The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2022-05-25 - Agenda Packet HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA May 25, 2022 7:00 p.m. A. Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance Roll Call: Chair Dopp Vice Chair Williams Commissioner Morales Commissioner Boling Commissioner Daniels B. Public Communications This is the time and place for the general public to address the Planning/Historic Preservation 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 May 11, 2022. D. Public Hearings D1. TIME EXTENSION DRC2022-00126 – RICHLAND COMMUNITIES – A request for a one (1) year time extension for a previously approved Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18908—The subdivision of approximately 10.6 acres into 30 single-family detached lots within the Low (L) Residential District, Equestrian Overlay District, and Etiwanda North Specific Plan located at the northwest corner of East Avenue and Wilson Avenue – APN: 1087-081-25. D2. NORTH SIDE OF 6TH STREET BOUND BETWEEN CLEVELAND AVENUE TO THE WEST AND MILLIKEN AVENUE TO THE EAST AND THE RAIL LINE TO THE NORTH – LEWIS OPERATING CORP. – A request to amend chapter 7 of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan for Planning Area 1 known as The Resort Specific Plan, to separate chapter 7 into two new chapters regulating the North planning area and the South planning area of The Resort, and modifying the circulation network for the North planning area of The Resort. The Resort Specific Plan provides regulations for a mixed-use neighborhood with a range of housing types and densities, and a variety of non-residential uses. The intent and purpose and future build-out of the North Planning Area will not be modified as part of this Specific Plan. This request is for a specific plan amendment only and does not include any development proposals or development applications at this time. APNs: 0209-272-20. A CEQA HPC/PC Agenda – May 25, 2022 Page 2 of 3 If you need special assistance or accommodations to participate in this meeting, please contact the Planning Department at (909) 477-2750. 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. Compliance Memorandum has been prepared for this application for consideration demonstrating compliance and consistency with the Certified Environmental Impact Report for the Resort Specific Plan. Design Review DRC2020-00164. E. Director Announcements F. Commission Announcements G. Adjournment TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION The Planning Commission encourages free expression of all points of view. To allow all persons to speak, given the length of the agenda, please keep your remarks brief. If others have already expressed your position, you may simply indicate that you agree with a previous speaker. If appropriate, a spokesperson may present the views of your entire group. To encourage all views and promote courtesy to others, the audience should refrain from clapping, booing or shouts of approval or disagreement from the audience. 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 on the podium. It is important to list your name, address (optional) and the agenda item letter your comments refer to. Comments will be limited to 5 minutes per individual. If a large number of individuals wish to speak on an item, the Chair may limit the time to 3 minutes in order to provide an opportunity for more people to be heard. Speakers will be alerted when their time is up, and no further comments will be permitted. If you wish to speak concerning an item not on the agenda, you may do so under “Public Communications.” Any handouts for the Planning Commission should be given to the Planning Commission Secretary for distribution to the Commissioners. A copy of any such materials should also be provided to the Secretary to be used for the official public record. As an alternative to participating in the meeting, you may submit comments in writing to Elizabeth.Thornhill@cityofrc.us by 12:00 p.m. on the date of the meeting. Written comments will be distributed to the Commissioners and included in the record. All requests for items to be placed on a Planning Commission agenda must be in writing. Requests for scheduling agenda items will be at the discretion of the Commission and the Planning Director. AVAILABILITY OF STAFF REPORTS Copies of the staff reports or other documentation to each agenda item are available at www.CityofRC.us. APPEALS Any interested party who disagrees with the City Planning Commission decision may appeal the Commission’s decision to the City Council within 10 calendar days. Any appeal filed must be directed to the City Clerk’s Office and must be accompanied by a fee of $3,279 for all decisions of the Commission. (Fees are established and governed by the City Council). HPC/PC Agenda – May 25, 2022 Page 3 of 3 Please turn off all cell phones while meeting is in session. Copies of the Planning Commission agendas, staff reports, and minutes can be found at www.CityofRC.us. 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 on Thursday, May 19, 2022, seventy-two (72) hours prior to the meeting per Government Code 54954.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive. Historic Preservation Commission and Planning Commission Agenda June 22, 2022 MINUTES Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 7:00 p.m. The regular meeting of the Historic Presentation Commission and Planning Commission was held on June 22, 2022. The meeting was called to order by Chair Dopp 7:00 p.m. A. Roll Call Planning Commission present: Chair Dopp, Commissioner Morales, Commissioner Boling and Commissioner Daniels; Commissioner Williams. Staff Present: Serita Young, Assistant City Attorney; Mathew R. Burris, Deputy City Manager, Community Development, Interim Planning Director; Jennifer Nakamura, Deputy Director of Planning; Mike Smith, Principal Planner; David Eoff, Senior Planner; Sean McPherson, Senior Planner; Brian Sandona, Sr. Civil Engineer; Darleen Cervera, Executive Assistant II; Elizabeth Thornhill, Executive Assistant. B. Public Communications Chair Dopp opened public communications and hearing no one, closed public communications. C. Consent Calendar C1. Consideration to adopt Regular Meeting Minutes of May 25, 2022. Motion to adopt by Vice Chair Williams, second by Commissioner Boling. Motion carried 5-0 vote. D. Public Hearings D1. VARIANCE – KERMIT SMITH (APPLICANT) – Consideration of a Variance to allow for deficient lot depth for parcels identified as APNs: 0225-181-35, 0225-181-38 and 0225-181-39 located in the Very Low Residential District (VL). This request is related to a proposed lot line adjustment and lot merger, and no development is proposed as part of this application. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the project is exempt under CEQA Section 15305 – Minor Alteration to Land Use Limitations. Variance DRC2022-00205 Sean McPherson, Senior Planner, presented Commissioners with a Staff Report and presentation (copy on file). Kermit Smith, Applicant, and daughter Nicole thanked Commissioners for evaluating the variance and lot merger. Nichole mentioned they are residents and would like to stay in this area. Chair Dopp opened Public Hearing and hearing no one, closed Public Hearing Commissioner Morales stated this makes sense because the way the lots are. Nothing wrong with it. It’s the right thing to do. HPC/PC MINUTES – June 22, 2022 Page 2 of 3 Draft Chair Dopp asked is it assumed the entrance for the house will face north. Sean McPherson answered that the frontage of the empty parcel would be off Chickasaw. With no other comments from Commissioners, Chair Dopp asked for a motion. Motion by Commissioner Daniels; Second motion by Vice Chair Williams. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0 vote. Adoption of Resolution 22-18. D2. DESIGN REVIEW - 8500 HAVEN, LLC – A request for a site plan and architectural review of a mixed-use development comprising of 248 apartments and 23,750 square feet of commercial space on a vacant parcel roughly 9.37 acres in size, and a request for a minor exception for a reduction in the required parking for the proposed mixed-use development. The project is located at the southwest corner of Haven Avenue and Arrow Route within the Corridor 1 (CO1) mixed-use zone. APNs: 0209-092-09, -13. A CEQA Section 15183 Compliance Memorandum has been prepared for this project. Design Review DRC2021- 00200, Minor Exception DRC2022-00232. David Eoff, Senior Planner, presented Commissioners with a Staff Report and presentation (copy on file). Chair Dopp opened Public Hearing Commissioner Daniels asked regarding the minor exception, which one is staff recommending considering, is it the angled parking or 90 degree. David replied that the angled parking is Winston Chang, Architect, presented commissioners with a presentation and available to answer questions. Developer/Project Manager, Chair Dopp closed Public Hearing Motion by Vice Chair Williams; Second motion by Commissioner Daniels. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0 vote. Adoption of Resolution 22-15. E. Director Announcements - None F. Commission Announcements - None G. Adjournment Motion by Vice Chair Williams, second by Commissioner Boling to adjourn the meeting. Hearing no objections, Chair Dopp adjourned the meeting at 8:48p.m. Respectfully submitted, HPC/PC MINUTES – June 22, 2022 Page 3 of 3 Draft ________________________ Elizabeth Thornhill Executive Assistant, Planning Department Approved: 3161 Michelson Drive – Suite 425  Irvine, California 92612  949.261.7010  Fax 949.261.7016 May 2, 2022 David F. Eoff IV Senior Planner City of Ranch Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 David.Eoff@cityofrc.us Subject: Map Time Extension – DRC2022-00126 Tentative Tract No. 18908 - APN: 1087-081-25-0-000 Mr. Eoff: Richland Developers Inc is requesting a one (1) year extension of time for the above referenced Tentative Tract Map 18908 to allow the time necessary to complete the required Conditions of Approval and Final Map for recordation. Tract 18908 is dependent on backbone improvements that will be provided from the adjoining Tract 16072. With the recent extension of time granted for Tract 16072 and development expected to begin this year, Landsea Homes is under contract to purchase and develop the two tracts together. Richland Developers Inc has submitted Final Map ENG2022-00014 for processing and will be submitting Rough Grading and Improvement Plans in June. I have also enclosed the following documents as requested: •Environmental Assessment from Glenn Lukos Associates •Preliminary Title Report •Filing Fees – Receipt #318299 Should you have any questions or need any additional information please call me at 949-205- 0185. Sincerely, Jessica Toohey Jessica Toohey Richland Communities Project Coordinator Exhibit A STAFF REPORT SUBJECT: TIME EXTENSION DRC2020-00310 – RICHLAND COMMUNITIES – A request for a one (1) year time extension for a previously approved Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18908 - The subdivision of approximately 10.6 acres (located at the northwest corner of East Avenue and Wilson Avenue) into 30 single- family detached lots within the Low (L) Residential District, Equestrian Overlay District, and Etiwanda North Specific Plan - APN: 1087-081-25. RECOMMENDATION: •Approve Time Extension DRC2020-00310 for Tentative Parcel Map SUBTT18908 through the adoption of the attached Resolution of Approval. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: The project site consists of approximately 10.6 acres of undeveloped land located northwest of the intersection of East Avenue and Wilson Avenue. The rectangular subject parcel has a linear dimension, from north to south, of approximately 659 feet and approximately 662 feet from east to west. The project site is covered with ornamental grasses and gravel. The subject property is within the Low (L) Residential District. The site is surrounded by vacant land in all directions. The existing Land Use, General Plan and Zoning designation for this project site and surrounding properties are as follows: Land Use General Plan Zoning Site Vacant Low Residential (2.0-4.0 Dwelling Units Per Acre) Low Residential (L) District Etiwanda North Specific Plan Equestrian Overlay District North Vacant Low Residential (2.0-4.0 Dwelling Units Per Acre) Low Residential (L) District Etiwanda North Specific Plan Equestrian Overlay District South Vacant Very Low Residential (Up to 2.0 Dwelling Units Per Acre) Very Low Residential (VL) District Etiwanda Specific Plan Equestrian Overlay District East Vacant Very Low Residential (Up to 2.0 Dwelling Units Per Acre) Very Low Residential (VL) District Etiwanda Specific Plan Equestrian Overlay District West Vacant Low Residential (2.0-4.0 Dwelling Units Per Acre) Low Residential (L) District Etiwanda North Specific Plan Equestrian Overlay District DATE: October 28, 2020 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Anne McIntosh, AICP, Planning Director INITIATED BY: Mena Abdul-Ahad, Assistant Planner Exhibit B PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT TIME EXTENSION DRC2020-00310– RICHLAND COMMUNITIES October 28, 2020 Page 2 BACKGROUND: The subdivision will have two points of access; one along the future extension of Wilson Avenue and one along the future extension of East Avenue. The design of the proposed subdivision is consistent with the surrounding residential subdivisions within the area. The proposed 30 lots will be developed in accordance with the Low (L) Residential District, Equestrian Overlay District, and Etiwanda North Specific Plan standards. The application has a request to extend the approval period of Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18908 by one additional year. This request is the final time extension allowed pursuant to Development Code Section 16.16; extensions may be granted in twelve month increments for a period not exceeding a total of five years. Upon the initial approval of SUBTT18908 on September 28, 2016, the approval period was for a duration of 3 years and was set to expire on September 28, 2019. A breakdown of the approval history of the subject tentative tract map is as follows: Tentative Tract Map 18908 Approval History Approving Authority Approval/Extension Type Approval Period Approval Date Expiration Date Planning Commission Initial Approval (PC Reso. 16-48) 3 Years Sept 28, 2016 Sept 28, 2019 Planning Commission Time Extension DRC2019-00564 (PC Reso. 19-57) 1 Year Sept 25, 2019 Sept 25, 2020 Planning Commission Proposed Time Extension DRC2020-00310 1 Year Oct 28, 2020 Oct 28, 2021 ANALYSIS: Subdivision Map: Municipal Code Section 16.16.170 (Extensions) states that tentative tract maps may be extended for a time period not exceeding five (5) years. The municipal code requires that a request for a time extension be submitted not less than 60 days prior to the expiration date. The applicant submitted a letter (Exhibit A) on August 4, 2020, stating a one (1) year extension is necessary to allow time for the completion of environmental permits with the US Army Corps of Engineers and the US Fish and Wildlife Service. This application involves a 1-year time extension request, which would set the expiration date to October 28, 2021. If approved, this will be the applicants final time extension request. Public Art: This subject Tentative Tract Map Time Extension is exempt from providing public art as outlined in Chapter 17.124 of the Development Code as the project is not tied to any developments. However, public art will be required once the architectural drawings have been submitted to the Planning Department. Environmental Assessment: Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City’s local CEQA Guidelines, the City adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration on September 28, 2016 in connection with the City’s approval of Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18908. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, no subsequent or supplemental EIR or Negative Declaration is required in connection with subsequent discretionary approvals of the same project unless: (i) substantial changes are proposed to the project that indicate new or more severe PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT TIME EXTENSION DRC2020-00310 – RICHLAND COMMUNITIES October 28, 2020 Page 3 impacts on the environment; (ii) substantial changes have occurred in the circumstances under which the project was previously reviewed that indicate new or more severe environmental impacts; or (iii) new important information shows the project will have new or more severe impacts than previously considered; or (iv) additional mitigation measures are now feasible to reduce impacts or different mitigation measures can be imposed to substantially reduce impacts. The applicant submitted a Biological Resource Memorandum (ESA Consulting; July 27, 2020) which reviewed whether changes have occurred on the project site that would necessitate new or different mitigation measures. The report concluded that no substantial changes have occurred on the project site that would necessitate new or modified mitigation measures. The report also concluded that the recommended mitigation measures that were detailed in the 2016 Biological Resource Assessment is consistent with the site conditions that were observed in 2020. Staff has evaluated Time Extension DRC2020-00310 and concludes that substantial changes to the project or the circumstances surrounding the project have not occurred which would create new or more severe impacts than those evaluated in the previous Mitigated Negative Declaration. The application is for a one (1) year time extension of a previously approved Tentative Tract Map with no proposed changes to the scope of the original approval. Staff further finds that the project will not have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous Mitigated Negative Declaration, nor have more severe effects than previously analyzed, and that additional or different mitigation measures are not required to reduce the impacts of the project to a level of less than significant. The applicant has not proposed any changes to the originally approved entitlements. Therefore, pursuant to CEQA, staff recommends that the Planning Commission concur with the staff determination that no additional environmental review is required in connection with the City’s consideration of Time Extension DRC2020-00310. FISCAL IMPACT: The project site currently is assessed an annual property tax. A percentage of this annual tax is shared with the City. The proposed development will increase the value of the project site and the City’s annual share of the property tax will increase accordingly. The project proponent will also be responsible for paying one-time impact fees. These fees are intended to address the increased demand for City services due to the proposed project. The following types of services that these impact fees would support include the following: library services, transportation infrastructure, drainage infrastructure, animal services, police, parks, and community and recreation services. COUNCIL GOAL(S) ADDRESSED: Although a specific current City Council goal does not apply to the application, the proposed map extension for 30 single-family detached homes will enhance the premier community status by adding additional housing which will increase the City’s housing supply. This project is also consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan and the objectives of the Development Code as the General Plan land use and zoning designations of the project site are Low Residential and the subdivision is for residential purposes. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT TIME EXTENSION DRC2020-00310 – RICHLAND COMMUNITIES October 28, 2020 Page 4 CORRESPONDENCE: This item was advertised as a public hearing with a regular page legal advertisement in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper on October 13, 2020, the property was posted on October 19, 2020, and notices were mailed to all 30 property owners within a 660-foot radius of the project site on October 15, 2020. To date, no comments have been received regarding the project notifications. EXHIBITS: Exhibit A - Time Extension Request Letter dated August 4, 2020 Exhibit B - Planning Commission Staff Report dated September 25, 2019, related Conditions of Approval and Resolution of Approval. Exhibit C - Planning Commission Staff Report Dated September 28, 2016, related Conditions of Approval and Resolution of Approval. Draft Resolution of Approval No. 20-44 for Time Extension DRC2020-00310 STAFF REPORT SUBJECT: TIME EXTENSION DRC2019-00564– RICHLAND COMMUNITIES – A request for a one (1) year time extension for a previously approved Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18908—The subdivision of approximately 10.6 acres into 30 single- family detached lots within the Low (L) Residential District, Etiwanda North Specific Plan located at the northwest corner of East Avenue and Wilson Avenue – APN: 1087-081-25. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of a one (1) year Time Extension DRC2019-00564 through the adoption of the attached Resolution of Approval. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: The project site consists of approximately 10.6 acres of undeveloped land located northwest of the intersection of East Avenue and Wilson Avenue. The rectangular subject parcel has a linear dimension, from north to south, of approximately 659 feet and approximately 662 feet from east to west. The project site is covered with ornamental grasses and gravel. The subject property is within the Low (L) Residential District. The site is surrounded by vacant land in all directions. The existing Land Use, General Plan and Zoning Designation for this project site and surrounding properties are as follows: DATE: September 25, 2019 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Anne McIntosh, Planning Director INITIATED BY: Mena Abdul-Ahad, Assistant Planner Land Use General Plan Zoning Site Vacant Low Residential (2.0-4.0 Dwelling Units Per Acre) Low Residential (L) District Etiwanda North Specific Plan Equestrian Overlay District North Vacant Low Residential (2.0-4.0 Dwelling Units Per Acre) Low Residential (L) District Etiwanda North Specific Plan South Vacant Very Low Residential (Up to 2.0 Dwelling Units Per Acre) Very Low Residential (VL) District Etiwanda Specific Plan Equestrian Overlay District East Vacant Very Low Residential (Up to 2.0 Dwelling Units Per Acre) Very Low Residential (VL) District Etiwanda North Specific Plan Equestrian Overlay District West Vacant Low Residential (2.0-4.0 Dwelling Units Per Acre) Low Residential (L) District Etiwanda North Specific Plan Equestrian Overlay District Exhibit C PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DRC2019-00564 – RICHLAND COMMUNITIES September 25, 2019 Page 2 BACKGROUND: The subdivision will have two points of access, one along the future extension of Wilson Avenue and one along the future extension of East Avenue. The design of the proposed subdivision is consistent with the surrounding residential subdivisions within the area. The proposed 30 lots will be developed in accordance with the Low Residential District, Etiwanda North Specific Plan standards. The Application is a request to extend the approval period of Tentative Tract Map SUBTTM18908 by one additional year. Upon the initial approval of SUBTTM18908 on September 28, 2016, the approval period was for a duration of 3 years and was set to expire on September 28, 2019. A breakdown of the approval history of the subject tentative tract map is as follows: Tentative Tract Map 18908 Approving Authority Approval/Extension Type Approval Period Approval Date Expiration Date Planning Commission Initial Approval (PC Reso 16-48) 3 Years Sept 28, 2016 Sept 28, 2019 Planning Commission Proposed Time Extension DRC2019- 00564 1 Year Sept 25, 2019 Sept 25, 2020 (proposed) ANALYSIS: Subdivision Map: Municipal Code Section 16.20.100 (Extensions) states that tentative parcel maps may be extended for a time period not exceeding 2 years. The municipal code requires that a request for a time extension be submitted not less than 60 days prior to the expiration date. The applicant submitted a letter (Exhibit B) on July 29, 2019, stating a one (1) year extension is necessary to allow time for the completion of environmental permits with the US Army Corps of Engineers and the US Fish and Wildlife Service. Flexibility with the 60-day submittal period has been afforded to applicants in the past who were unaware of the submittal time limit. This application involves a 1-year time extension request, which would set the expiration date to September 25, 2020. If approved, the applicant will have the opportunity to apply for one additional time extension request. Public Art: This subject Tentative Tract Map Time Extension is exempt from providing public art as outlined in Chapter 17.124 of the Development Code as the project is not tied to any developments. However, public art will be required once the architectural drawings have been submitted to the Planning Department. Environmental Assessment: Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City’s local CEQA Guidelines, the City adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration on September 28, 2016 in connection with the City’s approval of Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18908. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, no subsequent or supplemental EIR or Negative Declaration is required in connection with subsequent discretionary approvals of the same project unless: (i) substantial changes are proposed to the project that indicate new or more severe impacts on the environment; (ii) substantial changes have occurred in the circumstances under which the project was previously reviewed that indicate new or more severe environmental impacts; or (iii) new PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DRC2019-00564 – RICHLAND COMMUNITIES September 25, 2019 Page 3 important information shows the project will have new or more severe impacts than previously considered; or (iv) additional mitigation measures are now feasible to reduce impacts or different mitigation measures can be imposed to substantially reduce impacts. The applicant submitted a Biological Resource Memorandum (ESA Consulting; April 29, 2019) which reviewed whether changes have occurred on the project site that would necessitate new or different mitigation measures. The report concluded that no substantial changes have occurred on the project site that would necessitate new or modified mitigation measures. The report also concluded that the recommended mitigation measures that were detailed in the 2002 Biological Resource Assessment is consistent with the site conditions that were observed in early 2019. Staff has evaluated Time Extension DRC2019-00564 and concludes that substantial changes to the project or the circumstances surrounding the project have not occurred which would create new or more severe impacts than those evaluated in the previous Mitigated Negative Declaration. The application is for a one (1) year time extension of a previously approved Tentative Tract Map with no proposed changes to the scope of the original approval. Staff further finds that the project will not have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous Mitigated Negative Declaration, nor have more severe effects than previously analyzed, and that additional or different mitigation measures are not required to reduce the impacts of the project to a level of less than significant. The applicant has not proposed any changes to the originally approved entitlements. Therefore, pursuant to CEQA, staff recommends that the Planning Commission concur with the staff determination that no additional environmental review is required in connection with the City’s consideration of Time Extension DRC2019-00564. FISCAL IMPACT: The project site currently is assessed an annual property tax. A percentage of this annual tax is shared with the City. The proposed development will increase the value of the project site and the City’s annual share of the property tax will increase accordingly. The project proponent will also be responsible for paying one-time impact fees. These fees are intended to address the increased demand for City services due to the proposed project. The following types of services that these impact fees would support include the following: library services, transportation infrastructure, drainage infrastructure, animal services, police, parks, and community and recreation services. COUNCIL GOAL(S) ADDRESSED: Although a specific current City Council goal does not apply to the application, the proposed map extension for 30 single-family detached homes will enhance the premier community status by adding additional housing which will increase the City’s housing supply. This project is also consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan and the objectives of the Development Code as the General Plan land use and zoning designations of the project site are Low Residential and the subdivision is for residential purposes. CORRESPONDENCE: This item was advertised as a public hearing with a regular page legal advertisement in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper, the property was posted, and notices were mailed to all property owners within a 660-foot radius of the project site. To date, no comments have been received regarding the project notifications. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DRC2019-00564 – RICHLAND COMMUNITIES September 25, 2019 Page 4 EXHIBITS: Exhibit A - Aerial Photo Exhibit B - Time Extension Request Letter dated August 5, 2019 (updated) Exhibit C - Planning Commission Staff Report dated September 28, 2016, related Conditions of Approval, and related Resolution of Approval. Exhibit D - Resolution 19-57 - Recommendation Approval of Time Extension DRC2019-00564 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DRC2019-00564 – RICHLAND COMMUNITIES September 25, 2019 Page 5 SITE AERIAL Exhibit A Exhibit D Page 1 DATE: May 25, 2022 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Matthew R. Burris, AICP, LEED AP, Deputy City Manager – Community Development, Interim Planning Director INITIATED BY: David F. Eoff IV, Senior Planner SUBJECT: LOCATED ALONG THE NORTH SIDE OF 6TH STREET BOUND BETWEEN CLEVELAND AVENUE TO THE WEST AND MILLIKEN AVENUE TO THE EAST AND THE RAIL LINE TO THE NORTH – SC RANCHO DEVELOPMENT CORP (LEWIS OPERATING CORP.) – A request to amend Chapter 7 of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan for Planning Area 1 known as The Resort Specific Plan, separating Chapter 7 into two Chapters regulating the North planning area and the South planning area of The Resort, and modifying the circulation network for the North planning area of The Resort. APNs: 0209-272-20. Specific Plan Amendment DRC2020-00164. This item will be forwarded to City Council for final action. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission take the following action: • Recommend approval of Specific Plan Amendment DRC2020-00164 to the City Council for consideration with the adoption of Resolution No. 22-17. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: A request to amend Chapter 7 of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan for Planning Area 1 known as The Resort Specific Plan. The amendment will modify the current Section/(Chapter) 7 by separating it into two new chapters distinguishing the South (Planning Area 1A) and the North (Planning Area 1B) and providing regulations that will apply to each. The amendment will also include an updated circulation plan for the North planning area and updated street types that are reflective of the new street network. The proposed specific plan amendment does not include any changes to the minimum and maximum allowable buildout for residential and non-residential, nor does it include any changes to the current land uses or development intensities. Specific Plan amendments require a recommendation of approval from the Planning Commission to the City Council and final approval from the City Council. BACKGROUND: The Industrial Area Specific Plan (IASP) Sub-Area 18 Specific Plan, also known as the Empire Lakes Specific Plan, was adopted in 1994. The specific plan area is bounded on the south by 4th Street, on the east by Milliken Avenue, on the north by the BNSF/Metrolink rail line, and on the west by Cleveland Avenue and Utica Avenue. The adoption of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan was spurred by an anticipated vacancy of 1,000,000 square feet of office space and potential development opportunities of roughly 394 acres of vacant land. The specific plan was divided into 11 planning areas intended for a variety of uses ranging from commercial office and light industrial to multifamily residential. The adoption of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan facilitated much of the development within the specific plan boundary that is seen today. Page 2 Since November of 2000, the Empire Lakes Specific Plan has been amended numerous times, most of which contributed to the development of the various planning areas. The most recent amendment occurred in 2016 after the purchase of a property within the Specific Plan that was previously developed with a golf course (the subject property) of 160 acres. in 2015 by SC Rancho Development Corporation. Following the purchase of the property, Lewis Operating Corp. (dba SC Rancho Development Corp.) submitted applications for amendments to the City’s General Plan, the City’s Development Code, and the Empire Lakes Specific Plan proposing to develop aa new mixed-use, transit-oriented development. The City Council approved the proposed amendments in June of 2016. The aforementioned golf course was originally developed across 4 of the 11 planning areas - Planning Area IA, Planning Area IB, a portion of Planning Area III, and a portion of Planning Area VI. The 2016 amendment consolidated these four planning areas and established Planning Area 1 (PA1) as a new mixed-use infill area within the Empire Lakes Specific Plan. The 2016 amendment also created Section 7 of the Empire Lakes Plan, which provides all land use and development criteria, standards, and regulations for PA1. The amendment to the specific plan is intended to facilitate higher density development while encouraging walking, bicycling, and other alternative modes of transportation that will ultimately reduce the reliance on automobiles. These characteristics also help support the use of public transportation with a walkable community in proximity to the Metrolink station. The creation of PA1 through the 2016 amendment to the Empire Lakes Specific Plan established the foundation for a new mixed-use neighborhood that strategically and cohesively combined residential and non-residential uses. PA1 covers the entire property, which is bisected by 6th Street, creating a north half and south half. To help distinguish the two halves, PA1 is separated further into PA1A (south) and PA1B (north). The dynamic shift in the vision for PA1 required integration of new urban design standards, architectural and landscape guidelines, public safety measures, and a strategic implementation plan, all of which provide the necessary criteria to facilitate development throughout the entire PA1 area. PA1A has been underway with development following the 2016 amendment. Three residential developments consisting of attached and detached for-sale condominiums and townhomes are complete, and one for-rent apartment development is currently under construction. PA1A also includes several amenities that are complete, including two club houses, swimming pool areas, and a variety of parks and open space. Completion of the apartment project will result in PA1A being nearly built out with only a commercial pad and a mixed-use planning area remaining. PA1B is currently vacant and is the subject area for the proposed amendment. As noted above, the Empire Lakes Specific Plan encompasses a large area of roughly 394 acres. However, aside from PA1, the areas within the specific plan are mostly built out. In circumstances such as these when specific plans areas become built out there becomes less of a need for specialized zoning or development standards through the specific plan. On May 4, 2022, the City Council adopted Urgency Ordinance No. 998 adopting an interim Development Code and Official City Zoning Map. Included with this code adoption was the repeal of many of the existing specific plans throughout the City, including The Empire Lakes Specific Plan. The Empire Lakes Specific Plan was amended to change the boundary of the specific plan area to encompass PA1 only and included changing the name of the specific plan from Empire Lakes to The Resort, which is what it is commonly known as. The repeal/modification to the Empire Lakes Specific Plan through the interim code update does not impact the subject proposed specific plan amendment, as the subject amendment pertains to PA1 only. The existing Land Use, General Plan and Zoning Designations for the project site and adjacent properties are as follows: Page 3 ANALYSIS: A. Project Overview. The applicant and current property owner is requesting approval of a specific plan amendment to the Empire Lakes Specific plan, particularly to Section 7 of the specific plan. The proposed amendment includes modifications to the circulation network, modifications to the updated street-types, relocation of land uses, and the separation of Section 7 into two sections regulating PA1A and PA1B. The proposed specific plan amendment will also include miscellaneous text edits to address any references, graphics, or exhibits that may no longer be applicable or require minor revisions to remain consistent with other amendments throughout the document. The remainder of Section 7 will not change. This includes the minimum and maximum buildout for residential and non-residential uses, as well as the placetypes and the allowable land uses throughout PA1A and PA1B. a. Circulation. The current street network for PA1 consists of a combination of public and private streets in a grid pattern layout. The grid pattern circulation provides efficient movement throughout the community for vehicles and pedestrians, creating opportunity for a strong, walkable environment with appropriate block sizes while still maintaining adequate vehicle movement. The grid pattern also improves connectivity between developments within the PA, creating greater opportunities for access and greater potential for reducing vehicle trips. These concepts apply to true streets and drive aisles throughout planning areas. Although the drive aisles are not formal streets, they serve the same purpose of providing and extending the circulation network throughout the neighborhoods. The proposed amendment to the circulation will occur in PA1B. The current vehicle circulation diagram in the specific plan identifies one primary access point from 6th Street that essentially functions as a continuation of the primary “spine road” from PA1A. This spine road, now known as Resort Parkway, is expected to continue through PA1B as a primary north/south connector, provide a connection to 7th Street to create a secondary access in the community, and ultimately provide a connection point to the Metrolink Station at the northern area of PA1B. The modified circulation network builds on this concept and advances the expectation of a grid pattern with the addition of several north south streets and east west streets throughout PA1B. The circulation pattern occurs in more of a linear form, establishing straight line travel routes and direct access points for vehicles and pedestrians throughout the community. Two additional connections are proposed at 6th Street that extend north into the community, while the additional east/west streets build connections to the adjacent properties and help form the grid pattern. The proposed amendment also identifies potential future connections that could result from new development or redevelopment on adjacent properties. These future connections are identified on the circulation plan to ensure adequate vehicle and pedestrian connections are maintained with future adjacent development. b. Street Types. To correspond with the revised circulation pattern, the specific plan amendment will also include minor changes to the street types. These proposed street types build from the existing street types provided for PA1A, providing adjustments to the overall street width and including design features that will be applicable to development types and intensities they’ll serve. PA1B will include 6 main street types that provide a right-of-way width ranging from 90 feet for primary streets serving Land Use General Plan Zoning Site Vacant City Center Resort Specific Plan North Industrial/Manufacturing Neo-Industrial Neo-Industrial South Multifamily Residential, Single-Family Residential Urban Neighborhood Resort Specific Plan East Multifamily Residential, Metrolink Station City Center Center 2 West Office, Industrial 21st Century Employment Mixed Employment 2 Page 4 mixed use areas with active ground floors to 42 feet for neighborhood streets serving primarily residential uses. The new street types will also include a new concept known as “woonerf”. The woonerf concept is curbless street, similar to an alleyway, that is designed with decorative paving and other features that encourage and prioritize pedestrian activity while still allowing vehicle access at low speeds. The woonerf concept in PA1B will provide additional connections between developments and continue to advance the improve circulation throughout the neighborhood. c. Relocation of Land Uses/Placetypes. Implementing a true grid system helps create adequate block networks, more opportunities for street frontage, and improves access to a variety uses from nearly any starting point. This presented an opportunity to shift around land uses to take advantage of a revised street pattern that is suitable for a wider range of development types due to improved access, increase frontage areas, and more. The notable shift occurs with the Mixed Use (MU) placetype. The existing land use plan for PA1B located roughly 6 acres of mixed-use designation at the northern area of PA1B adjacent to the Metrolink property. A portion of the MU areas have been relocated along 6th Street on the east and west sides of the Resort Parkway. Placing the MU areas in this location provides strong presence along 6th Street and Resort Parkway, creates a focal point and activates the entry to the PA1B, and with the additional north/south streets at 6th Street the MU placetype has the benefit of at least three street frontage opportunities. This can allow for greater activation along the ground floor, incorporation of on-street parking to serve the commercial uses and encourage pedestrian activity the entrance of the community. A third MU placetype was relocated at the east side PA1B along 7th street. The new location is adjacent to an office complex and not far from the Metrolink Station. The relocation of this MU placetype is expected to benefit from the current office development or potential redevelopment of the adjacent property, which will include future street connections and improved access to provide another MU anchor area with the community. Relocation of the MU uses subsequently required their replacement with residential placetypes. However, these land use shifts do not result in an increase or decrease to the required minimum and maximum number of residential units (2,650 – 3,450 units) or the minimum and maximum amount of non- residential area (220,000 square feet maximum). PA1B is still subject to these build-out requirements, which can still be accommodated with the relocated land uses. d. Reformat of Section 7. Section 7 currently regulates the entire PA1, which covers PA1A in the south and PA1B in the north. As noted earlier, PA1A is nearly built out and has been developed under the current specific plan requirements. PA1B is vacant, and with the amendments to the specific plan will implement a more robust development pattern than the south. To ensure clarity between the PAs and proper implementation of development requirements, Section 7 is proposed to be reformatted into two chapters that will provide regulations and requirements for the south and the north independently. With the exception of the proposed amendments discussed above, the contents of the Section 7 will remain the same. Where details or standards are applicable to the north and south, such as parking, design standards, architectural guidelines, etc, such details will be provided in both chapters. Any differences in details or standards between the north and the south, such as the amendments listed above, will be provided in their applicable chapters only. The proposed reformation of Section 7 will allow easier application of development standards, easier implementation, and easier monitoring of development activity in the future. Both chapters are formatted in way that mirrors one another, where the table of contents, sections, and more are generally in the same order. e. Miscellaneous Text Edits. The main amendments noted above will subsequently require minor text edits to delete references that may not apply, adjustments to planning area numbering/labeling resulting from relocation, and changes or deletion of exhibits that also may not apply. The text edits are inconsequential and only occur where necessary to further clarify or ensure consistency with the amendments noted above. As noted previously, the amendments are limited to those noted above and do not include any changes to the development intensity. The 6 placetypes will remain the same and noted in their appropriate chapters. The intent and purpose of each placetype, along with their density ranges will also remain the same. The descriptions and expectations of each placetype will be provided in their appropriate chapters and will remain Page 5 applicable through all future development. The parking requirements will remain the same, continuing to require a parking study for high density development and mixed-use development to ensure proper parking demands are met. A range of parking options through garage, parking structures, on street parking, etc., will continue to be available and will be determined based on the development of the placetype. Section 7 also provides criteria for architectural guidelines, urban design standards, and more that will also remain as is and applicable to both chapters. B. General Plan Consistency. The General Plan designations are centered around four primary components: Land Use and Development Intensity, Built Form and Character, Access and Connectivity, and Parks and Open Space. The project is located in the City Center designation of the General Plan, which is intended to provide for intense concentrations of retail and civic activity, multifamily housing, and employment in a pedestrian-oriented, transit-ready environment. Focusing on Built Form and Character, and Access and Connectivity, the City Center designation envisions the use of well-designed streetscapes to provide safe and comfortable environments for bicyclists and pedestrians. This can occur with incorporating continuous, wide sidewalks, large shade trees and native landscaping. Street parking can also improve the pedestrian environment with the use of on street parking or side access lanes, to curb speeding and buffer pedestrians from vehicular traffic. From an access and connectivity perspective, infill and redevelopment of large sites is a prime opportunity to create walkable blocks with a new network of pathways and pedestrian-friendly streets that connect uses and amenities in the center of the development to major streets and to adjacent neighborhoods and districts. The General Plan envisions the new network to include a combination publicly and privately owned streets, and while the new streets may be privately owned, they are still encouraged to be publicly accessible and look, feel, and function like public streets. These elements coupled with appropriate development help facilitate and encourage a strong pedestrian environment and walkable community that minimize reliance on cars. The proposed amendments to the specific plan are aligned closely with the goals and polices in the General Plan. The revisions to the circulation network along with the revised street types will provide substantial access and connectivity throughout the site and to adjacent properties. Immediate street connections are identified, as well as potential future connections to ensure all possible vehicle and pedestrian connections are captured. The circulation network and street types will also be designed to accommodate multi-modal transportation, encouraging walking, bicycling and the use of public transportation. The design features incorporated into the street network will be consistent with the expectations of the general plan and the developments they serve in the planning areas. The specific plan provides details and guidelines on enhancing the pedestrian realm with landscape elements for buffers and shade, wide sidewalks, outdoor gathering spaces for social settings and dining, and on street parking for convenience and greater compatibility with nonresidential ground-floor uses. The proposed amendments are consistent with the intent of the General Plan and the intent and purpose of the Resort Specific Plan. These characteristics will be carried forward in greater fashion with the proposed amendments to the specific plan. CEQA DETERMINATION: Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City certified an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH No. 2015041083) on May 18, 2016, in connection with the City’s approval of General Plan Amendment DRC2015-00114, Specific Plan Amendment DRC2015-00040, and Development Code Amendment DRC2015-00115 associated with the approval and establishment of Section 7 of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan.  Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, no subsequent or supplemental EIR is required in connection with subsequent discretionary approvals of the same project. To demonstrate that no subsequent EIR or environmental review is required, an Environmental Compliance Memorandum dated May 17, 2022, was prepared by T & B Planning. Staff evaluated this memorandum and concluded that the project is within the scope of the approved overall project and the analysis included in the Final EIR identified above and therefore no additional environmental review is required in connection with the City’s consideration of Specific Plan Amendment DRC2020-00164. Page 6 The proposed Specific Plan Amendment does not propose substantial changes which will require major revisions to the Final EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. No new information of substantial importance was found that would create new significant effects, increase the severity of previously examined effects, determine that mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, or introduce mitigation measures or alternatives that are considerably different from those analyzed in the Empire Lakes Specific Plan Amendment Final EIR that would reduce significant impacts. In accordance with CEQA Section 21166, and Sections 15162 and 15168 of the State CEQA Guidelines, and based on the information provided above, Staff has concluded that the proposed Specific Plan Amendment, which would modify the circulation and development pattern for PA1B, but will not result in an increase to the amount or type of development allowed within the specific plan, will not result in environmental effects that were not previously analyzed under the certified EIR for the Empire Lakes Specific Plan Amendment. COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / GOAL(S) ADDRESSED: The Resort Specific Plan, along with the proposed amendments, will continue to meet the City Council core values of providing and nurturing a high quality of life for all, promoting and enhancing a safe and healthy community for all, building and preserving a family-oriented atmosphere, and relentless pursuit of improvement. The Specific Plan provides opportunities for the development of a mixed-use community that offers a variety of housing options within close access to goods and services, and public transportation. The Specific Plan prioritizes the pedestrian environment with a focus on creating a walkable community and provides a variety of amenities and services that can serve the immediate community and surrounding communities of Rancho Cucamonga. EXHIBITS: Exhibit A - 2022 Empire Lakes Specific Plan PA1A Exhibit B - 2022 Empire Lakes Specific Plan PA1B Exhibit C - 2016 Land Use-Circulation Plan Resort Exhibit D - 2021 Land Use Plan Exhibit E - PC Resolution No. 22-17 Exhibit F - Conditions of Approval Exhibit G - Environmental Memorandum Exhibit A – The Resort Specific Plan Section 9 Due to file size, this attachment can be accessed through the following link: The Resort Specific Plan Section 9 Exhibit A Exhibit B – The Resort Specific Plan Section 8 Due to file size, this attachment can be accessed through the following link: The Resort Specific Plan Section 8 Exhibit B Empire Lakes Empire Lakes7-16 Figure 7.6: Conceptual Development Plan by Placetype Conceptual Development Plan by Placetype Empire Lakes Empire Lakes 2013425 • 10-00-15 Rancho cucamonga, ca Lewis opeRating coRp MetrolinkRancho CucamongaStation 6th Street 7th Street 7th Street South North 4th Street Pocket Park Metrolink San Bernardino Line Pocket Park Urban Plaza The Vine The VineMilliken AveSecondary entry Secondary entry Secondary entry Placetype Legend Village Neighborhood (VN) Recreation (REC) MU Overlay Core Living (CL) Urban Neighborhood (UN) Mixed Use (MU) Transit (T) Note: Figure not to scale.Exhibit C 9-16 The Resort Figure 9.6: Conceptual Development Plan by Placetype Metrolink Rancho Cucamonga Station 6th Street Milliken AvenueCleveland AvenueMetrolink - San Bernardino Line Legend UN Urban Neighborhood CL Core Living VN Village Neighborhood MU Mixed Use MU Overlay REC Recreation Transit Focus Area 3: Hart District - General Plan Recommendation Streets by Others Tunnel Connection NTS Approximate Location. Final location to be determined by owner during final mapping. N-2 N-1N-3 N-5 N-4 N-6 N-7 N-8 N-9 N-9 N-14 N-14 N-15 N-13 N-11 N-11 N-12 N-12 N-10 N-16 N-17 N-18 N-19 7th Street Note: Figure not to scale.Exhibit D RESOLUTION NO. 22-17 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2020-00164, A REQUEST TO AMEND CHAPTER 7 OF THE EMPIRE LAKES SPECIFIC PLAN CONSISTING OF MODIFICATIONS TO THE CIRCULATION NETWORK FOR PLANNING AREA 1B, INCLUSION OF NEW STREET TYPES FOR PLANNING AREA 1B, RELOCATION OF LAND USES WITHIN PLANNING AREA 1B, THE REFORMATING OF SECTION 7 INTO 2 SEPARATE CHAPTERS REGULATING PLANNING AREA 1A AND PLANNING AREA 1B RESPECTIVELY, AND MISCELLANEOUS TEXT EDITS FOR THE DELETION OF INAPPLICABLE REFERENCES, DELETION OF INAPPLICABLE EXHIBITS, AND INCLUSION OF NEW EXHIBITS REFLECTIVE OF THE AMENDMENTS LISTED ABOVE; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF – APNS: 0209-272- 20; AND ALL APNS INCLUDED IN PARCEL MAP PM14647, TRACT MAP TR20240, A.Recitals. 1.SC Rancho Development Corp., an entity of Lewis Operating Corp., filed an application for Specific Plan Amendment DRC2020-00164 as described in the title of this Resolution. 2. On May 25, 2022, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing on that date. 3.All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B.Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1.The Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2.Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced public hearing on May 25, 2022, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a.The application applies to the property that is currently regulated by the Empire Lakes Specific, further identified as Planning Area 1 and further noted as Planning Area 1A and Planning Area 1B in Section 7 of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan, which allows for an infill mixed-use development on the former 160-acre golf course. b. The Specific Plan, as it was originally approved in 1994, consists of eleven (11) “Planning Areas” which are identified with Roman numerals, i.e. Planning Area IA/IB through X. The golf course is within “Planning Area IA”, “Planning Area IB”, and (partly) “Planning Area III” of the Specific Plan. Exhibit E PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 22-17 SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2020-00164 - SC RANCHO DEVELOPMENT CORP. (LEWIS OPERATING CORP.) May 25, 2022 Page 2 c.The overall area of the Specific Plan is 347 acres. The Specific Plan is bound by 4th Street to the south, Milliken Avenue to the east, Cleveland Avenue and Utica Avenue to the west, and 8th Street and the BNSF/Metrolink rail line to the north. The golf course is generally located at the center, and covers about 46%, of the Specific Plan. Both the Specific Plan and the golf course are bisected into north and south halves by 6th Street. d.In 2015, the current applicant purchased the golf course property and submitted an application DRC2015-00040 for a Specific Plan amendment to consolidate Planning Area IA, Planning Area IB, a portion of Planning Area III, and a portion of Planning Area VI, all of which encompassed the golf course area, into Planning Area 1 (PA1) and create Section 7 in the Empire Lakes Specific Plan to allow the future development of an infill mixed use transit-oriented development in proximity to the Metrolink Station on the golf course property. e.In May of 2016, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 888 and Resolution No. 16-057, approving DRC2015-00040 for an Amendment to the Empire Lakes Specific Plan and certifying and adopting a Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 20150410083) associated with the amendment to the Empire Lakes Specific Plan, establishing Section 7 of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan, which provides regulative authority for the redevelopment of the golf course property into a mixed-use transit-oriented high density development. f.Development of the subject property is governed by the Empire Lake Specific Plan – Section 7, the City’s Development Code, and the City’s General Plan. g.The applicant has applied for a Specific Plan Amendment DRC2020- 00164, requesting an amendment to Section 7 of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan to allow modifications to the circulation network, inclusion of the modified street types, shifting location of current land uses/placetypes to accommodate the new circulation network, the separation of the Section 7 into 2 chapters regulating Planning Area 1A and Planning Area 1B, respectively, and miscellaneous text and graphic edits involving revision and/or removal of text, graphics, and other exhibits that are no longer applicable with the proposed amendments h.The existing Land Use, General Plan and Zoning Designations for the project site and adjacent properties are as follows: Land Use General Plan Zoning Site Vacant City Center Resort Specific Plan North Industrial/Manufacturing Neo-Industrial Neo-Industrial South Multifamily Residential, Single-Family Residential Urban Neighborhood Resort Specific Plan East Multifamily Residential, Metrolink Station City Center Center 2 West Office, Industrial 21st Century Employment Mixed Employment 2 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 22-17 SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2020-00164 - SC RANCHO DEVELOPMENT CORP. (LEWIS OPERATING CORP.) May 25, 2022 Page 3 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 Specific Plan Amendment is consistent with the General Plan goals, policies, and implementation programs. The Empire Lakes Specific Plan is within the City Center land use designation of the General Plan. The City Center designation is intended to provide for intense concentrations of retail and civic activity, multifamily housing, and employment in a pedestrian-oriented, transit-ready environment. The Empire Lakes Specific Plan was amended in 2016 to create Planning Area 1 for the development of a high density walkable mixed-use transit-oriented community. The Specific Plan provides standards and guidelines that regulate various placetypes, offering a variety of housing options at densities that range from 17 units per acre up to 80 units per acre. The proposed amendment includes changes to the circulation network that will improve access into and throughout the subject area using well- deigned streetscapes that provide safe and comfortable environments for bicyclist and pedestrians. The current specific plan coupled with the proposed amendments demonstrates consistency with General Plan policy LC-4.2, which strives 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, biking, and transit uses; LC-4.3, which requires each new increment of residential development to make all possible street and pedestrian connections to adjoining developments; and LC-4.4, requiring a density ranges and housing types that promote range of housing and price levels within each neighborhood. The current Empire Lakes Specific Plan, through Section 7, is consistent with these General Plan policies. The proposed amendment will not alter the intent or purpose of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan, nor will it change the densities, placetypes, or development program. The amendment will create a stronger consistency to the General Plan with the modified street network and continued use of design standards and guidelines. b. The land use and development regulations of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan are comparable to similar zoning regulations within the Development Code. Section 7 of The Empire Lakes Specific Plan provides development opportunities through 6 placetypes that offer mixed-development, residential development in a range of densities and intensities, and a variety of non-residential uses distributed throughout the specific plan area. The placetypes function in the same manner as zones, offering a purpose and intent and development standards to meet the purpose and intent. The General Plan land use designation for the subject site is City Center. Absent the specific plan, the current zoning for the site would likely be Center 2 based on adjacent zoning under the same land use designation. Center 2 encourages mixed-use urban development and infill development that promotes walkability, pedestrian-friendly commercial and residential areas, and adequate scale and intensity of buildings in context of its surroundings. Based on this information the similarities are comparable between the Empire Lakes Specific Plan and the Center 2 zone. The proposed specific plan amendment will not alter the placetypes or modify the purpose and intent of PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 22-17 SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2020-00164 - SC RANCHO DEVELOPMENT CORP. (LEWIS OPERATING CORP.) May 25, 2022 Page 4 Section 7 of the specific plan. c. The administration and permit processes within the Empire Lakes Specific Plan are consistent with the administration and permit processes of the zoning code. All development within the specific plan is required to complete design review process in the same manner as described in the Development Code. All projects must demonstrate compliance with the regulations and standards outlined in the specific plan, all project must demonstrate compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, and all projects must receive approval from the appropriate review authority identified in the development code. The Specific Plan includes various references back to the Development code for procedural requirements and administration processes. The proposed specific plan amendment will not alter these procedures or introduce new administration and permit processes. 4. California Environmental Quality Act a. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City certified an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH No. 2015041083) on May 18, 2016, in connection with the City’s approval of General Plan Amendment DRC2015-00114, Specific Plan Amendment DRC2015-00040, and Development Code Amendment DRC2015-00115 associated with the approval and establishment of Section 7 of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan.  b. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, no subsequent or supplemental EIR is required in connection with subsequent discretionary approvals of the same project. To demonstrate that no subsequent EIR or environmental review is required, an Environmental Compliance Memorandum dated May 17, 2022 was prepared by T & B Planning. Staff evaluated this memorandum and concluded that the project is within the scope of the approved overall project and the analysis included in the Final EIR identified above, and therefore no additional environmental review is required in connection with the City’s consideration of Specific Plan Amendment DRC2020- 00164. c. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment does not propose substantial changes which will require major revisions to the Empire Lakes Specific Plan Amendment Final EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. No new information of substantial importance was found that would create new significant effects, increase the severity of previously examined effects, determine that mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, or introduce mitigation measures or alternatives that are considerably different from those analyzed in the Empire Lakes Specific Plan Amendment Final EIR. d. In accordance with CEQA Section 21166, and Sections 15162 and 15168 of the State CEQA Guidelines, and based on the information provided above, Staff has concluded that the proposed Specific Plan Amendment, which would modify the circulation and development pattern for PAIB but will not result in an increase to the amount or type of development allowed within the specific plan, will not result in environmental effects PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 22-17 SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2020-00164 - SC RANCHO DEVELOPMENT CORP. (LEWIS OPERATING CORP.) May 25, 2022 Page 5 that were not previously analyzed under the certified EIR for the Empire Lakes Specific Plan Amendment. e. The Planning Commission has independently reviewed City staff’s determination, and based upon the whole record before it, and its independent review and judgement, finds that the Specific Plan amendment is not subject to further environmental review. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, the Planning Commission hereby approves DRC2020-00164, a request to amend Section 7 of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 25th DAY OF MAY 2022. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Bryan Dopp, Chairman ATTEST: Matthew R. Burris, AICP, LEED AP, Secretary I, Matthew R. Burris, AICP, LEED AP, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 25TH day of May 2022, by the following vote-to- wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Conditions of Approval Community Development Department Project #: DRC2020-00164 Project Name: EDR - EMPIRE LAKES PROJECT /// SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT Location: - Project Type: Specific Plan Amendment ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Planning Department Please be advised of the following Special Conditions All conditions of approval associated with the approval of General Plan Amendment DRC2015-00114, Specific Plan Amendment DRC2015-00040, Development Code Amendment DRC2015-00115, and Tentative Tract Map SUBTT20073, including all environmental requirements and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting requirements associated with the Final certified EIR (SCH No. 2015041083), allowing the 2016 amendment to the Empire Lakes Specific Plan shall remain in effect and complied with where applicable as part of the approval of Specific Plan Amendment DRC2020-000164. 1. All final technical, graphical, and text edits to the specific plan document for Section 8 and Section 9 shall be completed prior to scheduling the application on a City Council agenda 2. Upon final approval of Specific Plan Amendment DRC2020-00164, the applicant shall provide: two (2) bound print versions of the final specific plan, a PDF version of the final specific plan, and all electronic source files of the final specific plan within 30 days of adoption by the City Council. The final versions shall include any and all final edits, revisions, etc., as required by the Planning Commission and/or City Council. 3. 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. 4. The applicant shall agree to defend at his sole expense any action brought against the City, its agents, officers, or employees, because of the issuance of such approval, or in the alternative, to relinquish such approval. The applicant shall reimburse the City, its agents, officers, or employees, for any Court costs and attorney's fees which the City, its agents, officers, or employees may be required by a court to pay as a result of such action. The City may, at its sole discretion, participate in the defense of any such action but such participation shall not relieve applicant of his obligations under this condition. In the event such a legal action is filed, the City shall estimate its expenses for litigation. The applicant shall deposit such amount with the City or enter into an agreement with the City to pay such expenses as they become due. 5. www.CityofRC.us Printed: 5/19/2022 Exhibit F JN 1076-002 May 17, 2022 Mr. David F. Eoff, Senior Planner City of Rancho Cucamonga, Planning Department 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 RE: IASP SUBAREA 18 – PAIB SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT – ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW 1.0 Introduction and Background Empire Lakes Holding Company, LLC is requesting an amendment to the approved Rancho Cucamonga Industrial Area Specific Plan (IASP) Sub-Area 18 Specific Plan Amendment Project (herein “Approved Specific Plan”) (DRC2020-00164). The proposed IASP Sub-Area 18 Specific Plan Planning Area IB Amendment – Mixed Use Infill Area (herein Specific Plan Amendment”) would modify the circulation and development pattern for Planning Area (PA) IB (herein “Project site”), which represents the northern portion of the Specific Plan area (approximately 82 acres). The Approved Specific Plan and associated Final Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (herein “Empire Lakes Specific Plan Amendment Final EIR” or “Final EIR”), State Clearinghouse [SCH] No. 2015041083) were approved by the Rancho Cucamonga City Council in May 2016. The Empire Lakes Specific Plan Amendment Final EIR addressed the construction-related and operational environmental impacts that would result from redevelopment of the 160-acre Empire Lakes Golf Course with a proposed mixed-use, high-density residential/commercial development. A maximum of 3,450 residential units and 220,000 square feet (sf) of non- residential uses is allowed by the Approved Specific Plan in PAI (includes PAIA and PAIB), with a maximum of 2,000 residential units and 100,000 sf of non-residential uses in PAIB. The Empire Lakes Specific Plan Final EIR was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, California Public Resources Code, Sections 21000, et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Sections 15000, et seq.). The Empire Lakes Specific Plan Amendment Final EIR is intended to serve as the primary environmental document for all entitlements associated with implementation of the Approved Specific Plan. Pursuant to CEQA Section 21166 and Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines, no subsequent EIR may be required for a project unless the City determines, on the basis of substantial evidence, that one or more of the following conditions are met: A.When an EIR has been certified or a negative declaration adopted for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for that project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, one or more of the following: (1)Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; Exhibit G IASP Subarea 18 – PAIB Specific Plan Amendment – Environmental Review May 17, 2022 Page 2 of 5 (2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or (3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the negative declaration was adopted, shows any of the following: (a) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration; (b) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR; (c) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or (d) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. Consistent with this requirement, future actions related to implementation of the Approved Specific Plan, including the proposed Specific Plan Amendment, will be reviewed to determine if they are within the scope of the development anticipated and evaluated in the Final EIR. If the implementing project is within the scope of the development and analysis included in the Final EIR, no additional environmental review is required. Pursuant to CEQA Section 21166 and Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines, the analysis presented in this document evaluates the proposed Specific Plan Amendment in comparison to the Approved Specific Plan and the analysis in the Empire Lakes Specific Plan Amendment Final EIR to determine if the previous analysis adequately addresses the potential impacts of the proposed Project. 2.0 Project Description 2.1 Project Location and Setting As shown on Figure 1, Aerial Photograph, the 82.0-acre Project site is located north of 6th Street, east of Cleveland Avenue), south of the Metrolink rail line, and west of Milliken Avenue, in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, in San Bernardino County. The Project site is currently undeveloped and a portion of the site was previously mass graded. An approximately 500-foot segment of The Resort Parkway has been installed north of 6th Street, but is not open to the public. The area east of the Project site is developed with the Rancho Cucamonga Metrolink Station, residential uses, office and commercial uses. Existing industrial and office uses, Cucamonga Valley Water District (CVWD) water reservoir tanks, and a Southern California Edison (SCE) substation are located west of the Project site. Approved Specific Plan PAIA is located south of 6th Street and includes existing residential and recreational uses east of The Resort Parkway; the area west of The Resort Parkway is under construction. IASP Subarea 18 – PAIB Specific Plan Amendment – Environmental Review May 17, 2022 Page 3 of 5 The Project site is zoned Specific Plan (Empire Lakes Specific Plan). The City of Rancho Cucamonga City Council adopted a comprehensive update to the City’s General Plan (herein, “GPU”) and certified a Program Environmental Impact Report (herein, “GPU EIR”; SCH No. 2021050261) on December 15, 2021. As part of the GPU, the Project site was designated “City Center”, which allows for residential development at densities ranging from 40 to 100 dwelling units per acre (du/ac), and non-residential development at a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) ranging from 1.0 to 2.0. The Project site is also within the GPU-designated Focus Area 3: Hart District, which is intended to become an intense, mixed-use transit hub of regional significance, well-connected by various modes of travel (refer to Figure 2). 3.0 Project Description The proposed Specific Plan Amendment (DRC2020-00164) involves the introduction of a new Section 8.0 to the IASP Sub-Area 18 Specific Plan, which consolidates all land use and development plan details for PAIB, and includes all modified maps, development standards, and guidelines related to PAIB. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment evaluated herein would modify the circulation and development pattern for PAIB. The existing and proposed conceptual land use plans for PAIB are shown on Figure 2. Future projects implementing allowed development in PAIB would be required to adhere to the development standards and guidelines identified in the proposed Specific Plan Amendment. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment is fully consistent with and implements the Project site’s GPU land use designation and circulation and development patterns anticipated for the HART District. As shown, the proposed conceptual land use plan would introduce a grid network of residential roadways and private drive aisles consistent with the grid system anticipated by the GPU for the Hart District. The proposed circulation system would allow for connectivity with existing and planned land uses surrounding the Project site as envisioned by the GPU, with emphasis on pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular connectivity emanating from the Metrolink station and major circulation corridors. Off-site roadways and associated connections to roadways within the Specific Plan area would be implemented by others in conjunction with future development in the area consistent with that anticipated by the GPU. While the land use plan configuration has been modified to accommodate the revised roadway network, the proposed Specific Plan Amendment maintains the Mixed Use (MU), Urban Neighborhood (UN), Core Living (CL), Village Neighborhood (VN), and Recreation (REC) Placetypes1 established in the Approved Specific Plan for PAIB, and the Mixed Use Overlay designation. These uses are distributed throughout PAIB under the Approved Specific plan and proposed Specific Plan Amendment. The relocated MU Placetypes are within areas previously identified within the designated Mixed Use Overlay areas. Consistent with the Approved Specific Plan, the proposed Specific Plan Amendment would allow a maximum of 2,000 residential units, with a minimum requirement of 1,594 units, in PAIB. There would be a maximum of 75,000 sf of non-residential development in the MU Placetype, with an additional 25,000 sf of non-residential development for public access allowed in the REC Placetype. 4.0 Environmental Assessment The Empire Lakes Specific Plan Final EIR concluded that implementation of the Approved Specific Plan would result in no impacts, less than significant impacts, or less than significant impacts with implementation of identified Project Design Features (PDFs), Regulatory Requirements (RRs), and Mitigation Measures (MMs) for the following 1 Placetypes integrate development principles, built form guidelines, and design criteria to create holistic people-centric places instead of using traditional land use-centric regulations. IASP Subarea 18 – PAIB Specific Plan Amendment – Environmental Review May 17, 2022 Page 4 of 5 environmental topics issues: Aesthetics, Air Quality (construction-related), Agricultural and Forestry Resources, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Land Use and Planning, Mineral Resources, Noise (operational), Population and Housing, Public Services, Recreation, and Utilities and Services Systems. Impacts related to the following environmental topics were determined to be significant and unavoidable: Air Quality (project and cumulative operations and consistency with the Air Quality Management Plan), Noise (construction-related), Population and Housing Growth, and Traffic (project and cumulative). The proposed Specific Plan Amendment described above does not include any actions that would involve implementation of development projects in PAIB. In addition to adherence with the development standards and guidelines identified in the proposed Specific Plan Amendment, future development projects within PAIB would be required to incorporate applicable PDFs, RRs, and MMs from the Empire Lakes Specific Plan Amendment Final EIR, and would be subject to the implementation process outlined in the Approved Specific Plan Section 7.7. A portion of the Project site was previously mass graded and all uses associated with the previous golf course use have been removed. Potential impacts associated with initial mass grading activities (e.g., potential impacts to biological, cultural/tribal cultural, and paleontological resources) have occurred. Further, the proposed Specific Plan Amendment does not involve any construction activities, and future development in PAIB implementing the proposed Specific Plan Amendment would result in the same post-mass grading construction impacts as evaluated in the Empire Lakes Specific Plan Amendment Final EIR for the northern portion of the Specific Plan area. This includes potential impacts related to air quality emissions, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, and noise. With respect to operations, the proposed Specific Plan Amendment would not involve any changes to the type of land uses, the maximum number of dwelling units, or the maximum amount of non-residential development allowed in PAIB. Therefore, the estimated population and employment generation, trip generation, etc. also would remain the same and would not exceed that evaluated in the Empire Lakes Specific Plan Amendment Final EIR, or what is currently anticipated in local and regional planning programs, including population and employment projections. While the internal roadway network would be modified to provide a grid system consistent with that anticipated in the GPU, and to improve and facilitate multi-modal transportation, the primary roadway connections between the Project site and existing roadways (i.e., at 6th Street, 7th Street, and at the Metrolink Station) would remain the same as that identified in the Approved Specific Plan. Development standards and guidelines for PAIB would ensure that the proposed Specific Plan Amendment does not result in conflicts with existing and planned land uses, and is consistent with goals and policies outlined in the GPU. Further, the Empire Lakes Specific Plan Amendment evaluated potential impacts from onsite operations within PAIB, including operations within the residential, REC, and MU Placetypes and Mixed Use Overlay areas to offsite adjacent land uses, including residential uses to the east. Future development in PAIB implementing the proposed Specific Plan Amendment, including the modified Placetype configuration and relocation of MU Placetypes to other areas within the designated Mixed Use Overlay areas, would result in the same operational impacts as evaluated in the Empire Lakes Specific Plan Amendment Final EIR for the northern portion of the Specific Plan area (PAIB). This includes operational impacts related to aesthetics and visual character, air quality, GHG Emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, noise, population and housing, public services, recreation, transportation/traffic, and utilities and service systems. IASP Subarea 18 – PAIB Specific Plan Amendment – Environmental Review May 17, 2022 Page 5 of 5 Project-specific construction-related and operational impacts resulting from future development implementing the proposed Specific Plan Amendment would be addressed as part of the subsequent environmental review pursuant to CEQA that will be completed when individual development applications are submitted to the City. 5.0 Environmental Review Conclusion Pursuant to Section 15168(c)(2) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, “If the agency finds that pursuant to Section 15162, no new effects could occur or no new mitigation measures would be required, the agency can approve the activity as being within the scope of the project covered by the program EIR, and no new environmental document would be required.” With regard to CEQA Section 21166, and Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines: 1. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment does not propose substantial changes which will require major revisions to the Empire Lakes Specific Plan Amendment Final EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; 2. No substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which development is undertaken in PAIB based on the proposed Specific Plan Amendment will require major revisions to the Empire Lakes Specific Plan Amendment Final EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; and 3. No new information of substantial importance was found that would: (a) create new significant effects; (b) increase the severity of previously examined effects; (c) determine that mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible; or (d) introduce mitigation measures or alternatives that are considerably different from those analyzed in the Empire Lakes Specific Plan Amendment Final EIR that would reduce significant impacts. In accordance with CEQA Section 21166, and Sections 15162 and 15168 of the State CEQA Guidelines, and based on the preceding information, it is concluded that the proposed Specific Plan Amendment, which would modify the circulation and development pattern for PAIB, but would not change the amount or type of development allowed by the Approved Specific Plan, and will not result in environmental effects that were not examined in the Empire Lakes Specific Plan Amendment Final EIR. The proposed development anticipated by the proposed Specific Plan Amendment is consistent with that evaluated in the Empire Lakes Specific Plan Amendment Final EIR, and was adequately covered by the evaluation and mitigation measures in the Final EIR. There have been no changes with respect to the circumstances under which development in PAIB will be undertaken that will result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. Further, no new information of substantial importance shows that the proposed Specific Plan Amendment will result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; that mitigation measures previously found not to be feasible will now be feasible; or that there are mitigation measures or alternatives that are considerably different from those analyzed in the Final EIR that will reduce significant impacts. No additional CEQA documentation is required. Attachment A: Supporting Graphics Aerial Photograph#Planning Area IB kMetrolinkRancho CucamongaStation 6TH ST MILLIKEN AVECLEVELAND AVEAZUSA CTVINCENT AVEANAHIEM PL7TH ST FAI RWAY VI EW PLTHE RESORT PKWYSource(s): Esri, Nearmap (2022), SB County (2022) 0 250 500125 Feet JN: 1076-002 Figure 1