 Hillside Grading. Grading of hillsides shall be minimized, following
natural landform to the maximum extent possible. Retaining walls shall be
discouraged and if necessary screened from view.
RC-1.7 Preservation of Natural Land Features. Preserve significant
natural features and incorporate into all developments. Such features may
include ridges, rock outcroppings, natural drainage courses, wetland and
riparian areas, steep topography, important or landmark trees and views.
GOAL
RC-2
WATER RESOURCES.
Reliable, readily available, and sustainable water supplies for the community and
natural environment.
RC-2.1 Water Supplies. Protect lands critical to replenishment of
groundwater supplies and local surface waters.
RC-2.2 Groundwater Recharge. Preserve and enhance the existing system
of stormwater capture for groundwater recharge.
RC-2.3 Riparian Resources. Promote the retention and protection of natural
stream courses from encroachment, erosion, and polluted urban runoff.
RC-2.4 Waterways as Amenities. When considering new development
applications and infrastructure improvements where waterways are on-site,
adjacent, or nearby, incorporate the waterway into the design as a feature.
RC-2.5 Water Conservation. Require the use of cost-effective methods
to conserve water in new developments and promote appropriate water
conservation and efficiency measures for existing businesses and residences.
RC-2.6 Irrigation. Encourage the conversion of water-intensive turf/
landscape areas to landscaping that uses climate- and wildfire-appropriate
native or non-invasive plants, efficient irrigation systems, greywater, and water
efficient site maintenance.
RC-2.7Greywater. Allow and encourage the use of greywater to meet or
offset on-site non-potable water demand.
Page 123
xxii | General Plan Annual Report 2025
GOAL
RC-3
HABITAT CONSERVATION.
Wildlife habitats that support various plants, mammals, and other wildlife species.
RC-3.1 Sensitive Habitat. Encourage the preservation of the integrity of
sensitive land resources that have significant native vegetation and/or habitat
value such as riparian habitat areas, creek corridors, Riversidean Alluvial Fan
Sage Scrub (RAFSS), wetlands, and sensitive wildlife habitat that supports
biological resources.
RC-3.2 Biological Preserves. Allow and encourage the expansion of
sensitive biological preserve areas (e.g., North Etiwanda Preserve, Day Creek
Preserve, and San Sevaine Preserve) and other important habitat areas with
an emphasis on wildlife connectivity between habitats and connectivity to the
national forest.
RC-3.3 Wildlife Corridors. Encourage the creation, maintenance, and
protection of open space areas that provide strategic wildlife corridors and vital
connectivity between habitat areas.
RC-3.4 Landscape Design. Encourage new development to incorporate
native vegetation materials into landscape plans and prohibit the use of species
known to be invasive according to the California Invasive Plant Inventory.
RC-3.5 Buffers from New Development. Require new developments
adjacent to identified plant and wildlife habitat areas to establish and maintain
a protective buffer.
RC-3.6 Grading and Vegetation Removal. Limit grading and vegetation
removal of new development activities to the minimum extent necessary for
construction and to reduce erosion and sedimentation.
RC-3.7 Urban Forestry Plan. Minimize damage associated with wind- and
fire-related hazards and risks and address climate change and urban heat
island effects through the development of an urban forestry plan that addresses
and proper and appropriate landscaping, plant and tree selection and
replacement, planting and vegetation management techniques.
GOAL
RC-4
CULTURAL RESOURCES.
A community rich with historic and cultural resources.
RC-4.1 Disturbance of Human Remains. In areas where there is a high
chance that human remains may be present, the City will require proposed
projects to conduct a survey to establish occurrence of human remains, and
measures to prevent impacts to human remains if found.
Page 124
xxiii
RC-4.2 Discovery of Human Remains. Require that any human remains
discovered during implementation of public and private projects within the city
be treated with respect and dignity and fully comply with the California Native
American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act and other appropriate laws.
RC-4.3 Protected Sites. Require sites with significant cultural resources to be
protected.
RC-4.4 Preservation of Historic Resources. Encourage the preservation
of historic resources, buildings, and landscapes.
RC-4.5 Historic Buildings. Encourage the feasible rehabilitation and
adaptive reuse of older buildings.
RC-4.6 Paleontological Resources. Require any paleontological artifacts
found within the city or the Sphere of Influence to be preserved, reported, and
offered for curation at local museums or research facilities.
GOAL
RC-5
LOCAL AIR QUALITY.
Healthy air quality for all residents.
RC-5.1 Pollutant Sources. Minimize increases of new air pollutant emissions
in the city and encourage the use of advance control technologies and clean
manufacturing techniques.
RC-5.2 Air Quality Land Use Compatibility. Avoid siting of homes,
schools, hospitals, and childcare facilities and land uses within 500 feet of land
uses that are considered large emitters.
RC-5.3 Barriers and Buffers. Require design features such as site and
building orientation, trees or other landscaped barriers, artificial barriers,
ventilation and filtration, construction, and operational practices to reduce air
quality impacts during construction and operation of large stationary and mobile
sources.
RC-5.4 Health Risk Assessment. Consider the health impacts of
development of sensitive receptors within 500 feet of a freeway, rail line,
arterial, collector or transit corridor sources using health risk assessments to
understand potential impacts.
RC-5.5 Impacts to Air Quality. Ensure new development does not
disproportionately burden residents, due to age, culture, ethnicity, gender,
race, socioeconomic status, or geographic location, with health effects from air
pollution. Prioritize resource allocation, investments, and decision making that
improves air quality for residents disproportionately burdened by air pollution
because of historical land use planning decisions and overarching institutional
and structural inequities.
Page 125
xxiv | General Plan Annual Report 2025
GOAL
RC-6
CLIMATE CHANGE.
A resilient community that reduces its contributions to a changing climate and is
prepared for the health and safety risks of climate change.
RC-5.6 Community Benefit Plan. Require that any land use generating
or accommodating more than 100 trucks per day, more than 40 trucks with
operating transport refrigeration units (TRUs) per day, or where TRU unit
operations exceed 300 hours per week, provide a community benefit plan
demonstrating an offset to community impacts of the truck traffic.
RC-5.7 New Sensitive Receptors Near Existing Industrial Uses.
Avoid placing homes, schools, hospitals, and childcare facilities within 1,000
feet of a land use that accommodates more than 100 trucks per day, more than
40 trucks with operating transport refrigeration units (TRUs) per day, or where
TRU unit operations exceed 300 hours per week.
RC-5.8 New Localized Air Pollution Sources Near Existing Sensitive
Receptors. Avoid placing land uses that accommodate more than 100 trucks
per day, more than 40 trucks with operating transport refrigeration units (TRUs)
per day, or where TRU unit operations exceed 300 hours per week within
1,000 feet of homes, schools, hospitals, and childcare facilities.
RC-5.9 Truck Hook-Ups at New Industrial or Commercial
Developments. Require new industrial or commercial developments at which
heavy-duty diesel trucks idle on-site to install electric truck hook-ups in docks,
bays, and parking areas.
RC-5.10 Clean and Green Industry. Prioritize non-polluting industries and
companies using zero or low air pollution technologies.
RC-5.11 Dust and Odor. Require new construction to include measures to
minimize dust and odor during construction and operation.
RC-6.1Climate Action Plan. Maintain and implement a Climate Action Plan
(CAP) that provides best management practices for reducing greenhouse gas
emissions.
RC-6.2 Renewable Energy. Encourage renewable energy installations and
facilitate green technology and business.
RC-6.3 Reduce Energy Consumption. Encourage a reduction in
community-wide energy consumption.
RC-6.4 Urban Forest. Protect the city’s healthy trees and plant new ones to
provide shade, carbon sequestration, and purify the air.
Page 126
xxv
RC-6.5 GHG Reduction Goal. Reduce emissions to 80 percent below 1990
levels by 2050 and achieve carbon neutrality by 2045.
RC-6.6 Co-Benefits. Prioritize the development and implementation of GHG
reduction measures that also achieve economic, health, social, environmental,
and other co-benefits for the City and its residents and businesses.
RC-6.7 Structural Equity. Encourage GHG reduction and climate
adaptation measures such as trail completion, equipment upgrade, sidewalk
connectivity, tree planting, and buffers be included in the City’s Capital
Improvement Program (CIP) to improve areas of the city where these features
are lacking.
RC-6.8 Reduce Vehicle Trips. Require Transportation Demand Management
(TDM) strategies, such as employer provided transit pass/parking credit,
bicycle parking, bike lockers, high-speed communications infrastructure for
telecommuting, and carpooling incentives, for large office, commercial, and
industrial uses.
RC-6.9 Access. Require pedestrian, vehicle, and transit connectivity of streets,
trails, and sidewalks, as well as between complementary adjacent land uses.
RC-6.10 Green Building. Encourage the construction of buildings that are
certified Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) or equivalent,
emphasizing technologies that reduce GHG emissions.
RC-6.11 Climate-Appropriate Building Types. Encourage alternative
building types that are more sensitive to and designed for passive heating and
cooling within the arid environment found in Rancho Cucamonga.
RC-6.12 Reduced Water Supplies. When reviewing development
proposals, consider the possibility of constrained future water supplies and
require enhanced water conservation measures.
RC-6.13 Designing for Warming Temperatures. When reviewing
development proposals, encourage applicants and designers to consider
warming temperatures in the design of cooling systems.
RC-6.14 Designing for Changing Precipitation Patterns. When
reviewing development proposals, encourage applicants to consider stormwater
control strategies and systems for sensitivity to changes in precipitation regimes
and consider adjusting those strategies to accommodate future precipitation
regimes.
RC-6.15 Heat Island Reductions. Require heat island reduction strategies
in new developments such as light-colored paving, permeable paving, right-
sized parking requirements, vegetative cover and planting, substantial tree
canopy coverage, and south and west side tree planting.
Page 127
xxvi | General Plan Annual Report 2025
GOAL
RC-7
ENERGY.
An energy efficient community that relies primarily on renewable and non-
polluting energy sources.
RC-6.16 Public Realm Shading. Strive to improve shading in public
spaces, such as bus stops, sidewalks and public parks and plazas, through
the use of trees, shelters, awnings, gazebos, fabric shading and other creative
cooling strategies.
RC-6.17 Offsite GHG Mitigation. Allow the use of creative mitigation
efforts such as offsite mitigation and in lieu fee programs as mechanisms for
reducing project-specific GHG emissions.
RC-6.18 Water Sources with Low GHG Emissions. Encourage local
and regional water utilities to obtain water from sources with low or no GHG
emissions.
RC-7.1 Electric Vehicle (EV) Charging on City Property. As funding
is available, encourage the installation of publicly available electric vehicle
charging stations at City-owned buildings, facilities, property, and in the public
right-of-way.
RC-7.2 New EV Charging. Require new multifamily residential, commercial,
office, and industrial development to include charging stations, or include the
wiring for them.
RC-7.3 EV Charging Retrofits. Encourage existing development to retrofit
to include charging stations.
RC-7.4 New Off-Road Equipment. When feasible, require that off-road
equipment such as forklifts and yard tugs necessary for the operations of all
new commercial and industrial developments be electric or fueled using clean
fuel sources.
RC-7.5 Municipal Vehicle Fleet. Reduce fossil fuel consumption of the
City’s vehicle fleet by increasing the number of electric or zero emissions
vehicles.
RC-7.6 Efficiency Retrofits. Encourage existing private property owners to
implement energy efficiency retrofits during substantial improvement as defined
by the California Building Code.
RC-7.7 Sustainable Design. Encourage sustainable building and site
design that meets the standards of Leadership in Energy and Environmental
Design (LEED), Sustainable Sites, Living Building Challenge, or similar
certification.
Page 128
xxvii
RC-7.8 Farmers Market, Fork to Table. Support microscale agriculture
and farmers markets, and similar methods of encouraging locally grown and
consumed produce.
RC-7.9 Passive Solar Design. Require new buildings to incorporate
energy efficient building and site design strategies for the arid environment that
include appropriate solar orientation, thermal mass, use of natural daylight and
ventilation, and shading.
RC-7.10 Alternative Energy. Continue to promote the incorporation of
alternative energy generation (e.g., solar, wind, biomass) in public and private
development.
RC-7.11 Community Development Subdivisions. When reviewing
applications for new subdivisions, require residences be oriented along an east-
west access, minimizing western sun exposure, to maximize energy efficiency.
RC-7.12 Solar Access. Prohibit new development and renovations that
impair adjacent buildings’ solar access, unless it can be demonstrated that
the shading benefits substantially offset the impacts of solar energy generation
potential.
RC-7.13 Energy-Efficient Infrastructure. Whenever possible, use
energy-efficient models and technology when replacing or providing new city
infrastructure such as streetlights, traffic signals, water conveyance pumps, or
other public infrastructure.
RC-7.14 Energy Storage Facilities. The City of Rancho Cucamonga
supports the development of energy storage facilities on property owned or
controlled by Southern California Edison and will cooperate with Southern
California Edison on the development of such facilities in a manner that
balances the interests of the community with the need for clean, reliable energy.
RC-7.15 Utility Preservation. Public and private development within the
City, including multi-purpose trails, shall not interfere with safe and reliable
transmission, storage, and generation of electricity. With the exception of utility
infrastructure and other public improvements that do not interfere with such
infrastructure, permanent structures are not allowed within utility corridors.
Page 129
xxviii | General Plan Annual Report 2025
GOAL
S-1
LEADERSHIP.
A city that is recognized for its leadership role in resilience and preparedness.
S-1.1 City Staff Readiness. Ensure City staff and departments demonstrate
a readiness to respond to emergency incidents and events.
S-1.2 Culture of Preparedness. Promote a culture of preparedness for
businesses and residents that empowers them to increase their resilience to
hazard related events and a changing climate.
S-1.3 Evacuation Capacity. Require new developments, redevelopments,
and major remodels to enhance the City’s evacuation network and facilities and
comply with the City’s Evacuation Assessment.
S-1.4 WUIFA Access Points. Require all new developments and
redevelopments within the WUIFA to provide a minimum of two points of access
by means of public roads that can be used for emergency vehicle response and
evacuation purposes.
S-1.5 Enhanced Circulation. In areas of the city with limited access routes
and circulation challenges, require additional roads and improvements to
ensure adequate emergency vehicle response and evacuation.
S-1.6 Evacuation Road Widths. Require any roads used for evacuation
purposes to provide at least 26 feet of unobstructed pavement width.
S-1.7 Maintenance of Plans. Maintain and regularly update the City’s
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) as an integrated component of the
General Plan, in coordination with the Community Wildfire Protection Plan
(CWPP), the Emergency Operations Plan (EOP), the Evacuation Plan, and
Standardized Emergency Management System (SEMS) compliant disaster plans
to maintain eligibility for grant funding.
S-1.8 Regional Coordination. Ensure regional coordination continues with
neighboring jurisdictions, County, State, and Federal agencies on emergency
management and risk reduction planning and activities.
S-1.9 Mutual Aid. Ensure mutual aid agreements with Federal, State, local
agencies, and the private sector establish responsibility boundaries, joint
response services, and multi-alarm and station coverage capabilities.
SAFETY
Page 130
xxix
GOAL
S-2
SEISMIC AND GEOLOGIC HAZARDS.
A built environment that minimizes risks from seismic and geologic hazards.
S-2.1 Fault Setbacks. Require minimum setbacks for structures proposed
for human occupancy within State and City Special Study Zones. Setbacks
will be based on minimum standards established under State law and
recommendations of a Certified Engineering Geologist and/or Geo-technical
Engineer.
S-2.2 Building Functionality. Require enhanced siting, design, and
construction standards that focus on building functionality for new critical public
facilities and key essential (private) facilities after a seismic event.
S-2.3 Seismically Vulnerable Buildings. Prioritize the retrofit by private
property owners of seismically vulnerable buildings (including but not limited to
unreinforced masonry, soft-story construction, and non-ductile concrete) as better
information and understanding becomes available.
S-2.4 Transfer of Development Rights. Allow the transfer of development
rights from areas of significant seismic and geologic hazards to select
development areas throughout the City and Sphere of Influence.
S-2.5 Hillside Hazards. Prioritize regulations and strategies that reduce
geologic hazard risk to properties and loss of life.
GOAL
S-3
WILDFIRE HAZARDS.
A community where wildfire impacts are minimized or reduced through
investments in planning and resilience.
S-3.1 Fire Risk Reduction. Apply all state and local codes and regulations
(fire safe design, adherence to Standard 49-1) to new development,
redevelopment, and major remodels in the WUIFA.
S-3.2 Fire Protection Plans. All new development, redevelopment, and
major remodels in the WUIFA will require the preparation of Fire Protection
Plans (FPPs) to reduce fire threat, in accordance with Fire District policies and
procedures.
S-3.3 Vegetation Management. Owners of properties and public/
private roads within and adjacent to the WUIFA are required to conduct brush
clearance and fuel modification to reduce fire ignition potential and spread.
S-3.4 Buffer Zones. Require development projects to incorporate buffer
zones as deemed necessary by the City’s Fire Marshal for fire safety and fuel
modification.
Page 131
xxx | General Plan Annual Report 2025
S-3.5 Water Supply. All developments will meet fire flow requirements
identified in the Fire Code.
S-3.6 Coordination with Agencies. Coordinate with State, regional,
and local agencies and service providers on fire risk reduction planning and
activities.
S-3.7 Wildfire Awareness. Assist residents and property owners with being
better informed on fire hazards and risk reduction activities in the WUIFA.
S-3.8 New Essential Facilities (WUIFA). Prohibit the siting of new
essential public facilities (including, but not limited to, hospitals and health care
facilities, emergency shelters, emergency command centers, and emergency
communications facilities) within the WUIFA, unless appropriate construction
methods or strategies are incorporated to minimize impacts.
GOAL
S-4
FLOOD HAZARDS.
A community where developed areas are not impacted by flooding and
inundation hazards.
S-4.1 New Essential Facilities (Flood). Prohibit the siting and construction
of new essential public facilities within flood hazard zones, when feasible. If an
essential facility must be located within a flood hazard zone, incorporate flood
mitigation to the greatest extent practicable.
S-4.2 Flood Risk in New Development. Require all new development
to minimize flood risk with siting and design measures, such as grading that
prevents adverse drainage impacts to adjacent properties, on-site retention of
runoff, and minimization of structures located in floodplains.
S-4.3 500-Year Floodplain. Promote the compliance of 100-year
floodplain requirements on properties located within the 500-year floodplain
designation.
S-4.4 Flood Infrastructure. Require new development to implement and
enhance the Storm Drain Master Plan by constructing stormwater management
infrastructure downstream of the proposed site.
S-4.5 Property Enhancements. Require development within properties
located adjacent, or near flood zones and areas of frequent flooding to reduce
or minimize run-off and increase retention on-site.
S-4.6 Regional Coordination. Promote regional flood management and
mitigation projects with other agencies (San Bernardino County Flood Control,
Army Corps of Engineers, and adjacent jurisdictions) to address flood hazards
holistically.
S-4.7 Dam Operators. Coordinate with agencies operating or managing
dam facilities that can inundate the city, on operations, maintenance, and
training activities and provide the latest Emergency Action Plans annually.
Page 132
xxxi
GOAL
S-5
EMERGING HAZARDS.
A built environment that incorporates new data and understanding about
changing hazard conditions and climate stressors.
S-5.1 Future Conditions. Ensure future climatic conditions and public health
emergencies are considered as part of community resilience and investment
efforts.
S-5.2 Urban Forestry Plan. Minimize damage associated with wind-related
hazards and address climate change and urban heat island effects through the
development of an urban forestry plan and proper landscaping planting and
management techniques.
S-5.3 Soil Transport. Require that properties with high wind-blown soil
erosion potential such as agricultural operations and construction sites prevent
soil transport and dust generation wherever possible.
S-5.4 Extreme Heat Vulnerabilities. Require that new developments,
major remodels, and redevelopments address urban heat island issues and
reduce urban heat island effects for the proposed project site and adjacent
properties.
S-5.5 Resilience Resources. Require new developments and
redevelopments to incorporate resilience amenities such as, but not limited to
community cooling centers, emergency supplies, and backup power that can be
used by residents and businesses within a 1/4-mile radius of the location.
S-5.6 Underground Utilities. Promote the under-grounding of utilities for
new development, major remodels, and redevelopment.
S-5.7 Future Adaptation. Future climate adaptation-oriented projects will
incorporate natural infrastructure to the greatest extent practicable.
S-5.8 Climate Resiliency. Address climate resiliency and inequities through
the planning and development process.
S-5.9 Address High Winds. Require buildings and developments exposed
to high wind conditions to incorporate design elements and features that
minimize or reduce damage to people, structures, and the community.
Page 133
xxxii | General Plan Annual Report 2025
S-6.1 Planned Development. Promote development patterns that integrate
Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) principles that reduce
the potential for human-caused hazards.
S-6.2 Neighboring Properties. Encourage properties that store, generate,
or dispose of hazardous materials to locate such operations as far away as
possible from areas of neighboring properties where people congregate.
S-6.3 Site Remediation. Encourage and facilitate the adequate and timely
cleanup of existing and future contaminated sites and the compatibility of future
land uses.
S-6.4 Airport Planning. Protect Rancho Cucamonga interests regarding
land use and safety by participating in the airport land use planning process for
Ontario International Airport.
S-6.5 Height Restrictions. Require proposed developments within the
Ontario Airport Influence Area meet the height requirements associated with
FAR Part 77 standards.
S-6.6 Development Near Airport. New development within the Ontario
Airport Influence Area shall be consistent with the approved Airspace Protection
Zones identified in the latest version of the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan.
S-6.7 Railroad Safety. Minimize potential safety issues and land use
conflicts when considering development adjacent to the railroad right-of-way.
GOAL
S-6
HUMAN CAUSED HAZARDS.
A community with minimal risk from airport hazards and hazardous materials.
Page 134
xxxiii
N-1.1 Noise Levels. Require new development to meet the noise
compatibility standards.
N-1.2 Noise Barriers, Buffers and Sound Walls. Require the use of
integrated design-related noise reduction measures for both interior and exterior
areas prior to the use of noise barriers, buffers, or walls to reduce noise levels
generated by or affected by new development.
N-1.3 Non-Architectural Noise Attenuation. Non-architectural noise
attenuation measures such as sound walls, setbacks, barriers, and berms shall
be discouraged in pedestrian priority areas (or other urban areas or areas
where pedestrian access is important).
N-1.4 New Development Near Major Noise Sources. Require
development proposing to add people in areas where they may be exposed
to major noise sources (e.g., roadways, rail lines, aircraft, industrial or other
non-transportation noise sources) to conduct a project level noise analysis and
implement recommended noise reduction measures.
N-1.5 Urban and Suburban Development Near Transit. Allow
development located in infill areas, near transit hubs, or along major roadways
an exemption from exterior noise standards for secondary open space areas
(such as front yards, parking lots, stoops, porches, or balconies), if noise
standards can be met for primary open space.
N-1.6 Rail Crossing Quiet Zones. Allow the establishment of a full or
partial at-grade rail crossing or quiet zone near transit hubs or residential
development.
N-1.7 Entertainment. Establish different standards for exterior noise
consistent with the place type.
N-1.8 Vibration Impact Assessment. Require new development to reduce
vibration to 85 VdB or below within 200 feet of an existing structure.
GOAL
N-1
NOISE.
A city with appropriate noise and vibration levels that support a range of places
from quiet neighborhoods to active, exciting districts.
NOISE
Page 135